I just ran through 2 "solitaire" playtest encounters to test some fixes for the Barbarian from this post. The party were level 2 (Sorcerer, Bard, and Barbarian). The Barbarian used my base HP 9 house rule, and had Slayer, Whirlwind, and Unstoppable. Feats were Rage, Unstoppable, and Strong Recovery (he was human).
The first encounter was 4 goblin mooks, 2 hobgoblins, and a bugbear. The second were 4 Lizardfolk and a homebrew 3rd level Lizardfolk Shaman (who basically has an at-will entangle).
OBSERVATIONS
The increased base HP probably hits the sweet spot in terms of durability.
Unstoppable is pretty phenomenal, as despite his low AC the Barbarian ended up using the fewest recoveries of the group for the two fights. Using it while Raging and/or when the ED is relatively high minimizes the risk of "calling" the shot and then missing. Still, I like the tension that potentially missing and wasting it provides, as well as the strategic considerations (when to use it).
Slayer was sort of tough to utilize (which was my player's experience in our first game as well). However, in the goblin fight I did manage to crit with it (thanks to Rage) for a hefty 44 damage. That's probably enough to finish off most staggered enemies a level 2 party is likely to encounter.
Whirlwind might be too powerful, even if you're likely to take a beating after using it. Especially against mooks, since they tend to surround PCs and you get a separate attack against each, each one dealing damage to the same HP pool. Normally I try to be pretty generous with allowing players who deal a ton of damage to the mook group to kill unengaged mooks, but with Whirlwind the Barbarian easily took out all 4 mooks (despite being engaged with just 2), and in fact dealt enough damage to take out 7 if there were that many present. He wasn't even Raging. Spilling damage onto non-adjacent mooks is likely to be a LOT more common if you have a Barbarian with this talent in your party, and it's making me think I have to reconsider where to draw that line. Upon first reading the mook rules I figured "whatever can be realistically justified with the narrative," but in practice it's too easy to do that. Perhaps I set a bad precedent by describing the "extra" mooks killed as the Fighter in my group pulling out his dagger and throwing it at one after cleaving through the others. I'll need to recalibrate, otherwise mooks will be pretty pointless vs a Barbarian (i.e. the same problem that 4E minions had when there were big AoEs in the party).
In the first fight I intentionally didn't Rage until the ED was 4 (the second I started the battle Raging). This was to simulate the fact that in a 4 encounter "day," even with the house-rule recharge rules Rage is likely to only come into play in 2 fights. It was cool to see a Raging Barbarian really tear into things, as the game in which one of my players was a Barbarian seemed cursed with unlucky d20 rolls. Like, he'd miss while Raging for 3 turns in a row. I'd never seen such rotten luck, actually.
Overall I feel pretty good about the Barbarian after the base HP 9 and recharge Rage after every battle houserules. Rage is definitely a game-changer (as it should be), and even if it's not quite as powerful as the damage-centric Fighter in my game it seems like it's probably on more even footing with the Paladin and Ranger.
An even-leveled Sorcerer is definitely handicapped until s/he earns an incremental advance, but it wasn't as dire a situation as I'd feared. Their Daily and Recharge powers are still extremely formidable, and hitting with them after Gathering Power makes you completely forget about your low at-will damage. But even at-will damage isn't so bad if you concentrate on spreading damage via Burning Hands. The upgrade from 1d6 to 1d8 at 3rd level isn't a big enough change to get too worked up about being out-damaged, and if you hit two targets you're actually about on-par in terms of damage dealt to Team Monster. While focus fire is generally more tactically-sound, it's definitely worth mentioning that AoE is the way to go vs mooks.
The Bard was cursed with perpetual bad luck. He's a Halfling so when one of the Lizardfolk hit him he used Evasive, only to reward the Lizardfolk with an 18 (which gives him a free bite). Ok, good thing he jacked the Shield spell from the Wizard list! Or not, since the third re-roll was a 19 (at least it wasn't a 20!). On top of that he hit with exactly ONE attack over the course of 2 battles. And it didn't even trigger any flexible attacks. The worst was when Befuddle was used and it missed, and it was an odd miss so didn't even trigger the miss effect. I'm definitely starting to re-consider whether "Pull it Together!" is reliable enough for the Bard to function as the party's only healer (assuming the players expect a healer). The ONE hit scored by this guy was a natural 9 (thanks to the ED), so he quite literally didn't roll an 11+ at all. Actually, he did manage it once, but it was for a disengage check. So aside from soaking up damage, the Bard didn't really do anything. It's tough for me to judge the class, obviously, but it's a class I want to like.
EXTRA BONUS COMMENTARY: BATTLE OF THE CLEAVES
Ah, Cleave. So cool that two of the core classes have a version of it (Fighter and Barbarian). It's worth mentioning the differences between the two though, because their feat support is very different. The Fighter in my group makes excellent use of Cleave every battle, and no wonder with that Heroic feat! Letting the Fighter move to a nearby enemy before "cleaving" is how he uses the power the majority of the time. In my first game, the Barbarian never got to use Barbaric Cleave over the course of 2 sessions (at which point he trained it out). It wasn't even that he wasn't getting ganged up on; it's just that he didn't happen to kill anything when that was the case. Which is a pity, since the feat is extremely impressive in that it turns Cleave into a potent offensive AND defensive option.
Granted, there are ways around this, and ways that 13th Age embraces. Player creativity is highly encouraged and mechanically rewarded, assuming you have a GM that "gets" the game. Point being, an on-the-fly "stunt" system is critical for getting mileage out of Cleave. Allies can shove more enemies around the Barbarian, the Barbarian can taunt enemies into surrounding him, etc. A lot of players might get discouraged by the lack of forced movement options (especially if coming from 4E), but they're not gone completely, they're just not spelled out. Trying to trick the enemies into springing the Cleave-trap could become a fun mini-game in and of itself.
And at Champion tier it's a lot easier, because after that Barbarians can also move before Cleaving. In fact, Barbaric Cleave is probably a better pick than either Champion-tier talents (if you don't already have it). Likewise Barbaric Cleave's Epic feat is much better than the Fighter's version. Though less reliable in the early levels, it quickly becomes better with feat support.
Truth be told, I debated between Cleave and Whirlwind for my playtest Barbarian for a while. Whirlwind is certainly more potent being an at-will method for generating multiple attacks, but the defensive penalty really shoves an already-squishy class pretty far over the edge. You become easier to hit than a Wizard or Sorcerer when you swing wildly enough to hit everyone around you. In contrast, Barbaric Cleave (with feat support) actually helps you defensively, but it's only 1 extra attack per battle (and one that's hard to trigger, at that!). Ultimately I liked that Whirlwind was more active and so I went with that. If your party doesn't have a healer, though, Barbaric Cleave is worth looking at.
Showing posts with label playtesting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label playtesting. Show all posts
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Further Thoughts on the 13th Age Barbarian
The final PDF of the 13th Age core book is here, and unfortunately there were no changes made to the Barbarian. I had my hopes up when they were releasing individual chapters with the completed layout and the Barbarian was the only class conspicuously absent from these "previews," but alas the Barbarian is still underpowered.
I've thought about how to fix this class a lot in the past. I wrote an article on some options for doing so in the 13th Age Homebrew blog. I've discussed the issue with others on the Pelgrane Press forums and in the Google+ community. There were a lot of thoughts on the issue, and I've come to some additional conclusions (subject to refinement, of course).
The Defense Issue
This one's the biggest problem. Barbarians have absolutely awful AC for a frontline melee fighter, only moderate HP, and will attract a lot of attention given their high damage. On top of that, a few of their best talents make them bigger targets (Slayer can draw opportunity attacks if used to maximum effect, and Whirlwind lowers their pathetic AC even more). My previous solution, from the 13th Age Homebrew article, was to introduce a Talent that generated temp. HP when Raging (Berskerk Vitality). Some commented that it made a simple class potentially too complex, and it admittedly did widen the gulf between a Raging and a non-Raging Barbarian.
One suggestion that I got was to increase the Barbarian's base HP to 9. I keep coming back to this idea when thinking about how to homebrew the class back into effectiveness, and I think it's probably the best solution. Rogues make up for their base 12 AC by having Momentum powers (crafty fighting); Barbarians should make up for it by simply shrugging off hits. While THP does accomplish this it's a little more roundabout than simply giving the guy more HP. No messing around with new talents, which don't solve the problem of making all Barbarians more survivable anyways. I'm not sure if the HP increase will be enough on its own, but I think it's a great place to start without diverting too far from the core rules by making up wholesale new mechanics.
Rage
This is the signature ability of the class, and the recharge mechanics are a little weird. You only get 1 recharge roll instead of 1 after each battle, reducing the likelihood of using it later on in the day. Even if you get to add your Con mod to the roll this is a bad deal. I still stand behind making it follow the general recharge rules and rolling after each battle (this'll also reduce the chances of players "saving" their Rage; that's not how a Barbarian should look at things!). This serves the double purpose of making the Rage feats a little less mandatory, since you'll be more likely to Rage in multiple battles per day anyways.
Another interesting mechanic can be drawn from the D&D Next playtest. Barbarians have the option of making a "Reckless Attack" when they're not Raging, which gives them the offensive punch of Rage but at a serious cost in defense. I'd LOVE to see this tacked onto the 13th Age Barbarian's Rage, though it might be a little "much" in combination with the Rage feats that already exist. This might actually be a good avenue to explore via a new Talent (again, trying to avoid messing with the core Rage rules as much as possible). Here's a draft:
Wild Swing
When you're not Raging you can make a basic melee attack as if you were in a Rage (that is, you'll roll 2d20 taking the better result and critting if both are 11+), but you take a -4 penalty to AC and PD until the start of your next turn. This action cannot be taken during the same turn that you use Whirlwind.
Adventurer Feat: Once per battle an enemy you hit with this attack is Vulnerable to your attacks until the end of your next turn.
Champion Feat: Once per battle if you hit with this attack the target is Dazed, in addition to being Vulnerable.
Daily Feat: Once per battle if the attack hits you can heal using a Recovery. This can be a different use of Wild Attack than the one that triggers the Adventurer/Champion feats.
Other Suggestions - More Damage
Another popular house rule I saw suggested was to give Barbarians a d12 damage die with big two-handed weapons. In combination with the other boosts I think this might start to be too much. Feedback I've heard from other groups indicated that Barbarians already deal a ton of damage. The reason that I never saw this in my group was because the Barbarian player kept rolling low (missing with both d20s even while Raging surprisingly often), and because he kept getting knocked out. With more typical dice rolling, rolling Rage recharges after each battle, and the boost to base HP 9 the Barbarian should be improved enough to be competitive. If you try these out and still find the class lacking, increasing the damage die is a really easy fix that doesn't introduce any additional complexity. For those that want more variety in Talent choice, Wild Swing or Berserk Vitality might be good options to tinker with.
Summary for Houseruling the Barbarian
Start with bumping his base HP up to 9. Additionally, let him make his Rage recharge after every battle (as per the general recharge rules).
If this doesn't sufficiently improve the class to parity, boost their 2-handed damage die to a d12. You might also offer players the option of taking the Wild Swing and/or Berserk Vitality homebrewed talents.
I've thought about how to fix this class a lot in the past. I wrote an article on some options for doing so in the 13th Age Homebrew blog. I've discussed the issue with others on the Pelgrane Press forums and in the Google+ community. There were a lot of thoughts on the issue, and I've come to some additional conclusions (subject to refinement, of course).
The Defense Issue
This one's the biggest problem. Barbarians have absolutely awful AC for a frontline melee fighter, only moderate HP, and will attract a lot of attention given their high damage. On top of that, a few of their best talents make them bigger targets (Slayer can draw opportunity attacks if used to maximum effect, and Whirlwind lowers their pathetic AC even more). My previous solution, from the 13th Age Homebrew article, was to introduce a Talent that generated temp. HP when Raging (Berskerk Vitality). Some commented that it made a simple class potentially too complex, and it admittedly did widen the gulf between a Raging and a non-Raging Barbarian.
One suggestion that I got was to increase the Barbarian's base HP to 9. I keep coming back to this idea when thinking about how to homebrew the class back into effectiveness, and I think it's probably the best solution. Rogues make up for their base 12 AC by having Momentum powers (crafty fighting); Barbarians should make up for it by simply shrugging off hits. While THP does accomplish this it's a little more roundabout than simply giving the guy more HP. No messing around with new talents, which don't solve the problem of making all Barbarians more survivable anyways. I'm not sure if the HP increase will be enough on its own, but I think it's a great place to start without diverting too far from the core rules by making up wholesale new mechanics.
Rage
This is the signature ability of the class, and the recharge mechanics are a little weird. You only get 1 recharge roll instead of 1 after each battle, reducing the likelihood of using it later on in the day. Even if you get to add your Con mod to the roll this is a bad deal. I still stand behind making it follow the general recharge rules and rolling after each battle (this'll also reduce the chances of players "saving" their Rage; that's not how a Barbarian should look at things!). This serves the double purpose of making the Rage feats a little less mandatory, since you'll be more likely to Rage in multiple battles per day anyways.
Another interesting mechanic can be drawn from the D&D Next playtest. Barbarians have the option of making a "Reckless Attack" when they're not Raging, which gives them the offensive punch of Rage but at a serious cost in defense. I'd LOVE to see this tacked onto the 13th Age Barbarian's Rage, though it might be a little "much" in combination with the Rage feats that already exist. This might actually be a good avenue to explore via a new Talent (again, trying to avoid messing with the core Rage rules as much as possible). Here's a draft:
Wild Swing
When you're not Raging you can make a basic melee attack as if you were in a Rage (that is, you'll roll 2d20 taking the better result and critting if both are 11+), but you take a -4 penalty to AC and PD until the start of your next turn. This action cannot be taken during the same turn that you use Whirlwind.
Adventurer Feat: Once per battle an enemy you hit with this attack is Vulnerable to your attacks until the end of your next turn.
Champion Feat: Once per battle if you hit with this attack the target is Dazed, in addition to being Vulnerable.
Daily Feat: Once per battle if the attack hits you can heal using a Recovery. This can be a different use of Wild Attack than the one that triggers the Adventurer/Champion feats.
Other Suggestions - More Damage
Another popular house rule I saw suggested was to give Barbarians a d12 damage die with big two-handed weapons. In combination with the other boosts I think this might start to be too much. Feedback I've heard from other groups indicated that Barbarians already deal a ton of damage. The reason that I never saw this in my group was because the Barbarian player kept rolling low (missing with both d20s even while Raging surprisingly often), and because he kept getting knocked out. With more typical dice rolling, rolling Rage recharges after each battle, and the boost to base HP 9 the Barbarian should be improved enough to be competitive. If you try these out and still find the class lacking, increasing the damage die is a really easy fix that doesn't introduce any additional complexity. For those that want more variety in Talent choice, Wild Swing or Berserk Vitality might be good options to tinker with.
Summary for Houseruling the Barbarian
Start with bumping his base HP up to 9. Additionally, let him make his Rage recharge after every battle (as per the general recharge rules).
If this doesn't sufficiently improve the class to parity, boost their 2-handed damage die to a d12. You might also offer players the option of taking the Wild Swing and/or Berserk Vitality homebrewed talents.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
13th Age Monk
The Monk is back! This is the first class to be opened for playtesting of 13 True Ways. As per the Introduction in the PDF I'm not going to discuss any specifics publicly. The rationale is that reading what others think will affect your own perceptions of the class, disproportionately perpetuating a single opinion. I happen to agree, and I think that can be seen by reading a lot of the D&D Next feedback.
All I will say is that I made a Monk, and I ran it through a "solitaire" playtest battle (along with a Bard and a Sorcerer), and submitted my initial feedback (much of which was informed by that encounter). It's a huge improvement on the versions in the Escalation Editions. It feels like a Monk. It has a non-traditional structure, and it makes me wonder how some of the other classes in 13 True Ways will be built.
All I will say is that I made a Monk, and I ran it through a "solitaire" playtest battle (along with a Bard and a Sorcerer), and submitted my initial feedback (much of which was informed by that encounter). It's a huge improvement on the versions in the Escalation Editions. It feels like a Monk. It has a non-traditional structure, and it makes me wonder how some of the other classes in 13 True Ways will be built.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - Concluding Thoughts
I figured I'd end this series with what personal expectations I have for D&D Next, and whether or not the system is shaping up well enough to meet them. I have two groups that I game with in-person, on a regular to semi-regular basis. Currently I'm gaming once a week, with one of those groups, though I'm hoping to start something up with the second group again soon.
I also like to try a lot of games, at least recently. Since there are a LOT of options for fantasy gaming, D&D Next faces stiff competition.
It's also worth noting that I've had the good fortune to introduce groups completely new to tabletop roleplaying to the hobby. Mostly on a casual basis, often a one-time thing just so they can see what it's like.
