Search Results for : 

So I’ll be 38 this coming Thursday. Which is odd, since I don’t feel like an adult, let alone someone on the cusp of middle-age, but there it is.

If you’re so inclined to do something for me on my birthday–and I stress, only if you’re so inclined–I’d like to ask a favor of you.

This Thursday, buy someone a book.

Doesn’t need to be one of mine (though of course, it’d be nice if some of them were. 😉 ) Just pick someone you care about–friend, relative, lover, whatever–and buy them a book (e- or print) you think they’d like. I’d love it if the various vendors and publishers could look back at March 22nd of this year and actually notice an unexplained bump (however minor) in their expected figures.

Again, only if you want to. And thanks. 🙂

It’s after midnight. That means it’s March 9th.

That means it’s been fifteen years of the sort of love and support–through not only the good times, but some really rough bad ones–that nobody has the right to expect. I wouldn’t be what I am, or who I am, without it. I don’t think I’d be a writer. I know I wouldn’t be me.

I don’t feel old enough to have been married for fifteen years. More importantly, I don’t feel young enough to have nearly enough time ahead–but then, I don’t think any amount of time would be "enough."

Happy anniversary, George. I love you.

Unlike most of my blogs on this topic, this is actually less about me explaining what I want to see, and more about me trying to figure out what I want to see. Because unfortunately, I firmly agree with both sides of the issue.

Just to be clear going in, two of my favorite classes, across the editions, have been wizard and fighter. (Two others have been paladin and cleric.) So I’m not someone who innately prefers spell-heavy characters, or magic-less characters, but a mix of both depending on what mood I’m in.

Ever since 3E, there’s been an effort to balance the classes against one another. 1E and 2E tried to get around this by assigning a slower XP/level progression to the classes they felt were more powerful, but honestly, that’s an illusory fix at best. It doesn’t actually work. I can go into this at some later point, if people want, but for now, suffice it to say that it’s not a viable fix IMO.

So, we’re left with the necessity of balancing the fighter–a guy who swings a sword–with the wizard–a guy who alters reality at whim, albeit in only a limited number of very specific ways.

At low levels, that’s easy enough to do. At mid- to high level, it becomes a lot harder. Magic items can do it, but only if A) you assume that they’re built into the game, and B) only if the fighter has access to a wider variety of them than the wizard.

You can go the 4E route, and give every class (more or less) the same number of powers, divided between at-will, encounter, and daily powers. But the fact is, a number of people didn’t care for that solution. Some felt it broke their suspension of disbelief to have non-magical skills you can only use once per day. Some felt that wizards were no longer all that interesting. And still others felt that the fighter actually did have magic, in some cases; it just wasn’t called that.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: If the wizard and other spell-heavy classes are to feel magic–if "magic" in the game is to be anything more than a different way to describe the exact same dice you’re rolling–these classes must have a variety of spells available.

But then, we get back to the balance issue. If a wizard at high level is teleporting around the world, flying over the battlefield, incinerating a score of foes with a fireball… How do you balance the fighter against that?

Well, if you’re defining balance as "combat effectiveness," as some people do, it’s actually not that hard. The fighter may not be able to hit multiple foes at once, but maybe he hits a single foe a lot harder than the wizard can. He can certainly take more hits than the wizard can, which means he can do more in close-in battles. And of course, you can give the fighter all sorts of what 4E calls "defender" abilities–intercepting attacks, temporarily ignoring damage, marking, whatever.

Thing is, though, is that’s not the only way to define balance. A lot of people feel–and reasonably so–that Character A should have roughly the same number of options, and roughly the same overall utility, as Character B. They shouldn’t be identical, but their breadth of possibilities should be more or less equal.

And on a game-balance scale, I can see where they’re coming from. As a guy who likes playing fighters and rogues, I can see where they’re coming from.

As a guy who really likes fantasy as a genre, and prefers a certain level of realism in those parts of fantasy that aren’t magical… I can’t agree.

The entire point of magic, in any story, is that it can do the impossible. Not just the unlikely; not just the difficult; the impossible. That’s what it’s for. That’s the entire reason for its existence.

And there simply is no way to justify non-spellcasters having the same breadth of options; not, at least, without reducing magic down to the point where, frankly, it’s not magic anymore except maybe in cosmetic terms.

I know, that’s unfair. It means people playing martial classes don’t have the same number of options, or the same mechanical complexity. It means, at least at high levels, the spell-casters are likely to overshadow the others purely by virtue of being useful in a wider variety of situations.

And I don’t disagree that this is a problem. But I’m just not convinced that the fixes are worth it. If magic isn’t magical, if it doesn’t feel magical, if it doesn’t blatantly let you do things that you otherwise never could, why are we playing a fantasy game at all?

There are ways to minimize the disconnect. You can make sure that the magic-users don’t overshadow the martial characters when it comes to things the martial characters can do. Maybe the wizard can open locks or detect traps, but not nearly as effectively, and certainly not as often, as the rogue. The wizard may be able to burn a dozen orcs, but he’s never going to deal as much damage in a single round to the fire giant as the fighter is, because that’s not what he’s built for.

And of course, adventure design comes into play as well. A game with only one major fight per day is going to favor the spellcasters far more than a game with 10 of them. (Again, except if the martial fighters also have abilities limited to x/day, as in 4E–but also again, a lot of people take issue with that.) But that, of course, is up to the DM and the group’s play-style, not the game itself.