I'm hoping that D&D Next fulfills the role of a good "introductory" game more than anything. It's got the D&D label, which is sometimes important to new players. It doesn't have the complexity (at least not the basic module) of 3.x or 4E. And it's a more attractive candidate than 0, 1, or 2E for a couple of reasons: the first being that I haven't played those editions and so am not terribly familiar with them, and the second being that what I've read has left me relatively cold. A lot of archaic mechanics that, while not too difficult if you put the effort into learning them, simply have more modern alternatives that I would constantly pine for if I actually played.
Will I look to Next for either of my regular groups? We'll probably give it a shot, but it's unlikely to be an ongoing thing. An initial introduction to the system, and perhaps the occasional one-shot (especially if it delivers on the play-an-adventure-in-an-hour front). I might also use it if I'm in the mood for a more Old School style of game. But for my staple, go-to fantasy roleplaying I'm more likely to use either 13th Age, or possibly 4E if I want a more tactical focus. Group 2 still has players that would be willing to RUN 4E, so I'll certainly keep PLAYING it even if I choose 13th Age when I'm in the GM's seat. Heck, I've been doing some research on Savage Worlds as well (I have the core book but haven't played), and if I end up really liking the system then a fantasy setting like Hellfrost would probably be higher on the list of games to run long-term than D&D Next. The caveat here is that if D&D Next really wows me with the more advanced modules then that could change things, but based on the direction it seems to be headed other games just simply cater to my wants better.
It's important to note, however, that I REALLY DO want D&D Next to succeed. The D&D brand is a rallying cry for tabletop gamers in general, and when it's doing well so will other games. It's the best way of bringing new blood into the hobby. And besides that, even if I don't play it regularly it'll still probably hold my interest from a game design standpoint. Just having the opportunity to participate in the playtest is a huge privilege as far as I'm concerned, and I'd like to think I'm playing my part in making the game better. Perhaps even helping it to align more with my preferences (as an optional module, if nothing else). But that's the key thing that I try to keep in mind - keeping separate the questions "is this game well-designed?" and "does this game meet the needs of my gaming preferences?" A lot of the negative reactions toward Next don't seem to make that distinction.
I also like to try a lot of games, at least recently. Since there are a LOT of options for fantasy gaming, D&D Next faces stiff competition.
It's also worth noting that I've had the good fortune to introduce groups completely new to tabletop roleplaying to the hobby. Mostly on a casual basis, often a one-time thing just so they can see what it's like.
I'm hoping that D&D Next fulfills the role of a good "introductory" game more than anything. It's got the D&D label, which is sometimes important to new players. It doesn't have the complexity (at least not the basic module) of 3.x or 4E. And it's a more attractive candidate than 0, 1, or 2E for a couple of reasons: the first being that I haven't played those editions and so am not terribly familiar with them, and the second being that what I've read has left me relatively cold. A lot of archaic mechanics that, while not too difficult if you put the effort into learning them, simply have more modern alternatives that I would constantly pine for if I actually played.
Will I look to Next for either of my regular groups? We'll probably give it a shot, but it's unlikely to be an ongoing thing. An initial introduction to the system, and perhaps the occasional one-shot (especially if it delivers on the play-an-adventure-in-an-hour front). I might also use it if I'm in the mood for a more Old School style of game. But for my staple, go-to fantasy roleplaying I'm more likely to use either 13th Age, or possibly 4E if I want a more tactical focus. Group 2 still has players that would be willing to RUN 4E, so I'll certainly keep PLAYING it even if I choose 13th Age when I'm in the GM's seat. Heck, I've been doing some research on Savage Worlds as well (I have the core book but haven't played), and if I end up really liking the system then a fantasy setting like Hellfrost would probably be higher on the list of games to run long-term than D&D Next. The caveat here is that if D&D Next really wows me with the more advanced modules then that could change things, but based on the direction it seems to be headed other games just simply cater to my wants better.
It's important to note, however, that I REALLY DO want D&D Next to succeed. The D&D brand is a rallying cry for tabletop gamers in general, and when it's doing well so will other games. It's the best way of bringing new blood into the hobby. And besides that, even if I don't play it regularly it'll still probably hold my interest from a game design standpoint. Just having the opportunity to participate in the playtest is a huge privilege as far as I'm concerned, and I'd like to think I'm playing my part in making the game better. Perhaps even helping it to align more with my preferences (as an optional module, if nothing else). But that's the key thing that I try to keep in mind - keeping separate the questions "is this game well-designed?" and "does this game meet the needs of my gaming preferences?" A lot of the negative reactions toward Next don't seem to make that distinction.
D&D Next March Playtest - Monsters
I'm concluding this series with a brief look at the monster design so far. I'm not too concerned with the math; there's plenty of time for that to be nailed down later, and besides that I haven't actually playtested this packet yet, and since the most important thing about the math is that it works out in play, I don't consider myself terribly qualified to comment on that. Besides which, the lethality of the system will ultimately come down to personal preference, and my "too much damage!" might be someone else's "just right!"
The most important elements of monster design are 1) ease of use, 2) speed of adjudication, and 3) mechanics that emulate the fiction (i.e. how a monster "feels"). Some of these things seem mutually exclusive, but that's not necessarily the case. You can have interesting monsters that are also quick to run, if they're well-designed.
The D&D Next monsters are, by and large, too simplified. While they have some minor trait differences and have different numbers, once the blades are out and swinging a kobold doesn't fight that differently from a goblin, which doesn't fight that differently from a hobgoblin, etc. It's mostly a matter of "walk up to target and make melee attack," or "stay away from target and make ranged attack." Kobolds and goblins don't feel any more mobile than hobgoblins, which don't really have a schtick aside from "I don't get scared."
Granted, some enemies have decently evocative stuff (Kobold Dragonshield's Shield Block), but even that's yet another application of Advantage/Disadvantage. I really liked Advantage/Disadvantage when it was first introduced, but I feel that it's a bit overused, I don't like how easy it is to cancel, and shoehorning too many abilities into the mechanic reduces their scope and variety.
The stat block could definitely use some cleaning up, which would help both ease of use and speed of adjudication. Some attacks are too "wall of text" and more information than necessary is given (how often do I need alignment or languages in a fight, and consider how trivially easy it is to make that stuff up on the fly). A lot of monsters also have "Multi-attack," which basically boils down to "make these two or three different attacks," which are then all given individual entries. Why not just list a single attack (ex. Claw/Claw/Bite), with the same attack/damage values, and just say "make 3 attacks?" If you really feel the need you could specify piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage, but that's also super easy to adjudicate on the fly. First of all, from the PC's end it usually doesn't matter (those damage types are more important for describing what the PCs themselves dish out, because things like skeletons might react differently to them). And even if you didn't list them, and it comes up in play, well isn't Next supposed to favor Rulings over Rules? Most DMs would find it to be common sense that claws deal slashing damage, and the bite is piercing. If a player asks, the DM should be able to spout that out without hesitation, or looking it up. So why clutter up the stat block with that mess?
Once a monster has more "things" describing it than Basic, you really do need to start thinking about 4E-style stat blocks. Have the things that need referencing the most jump out to the eye, and well organized (list AC prominently, preferably next to HP and any other defensive notes, then list attacks as concisely as possible). And don't just rattle off a list of 10 spells that an enemy spellcaster has. Pick a handful and write them out like any other attack: (Ranged) Ray of Frost +X to hit - X cold damage. How likely is this guy to survive the combat? He doesn't need more spells listed out than he'll use, and the few spells he does use shouldn't need to be referenced by flipping through the Spells chapter of the book. If a DM wants to put the effort into adding more spells, more power to them. Maybe at the bottom of the stat block you can suggest other spells. Most likely, they'll only be needed if this is a major villain, and otherwise they can be ignored.
Case Studies
I'll be honest, I haven't examined every single monster in the Bestiary. Not even close. I've skimmed through it, but I'm sure I've missed a LOT. Still, I think comments on a sub-sample will provide insight into the kind of design I would prefer be carried over to other monsters.
Giant Centipede: Cool, this guy gets poison which is as you'd expect. But the effects tread on the "4 pages (of VERY small font!) of very specific and redundant status effects that 3.x had" territory. A 5 ft reduction in speed is not going to make much of a difference on most combat rounds. It's a mild annoyance when it does come into play, but because it's so trivial it's easily forgotten. And it just increases bookkeeping. Same with a mere -1 penalty to AC. If an effect is important enough to be mentioned, its mechanical effect should be noticeable. Cut speed in half. Call it "Slowed" and add it to the list of general conditions. DO NOT create conditions that effectively boil down to "kinda slowed," or "badly slowed." That just increases bookkeeping, and the need to reference stuff in-game. Which slows down play. Similarly, don't spell out a monster ability that's "totally not the slowed condition" but that is, essentially, kinda/badly slowed. If a monster's fluff slows affected creatures down, use the darn Slowed condition to represent that!
Cockatrice: I almost threw a fit when I was listening to the Mines of Madness podcast and Barbie the Barbarian was affected by the dreaded Save or Die (turning to stone is effectively death) by the cockatrices. One bad roll should not kill your character. Fortunately, my fears were somewhat alleviated when I looked the critter up in the Bestiary and realized that they must have adjudicated that wrong. The first failed save restrains you, which allows for another save that then turns you to stone if you fail. Personally I'd prefer a 3rd save for good measure, or a general action that an ally could use to grant a free save (which wouldn't count toward the second failure), but the very presence of progressive saves is good enough for now.
Dragons: Classic example of the multi-attack problem I outlined above, but the real reason I'm highlighting this iconic monster (or group of monsters, really) is their breath weapons. They have a Recharge mechanic, straight out of 4E! I like the tension of never knowing when that breath weapon was getting busted out; could be 2 rounds in a row, or the dragon could go several rounds without getting to use it. Great way to create tension and call attention to the dragon's signature ability with an extremely simple mechanic (plus rolling dice is fun!). Frightful Presence suffers from the wall of text syndrome, though, and could stand to be simplified. Especially since Frightened is already a general condition.
The most important elements of monster design are 1) ease of use, 2) speed of adjudication, and 3) mechanics that emulate the fiction (i.e. how a monster "feels"). Some of these things seem mutually exclusive, but that's not necessarily the case. You can have interesting monsters that are also quick to run, if they're well-designed.
The D&D Next monsters are, by and large, too simplified. While they have some minor trait differences and have different numbers, once the blades are out and swinging a kobold doesn't fight that differently from a goblin, which doesn't fight that differently from a hobgoblin, etc. It's mostly a matter of "walk up to target and make melee attack," or "stay away from target and make ranged attack." Kobolds and goblins don't feel any more mobile than hobgoblins, which don't really have a schtick aside from "I don't get scared."
Granted, some enemies have decently evocative stuff (Kobold Dragonshield's Shield Block), but even that's yet another application of Advantage/Disadvantage. I really liked Advantage/Disadvantage when it was first introduced, but I feel that it's a bit overused, I don't like how easy it is to cancel, and shoehorning too many abilities into the mechanic reduces their scope and variety.
The stat block could definitely use some cleaning up, which would help both ease of use and speed of adjudication. Some attacks are too "wall of text" and more information than necessary is given (how often do I need alignment or languages in a fight, and consider how trivially easy it is to make that stuff up on the fly). A lot of monsters also have "Multi-attack," which basically boils down to "make these two or three different attacks," which are then all given individual entries. Why not just list a single attack (ex. Claw/Claw/Bite), with the same attack/damage values, and just say "make 3 attacks?" If you really feel the need you could specify piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage, but that's also super easy to adjudicate on the fly. First of all, from the PC's end it usually doesn't matter (those damage types are more important for describing what the PCs themselves dish out, because things like skeletons might react differently to them). And even if you didn't list them, and it comes up in play, well isn't Next supposed to favor Rulings over Rules? Most DMs would find it to be common sense that claws deal slashing damage, and the bite is piercing. If a player asks, the DM should be able to spout that out without hesitation, or looking it up. So why clutter up the stat block with that mess?
Once a monster has more "things" describing it than Basic, you really do need to start thinking about 4E-style stat blocks. Have the things that need referencing the most jump out to the eye, and well organized (list AC prominently, preferably next to HP and any other defensive notes, then list attacks as concisely as possible). And don't just rattle off a list of 10 spells that an enemy spellcaster has. Pick a handful and write them out like any other attack: (Ranged) Ray of Frost +X to hit - X cold damage. How likely is this guy to survive the combat? He doesn't need more spells listed out than he'll use, and the few spells he does use shouldn't need to be referenced by flipping through the Spells chapter of the book. If a DM wants to put the effort into adding more spells, more power to them. Maybe at the bottom of the stat block you can suggest other spells. Most likely, they'll only be needed if this is a major villain, and otherwise they can be ignored.
Case Studies
I'll be honest, I haven't examined every single monster in the Bestiary. Not even close. I've skimmed through it, but I'm sure I've missed a LOT. Still, I think comments on a sub-sample will provide insight into the kind of design I would prefer be carried over to other monsters.
Giant Centipede: Cool, this guy gets poison which is as you'd expect. But the effects tread on the "4 pages (of VERY small font!) of very specific and redundant status effects that 3.x had" territory. A 5 ft reduction in speed is not going to make much of a difference on most combat rounds. It's a mild annoyance when it does come into play, but because it's so trivial it's easily forgotten. And it just increases bookkeeping. Same with a mere -1 penalty to AC. If an effect is important enough to be mentioned, its mechanical effect should be noticeable. Cut speed in half. Call it "Slowed" and add it to the list of general conditions. DO NOT create conditions that effectively boil down to "kinda slowed," or "badly slowed." That just increases bookkeeping, and the need to reference stuff in-game. Which slows down play. Similarly, don't spell out a monster ability that's "totally not the slowed condition" but that is, essentially, kinda/badly slowed. If a monster's fluff slows affected creatures down, use the darn Slowed condition to represent that!
Cockatrice: I almost threw a fit when I was listening to the Mines of Madness podcast and Barbie the Barbarian was affected by the dreaded Save or Die (turning to stone is effectively death) by the cockatrices. One bad roll should not kill your character. Fortunately, my fears were somewhat alleviated when I looked the critter up in the Bestiary and realized that they must have adjudicated that wrong. The first failed save restrains you, which allows for another save that then turns you to stone if you fail. Personally I'd prefer a 3rd save for good measure, or a general action that an ally could use to grant a free save (which wouldn't count toward the second failure), but the very presence of progressive saves is good enough for now.
Dragons: Classic example of the multi-attack problem I outlined above, but the real reason I'm highlighting this iconic monster (or group of monsters, really) is their breath weapons. They have a Recharge mechanic, straight out of 4E! I like the tension of never knowing when that breath weapon was getting busted out; could be 2 rounds in a row, or the dragon could go several rounds without getting to use it. Great way to create tension and call attention to the dragon's signature ability with an extremely simple mechanic (plus rolling dice is fun!). Frightful Presence suffers from the wall of text syndrome, though, and could stand to be simplified. Especially since Frightened is already a general condition.
D&D Next March Playtest - Skills
The skill system in D&D Next seems to me to be somewhat of a middle ground between 3.x and 4E. What I mean by this is that it's a longer, more granular skill list than 4E, but it doesn't have the fiddly skill rank crap that plagued 3.x. I liked 4E's condensed, streamlined skill list a LOT, but that system did still suffer from skill disparity (though not as severe as 3.x). Skill disparity being when a character accrues such a high modifier for a given skill that it's pretty much an auto-success, while his companions have such a low modifier that failure is much more likely than success. There's a fine line to walk here; a trained character needs to feel like his training is worthwhile, but an untrained character shouldn't be so discouraged that he shouldn't attempt a skill (being more likely to do harm than good in the attempt).
This system, in good ol' Bounded Accuracy fashion, seems to hit that line pretty well. A highly skilled character is more likely to get a high bonus for being trained, but can always roll a 1 with the skill die, closing that skill disparity gap. However, I still can't help but feel d20 + other die is just inelegant when the core mechanic is a d20 roll. A modifier (+3 for being trained, which is the average of a d6?) and limiting the amount of misc. boosts that can be accrued would be cleaner and more intuitive. That said, I'm really not sure if I like that more than the "hybrid dice pool" where your bonus is variable.
Of course the BIGGEST SELLING POINT of this system, to me, is that the SACRED COW OF CLASS-BASED SKILL DISCREPANCY HAS FINALLY BEEN SLAIN!!!!!! Yep, if nothing else I'm happy that every class starts with the same number of skills by default. Yeah, Rogues gain more skills through schemes, and that's cool if you're going for the skill monkey Rogue, but as I stated in my review of the Rogue I'd prefer that that be an OPTION. A combat Rogue need not be any more skilled than a Fighter, meaning that some schemes wouldn't provide extra skills (but rather some extra combat utility).
I'll conclude with some comments on individual skills.
Balance + Tumble - My preference would be for this to be combined into Acrobatics. Because Tumble is generally a pretty useful skill, but Balance is so situational that I can't imagine many players picking it up.
Break Object (WHAT?!?!) + Climb + Jump + Swim - These should all be consolidated into Athletics. I mean, come on now, we all know that watering down the physical skills will have the same effect as "Hi, I'm Mr. Fighter I get less skillz cuz I'm dum and only good at fighting!"
Spot + Listen - What's wrong with Perception? Or better yet, call it Awareness.
Sneak - SEE! Hide and Move Silently were consolidated into one skill!
Conceal Object - Oh yeah, I forgot about how disarm trap, lockpicking, etc. are frickin' FEATS now. See the feats article for those complaints, but to summarize these should all be neatly consolidated (as SKILLS!) into Thievery. Or Detect/Disarm Traps separate from the Thievery skill (which would cover sleights of hand, which are situational, and lockpicking).
Ride/Drive/Handle Animal - Here's a proposition; why not get ride of Drive (unless your campaign setting departs from the medieval fantasy base and has some steampunk elements, perhaps)? I mean, setting-specific skills are fine if detailed in their specific setting books/modules, but most vehicles in standard D&D will be animal powered anyways. And thematically, I don't see much of a reason to separate Handle Animal and Ride, actually. You have to be able to handle your horse to ride it, right? The key being that "handle" is a pretty vague term anyways. I see that as being training and commanding, which includes riding.
Speaking of DRIVE, why is there no Boating or Sailing skill? That comes up WAY more frequently in my experience than "Ride" even. Heck, moreso than Handle Animal even considering my streamlined definition above.
Recall Lore - The knowledge skill look pretty good, but I'm thinking Subterranean Lore should be called Dungeoneering Lore (though that's pretty nitpicky). Glad to be rid of Heraldric Lore (I think Political Lore covers that pretty well). I'm still not feeling Forbidden Lore. What exactly is that? Why can't that be handled by either Natural, Magical, or Religious Lore?
This system, in good ol' Bounded Accuracy fashion, seems to hit that line pretty well. A highly skilled character is more likely to get a high bonus for being trained, but can always roll a 1 with the skill die, closing that skill disparity gap. However, I still can't help but feel d20 + other die is just inelegant when the core mechanic is a d20 roll. A modifier (+3 for being trained, which is the average of a d6?) and limiting the amount of misc. boosts that can be accrued would be cleaner and more intuitive. That said, I'm really not sure if I like that more than the "hybrid dice pool" where your bonus is variable.
Of course the BIGGEST SELLING POINT of this system, to me, is that the SACRED COW OF CLASS-BASED SKILL DISCREPANCY HAS FINALLY BEEN SLAIN!!!!!! Yep, if nothing else I'm happy that every class starts with the same number of skills by default. Yeah, Rogues gain more skills through schemes, and that's cool if you're going for the skill monkey Rogue, but as I stated in my review of the Rogue I'd prefer that that be an OPTION. A combat Rogue need not be any more skilled than a Fighter, meaning that some schemes wouldn't provide extra skills (but rather some extra combat utility).
I'll conclude with some comments on individual skills.
Balance + Tumble - My preference would be for this to be combined into Acrobatics. Because Tumble is generally a pretty useful skill, but Balance is so situational that I can't imagine many players picking it up.
Break Object (WHAT?!?!) + Climb + Jump + Swim - These should all be consolidated into Athletics. I mean, come on now, we all know that watering down the physical skills will have the same effect as "Hi, I'm Mr. Fighter I get less skillz cuz I'm dum and only good at fighting!"
Spot + Listen - What's wrong with Perception? Or better yet, call it Awareness.
Sneak - SEE! Hide and Move Silently were consolidated into one skill!
Conceal Object - Oh yeah, I forgot about how disarm trap, lockpicking, etc. are frickin' FEATS now. See the feats article for those complaints, but to summarize these should all be neatly consolidated (as SKILLS!) into Thievery. Or Detect/Disarm Traps separate from the Thievery skill (which would cover sleights of hand, which are situational, and lockpicking).
Ride/Drive/Handle Animal - Here's a proposition; why not get ride of Drive (unless your campaign setting departs from the medieval fantasy base and has some steampunk elements, perhaps)? I mean, setting-specific skills are fine if detailed in their specific setting books/modules, but most vehicles in standard D&D will be animal powered anyways. And thematically, I don't see much of a reason to separate Handle Animal and Ride, actually. You have to be able to handle your horse to ride it, right? The key being that "handle" is a pretty vague term anyways. I see that as being training and commanding, which includes riding.
Speaking of DRIVE, why is there no Boating or Sailing skill? That comes up WAY more frequently in my experience than "Ride" even. Heck, moreso than Handle Animal even considering my streamlined definition above.
Recall Lore - The knowledge skill look pretty good, but I'm thinking Subterranean Lore should be called Dungeoneering Lore (though that's pretty nitpicky). Glad to be rid of Heraldric Lore (I think Political Lore covers that pretty well). I'm still not feeling Forbidden Lore. What exactly is that? Why can't that be handled by either Natural, Magical, or Religious Lore?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Wizard
There's not much to say about the Wizard, at least not without discussing individuals spells in more detail than I'd like to. Spells, and having the most versatile and powerful spell list in particular, is the bulk of the Wizard's schtick. Wizards can simply bend the laws of reality more than a Cleric or Druid, despite the fact that those two classes have plenty of spells that are comparable. They just don't seem to have such a vast array of potential offensive options as the Wizard. Plus being able to recover spell slots gives them more daily resources, a distinction that only the Circle of Oak Druid shares with them. It's pretty clear that the designers put a lot of stock into this ability if you consider the Druid. Assuming thought was put into balancing Circle of Oak with Circle of the Moon, since this spell recovery ability is largely what replaces the combat-ready Wild Shape forms. I'm actually not convinced, as I think Circle of the Moon is the better choice, with the spell recovery feature being a little underwhelming. Which puts a major class feature of the Wizard in the "underwhelming" column as well.
Other than that, the Wizard traditions are the only other thing that the class gets. Unfortunately, only Illusion is particularly impressive. The Scholarly tradition lets you prepare an extra spell at each spell level, and lets you learn more spells when you level. But your raw power isn't boosted since you still have the same number of spell slots as any other wizard. You're just a little more versatile, so you'll probably feel a little better about preparing one of those situational utility spells. Evocation lets you designate creatures (read: allies) to ignore the damage from your AoEs, which is awesome for spells like Fireball. Of course those spells are traditionally less valuable than control spells, and then you've got the spells that are a combination of damage and status effects (Evocation doesn't allow allies to ignore a spells non-damage effects). Some of the most iconic "evocation" spells fall into this category (sleet storm, stinking cloud). Finally, we're given the Illusion tradition, which is easily the best of the bunch. Not only to Illusion spells typically offer some of the most powerful control effects, but the tradition's signature ability boosts the DCs to resist such spells by two (which is the equivalent of a +2 attack bonus; pretty impressive in a Bounded Accuracy system!).
The biggest problem is that an individual tradition pretty much just grants one ability. Compare that with other spellcasters: Druid Circles are roughly comparable to Wizard Traditions, but Druids also get Wild Shape and are far less squishy; Cleric deities grant channel divinity, a specific "Disciple of..." ability, domain spells, and sometimes different armor/weapon proficiencies (and once again the Cleric is far less squishy than the Wizard.
So "the spell list makes the Wizard," since Wizards appear to have a better spell list (though this is arguable, and would need playtesting to verify) and fewer useful class features. Where I foresee running into problems is for spellcasting classes that are traditionally similar to the Wizard, notably Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bladesingers. Sorcerers and Bladesingers in particular have shared the Wizard spell list outright, but both classes have a lot of potential for features well beyond the Wizard traditions. The problem, obviously, is that if Wizards don't have much outside of their spell list, then there's not much that the designers can "trade out" when designing (and balancing!) similar classes.
Like Druids and Clerics, I can foresee most of the other spellcasters just being flat-out more interesting than the base Wizard. Whereas those classes have "spell list + a bunch of cool stuff," Wizards have "spell list + weak, tacked on stuff" and they're much squishier to boot. Even if I'm right about the Wizard spell list being better (which might be justifiable from a balance perspective), it's a bad solution to the problem. What if a Wizard player doesn't choose the right mix of spells, or the best spells? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, what happens when new spells are released and the inevitable power creep ensues? Hint - Wizards (spellcasters in general) become more effective than martial classes.
I guess the main things I'm taking away from this initial reading is that the designers need to tread carefully, and Wizard traditions should be more comparable to the features that other classes get. Just like "better armor/weapons" isn't a good way to balance Fighters against classes with more "interesting" features, "better spells" is a bad way to go about balancing Wizards with other classes (albeit for somewhat different reasons).
Other than that, the Wizard traditions are the only other thing that the class gets. Unfortunately, only Illusion is particularly impressive. The Scholarly tradition lets you prepare an extra spell at each spell level, and lets you learn more spells when you level. But your raw power isn't boosted since you still have the same number of spell slots as any other wizard. You're just a little more versatile, so you'll probably feel a little better about preparing one of those situational utility spells. Evocation lets you designate creatures (read: allies) to ignore the damage from your AoEs, which is awesome for spells like Fireball. Of course those spells are traditionally less valuable than control spells, and then you've got the spells that are a combination of damage and status effects (Evocation doesn't allow allies to ignore a spells non-damage effects). Some of the most iconic "evocation" spells fall into this category (sleet storm, stinking cloud). Finally, we're given the Illusion tradition, which is easily the best of the bunch. Not only to Illusion spells typically offer some of the most powerful control effects, but the tradition's signature ability boosts the DCs to resist such spells by two (which is the equivalent of a +2 attack bonus; pretty impressive in a Bounded Accuracy system!).
The biggest problem is that an individual tradition pretty much just grants one ability. Compare that with other spellcasters: Druid Circles are roughly comparable to Wizard Traditions, but Druids also get Wild Shape and are far less squishy; Cleric deities grant channel divinity, a specific "Disciple of..." ability, domain spells, and sometimes different armor/weapon proficiencies (and once again the Cleric is far less squishy than the Wizard.
So "the spell list makes the Wizard," since Wizards appear to have a better spell list (though this is arguable, and would need playtesting to verify) and fewer useful class features. Where I foresee running into problems is for spellcasting classes that are traditionally similar to the Wizard, notably Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bladesingers. Sorcerers and Bladesingers in particular have shared the Wizard spell list outright, but both classes have a lot of potential for features well beyond the Wizard traditions. The problem, obviously, is that if Wizards don't have much outside of their spell list, then there's not much that the designers can "trade out" when designing (and balancing!) similar classes.
Like Druids and Clerics, I can foresee most of the other spellcasters just being flat-out more interesting than the base Wizard. Whereas those classes have "spell list + a bunch of cool stuff," Wizards have "spell list + weak, tacked on stuff" and they're much squishier to boot. Even if I'm right about the Wizard spell list being better (which might be justifiable from a balance perspective), it's a bad solution to the problem. What if a Wizard player doesn't choose the right mix of spells, or the best spells? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, what happens when new spells are released and the inevitable power creep ensues? Hint - Wizards (spellcasters in general) become more effective than martial classes.
I guess the main things I'm taking away from this initial reading is that the designers need to tread carefully, and Wizard traditions should be more comparable to the features that other classes get. Just like "better armor/weapons" isn't a good way to balance Fighters against classes with more "interesting" features, "better spells" is a bad way to go about balancing Wizards with other classes (albeit for somewhat different reasons).
D&D Next March Playtest - The Cleric
I'll be honest - the momentum of the playtest packet has waned, and so goes my interest. But I'd like to complete this series on my impressions. So here's the Cleric.
Spellcasting
The basic framework behind the Cleric is extremely solid. By virtue of its being a spellcasting class it's inherently customizable. Prepare whatever spells you want to achieve a specific playstyle. The spells themselves are pretty much what you'd expect, so I won't get into specific details here. One thing that bears mentioning is that I'm not too happy about how important magical healing is, but I admit that that's personal preference. I have players in my group that are of the opposite opinion. That's what compromising is for (besides, I doubt there's anybody that likes every single element of any one game).
More important (at least in my opinion) is that the Cleric isn't relegated to "necessary" status. Fortunately, that's not the case. As you'd expect the Druid is another "full caster" that has ample healing, and given the increased spellcasting ability of Paladins and Rangers compared with past editions and Clerics are hardly necessary. Indeed, to compare the state of available healing with 4E it's worth noting that so far we have a class from each of the four roles that can heal, even if the classes aren't quite as married to those roles (i.e. Druid isn't necessarily a controller in Next). This is a good sign, because it suggests that as other "Leader" classes are designed they're likely to have more than enough healing to get by. If a Ranger specced for healing can do a decent job of keeping the party up, I'm sure a Bard, Shaman, or Warlord would be more than capable.
Because ultimately spreading magical healing out amongst a wide variety of different archetypes makes magical healing as a critical party function a much easier pill to swallow.
Deities
Something that I've seen suggested a lot since these playtest packets have been released is making deities an important aspect of a Cleric's playstyle. This packet really delivers on that front, with deities possibly affecting armor proficiency, what cantrips you automatically get, what domain spells are "auto-prepared," and what Channel Divinity options you have access to. Who you worship has a big impact on how you're built.
Now, I've complained about the lack of customization for some of the classes in that your choice of "build" at level 1 determines pretty much everything you get. The Rogue is especially bad for this. While that's essentially what choosing a deity does for the Cleric, there are some important differences to keep in mind. The most obvious (and one that I already mentioned earlier) is that Clerics will still be customizable regardless because they can choose to prepare whatever spells they want. Defensive buffing, offensive buffing, healing, control, utility, etc., you have a pretty broad spectrum available to you. But the other major difference is that having so much decided based on deity is more desirable than Rogue schemes (for example) because there's a strong tie to the game world. In other words, Clerics get their power from the gods so it makes sense that a god of Trickery is going to give the Cleric a specific set of specialized abilities that are different from a Sun god. From a narrative standpoint it also reinforces a player's choice of deity, keeping it in the spotlight. The deity is important to the Cleric (in the game world), and so it's important to the player.
It makes a lot LESS sense for a Rogue to ALWAYS have all of their abilities lumped in specific "packages."
The deities themselves are pretty generic, keeping them open to be fit into any pantheon. This also opens the players up to seizing narrative control by making up their own details about the pantheon. As a DM I prefer leaving this stuff up to players, and I'd rather have them fill in the narrative blanks as opposed to simply picking a god out of a list.
I like the choices that are given. The Arcanist allows for an "arcane dabbler" type Cleric, the Lifegiver is the healbot, the Lightbringer is the "laser Cleric" or white mage archetype, the Protector is a defender/defensive support option, the Reaper is your death god (awesome, because The Raven Queen was quite popular in a lot of 4E groups), then you've got the Stormcaller (your typical flinging lightning, bow before Zeus type guy), the Trickster (Rogue-lite, but with spells!), and the Warbringer (the martial "crusader" Cleric with the best armor and weapons).
Religious Knowledge
A minor point, but Advantages on all Int checks to recall religious lore establishes the Clerics as the go-to guy when it comes to that sort of thing, despite a (likely) minimal investment in Int.
Spellcasting
The basic framework behind the Cleric is extremely solid. By virtue of its being a spellcasting class it's inherently customizable. Prepare whatever spells you want to achieve a specific playstyle. The spells themselves are pretty much what you'd expect, so I won't get into specific details here. One thing that bears mentioning is that I'm not too happy about how important magical healing is, but I admit that that's personal preference. I have players in my group that are of the opposite opinion. That's what compromising is for (besides, I doubt there's anybody that likes every single element of any one game).
More important (at least in my opinion) is that the Cleric isn't relegated to "necessary" status. Fortunately, that's not the case. As you'd expect the Druid is another "full caster" that has ample healing, and given the increased spellcasting ability of Paladins and Rangers compared with past editions and Clerics are hardly necessary. Indeed, to compare the state of available healing with 4E it's worth noting that so far we have a class from each of the four roles that can heal, even if the classes aren't quite as married to those roles (i.e. Druid isn't necessarily a controller in Next). This is a good sign, because it suggests that as other "Leader" classes are designed they're likely to have more than enough healing to get by. If a Ranger specced for healing can do a decent job of keeping the party up, I'm sure a Bard, Shaman, or Warlord would be more than capable.
Because ultimately spreading magical healing out amongst a wide variety of different archetypes makes magical healing as a critical party function a much easier pill to swallow.
Deities
Something that I've seen suggested a lot since these playtest packets have been released is making deities an important aspect of a Cleric's playstyle. This packet really delivers on that front, with deities possibly affecting armor proficiency, what cantrips you automatically get, what domain spells are "auto-prepared," and what Channel Divinity options you have access to. Who you worship has a big impact on how you're built.
Now, I've complained about the lack of customization for some of the classes in that your choice of "build" at level 1 determines pretty much everything you get. The Rogue is especially bad for this. While that's essentially what choosing a deity does for the Cleric, there are some important differences to keep in mind. The most obvious (and one that I already mentioned earlier) is that Clerics will still be customizable regardless because they can choose to prepare whatever spells they want. Defensive buffing, offensive buffing, healing, control, utility, etc., you have a pretty broad spectrum available to you. But the other major difference is that having so much decided based on deity is more desirable than Rogue schemes (for example) because there's a strong tie to the game world. In other words, Clerics get their power from the gods so it makes sense that a god of Trickery is going to give the Cleric a specific set of specialized abilities that are different from a Sun god. From a narrative standpoint it also reinforces a player's choice of deity, keeping it in the spotlight. The deity is important to the Cleric (in the game world), and so it's important to the player.
It makes a lot LESS sense for a Rogue to ALWAYS have all of their abilities lumped in specific "packages."
The deities themselves are pretty generic, keeping them open to be fit into any pantheon. This also opens the players up to seizing narrative control by making up their own details about the pantheon. As a DM I prefer leaving this stuff up to players, and I'd rather have them fill in the narrative blanks as opposed to simply picking a god out of a list.
I like the choices that are given. The Arcanist allows for an "arcane dabbler" type Cleric, the Lifegiver is the healbot, the Lightbringer is the "laser Cleric" or white mage archetype, the Protector is a defender/defensive support option, the Reaper is your death god (awesome, because The Raven Queen was quite popular in a lot of 4E groups), then you've got the Stormcaller (your typical flinging lightning, bow before Zeus type guy), the Trickster (Rogue-lite, but with spells!), and the Warbringer (the martial "crusader" Cleric with the best armor and weapons).
Religious Knowledge
A minor point, but Advantages on all Int checks to recall religious lore establishes the Clerics as the go-to guy when it comes to that sort of thing, despite a (likely) minimal investment in Int.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Monk
My first impression of the Monk is that it doesn't look customizable enough. Really the only thing that makes it special, the thing that differentiates it from a Fighter in play, is the Monastic Traditions. I like that there's a good mix of the more mundane martial arts as well as elemental attacks, but the fact that you make one choice at character creation which determines ALL of your special powers for the rest of your career just grates at me. Choose Path of the Phoenix, you're the Fire Guy. You won't be throwing around Stunning Strike or healing yourself with Wholeness of Body. You're just...pigeonholed.
The per day limits on ki are also a bit annoying. It's these abilities that will make you "feel" like a Monk in combat, and you just don't get to throw them around often enough. Spellcasters get cantrips now that make them feel like spellcasters, why can't Monks get something like that? There's nothing here that conveys the feeling of that crazy guy without weapons fluidly darting around the battlefield hitting large numbers of foes.
Granted, he IS unarmed. But the martial arts playstyle is just fluff. His fists count as a d6 light, finesse, bludgeoning weapon, but he basically just walks up to guys and hits them, kinda like a Fighter. Except that even this incarnation of the Fighter gets his Expertise dice, which being an encounter resource will get a lot of "screen time." Meanwhile the Monk, with his daily ki limit, is going to be encouraged to "save" his big powers and playing that resource management metagame doesn't seem even remotely appropriate for a martial artist. He should be showy and fight in a distinctive way. Right now he's just "walk up to a guy and hit them until one of you dies" the vast majority of the time.
About the only thing this version of the Monk gets right (at least out of the gate) is Mindful Defense, which is the same basic mechanic that the Barbarian gets to make up for the fact that he's not wearing armor. Predictably, the Monk gets to add his Dex and Wis mod to AC.
Other than that it's your typical array of stuff Monks got in 3.x. Almost every level has something new, but they vary A LOT in terms of usefulness. Immunity to disease and poison are pretty situational, immunity to aging will have exactly zero impact in 95% of campaigns, understanding all languages comes out of left field, and Perfect Self is just so overpowered and nonsensical it borders on ridiculous (at 20th level, all of your abilities that aren't already 20 increase to 20, so your 8 Int dunce magically becomes a genius just because he's reached some form of nirvana). Abundant Step is just about the only one that screams "Awesome!" though; it's an at-will ability that allows you to exchange your movement to teleport 30 feet. So at-will teleporting at 12th Level definitely gives the class an edge, but it's still not the "martial artist" kind of mobility I'd expect from the class.
A swing and a miss on this one.
The per day limits on ki are also a bit annoying. It's these abilities that will make you "feel" like a Monk in combat, and you just don't get to throw them around often enough. Spellcasters get cantrips now that make them feel like spellcasters, why can't Monks get something like that? There's nothing here that conveys the feeling of that crazy guy without weapons fluidly darting around the battlefield hitting large numbers of foes.
Granted, he IS unarmed. But the martial arts playstyle is just fluff. His fists count as a d6 light, finesse, bludgeoning weapon, but he basically just walks up to guys and hits them, kinda like a Fighter. Except that even this incarnation of the Fighter gets his Expertise dice, which being an encounter resource will get a lot of "screen time." Meanwhile the Monk, with his daily ki limit, is going to be encouraged to "save" his big powers and playing that resource management metagame doesn't seem even remotely appropriate for a martial artist. He should be showy and fight in a distinctive way. Right now he's just "walk up to a guy and hit them until one of you dies" the vast majority of the time.
About the only thing this version of the Monk gets right (at least out of the gate) is Mindful Defense, which is the same basic mechanic that the Barbarian gets to make up for the fact that he's not wearing armor. Predictably, the Monk gets to add his Dex and Wis mod to AC.
Other than that it's your typical array of stuff Monks got in 3.x. Almost every level has something new, but they vary A LOT in terms of usefulness. Immunity to disease and poison are pretty situational, immunity to aging will have exactly zero impact in 95% of campaigns, understanding all languages comes out of left field, and Perfect Self is just so overpowered and nonsensical it borders on ridiculous (at 20th level, all of your abilities that aren't already 20 increase to 20, so your 8 Int dunce magically becomes a genius just because he's reached some form of nirvana). Abundant Step is just about the only one that screams "Awesome!" though; it's an at-will ability that allows you to exchange your movement to teleport 30 feet. So at-will teleporting at 12th Level definitely gives the class an edge, but it's still not the "martial artist" kind of mobility I'd expect from the class.
A swing and a miss on this one.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Rogue
The thing that jumps out at me most with this iteration of the Rogue is that it doesn't cater to a wide enough array of tastes. The Rogue has traditionally occupied a wide spectrum, with near-uselessness in combat (but the only guy that got skills!) on one end, and an extremely deadly skirmisher (at the top tier of damage output) under a combat-parity paradigm at the other. I had to check all the way back to the August 2012 packet for the last version of the Rogue that I remembered. As unpolished as it was, the Thief vs Thug dynamic is what I'd assumed from the Rogue in Next. The out-of-combat utility monkey AND the dirty tricks version of the Fighter, along with everything in between.
Rogue Schemes
The schemes still have the potential to bring back that spectrum into one class in the same game, but not if they're written as rigidly as they are in this packet. Which is a tough line to walk, because this rigid structure is more foolproof in terms of game balance. Every scheme gets two free skills, and then three bonus feats. Unfortunately, like my problem with Fighters and maneuvers, the mess of a feats system in this current packet invariably affects the Rogue. Many of these bonus feats are just more skills with a new name, and from a different resource pool. It's unnecessary.
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that skirmisher types have feat support in Next, but the Rogue doesn't get much of it for free. Tumbling Movement is a start (2 schemes get that), but no Spring Attack? I suppose one could make the argument that Spring Attack is a more powerful choice than the feats in the Expert category, but if that's the case then it just shows that the feat balance game has already failed. Choices taken from the same pool of resources should be roughly comparable. Otherwise you end up with the dreaded trap feats. Those usually become more apparent after feat bloat has set in, but it's already a problem even with a relatively short list of feats in this playtest!
Ultimately, this Rogue fails at providing me with what I want from a combat Rogue out of the box - a highly mobile skirmisher that can reliably pull off hit-and-run tactics. Yes the Rogue needs this functionality if they plan on going into melee. Otherwise their leather-armor-wearing, low HP butts are going to be toast.
Finally, every scheme gives you a way to generate Advantage for yourself in combat. There's Backstab, which gives it to you when you gang up on an enemy (when an ally is adjacent to the target), Isolated Strike does the opposite (no creatures hostile to the target adjacent), and finally Tumbling Strike (easily the worst of the bunch) gives you Advantage if you started your turn 20+ feet from the target.
Backstab is the best option for a skirmisher playstyle (the enemy is deterred from chasing you down if your friend is threatening them with an opportunity attack), but the two schemes that best represent that playstyle mechanically (i.e. those with Tumbling Movement) don't get it. Awesome, Spring Attack has just become a feat tax if that's how you want to play. Isolated Strike will be the go-to option for your sniper Rogue; melee Rogues that go this route would do well to focus on enemies weaker than themselves. Mopping up the riffraff that everyone else is content to save for later, after the real threats have been eliminated. And Tumbling Strike just forces you into NOT focus firing. And opens you up to the most opportunity attacks, to boot (sure, they're made with Disadvantage, but if you're provoking them every single turn they'll catch up to you pretty quickly). It could be made much more viable by reducing the movement requirement down to 10 feet. That way at least a Spring Attack Rogue stands a chance of avoiding OAs and possibly even attacking the same guy two turns in a row.
Sneak Attack
This just might be the most unintuitive, convoluted version of sneak attack I've ever read. If you don't have Disadvantage already, you can apply your sneak attack damage by making the attack with Disadvantage. Oooookay. From a game balance perspective it actually works out somewhat well. You'll only use Sneak Attack if you manage to snag Advantage, which will cancel out the Disadvantage. So by using Backstab, Isolated Strike, and Tumbling Strike you're really applying your Sneak Attack damage (in a really roundabout way) as a normal attack, but the door's still open for using Sneak Attack if you can get Advantage in some other way.
Cool, easy to attain Sneak Attack damage, yeah? Yeah!? Sure, but the price you pay is that you're still pretty bad at combat. If an ally has some way of giving you Advantage then great, you don't have to jump through your hoops to get Sneak Attack damage, but you're still less accurate than pretty much everyone else because they'll actually be USING that Advantage. And since Advantage doesn't stack, even if you have it from multiple sources your Sneak Attack dice will always cancel it out. In other words, YOU CAN NEVER USE ADVANTAGE AS A ROGUE. Well, at least not if you're "spending" it to trigger sneak attack. Doesn't quite fit the image of a guy who doesn't fight fair.
And no, dealing a little more damage than the Fighter (maybe; if he's got a big weapon you might be about even with him) isn't worth giving up that accuracy. Because the tradeoff SHOULD be that you're dealing more damage because you're much, much squishier. If I'm playing a squishy character I better be getting something awfully cool in return. Some people might be satisfied with "more skills!" (and admittedly I'll occasionally play such a character), but more often than not what they want is more offense. The assassin archetype of the guy who can damn near one-hit kill guys he takes by surprise.
Distract
Oh come on! Giving up your next action AND a reaction to halve the damage of an enemy's attack? This COULD have been that Feature-That-Compensates-For-Your-Squishiness, but alas, it's just a Bad Idea. Especially if you're trying to fill that striker role your action should be among the best in the party for killing things faster, and killing things faster prevents those things from getting a turn in the first place.
You're basically telling the monster that for the next turn, you might as well be a common housecat (unless they're still capable of one-shotting first level Wizards; then maybe the housecat is more dangerous). You won't be attacking, and you can't even make an opportunity attack if they move away.
Now it does have its uses, situational though they may be. A really big opponent trying to land a solid hit on your Wizard who wants to use any flavor of the Make Him Go Away spell is probably worth a use of Distract. You weren't going to kill him anyways, but if you can keep the Wizard in the fight long enough for him to take the enemy out of the fight then the tide can be turned. Assuming you happen to be standing next to the Wizard and in melee with a big, dangerous opponent, that is. Situational is right.
More likely you're just delaying the inevitable, with the number far from being in your favor. Lets look at two rounds, assuming you're fighting an opponent of roughly equal strength (a duel, perhaps), where you both have the same average damage per round (DPR). DPR is a calculation that accounts for average damage on a miss, hit, and crit. It's not something that you'll ever see in-play; rather it's a value that stands in for all of the probabilities involved with attacking. The following example can certainly be tipped in the Rogue's favor if his attack crits but the Enemy's second attack misses, but over the course of a large sample size those variances get smoothed out into something that looks a lot more like the DPR.
Round 1: Rogue attacks, deals DPR.
Round 1: Enemy attacks, Rogue used Distract, Enemy deals half DPR.
Round 2: Rogue sits there, because Distract takes away his action.
Round 2: Enemy attacks, deals DPR.
Totals: Rogue has dealt damage equal to DPR, Enemy has dealt damage equal to 1.5(DPR)
It gets even less favorable when you consider the limitation in tactical options. If Rogue wants to run away he'll risk taking even more damage from an opportunity attack (even if he has Tumbling Movement there's still a chance that it might hit him). But if Enemy wants to run away, he can do so freely.
This does NOT compensate for the Rogue's squishiness. This is something that you'll use when an Enemy crits you, and you hope that the dice gods impart less luck onto him next round because taking that risk is better than being unconscious on the ground. But you'll probably end up that way anyways.
Rogue Schemes
The schemes still have the potential to bring back that spectrum into one class in the same game, but not if they're written as rigidly as they are in this packet. Which is a tough line to walk, because this rigid structure is more foolproof in terms of game balance. Every scheme gets two free skills, and then three bonus feats. Unfortunately, like my problem with Fighters and maneuvers, the mess of a feats system in this current packet invariably affects the Rogue. Many of these bonus feats are just more skills with a new name, and from a different resource pool. It's unnecessary.
Even more mind-boggling is the fact that skirmisher types have feat support in Next, but the Rogue doesn't get much of it for free. Tumbling Movement is a start (2 schemes get that), but no Spring Attack? I suppose one could make the argument that Spring Attack is a more powerful choice than the feats in the Expert category, but if that's the case then it just shows that the feat balance game has already failed. Choices taken from the same pool of resources should be roughly comparable. Otherwise you end up with the dreaded trap feats. Those usually become more apparent after feat bloat has set in, but it's already a problem even with a relatively short list of feats in this playtest!
Ultimately, this Rogue fails at providing me with what I want from a combat Rogue out of the box - a highly mobile skirmisher that can reliably pull off hit-and-run tactics. Yes the Rogue needs this functionality if they plan on going into melee. Otherwise their leather-armor-wearing, low HP butts are going to be toast.
Finally, every scheme gives you a way to generate Advantage for yourself in combat. There's Backstab, which gives it to you when you gang up on an enemy (when an ally is adjacent to the target), Isolated Strike does the opposite (no creatures hostile to the target adjacent), and finally Tumbling Strike (easily the worst of the bunch) gives you Advantage if you started your turn 20+ feet from the target.
Backstab is the best option for a skirmisher playstyle (the enemy is deterred from chasing you down if your friend is threatening them with an opportunity attack), but the two schemes that best represent that playstyle mechanically (i.e. those with Tumbling Movement) don't get it. Awesome, Spring Attack has just become a feat tax if that's how you want to play. Isolated Strike will be the go-to option for your sniper Rogue; melee Rogues that go this route would do well to focus on enemies weaker than themselves. Mopping up the riffraff that everyone else is content to save for later, after the real threats have been eliminated. And Tumbling Strike just forces you into NOT focus firing. And opens you up to the most opportunity attacks, to boot (sure, they're made with Disadvantage, but if you're provoking them every single turn they'll catch up to you pretty quickly). It could be made much more viable by reducing the movement requirement down to 10 feet. That way at least a Spring Attack Rogue stands a chance of avoiding OAs and possibly even attacking the same guy two turns in a row.
Sneak Attack
This just might be the most unintuitive, convoluted version of sneak attack I've ever read. If you don't have Disadvantage already, you can apply your sneak attack damage by making the attack with Disadvantage. Oooookay. From a game balance perspective it actually works out somewhat well. You'll only use Sneak Attack if you manage to snag Advantage, which will cancel out the Disadvantage. So by using Backstab, Isolated Strike, and Tumbling Strike you're really applying your Sneak Attack damage (in a really roundabout way) as a normal attack, but the door's still open for using Sneak Attack if you can get Advantage in some other way.
Cool, easy to attain Sneak Attack damage, yeah? Yeah!? Sure, but the price you pay is that you're still pretty bad at combat. If an ally has some way of giving you Advantage then great, you don't have to jump through your hoops to get Sneak Attack damage, but you're still less accurate than pretty much everyone else because they'll actually be USING that Advantage. And since Advantage doesn't stack, even if you have it from multiple sources your Sneak Attack dice will always cancel it out. In other words, YOU CAN NEVER USE ADVANTAGE AS A ROGUE. Well, at least not if you're "spending" it to trigger sneak attack. Doesn't quite fit the image of a guy who doesn't fight fair.
And no, dealing a little more damage than the Fighter (maybe; if he's got a big weapon you might be about even with him) isn't worth giving up that accuracy. Because the tradeoff SHOULD be that you're dealing more damage because you're much, much squishier. If I'm playing a squishy character I better be getting something awfully cool in return. Some people might be satisfied with "more skills!" (and admittedly I'll occasionally play such a character), but more often than not what they want is more offense. The assassin archetype of the guy who can damn near one-hit kill guys he takes by surprise.
Distract
Oh come on! Giving up your next action AND a reaction to halve the damage of an enemy's attack? This COULD have been that Feature-That-Compensates-For-Your-Squishiness, but alas, it's just a Bad Idea. Especially if you're trying to fill that striker role your action should be among the best in the party for killing things faster, and killing things faster prevents those things from getting a turn in the first place.
You're basically telling the monster that for the next turn, you might as well be a common housecat (unless they're still capable of one-shotting first level Wizards; then maybe the housecat is more dangerous). You won't be attacking, and you can't even make an opportunity attack if they move away.
Now it does have its uses, situational though they may be. A really big opponent trying to land a solid hit on your Wizard who wants to use any flavor of the Make Him Go Away spell is probably worth a use of Distract. You weren't going to kill him anyways, but if you can keep the Wizard in the fight long enough for him to take the enemy out of the fight then the tide can be turned. Assuming you happen to be standing next to the Wizard and in melee with a big, dangerous opponent, that is. Situational is right.
More likely you're just delaying the inevitable, with the number far from being in your favor. Lets look at two rounds, assuming you're fighting an opponent of roughly equal strength (a duel, perhaps), where you both have the same average damage per round (DPR). DPR is a calculation that accounts for average damage on a miss, hit, and crit. It's not something that you'll ever see in-play; rather it's a value that stands in for all of the probabilities involved with attacking. The following example can certainly be tipped in the Rogue's favor if his attack crits but the Enemy's second attack misses, but over the course of a large sample size those variances get smoothed out into something that looks a lot more like the DPR.
Round 1: Rogue attacks, deals DPR.
Round 1: Enemy attacks, Rogue used Distract, Enemy deals half DPR.
Round 2: Rogue sits there, because Distract takes away his action.
Round 2: Enemy attacks, deals DPR.
Totals: Rogue has dealt damage equal to DPR, Enemy has dealt damage equal to 1.5(DPR)
It gets even less favorable when you consider the limitation in tactical options. If Rogue wants to run away he'll risk taking even more damage from an opportunity attack (even if he has Tumbling Movement there's still a chance that it might hit him). But if Enemy wants to run away, he can do so freely.
This does NOT compensate for the Rogue's squishiness. This is something that you'll use when an Enemy crits you, and you hope that the dice gods impart less luck onto him next round because taking that risk is better than being unconscious on the ground. But you'll probably end up that way anyways.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - Exploration
I'll start off by referring you to this thread on RPG.net, which inspired me to write about Exploration next. It also inspired me to convert the rules to 13th Age, which highlights one of the mechanic's strengths - it's fairly edition-neutral. My "conversion" was mostly condensing all of the information so that it would only take up a single page. Really the only changes I made were:
It's tough for me to not reflexively compare these exploration rules with the Journey rules from The One Ring, which I purchased a little over a year ago. Those rules are probably the most well-designed of any exploration mechanic that I've encountered in a tabletop RPG. One of my favorite aspects of these rules is how well they balances light and heavy armor. A character with a high Fatigue rating can be made Weary very quickly, and that results in a significant decrease in overall effectiveness. In short, it definitely pays to travel light, with lighter armor having an edge unless you're defending a fortified location (and thus unlikely to accumulate travel Fatigue, and with ample opportunity to get bed rest).
Unfortunately, there's really not a good way to replicate that in D&D. Part of the reason why this works is that heavy armor in TOR just gives you more protection against Wounds, with most hits simply dealing Endurance damage. Your stance also determines how hard you are to hit; a lightly armored character in defensive stance can be pretty hard to touch most of the time, even if he is susceptible to a lucky hit.
In D&D your AC is just your AC, and based on whether you're expected to be in melee combat it's usually assumed to be a certain value. Case in point is Barbarians, who don't wear heavy armor, instead having a class feature that buffs up their AC roughly to parity. Tweaking with armor can throw combat assumptions really out of whack. It's also tougher to emulate Weary as presented in TOR; ignoring low rolls out of a dice pool still allows a lucky character to function at full effectiveness, whereas numeric penalties don't accomplish this. Instead of simply being less likely to succeed, your ceiling actually drops.
Finally, the hardships of the journey simply isn't a major focus of D&D. TOR has those mechanics because it's a huge theme in Tolkien's works. A huge theme in D&D is looting. Fatigue would work inconsistently in such a system by punishing it early on, making it trivial once you grab yourself a Bag of Holding, and punishing those classes who need to wear heavy armor in order to be effective.
That said, while the existing mechanics don't offer any obvious suggestion for a Fatigue system, I wouldn't mind an optional module being offered as part of an "advanced" exploration package.
Despite these rules lacking my favorite feature from TOR, I do really like them. One thing they do better than TOR is emphasize navigation in a more structured way. The d4 roll is a simple and effective way of adjudicating how lost a party gets, and the tradeoffs of the different Travel Paces give the players a lot to consider. Though I usually don't bother in my games, tracking Rations would be desirable to generate enough pressure to temp players into choosing faster paces. Encounters that deplete rations (They got spoiled in a swamp! Raccoons rifled through your packs at night!) likewise have more of an impact, perhaps being enough to completely change the goals of the PCs. Even without Rations though, Wandering Monsters might be enough of an impetus to travel quickly, especially in dangerous areas. The more quickly you cover a given distance, the fewer encounters you'll generate.
The granularity in the time scale is a nice touch, and feels like a logical expansion of the 6 second combat turn. It provides enough structure for long-distance exploration to provide meaningful choice without being too stifling. It's tough to wing it for things like travel pace, and usually my players will say something to the effect of "I'm going as fast as I reasonably can while still doing X." Great, but without a baseline I'm forced to improvise, and the players usually try to tweak their wording to get more of a benefit or eliminate tradeoffs. I think these exploration rules hit the sweet spot in codifying that baseline enough to generate predictable results and provide meaningful choices, all without being too crunchy to become unwieldy or to stifle flexibility.
Finally, the very existence of these rules - the fact that space was dedicated to exploration - is a signal to players that it won't be a waste to invest in it, and more importantly gets them thinking about it ahead of time. On the other side of the screen, because they're there, written down, DMs might be more likely to put some focus on exploration. Sometimes "it takes you 3 days to get there" just isn't very satisfying.
- replacing the Readiness DCs with the standard tier-based 13th Age DCs
- adjusting the max distance per 1 day turn to better reflect my real-world experience as a backpacker (increasing mileage)
- requiring an Int check for mapmaking to grant the navigator a -5 to the DC
- clarifying Searching as an umbrella term for hunting, tracking, exploring, etc.
- adding the option to make a Con OR Wis check when attempting multiple actions (depending on the nature of the second action)
- and finally adding a d8 roll to determine random encounter difficult in lieu of a specific wandering monster chart (1-2 is an easy encounter, 7-8 is probably too tough to take on, and the rest is a balanced encounter).
_______________________________________
It's tough for me to not reflexively compare these exploration rules with the Journey rules from The One Ring, which I purchased a little over a year ago. Those rules are probably the most well-designed of any exploration mechanic that I've encountered in a tabletop RPG. One of my favorite aspects of these rules is how well they balances light and heavy armor. A character with a high Fatigue rating can be made Weary very quickly, and that results in a significant decrease in overall effectiveness. In short, it definitely pays to travel light, with lighter armor having an edge unless you're defending a fortified location (and thus unlikely to accumulate travel Fatigue, and with ample opportunity to get bed rest).
Unfortunately, there's really not a good way to replicate that in D&D. Part of the reason why this works is that heavy armor in TOR just gives you more protection against Wounds, with most hits simply dealing Endurance damage. Your stance also determines how hard you are to hit; a lightly armored character in defensive stance can be pretty hard to touch most of the time, even if he is susceptible to a lucky hit.
In D&D your AC is just your AC, and based on whether you're expected to be in melee combat it's usually assumed to be a certain value. Case in point is Barbarians, who don't wear heavy armor, instead having a class feature that buffs up their AC roughly to parity. Tweaking with armor can throw combat assumptions really out of whack. It's also tougher to emulate Weary as presented in TOR; ignoring low rolls out of a dice pool still allows a lucky character to function at full effectiveness, whereas numeric penalties don't accomplish this. Instead of simply being less likely to succeed, your ceiling actually drops.
Finally, the hardships of the journey simply isn't a major focus of D&D. TOR has those mechanics because it's a huge theme in Tolkien's works. A huge theme in D&D is looting. Fatigue would work inconsistently in such a system by punishing it early on, making it trivial once you grab yourself a Bag of Holding, and punishing those classes who need to wear heavy armor in order to be effective.
That said, while the existing mechanics don't offer any obvious suggestion for a Fatigue system, I wouldn't mind an optional module being offered as part of an "advanced" exploration package.
_______________________________________
Despite these rules lacking my favorite feature from TOR, I do really like them. One thing they do better than TOR is emphasize navigation in a more structured way. The d4 roll is a simple and effective way of adjudicating how lost a party gets, and the tradeoffs of the different Travel Paces give the players a lot to consider. Though I usually don't bother in my games, tracking Rations would be desirable to generate enough pressure to temp players into choosing faster paces. Encounters that deplete rations (They got spoiled in a swamp! Raccoons rifled through your packs at night!) likewise have more of an impact, perhaps being enough to completely change the goals of the PCs. Even without Rations though, Wandering Monsters might be enough of an impetus to travel quickly, especially in dangerous areas. The more quickly you cover a given distance, the fewer encounters you'll generate.
The granularity in the time scale is a nice touch, and feels like a logical expansion of the 6 second combat turn. It provides enough structure for long-distance exploration to provide meaningful choice without being too stifling. It's tough to wing it for things like travel pace, and usually my players will say something to the effect of "I'm going as fast as I reasonably can while still doing X." Great, but without a baseline I'm forced to improvise, and the players usually try to tweak their wording to get more of a benefit or eliminate tradeoffs. I think these exploration rules hit the sweet spot in codifying that baseline enough to generate predictable results and provide meaningful choices, all without being too crunchy to become unwieldy or to stifle flexibility.
Finally, the very existence of these rules - the fact that space was dedicated to exploration - is a signal to players that it won't be a waste to invest in it, and more importantly gets them thinking about it ahead of time. On the other side of the screen, because they're there, written down, DMs might be more likely to put some focus on exploration. Sometimes "it takes you 3 days to get there" just isn't very satisfying.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Barbarian
Thick Hide
I'll start with the simplest class feature, which takes inspiration from some of the 4E Primal classes (or at least the tougher, Con based builds). Simply put, if you're not wearing armor you add both your Dex mod AND Con mod to AC. This reinforces the flavor of the "wild" warrior by making being unarmored an attractive option. It's as good a solution as any.
Rage
This is the bulk of what the Barbarian does, and there's some good and some bad with its implementation. Not unexpectedly, there's a daily limit but since it starts at 2x/day it's somewhat forgiving. You get Advantage with any use of Strength (attacks, ability checks, and saving throws), which models what's going on really well. The accuracy boost is pretty huge here. You also deal bonus damage, so you're hitting harder, too (as expected). Finally, you gain Resistance to the weapon-based damage types (Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning), which at first blush seems awfully potent. I would have expected aset damage reduction (DR) value (method for generating temporary hit points? See comments) since that's easier to balance; with Resistance the more potent the attack, the bigger the effect is (the Barbarian ignores more total damage). Which seems counter-intuitive unless your vision of Rage is an almost Hulk-like positive feedback loop (the more punishment he takes, the stronger he gets).
Clearly the benefits of Rage are pretty substantial. When in a Rage the Barbarian is certainly looking like the most dangerous melee combatant in the party, which is as it should be. Without play experience, though, it's really tough to judge whether Rage's drawbacks balance out this awesome power.
Obvious the first "check" on Rage is the daily limit, but there's more to it than that. Your Rage ends when you fall unconscious (tough to do given the defensive buff!), or also if you can't attack for a turn (say, if some enemy restrains you). While this might seem harsh I like the strategic element that it creates. Maybe you shouldn't use Rage if you're fighting a spellcaster that's likely to hamper you enough to waste your Rage. Or if you do, the whole party has its priorities shifted; do everything in your power to prevent the enemies from turning off your Barbarian. Looks like it'd be fun to play!
But Rage also has a final drawback. This one has some major tactical implications - you can't take reactions. While this makes some sense (your fury is extremely focused on just wrecking stuff and you don't have the presence of mind to worry about tactical openings), it also kind of doesn't (aren't you so angry that you'll lash out at anything that moves?). There are also mechanical consequences, the minor one being that offensive output might actually decrease in some situations (since you're not getting in opportunity attacks), but more of a concern is the fact that your stickiness is reduced to exactly zero. It's extremely easy to simply walk away from this raging engine of destruction, and that just doesn't sit well with me. This guy's dangerous. If he has you pinned up against a wall, you should be screwed.
To sum up, I think Rage has a really solid foundation. The main things I would change is to tone down the defensive benefits (DR instead of Resistance), and to compensate for that drop in potency to eliminate the "can't make reactions" drawback. I'm not sure what a good value for that DR would be, though (and perhaps that would have to wait until the math is more finalized). Con mod (but how would it scale)? Equal to Rage Damage Bonus? Con + Rage Damage bonus? These are all pretty simple solutions that result in very different values, so it would really be a matter of looking at the math and picking whichever one "fits" best (a little less than Resistance on average opponents). My gut says Rage Damage Bonus = DR, but without any playtesting that's really just a wild guess.
Reckless Attack
Another simple class feature that gives you a Rage-like boost (Advantage on your attack) essentially at-will, but with a heavy drawback (YOU grant Advantage). I like it. It's risky, but that's sort of the Barbarian's MO. And it makes you feel like that crazy berserker warrior even when you've run out of Rages for the day.
Final Thoughts
I remember reading commentary after the first playtest packet with class was released (back in January, I believe) even though I didn't read through that packet myself. The consensus was that the Barbarian was pretty overpowered compared with the Fighter, and most people advocated for powering up the Fighter.
I'm not sure if the balance issue has been fixed or not (this Barbarian does look like it probably has an edge over the Fighter), but at this stage of the game I'm not sure it matters that much. The math can be refined later. What I'm mostly concerned with during the playtest is whether or not the mechanics do a good job of representing the concepts, and whether or not they provide an interesting game experience. Does this feel like a Barbarian, and how would tweaking things affect that? I think mostly yes, it's a good representation of the Barbarian, who is all about the simple application of brute force.
I'll start with the simplest class feature, which takes inspiration from some of the 4E Primal classes (or at least the tougher, Con based builds). Simply put, if you're not wearing armor you add both your Dex mod AND Con mod to AC. This reinforces the flavor of the "wild" warrior by making being unarmored an attractive option. It's as good a solution as any.
Rage
This is the bulk of what the Barbarian does, and there's some good and some bad with its implementation. Not unexpectedly, there's a daily limit but since it starts at 2x/day it's somewhat forgiving. You get Advantage with any use of Strength (attacks, ability checks, and saving throws), which models what's going on really well. The accuracy boost is pretty huge here. You also deal bonus damage, so you're hitting harder, too (as expected). Finally, you gain Resistance to the weapon-based damage types (Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning), which at first blush seems awfully potent. I would have expected a
Clearly the benefits of Rage are pretty substantial. When in a Rage the Barbarian is certainly looking like the most dangerous melee combatant in the party, which is as it should be. Without play experience, though, it's really tough to judge whether Rage's drawbacks balance out this awesome power.
Obvious the first "check" on Rage is the daily limit, but there's more to it than that. Your Rage ends when you fall unconscious (tough to do given the defensive buff!), or also if you can't attack for a turn (say, if some enemy restrains you). While this might seem harsh I like the strategic element that it creates. Maybe you shouldn't use Rage if you're fighting a spellcaster that's likely to hamper you enough to waste your Rage. Or if you do, the whole party has its priorities shifted; do everything in your power to prevent the enemies from turning off your Barbarian. Looks like it'd be fun to play!
But Rage also has a final drawback. This one has some major tactical implications - you can't take reactions. While this makes some sense (your fury is extremely focused on just wrecking stuff and you don't have the presence of mind to worry about tactical openings), it also kind of doesn't (aren't you so angry that you'll lash out at anything that moves?). There are also mechanical consequences, the minor one being that offensive output might actually decrease in some situations (since you're not getting in opportunity attacks), but more of a concern is the fact that your stickiness is reduced to exactly zero. It's extremely easy to simply walk away from this raging engine of destruction, and that just doesn't sit well with me. This guy's dangerous. If he has you pinned up against a wall, you should be screwed.
To sum up, I think Rage has a really solid foundation. The main things I would change is to tone down the defensive benefits (DR instead of Resistance), and to compensate for that drop in potency to eliminate the "can't make reactions" drawback. I'm not sure what a good value for that DR would be, though (and perhaps that would have to wait until the math is more finalized). Con mod (but how would it scale)? Equal to Rage Damage Bonus? Con + Rage Damage bonus? These are all pretty simple solutions that result in very different values, so it would really be a matter of looking at the math and picking whichever one "fits" best (a little less than Resistance on average opponents). My gut says Rage Damage Bonus = DR, but without any playtesting that's really just a wild guess.
Reckless Attack
Another simple class feature that gives you a Rage-like boost (Advantage on your attack) essentially at-will, but with a heavy drawback (YOU grant Advantage). I like it. It's risky, but that's sort of the Barbarian's MO. And it makes you feel like that crazy berserker warrior even when you've run out of Rages for the day.
Final Thoughts
I remember reading commentary after the first playtest packet with class was released (back in January, I believe) even though I didn't read through that packet myself. The consensus was that the Barbarian was pretty overpowered compared with the Fighter, and most people advocated for powering up the Fighter.
I'm not sure if the balance issue has been fixed or not (this Barbarian does look like it probably has an edge over the Fighter), but at this stage of the game I'm not sure it matters that much. The math can be refined later. What I'm mostly concerned with during the playtest is whether or not the mechanics do a good job of representing the concepts, and whether or not they provide an interesting game experience. Does this feel like a Barbarian, and how would tweaking things affect that? I think mostly yes, it's a good representation of the Barbarian, who is all about the simple application of brute force.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Fighter
Bonus Feats
No. Hated this "class feature" in 3.x, and I still hate it. It's made all the worse when feats vary so greatly in power level (as has always been the case in D&D), and as more supplements increase the power creep this "balancing" mechanism will only get further off-balance.
The "basic" version of the game is also supposed to be designed with the idea that feats are optional. So either the Fighter gets shafted by losing one of his class features, or the player who didn't want to deal with feats in the first place is forced to.
Another issue I have with this has been covered in my post on feats. By only providing access to bonus feats from the Martial category what you're doing is giving Fighters a choice of maneuvers in this messy "maneuvers as feats" system. The system ends up being "fake universal" (sure, anyone can buy into these maneuvers, but how many PCs will give up feats that are more on-theme for their given class?). Or maybe a PC decides to buy into this whole system and chooses Trip Attack, but then a situation comes up where an enemy needs to be disarmed. In a true universal maneuver system (where anyone can try anything plausible without having to pre-purchase the ability with character-building resources) this isn't a problem. Giving the Fighter bonus feats is supposed to show that the Fighter is better at these types of things, but it really doesn't do much good. A Fighter that doesn't choose Trip Attack (for example) is just as hopeless at tripping people as any other class, but if he takes it when he levels all of the sudden he becomes a tripping savant (see my argument in the feats post on why it makes sense to use it constantly once you buy it).
It's a simple fix, really. Put back the "anyone can attempt it" universal maneuver system, get rid of the "maneuvers" feats, and instead of bonus feats let the Fighter pick a maneuver to gain skill dice with. Anyone could pull those types of tricks but the Fighter is still the best at it.
Expertise Dice
This mechanic has come a long way since the original packet that introduce Expertise Dice for the Fighter (which was the last time I'd really paid much attention to the playtest). Conceptually I think I like this version better than the original, as it gives the Fighter interesting choices via an encounter-based resource system. That said, it's really only appealing if that universal maneuver system is implemented.
With the old Expertise Dice being refreshed each round the Fighter had the option of doing something cool each turn. Maneuvers would also provide that opportunity, with encounter-based Expertise Dice ramping it up even further. Furthermore the options, while all mechanically very similar (Death Dealer options all add damage, Superior Defense options all provide AC boost) and thus easy to balance, are different enough to highlight different playstyles. Granted the choices are pretty limited at this point, but that can be refined in the future. As it stands if you're a shield user, for example, you'll probably choose Slam (because it's flat-out better than the universal Deep Wound), though some might go with Strike Command to emphasize the "Warlord-lite" theme. All "shield builds" won't really be clones, though, because the shield-based Superior Defense option only works against ranged attacks. Honestly all 4 choices are useful in very different situations, with the exception of Nimble Dodge basically being Parry+, but even that choice remains interesting because you'll need to swear off heavy armor for the ability to become more mobile.
In-game you'll still have to make the tactical choice of using your "encounter power" for offense or defense on-the-fly regardless of your build choice. While this sounds pretty simple (and largely it is), the Warlord-lite and the shield options both make things more interesting since you'll also need to determine which allies need your help. While these class features are certainly no substitute for a full Warlord class, I really like what they add to the Fighter. Because the best warrior having the option to be a tactical leader on the battlefield just makes good sense, even if he's spending most of his energy trying to cut down his opponents (unlike an actual Warlord, whose primary goal is to aid allies).
Multi-attack
When I first heard that Fighters were getting this I was extremely concerned. Multiple attacks as a full round action was exactly what made 3.x combat so dull! Anything that discourages movement is a bad idea. I was happy to see that this wasn't the case for the Next Fighter. Basically all it does is let you split any extra damage you'd normally gain from Deadly Strike across multiple opponents. This is great for mowing through minions that will go down from a single damage die anyways and keeps the pace of battle quick as you level up. Because part of reason for bounded accuracy is so that low-level monsters will always be a threat if they have great enough numbers. Now as those numbers start to increase, so does the number of enemies you can attack without affecting the amount of total HP damage that you dish out. Color me convinced!
No. Hated this "class feature" in 3.x, and I still hate it. It's made all the worse when feats vary so greatly in power level (as has always been the case in D&D), and as more supplements increase the power creep this "balancing" mechanism will only get further off-balance.
The "basic" version of the game is also supposed to be designed with the idea that feats are optional. So either the Fighter gets shafted by losing one of his class features, or the player who didn't want to deal with feats in the first place is forced to.
Another issue I have with this has been covered in my post on feats. By only providing access to bonus feats from the Martial category what you're doing is giving Fighters a choice of maneuvers in this messy "maneuvers as feats" system. The system ends up being "fake universal" (sure, anyone can buy into these maneuvers, but how many PCs will give up feats that are more on-theme for their given class?). Or maybe a PC decides to buy into this whole system and chooses Trip Attack, but then a situation comes up where an enemy needs to be disarmed. In a true universal maneuver system (where anyone can try anything plausible without having to pre-purchase the ability with character-building resources) this isn't a problem. Giving the Fighter bonus feats is supposed to show that the Fighter is better at these types of things, but it really doesn't do much good. A Fighter that doesn't choose Trip Attack (for example) is just as hopeless at tripping people as any other class, but if he takes it when he levels all of the sudden he becomes a tripping savant (see my argument in the feats post on why it makes sense to use it constantly once you buy it).
It's a simple fix, really. Put back the "anyone can attempt it" universal maneuver system, get rid of the "maneuvers" feats, and instead of bonus feats let the Fighter pick a maneuver to gain skill dice with. Anyone could pull those types of tricks but the Fighter is still the best at it.
Expertise Dice
This mechanic has come a long way since the original packet that introduce Expertise Dice for the Fighter (which was the last time I'd really paid much attention to the playtest). Conceptually I think I like this version better than the original, as it gives the Fighter interesting choices via an encounter-based resource system. That said, it's really only appealing if that universal maneuver system is implemented.
With the old Expertise Dice being refreshed each round the Fighter had the option of doing something cool each turn. Maneuvers would also provide that opportunity, with encounter-based Expertise Dice ramping it up even further. Furthermore the options, while all mechanically very similar (Death Dealer options all add damage, Superior Defense options all provide AC boost) and thus easy to balance, are different enough to highlight different playstyles. Granted the choices are pretty limited at this point, but that can be refined in the future. As it stands if you're a shield user, for example, you'll probably choose Slam (because it's flat-out better than the universal Deep Wound), though some might go with Strike Command to emphasize the "Warlord-lite" theme. All "shield builds" won't really be clones, though, because the shield-based Superior Defense option only works against ranged attacks. Honestly all 4 choices are useful in very different situations, with the exception of Nimble Dodge basically being Parry+, but even that choice remains interesting because you'll need to swear off heavy armor for the ability to become more mobile.
In-game you'll still have to make the tactical choice of using your "encounter power" for offense or defense on-the-fly regardless of your build choice. While this sounds pretty simple (and largely it is), the Warlord-lite and the shield options both make things more interesting since you'll also need to determine which allies need your help. While these class features are certainly no substitute for a full Warlord class, I really like what they add to the Fighter. Because the best warrior having the option to be a tactical leader on the battlefield just makes good sense, even if he's spending most of his energy trying to cut down his opponents (unlike an actual Warlord, whose primary goal is to aid allies).
Multi-attack
When I first heard that Fighters were getting this I was extremely concerned. Multiple attacks as a full round action was exactly what made 3.x combat so dull! Anything that discourages movement is a bad idea. I was happy to see that this wasn't the case for the Next Fighter. Basically all it does is let you split any extra damage you'd normally gain from Deadly Strike across multiple opponents. This is great for mowing through minions that will go down from a single damage die anyways and keeps the pace of battle quick as you level up. Because part of reason for bounded accuracy is so that low-level monsters will always be a threat if they have great enough numbers. Now as those numbers start to increase, so does the number of enemies you can attack without affecting the amount of total HP damage that you dish out. Color me convinced!
Friday, March 22, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - Feats
My Biggest Point of Contention
I want to start with this to get it out in the open. I'm putting it first because I REALLY HATE IT, and I want it to be REALLY NOTICEABLE. Maneuvers as feats. No. Just, no. With a side of no.
What is the biggest strength of a tabletop roleplaying game? This is something that was actually talked about BY THE DESIGNERS at the beginning of the playtest (I think in a podcast), and they were spot on. That your character can do anything. Instead of having computer code determine the outcome, there's a living, thinking person (the DM) who can adjudicate the rules. Wasn't this the whole point of emphasizing ability checks?
So now when a PC says "I want to push a guy," a rules-lawyer type will have the rules to back up his answer of "no, you don't have that feat?!?!"
But here's the worst part. Take Trip Attack, for example. There's no drawback to using this, and no tactical choice that needs to be made in-play. Once a PC has the feat it makes sense to use it EVERY SINGLE TURN. How boring is that? And how many fights do you see in movies or in novels where all a guy does is constantly try to trip his opponent over and over again?
Maneuvers should be universal options. There should be enough of a drawback to not try to spam them every turn, but they should be useful enough to actually use when the situation calls for it. Here's how I handle them in 13th Age, and I think such a system would benefit Next as well. Make an appropriate skill check vs PD or MD (in Next I guess you'd use opposed checks which is more dice rolling). If you fail, the target can make an opportunity attack against you. If you succeed, you can attack and if you hit you do that cool thing you were trying to do (applied AFTER the attack). Alternatively, if you want to play it safe just roll the skill check INSTEAD of attacking. Success lets you do that cool thing (without having to hit with a follow-up attack), and you won't take an OA if you fail.
If the designers read this, I encourage them to steal the idea. It'll make the game better.
What I Like
What I Don't Like
I want to start with this to get it out in the open. I'm putting it first because I REALLY HATE IT, and I want it to be REALLY NOTICEABLE. Maneuvers as feats. No. Just, no. With a side of no.
What is the biggest strength of a tabletop roleplaying game? This is something that was actually talked about BY THE DESIGNERS at the beginning of the playtest (I think in a podcast), and they were spot on. That your character can do anything. Instead of having computer code determine the outcome, there's a living, thinking person (the DM) who can adjudicate the rules. Wasn't this the whole point of emphasizing ability checks?
So now when a PC says "I want to push a guy," a rules-lawyer type will have the rules to back up his answer of "no, you don't have that feat?!?!"
But here's the worst part. Take Trip Attack, for example. There's no drawback to using this, and no tactical choice that needs to be made in-play. Once a PC has the feat it makes sense to use it EVERY SINGLE TURN. How boring is that? And how many fights do you see in movies or in novels where all a guy does is constantly try to trip his opponent over and over again?
Maneuvers should be universal options. There should be enough of a drawback to not try to spam them every turn, but they should be useful enough to actually use when the situation calls for it. Here's how I handle them in 13th Age, and I think such a system would benefit Next as well. Make an appropriate skill check vs PD or MD (in Next I guess you'd use opposed checks which is more dice rolling). If you fail, the target can make an opportunity attack against you. If you succeed, you can attack and if you hit you do that cool thing you were trying to do (applied AFTER the attack). Alternatively, if you want to play it safe just roll the skill check INSTEAD of attacking. Success lets you do that cool thing (without having to hit with a follow-up attack), and you won't take an OA if you fail.
If the designers read this, I encourage them to steal the idea. It'll make the game better.
What I Like
- Combat Reflexes. Makes melee characters more sticky.
- Defensive Ward. Simple countermagic is very cool.
- Find Familiar. Good to make it a feat, as some spellcasters want one and others don't.
- Healing Initiate. Cure Minor wounds is a little game-y since it can't heal past 3 total HP, but that keeps in check what is otherwise an at-will heal. Think of it as just enough healing to keep you conscious and you're good conceptually.
- Heighten Spell. Insurance for your big gun. Might I add that these "metamagic feats" are SO much better than the convoluted mess in 3.x where you changed the spell's level.
- Hold the Line. If I'm interpreting this right, you can stop movement if an enemy in melee with you tries to move away (basically trading an opportunity attack for a movement stopper). If that's the intent, then great! We have sticky tanks!
- Interposing Shield. Great defender option, sort of like a mark. Giving up your only reaction is a little pricey, though.
- Martial Arts. Monk-lite!
- Polearm Training. Reach weapons for everyone! And enhanced opportunity attacks with them, to boot.
- Purge Magic. If this gives you Dispel Magic even if you're not a Wizard. Which I think is the case here. Heck, even if you ARE a Wizard you can have fun not needing to prepare it, plus this feat gives you multiple uses of it.
- Restore Life. Suck it Cleric! I don't need you in my party!
- Relentless. Because it's fun when good things happen despite a miss.
- Spring Attack. Way to cater to the skirmisher fighting style. Encouraging movement is good.
- Taunt. Ok, this "skill as feat" is actually kind of cool.
- Tumbling Movement. Again, great skirmisher feat.
- Weapon Mastery. Hey-oh, it's a buff to weapons in general and not "choose this specific weapon to specialize in." Good, because if my normally-melee Fighter needs to pull out the bow I don't want him to suck.
What I Don't Like
- Magic-like wording of Charming Presence. Heck, its very existence. In what ways can't this be handled by a simple CHA check? If you want a feat to boost your ability to charm people then it should be "ignore situational penalties when you use the Charm skill," or better yet "gain Advantage when you use the Charm skill" (which would cancel any disadvantage anyways).
- Open Locks, Disarm Traps, Pick Pockets, etc. Wait a second, so what used to be skills are now feats? Based on the wording they basically ARE skills, it's just that they use up your "feats" resources. Sloppy, and unintuitive. Plus this very much falls within the realm of My Biggest Point of Contention above. What, so I can't attempt to pick your pocket with an ability check if I don't have this feat?
- Read Lips. Huh? Why can't this just be a Wisdom check? A bit situational to be a skill, but even that would be preferable to a FEAT.
D&D Next March Playtest - The Paladin
While not perfect (this is a playtest, after all!), by and large the first two classes to debut in this packet (the Druid and Ranger) were well done. Conceptually successful with a good mechanical scaffold. I can't say the same about the Paladin. The design is solid enough, but it just doesn't hit the concept strongly enough.
That's NOT My Warden!
First we'll tackle the 800 lb gorilla (or oak, or avatar of winter, etc.) in the room. There's only the tiniest bit of resemblance to the original class here, with Nature's Wrath admittedly looking decent. The problem is outside of casting Entangle this guy isn't sticky at all. The Warden is supposed to be a black hole of nature-magic doom. I'd rather Nature's Wrath restrain targets even if you had to give up the damage.
As for his other Channel Divinity options, Lay on Hands and Turn Undead? Really? So 2/3s of his options are identical to the Cavalier's? That's not going to differentiate him at all! ALL THREE Channel Divinities need to be adaptations of stuff that the Warden could do in 4E. At least one of these should be inspired by his Daily "Form of ____" powers.
A lot of that Warden flavor is easily achievable if the designers had simply made some custom spells to support the concept. The Warden doesn't need this Cure Wounds and Bless nonsense, he needs to be able to buff himself (with a "Swift Action") in order to freeze guys in place when he hits them, or gain reach by growing tree limbs for arms, or lashing out with vines to pull fleeing enemies back toward him. Otherwise yeah, he'll just be like any other Paladin with some nature-themed parlor tricks. I think an entirely separate spell list for the different Oaths might work best. Or a pared down general Paladin list, with 2 or 3 Oath-specific spells per spell level. The Oaths simply don't play differently enough right now.
Blackguard
The Blackguard is in a little better shape than the Warden. At least all of his Channel Divinities reinforce his theme. Some of the same arguments still apply though, especially regarding the spell list. Why should Cure Wounds be on the general list? Isn't it a little schizophrenic for the Blackguard to have both Cure and Inflict Wounds? His Blackguard-specific options are all good choices, but it'd be nice to have 2-3 per level so he's more likely to use Blackguard spells (and still get some variety) as opposed to general Paladin spells.
Where's My Tank?
Of all the classes the Cavalier has the most justification for getting some kind of "tanking" mechanic. Selfless knight-errant, protector of the innocent and all that. Simply put, I want Divine Challenge. This guy should be saying "face me, you coward, or feel the wrath of my gods!" and have the teeth to back it up. Either damage the guy, debuff him, or both. This might work best as a Cavalier-specific spell. I mean, we're giving the Paladin spellcasting, why not use it to reinforce the archetype instead of just saying "hey, I have mini-Cleric functionality!"
With this framework the Cavalier and Warden would both actually be able to dissuade enemies from attacking their squishy allies. The Cavalier would be throwing around Divine Challenges while the Warden would be the black hole of nature magic that we've grown to love from 4E. Now, I'm not expecting at-will Divine Challenge or quite the same degree of black-hole-ness as 4E. Next is a different beast, with less emphasis on tactical combat. PCs also simply have fewer resources in general. That doesn't mean that the Next iterations of the classes can't do the same things, along the same themes, albeit in different ways, though.
Mount
Yeah, remember how I applauded the designers for not following the 3.x example and actually giving the classes their iconic abilities starting at 1st level (Druid Wild Shape, Ranger spellcasting)? Well they failed here. Honestly, the mount isn't even that mechanically significant. A lot of people really like that mount, regardless of how situational it is, because it reinforces the fact that a Paladin is a Knight with divine backing. He gets a divinely-gifted mount to ride into battle, and he's got a Druid or Ranger-like relationship with it.
That feeling still comes across even if he gets a weaker version at level 1. Something roughly comparable to a mundane horse, but with a minor Oath-specific ability. At level 8 you can get the "upgraded" version (the stat blocks as presented).
Alignment
This is a contentious issue. Personally I'm of the opinion that you should be able to pick whatever alignment you choose, if you even use alignment at all. After all, each god has an alignment, and they're all over the map. If you indicate a specific god, your alignment should line up with theirs.
That said, mechanically speaking this version of the Paladin has some pretty easy-to-ignore alignment restrictions. This is exemplified best by the fact that Detect Evil has been replaced by Divine Sense. Instead of being able to detect a specific alignment (which never made much sense to me anyways; at best a person's alignment is an average of their actions and beliefs; what if an evil person is thinking good thoughts or doing good deeds when the Paladin used Detect Evil?), you can detect celestials, fiends, and undead. Cool, that actually shows that you have a connection with the divine planes, and undead are unnatural (a mockery of the divine spark of life or somesuch), so that makes sense too.
Summary
Paladins need to be tanky defender classes (except the Blackguard, he should just be really good at causing pain). A lot of this functionality should be possible by re-working the Paladin spells. They should be Paladin spells, not Cleric-lite, and each Oath should get options that strongly reinforce their theme. Channel Divinity needs to be revisited for the Warden to really let him stand out. Yeah, he's a Paladin build now and I don't necessarily mind if he'll be wearing heavy armor, using Divine Sense, etc., but the build is still conceptually more different from Cavaliers and Blackguards than those two are from each other. If you're going to use the 4E name, pay homage to the class. Finally, mounts should be a 1st level feature, and good job making alignment easily ignorable but still satisfying those who like alignment restrictions.
That's NOT My Warden!
First we'll tackle the 800 lb gorilla (or oak, or avatar of winter, etc.) in the room. There's only the tiniest bit of resemblance to the original class here, with Nature's Wrath admittedly looking decent. The problem is outside of casting Entangle this guy isn't sticky at all. The Warden is supposed to be a black hole of nature-magic doom. I'd rather Nature's Wrath restrain targets even if you had to give up the damage.
As for his other Channel Divinity options, Lay on Hands and Turn Undead? Really? So 2/3s of his options are identical to the Cavalier's? That's not going to differentiate him at all! ALL THREE Channel Divinities need to be adaptations of stuff that the Warden could do in 4E. At least one of these should be inspired by his Daily "Form of ____" powers.
A lot of that Warden flavor is easily achievable if the designers had simply made some custom spells to support the concept. The Warden doesn't need this Cure Wounds and Bless nonsense, he needs to be able to buff himself (with a "Swift Action") in order to freeze guys in place when he hits them, or gain reach by growing tree limbs for arms, or lashing out with vines to pull fleeing enemies back toward him. Otherwise yeah, he'll just be like any other Paladin with some nature-themed parlor tricks. I think an entirely separate spell list for the different Oaths might work best. Or a pared down general Paladin list, with 2 or 3 Oath-specific spells per spell level. The Oaths simply don't play differently enough right now.
Blackguard
The Blackguard is in a little better shape than the Warden. At least all of his Channel Divinities reinforce his theme. Some of the same arguments still apply though, especially regarding the spell list. Why should Cure Wounds be on the general list? Isn't it a little schizophrenic for the Blackguard to have both Cure and Inflict Wounds? His Blackguard-specific options are all good choices, but it'd be nice to have 2-3 per level so he's more likely to use Blackguard spells (and still get some variety) as opposed to general Paladin spells.
Where's My Tank?
Of all the classes the Cavalier has the most justification for getting some kind of "tanking" mechanic. Selfless knight-errant, protector of the innocent and all that. Simply put, I want Divine Challenge. This guy should be saying "face me, you coward, or feel the wrath of my gods!" and have the teeth to back it up. Either damage the guy, debuff him, or both. This might work best as a Cavalier-specific spell. I mean, we're giving the Paladin spellcasting, why not use it to reinforce the archetype instead of just saying "hey, I have mini-Cleric functionality!"
With this framework the Cavalier and Warden would both actually be able to dissuade enemies from attacking their squishy allies. The Cavalier would be throwing around Divine Challenges while the Warden would be the black hole of nature magic that we've grown to love from 4E. Now, I'm not expecting at-will Divine Challenge or quite the same degree of black-hole-ness as 4E. Next is a different beast, with less emphasis on tactical combat. PCs also simply have fewer resources in general. That doesn't mean that the Next iterations of the classes can't do the same things, along the same themes, albeit in different ways, though.
Mount
Yeah, remember how I applauded the designers for not following the 3.x example and actually giving the classes their iconic abilities starting at 1st level (Druid Wild Shape, Ranger spellcasting)? Well they failed here. Honestly, the mount isn't even that mechanically significant. A lot of people really like that mount, regardless of how situational it is, because it reinforces the fact that a Paladin is a Knight with divine backing. He gets a divinely-gifted mount to ride into battle, and he's got a Druid or Ranger-like relationship with it.
That feeling still comes across even if he gets a weaker version at level 1. Something roughly comparable to a mundane horse, but with a minor Oath-specific ability. At level 8 you can get the "upgraded" version (the stat blocks as presented).
Alignment
This is a contentious issue. Personally I'm of the opinion that you should be able to pick whatever alignment you choose, if you even use alignment at all. After all, each god has an alignment, and they're all over the map. If you indicate a specific god, your alignment should line up with theirs.
That said, mechanically speaking this version of the Paladin has some pretty easy-to-ignore alignment restrictions. This is exemplified best by the fact that Detect Evil has been replaced by Divine Sense. Instead of being able to detect a specific alignment (which never made much sense to me anyways; at best a person's alignment is an average of their actions and beliefs; what if an evil person is thinking good thoughts or doing good deeds when the Paladin used Detect Evil?), you can detect celestials, fiends, and undead. Cool, that actually shows that you have a connection with the divine planes, and undead are unnatural (a mockery of the divine spark of life or somesuch), so that makes sense too.
Summary
Paladins need to be tanky defender classes (except the Blackguard, he should just be really good at causing pain). A lot of this functionality should be possible by re-working the Paladin spells. They should be Paladin spells, not Cleric-lite, and each Oath should get options that strongly reinforce their theme. Channel Divinity needs to be revisited for the Warden to really let him stand out. Yeah, he's a Paladin build now and I don't necessarily mind if he'll be wearing heavy armor, using Divine Sense, etc., but the build is still conceptually more different from Cavaliers and Blackguards than those two are from each other. If you're going to use the 4E name, pay homage to the class. Finally, mounts should be a 1st level feature, and good job making alignment easily ignorable but still satisfying those who like alignment restrictions.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Ranger
Fighting Style (NOT!)
Perhaps the most immediately noticeable thing about the Ranger is the absence of a feature that's been traditional for most incarnations of Rangers - a choice between wielding two melee weapons or focusing on archery (which usually involves making multiple ranged attacks). Rangers have always been the multi-attackers.
The problem with that (a problem that the design team is well aware of) is that it's not enough of a schtick to justify a class. It's just weapon choice. It's a choice that any melee class should have the option of making (as 4E proved with its "Ranger clone" builds: the Tempest Fighter and Whirling Barbarian). Plus there's the fact that it does absolutely nothing to replicate one of the most iconic rangers of all in fiction, Aragorn.
I don't play a Ranger because I want to be "a Fighter, but with two weapons." It's one of my favorite classes, and you could more accurately say that I deal with the fact that the choice is usually baked into the class. No, I play a Ranger to be the guerilla-tactics, outdoorsy hunter guy. To me subtle nature spells and animal companions are both more in line with how I view Rangers than weapon choice (though there are strong archery traditions to the archetype; it's the two-weapon fighting that I mostly don't get). So bonus points for slaying that sacred cow.
Spellcasting
Ah, Ranger spellcasting. In 3.x it was so weak compared to a full caster that it might as well be ignored (though not to the egregious extent as the Ranger's half-strength animal companion that usually was ignored). In 4E it simply didn't exist. And yet, it's still something that makes sense to me.
If you're going to have it, then YES you should get it at 1st level. I'm a HUGE proponent of classes getting all of their main stuff right away. People play different classes for different reasons, but it usually boils down to "I want to be able to do ______." In 3.x I would always want to play a shapeshifter, and was always let down because we almost always played low level, and the Druid didn't get that yet. There's always room to get better at what you do as you level, but the main components of your class's identity should be useable out of the box.
As I hinted at before, the key to capturing the Ranger's feel is that their spells need to be SUBTLE. They shouldn't give up much (if any) raw combat power just because they get spells, because they're not going around slinging spells during combat. This spell list hits that mark perfectly. With Animal Friendship and Cure Wounds you could replicate Aragorn's abilities fairly well, even if his "spellcasting" wasn't as overt as D&Ds. And really, it's not something you have to (or should) play up as a Ranger. Cast your spells with little to no fuss and act like nothing unusual happened. Yours is a more humble spellcasting; you lack the flashiness (and raw power) of the Druid's. If the flashiest spell you've got is Fog Cloud and Spike Growth, you're a well-designed caster-Ranger.
I also like that, aside from Barkskin, you're also not using your spells to buff yourself up for combat. The 3.x Ranger was guilty of that. No, the Ranger should have the same baseline competency as the other martial classes. His spells are for utility. Occasionally healing, but mostly "exploration" based.
Favored Enemy
I'll just come out and say it that this incarnation of Favored Enemy is probably my favorite thing in the whole packet. This is coming from someone who normally HATES Favored Enemy mechanics. For largely the reasons that were explained in the podcast that was aired when this packet was released. The bonus is situational (what if the DM doesn't include those enemies?) and the result is that you're just a gimped Fighter most of the time, but when your moment comes to shine then the fight is usually anticlimactic because you can chew through it. Which leads to the DM to not want to include those enemies, and it's just a vicious loop.
So why is this version better? Well, it's applicable to a broad range of foes that have similar qualities to the one you specialize in, and the benefits are a lot more interesting than straight numerical bonuses. They're tangible concepts that make you feel like you have an actual ability.
Your first option is Brute Hunter, which means that you specialize in those monstrous humanoids that tend to fight in large groups. You're the guerrilla warrior that can take a larger force by surprise and win. This is very much my kind of Ranger. All of options give you advantage on checks to recall lore on your type of enemy, which is expected and works well. Then you get another 1st level feature, which for this option lets you keep your allies from being surprised (you're used to being on the lookout, and sneaking by even when there are many eyes watching out for YOU). Then there's a 2nd level feature, and an 8th level feature. At 2nd opportunity attacks made against you have disadvantage, allowing you to either retreat from a fight more easily or to move through a group to kill a priority target. At 8th you get a double cleave that can be used with ranged attacks. Yeah, you're very dangerous when outnumbered.
Next is the iconic Dragon Slayer. Starting from 1st level you're immune to fear. By 2nd you buff a subsequent attack when you hit a foe, dealing extra damage next round. Chip away at those "bag of hit points" monsters (as dragons tend to be). The capstone is Evasion, to protect you from things like Breath Weapons (half damage if you fail a Dex save, no damage if you pass even if you'd normally take half). Fights against dragons will still be appropriately tough, you're just good at taking the heat. You're more likely to not get burned to a crisp or run away.
Finally, we have Giant Killer. At 1st level you can use your reaction to halve damage taken from Large+ creatures (nice!). Your 2nd level ability is the same as Dragon Slayer's (I approve of avoiding redundancy when designing for similar concepts). As a capstone you can avoid the reach that giants will inevitably have (but plenty of other creatures as well). While outside of 5 ft melee attacks against you are made with disadvantage. If threatening reach is a thing in Next, these guys will be great at punching through that first line of defense.
Deadly Strike
Though the wording is a little weird, I like that melee damage scales as you level by multiplying your base damage die. It works better than gaining extra attacks (you reduce the total number of die rolls) or piling on static mods (as was the case in 4E, where your weapon's damage didn't matter all that much; made you wonder why you needed to roll a die to begin with). It's also a great way of keeping the melee classes at parity. It's no coincidence that the Druid's Dire Shape gives Wild Shape the same scaling ("why yes, we do acknowledge that you want to fight in melee, and here's how you keep up with Fighters").
Mostly it's a good sign that "this guy's better/worse at combat" isn't being used as a balancing point. You're not a gimped Fighter just because you get Favored Enemies and Spellcasting, you're a warrior who gives up the Fighter's maneuvers in order to get those things. You're both comparable as far as raw numbers are concerned, though, and that's what I want to see in a Ranger.
Perhaps the most immediately noticeable thing about the Ranger is the absence of a feature that's been traditional for most incarnations of Rangers - a choice between wielding two melee weapons or focusing on archery (which usually involves making multiple ranged attacks). Rangers have always been the multi-attackers.
The problem with that (a problem that the design team is well aware of) is that it's not enough of a schtick to justify a class. It's just weapon choice. It's a choice that any melee class should have the option of making (as 4E proved with its "Ranger clone" builds: the Tempest Fighter and Whirling Barbarian). Plus there's the fact that it does absolutely nothing to replicate one of the most iconic rangers of all in fiction, Aragorn.
I don't play a Ranger because I want to be "a Fighter, but with two weapons." It's one of my favorite classes, and you could more accurately say that I deal with the fact that the choice is usually baked into the class. No, I play a Ranger to be the guerilla-tactics, outdoorsy hunter guy. To me subtle nature spells and animal companions are both more in line with how I view Rangers than weapon choice (though there are strong archery traditions to the archetype; it's the two-weapon fighting that I mostly don't get). So bonus points for slaying that sacred cow.
Spellcasting
Ah, Ranger spellcasting. In 3.x it was so weak compared to a full caster that it might as well be ignored (though not to the egregious extent as the Ranger's half-strength animal companion that usually was ignored). In 4E it simply didn't exist. And yet, it's still something that makes sense to me.
If you're going to have it, then YES you should get it at 1st level. I'm a HUGE proponent of classes getting all of their main stuff right away. People play different classes for different reasons, but it usually boils down to "I want to be able to do ______." In 3.x I would always want to play a shapeshifter, and was always let down because we almost always played low level, and the Druid didn't get that yet. There's always room to get better at what you do as you level, but the main components of your class's identity should be useable out of the box.
As I hinted at before, the key to capturing the Ranger's feel is that their spells need to be SUBTLE. They shouldn't give up much (if any) raw combat power just because they get spells, because they're not going around slinging spells during combat. This spell list hits that mark perfectly. With Animal Friendship and Cure Wounds you could replicate Aragorn's abilities fairly well, even if his "spellcasting" wasn't as overt as D&Ds. And really, it's not something you have to (or should) play up as a Ranger. Cast your spells with little to no fuss and act like nothing unusual happened. Yours is a more humble spellcasting; you lack the flashiness (and raw power) of the Druid's. If the flashiest spell you've got is Fog Cloud and Spike Growth, you're a well-designed caster-Ranger.
I also like that, aside from Barkskin, you're also not using your spells to buff yourself up for combat. The 3.x Ranger was guilty of that. No, the Ranger should have the same baseline competency as the other martial classes. His spells are for utility. Occasionally healing, but mostly "exploration" based.
Favored Enemy
I'll just come out and say it that this incarnation of Favored Enemy is probably my favorite thing in the whole packet. This is coming from someone who normally HATES Favored Enemy mechanics. For largely the reasons that were explained in the podcast that was aired when this packet was released. The bonus is situational (what if the DM doesn't include those enemies?) and the result is that you're just a gimped Fighter most of the time, but when your moment comes to shine then the fight is usually anticlimactic because you can chew through it. Which leads to the DM to not want to include those enemies, and it's just a vicious loop.
So why is this version better? Well, it's applicable to a broad range of foes that have similar qualities to the one you specialize in, and the benefits are a lot more interesting than straight numerical bonuses. They're tangible concepts that make you feel like you have an actual ability.
Your first option is Brute Hunter, which means that you specialize in those monstrous humanoids that tend to fight in large groups. You're the guerrilla warrior that can take a larger force by surprise and win. This is very much my kind of Ranger. All of options give you advantage on checks to recall lore on your type of enemy, which is expected and works well. Then you get another 1st level feature, which for this option lets you keep your allies from being surprised (you're used to being on the lookout, and sneaking by even when there are many eyes watching out for YOU). Then there's a 2nd level feature, and an 8th level feature. At 2nd opportunity attacks made against you have disadvantage, allowing you to either retreat from a fight more easily or to move through a group to kill a priority target. At 8th you get a double cleave that can be used with ranged attacks. Yeah, you're very dangerous when outnumbered.
Next is the iconic Dragon Slayer. Starting from 1st level you're immune to fear. By 2nd you buff a subsequent attack when you hit a foe, dealing extra damage next round. Chip away at those "bag of hit points" monsters (as dragons tend to be). The capstone is Evasion, to protect you from things like Breath Weapons (half damage if you fail a Dex save, no damage if you pass even if you'd normally take half). Fights against dragons will still be appropriately tough, you're just good at taking the heat. You're more likely to not get burned to a crisp or run away.
Finally, we have Giant Killer. At 1st level you can use your reaction to halve damage taken from Large+ creatures (nice!). Your 2nd level ability is the same as Dragon Slayer's (I approve of avoiding redundancy when designing for similar concepts). As a capstone you can avoid the reach that giants will inevitably have (but plenty of other creatures as well). While outside of 5 ft melee attacks against you are made with disadvantage. If threatening reach is a thing in Next, these guys will be great at punching through that first line of defense.
Deadly Strike
Though the wording is a little weird, I like that melee damage scales as you level by multiplying your base damage die. It works better than gaining extra attacks (you reduce the total number of die rolls) or piling on static mods (as was the case in 4E, where your weapon's damage didn't matter all that much; made you wonder why you needed to roll a die to begin with). It's also a great way of keeping the melee classes at parity. It's no coincidence that the Druid's Dire Shape gives Wild Shape the same scaling ("why yes, we do acknowledge that you want to fight in melee, and here's how you keep up with Fighters").
Mostly it's a good sign that "this guy's better/worse at combat" isn't being used as a balancing point. You're not a gimped Fighter just because you get Favored Enemies and Spellcasting, you're a warrior who gives up the Fighter's maneuvers in order to get those things. You're both comparable as far as raw numbers are concerned, though, and that's what I want to see in a Ranger.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
D&D Next March Playtest - The Druid
Wild Shape
I'll start out by saying that I generally prefer at-will Wild Shape to Daily Wild Shape, even if you have daily uses of certain forms with an otherwise at-will Wild Shape. That said, this version of Daily Wild Shape is much better designed than 3.x edition, and it's something that I could suck up and happily play a Druid. Getting Wild Shape at first level is ESSENTIAL since that's such a huge part of the class's identity. Most of the time if I play a Druid, it's because I want to play a shapeshifter. While you only start out with one use per day, the Circle of the Moon (the circle that focuses on shapeshifting) grants you an extra use per day, and at second level you're already up to a baseline of 2 uses (3 with Circle of the Moon). Considering the duration (level + Con mod HOURS) you can conceivably spend most of any day shapeshifted even at low levels.
Speaking of Circles, I actually really like that Druids have the option to either increase their spellcasting ability (with Circle of the Oak) or go with a bigger focus on Wild Shape (with the aforementioned Circle of the Moon). In addition to an extra use of Wild Shape, Circle of the Moon gives you a small amount of healing when you revert back to your natural form and provides access to new forms. These are the combat forms, so basically if you're not Circle of the Moon your Wild Shape is mostly for utility, as even your starting Shape of the Hound isn't very good in a fight (its advantages are a high speed and great senses).
The biggest problem for me is that even with Circle of the Moon your different forms don't scale. So you start out with Shape of the Bear, but at 3rd level when you gain Shape of the Great Cat it doesn't make much sense to use the Bear anymore; the cat gets a lower base damage, but if you pounce you make two attacks, and if both hit you knock the target prone and bite them. Both shapes get the same AC. A better design would be to have a handful of different scaling forms that filled different niches. So you'd have Shape of the Bear for when you want to be durable with decent damage (it would have higher AC, and perhaps some kind of damage reduction or temporary HP mechanic), and Shape of the Great Cat would give you mobility and spike damage. You could even buff up Shape of the Hound with some sort of "pack attack" mechanic (low damage and AC, but it gives your allies Advantage as it harries the enemy).
Point being, part of the fun of having multiple forms that you can turn into is getting to make meaningful tactical decisions regarding which form you decide to take. It's a bit dull if you have a highest-level form that becomes a no-brainer to use whenever a combat breaks out.
The utility forms (those available to all Druids) look good. You've got all the basics covered; hound for speed and improving your senses, rodent for hiding and climbing, fish for swimming and breathing underwater, steed for even more speed and carrying capacity, and bird for flying. You end up having access to all of your bag of tricks by 6th level, too (with the bird). My only concern would be that perhaps 6th level is too early to have access to such a reliable form of flight (Circle of the Moon Druids can use Wild Shape 4x/day by that point). Given that the duration of Wild Shape is so long and that even Circle of the Moon Druids will want to spend at least one battle in their natural form to sling spells around, most will be planning on using a utility form at least once each day. Granted I LIKE that you can use Wild Shape often enough, early enough for these non-combat utility forms to see play (despite Wild Shape not being at-will); the issue is potentially how early you gain access to flight. Consider that Circle of Oak Druids won't be using Wild Shape for fighting anyways, and you could easily run into situations where they're flying up to a safe perch and raining death on their enemies without fear of reprisal.
Finally, Shape of the Dire Beast needs a simple fix. Size should not increase to Huge, at least not in all cases. All of the Druid's combat-worthy forms are already Large sized, and by increasing them they can't fit through your standard door. I mean, a lot of big cats would be at the small end of Large anyways, if not outright Medium, so it makes more sense to me for a dire version to be either solidly Large, or at the bigger end of Large, but NOT Huge. Shape of the Dire Beast is what allows shapeshifter Druids to keep up with the scaling of the melee classes, and it doesn't make sense to deny them their basic functionality just because the DM set his adventure in cramped spaces.
Spellcasting
Another concern I have is that you seem to give up more by going Circle of Oak. I mean, you pretty much have no combat utility from Wild Shape (well, you certainly won't be keeping up with the melee classes), but Circle of the Moon Druids can still use spells to full effect. It's just that Circle of Oak Druids get to recover expended spell slots (like the other "full casters") and they have a list of automatically prepared spells.
Cantrips are decent enough, though Druidcraft and Spare From Dying are notably missing. Shillelagh is a solid enough melee option; you won't deal as much damage as the dedicated melee types, but the 10 foot reach is a nice perk. Fire Seeds is pretty low damage but looks to be a good "finishing move" option, especially considering the fact that you get two low-damage attacks. Faerie Fire is surprisingly nice; sure, you give up making an attack, but you can cause enemies in a pretty big area to grant Advantage. This might see a lot of use.
At first level, Entangle was always one of my favorite spells, and it has some serious teeth. Its area is pretty small, but the combination of decent damage and a solid mobility-debuff looks like great fun. Thunderwave was also a happy surprise to see on the Druid's list. Great area effect with the potential for pushing enemies off of cliffs. These two offensive spells are likely to see a lot of use. The utility and healing spells that round out the list are pretty much to be expected.
I won't go into much detail past this point, but incarnations of Web, Hold Person, and Flaming Sphere look nice; very well done. Flame Blade is a neat "haha, I can deal solid melee damage plus I'm good if you come across any trolls!" option, and Heat Metal might not have the duration of previous incarnations, but the disarm if cast on a weapon vs disadvantage if cast on armor riders seem interesting enough.
The lack of Summon Nature's Ally is immediately noticeable; I assume they want to get a better handle on core mechanics before they muddy the waters with summoning (which is notorious for balance issues).
EDIT: Added concerns about Shape of the Dire Beast.
I'll start out by saying that I generally prefer at-will Wild Shape to Daily Wild Shape, even if you have daily uses of certain forms with an otherwise at-will Wild Shape. That said, this version of Daily Wild Shape is much better designed than 3.x edition, and it's something that I could suck up and happily play a Druid. Getting Wild Shape at first level is ESSENTIAL since that's such a huge part of the class's identity. Most of the time if I play a Druid, it's because I want to play a shapeshifter. While you only start out with one use per day, the Circle of the Moon (the circle that focuses on shapeshifting) grants you an extra use per day, and at second level you're already up to a baseline of 2 uses (3 with Circle of the Moon). Considering the duration (level + Con mod HOURS) you can conceivably spend most of any day shapeshifted even at low levels.
Speaking of Circles, I actually really like that Druids have the option to either increase their spellcasting ability (with Circle of the Oak) or go with a bigger focus on Wild Shape (with the aforementioned Circle of the Moon). In addition to an extra use of Wild Shape, Circle of the Moon gives you a small amount of healing when you revert back to your natural form and provides access to new forms. These are the combat forms, so basically if you're not Circle of the Moon your Wild Shape is mostly for utility, as even your starting Shape of the Hound isn't very good in a fight (its advantages are a high speed and great senses).
The biggest problem for me is that even with Circle of the Moon your different forms don't scale. So you start out with Shape of the Bear, but at 3rd level when you gain Shape of the Great Cat it doesn't make much sense to use the Bear anymore; the cat gets a lower base damage, but if you pounce you make two attacks, and if both hit you knock the target prone and bite them. Both shapes get the same AC. A better design would be to have a handful of different scaling forms that filled different niches. So you'd have Shape of the Bear for when you want to be durable with decent damage (it would have higher AC, and perhaps some kind of damage reduction or temporary HP mechanic), and Shape of the Great Cat would give you mobility and spike damage. You could even buff up Shape of the Hound with some sort of "pack attack" mechanic (low damage and AC, but it gives your allies Advantage as it harries the enemy).
Point being, part of the fun of having multiple forms that you can turn into is getting to make meaningful tactical decisions regarding which form you decide to take. It's a bit dull if you have a highest-level form that becomes a no-brainer to use whenever a combat breaks out.
The utility forms (those available to all Druids) look good. You've got all the basics covered; hound for speed and improving your senses, rodent for hiding and climbing, fish for swimming and breathing underwater, steed for even more speed and carrying capacity, and bird for flying. You end up having access to all of your bag of tricks by 6th level, too (with the bird). My only concern would be that perhaps 6th level is too early to have access to such a reliable form of flight (Circle of the Moon Druids can use Wild Shape 4x/day by that point). Given that the duration of Wild Shape is so long and that even Circle of the Moon Druids will want to spend at least one battle in their natural form to sling spells around, most will be planning on using a utility form at least once each day. Granted I LIKE that you can use Wild Shape often enough, early enough for these non-combat utility forms to see play (despite Wild Shape not being at-will); the issue is potentially how early you gain access to flight. Consider that Circle of Oak Druids won't be using Wild Shape for fighting anyways, and you could easily run into situations where they're flying up to a safe perch and raining death on their enemies without fear of reprisal.
Finally, Shape of the Dire Beast needs a simple fix. Size should not increase to Huge, at least not in all cases. All of the Druid's combat-worthy forms are already Large sized, and by increasing them they can't fit through your standard door. I mean, a lot of big cats would be at the small end of Large anyways, if not outright Medium, so it makes more sense to me for a dire version to be either solidly Large, or at the bigger end of Large, but NOT Huge. Shape of the Dire Beast is what allows shapeshifter Druids to keep up with the scaling of the melee classes, and it doesn't make sense to deny them their basic functionality just because the DM set his adventure in cramped spaces.
Spellcasting
Another concern I have is that you seem to give up more by going Circle of Oak. I mean, you pretty much have no combat utility from Wild Shape (well, you certainly won't be keeping up with the melee classes), but Circle of the Moon Druids can still use spells to full effect. It's just that Circle of Oak Druids get to recover expended spell slots (like the other "full casters") and they have a list of automatically prepared spells.
Cantrips are decent enough, though Druidcraft and Spare From Dying are notably missing. Shillelagh is a solid enough melee option; you won't deal as much damage as the dedicated melee types, but the 10 foot reach is a nice perk. Fire Seeds is pretty low damage but looks to be a good "finishing move" option, especially considering the fact that you get two low-damage attacks. Faerie Fire is surprisingly nice; sure, you give up making an attack, but you can cause enemies in a pretty big area to grant Advantage. This might see a lot of use.
At first level, Entangle was always one of my favorite spells, and it has some serious teeth. Its area is pretty small, but the combination of decent damage and a solid mobility-debuff looks like great fun. Thunderwave was also a happy surprise to see on the Druid's list. Great area effect with the potential for pushing enemies off of cliffs. These two offensive spells are likely to see a lot of use. The utility and healing spells that round out the list are pretty much to be expected.
I won't go into much detail past this point, but incarnations of Web, Hold Person, and Flaming Sphere look nice; very well done. Flame Blade is a neat "haha, I can deal solid melee damage plus I'm good if you come across any trolls!" option, and Heat Metal might not have the duration of previous incarnations, but the disarm if cast on a weapon vs disadvantage if cast on armor riders seem interesting enough.
The lack of Summon Nature's Ally is immediately noticeable; I assume they want to get a better handle on core mechanics before they muddy the waters with summoning (which is notorious for balance issues).
EDIT: Added concerns about Shape of the Dire Beast.
D&D Next March Playtest Packet Review (TOC)
I haven't been keeping up with the D&D Next playtests all that closely. Mostly it's because I have precious little game time, and I've been using that to play 13th Age and Edge of the Empire. It's also partially that I lost interest early on when I disliked a lot of the updates, and class selection proceeded slow (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's tough to get excited when a lot of your favorite classes haven't been released yet).
Well, I figure with 3 shiny new classes (two of which, the Druid and Ranger, are among my favorites) it's time I examined the material more closely. I'll be writing a series of posts, each on a different class or rules element, and this will be the table of contents so links to everything are in one place. For now it will just be a rough outline, subject to change, and as I write each post I'll edit this one with its links.
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard
Exploration Rules
Feats
Skills
Monsters
Concluding Thoughts
Well, I figure with 3 shiny new classes (two of which, the Druid and Ranger, are among my favorites) it's time I examined the material more closely. I'll be writing a series of posts, each on a different class or rules element, and this will be the table of contents so links to everything are in one place. For now it will just be a rough outline, subject to change, and as I write each post I'll edit this one with its links.
Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard
Exploration Rules
Feats
Skills
Monsters
Concluding Thoughts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)