Bottom line is this: You can make sure that the spell-casters don’t overshadow the other classes in their own specific niches. You can keep the fighter as the main damage-dealer, the rogue as the main skill-user, etc. Balance, in that regard, is absolutely possible between the classes.

But in terms of sheer number of options? In terms of making sure that everyone can do as many cool/impossible things at high level as the spellcasters can? Maybe not. Maybe our only choices are to either weaken/limit magic so much that it no longer feels even remotely magical, or to accept the fact from the word "Go" that certain aspects of the fantasy genre–and therefore, any game that would successfully evoke those aspects–simply favor magic-users.

And if those are my choices, even as a fan of the fighter, I’ll take the second one every time. If it’s a real problem for a given group, a campaign can be designed around that–give the others more magic items, throw a lot more smaller fights and traps at the group, include cultural biases against magic, even play an old-school sword & sorcery campaign with no magic-using PCs–but a game that’s built on the assumption that magic isn’t much more varied than mundane skill-use has lost something that’s damn near impossible to slot back in.

Since I’ve been talking about magic a lot lately, let me continue to talk about magic. 😉

One thing that’s long bothered me–and this is not edition-specific–is the fact that it’s almost always best for spellcasters to throw some of their most powerful magic early in any major battle. Call it "going nova," call it "alpha strike," call it whatever current meta-game term might be in vogue. Doesn’t matter. Fact is, sure, it’s often best, tactically, to open with the big guns–but I’d like to see things tweaked so that it’s not the best option quite so often.

I was thinking that an interesting way to accomplish that, and to give spellcasting players some more meaningful in-combat choices, would be for many spells–not all, not even most, but many–to have different riders depending on when they’re used. Here’s what I mean.

(For purposes of this exercise, assume that the next edition has something comparable to 4E’s "Bloodied" condition–that is, the creature is down half or more of its total hit points. Also, the following examples haven’t been worked out for balance or anything, so feel free to ignore the specific numbers. I’m just tossing them out there are theoretical examples.)

Disintegrate remains a single-target spell. It deals some ugly amount of damage, say 12d6. But, if the target is already bloodied, and if the spell deals damage equal to half or more of the creature’s remaining hit points, the creature turns to dust and dies instantly.

So, what’s the best use of the spell now? Break it out early, and do a chunk of damage? Or hold it in reserve, in hopes that later in the battle, it won’t only do a chunk of damage but might kill when it otherwise wouldn’t?

Fireball remains a broad area effect spell, and deals, say, 5d6. But, if the fireball actually kills one or more of its targets, those creatures burst into flame, dealing an extra 2d6 to all creatures adjacent to them.

So, it remains a no-brainer to start with if you’re dealing with a huge horde of really weak creatures, but that’s what it should be for. When it comes to stronger creatures, do you use the spell early, when they’re charging in and therefore grouped? Or do you wait until they’ve been weakened, so that the spell might kill and therefore do extra damage, at the risk of never catching as many of them together as you otherwise might?

Not only can tweaking spells like this present interesting tactical choices and cut down on "going nova," but it can also be used to partially solve another problem people often have with spellcasters–namely, that they overshadow everyone else. This can be somewhat corrected by tweaking some of the spells so they work better in conjunction with other PCs. Again, for instance…

Finger of Death: This spell deals 10d6 damage to the target, any time the creature suffers an injury from any source, it takes an additional 1d6 damage. (Save ends, or for 1d6 rounds, or however the new edition measures variable duration.) If the target is already bloodied when the spell is cast, the damage dice (both initial and lingering) become d8s instead.

Again, use it early so you’re dealing a lot of damage up-front? Or save it, in hopes of squeezing more damage out of it, but perhaps have the spell active and helpful for less of the total combat?

Knock: For the next minute, all Thievery/Open Locks/whatever rolls to open the targeted door are at -10 DC.

So the wizard hasn’t suddenly stepped on the rogue’s toes. He’s just made the rogue’s job easier.

Again, this is all just me spitballing, and I’m not saying that any of these specific examples are necessarily the way to go. But they show off the kinds of tweaks that I think would make the spells and combats more interesting, and would cut down a little on the "overshadowing" problem.

Going to combine two different concepts in this one. One is a combination of mechanics and flavor; the other is pure flavor/story.

Starting with magic items, I want to see the math of the system less dependent on them. That is, I want it to be possible to play a low- or even no-item campaign with minimal, if any, tweaks. The addition of magic items should raise a character/party above the baseline, rather than the absence of them lowering the character/party below the baseline.

Now, to an extent, they’ve already said that’s part of the design philosophy. But I’d like to see it taken a step further. And I acknowledge in advance that this is practically apostasy where D&D is concerned, but here it is…

I want to see +X items stripped from the game.

No +1 longsword. No +3 chainmail. No gloves of Dexterity +4.

A magic item should do something. A sword that bursts into flame on command? Chainmail that lets you turn into an elemental once per day? Gloves that let you throw webs like the spell? Yes! Great! Fine! More of those.

And if some of those also impact the math–such as the flaming sword adding to damage, and perhaps giving a bonus to hit against fire-vulnerable creatures specifically–that’s cool. In fact, that’s more than cool; it’s thematically appropriate.

But items that do nothing but give bonuses? No. Items that give bonuses in all situations? (Such as a +4 sword vs. a sword of gnome-hating which gives a +4 bonus only against creatures half your size or smaller.) No; give me the latter, not the former.

Actually, don’t even give me the latter. Bonuses to hit, even conditionally, should–except in the absolute rarest or most specific of cases–max at +1 or +2. (Damage can be more flexible without breaking the math, but not the actual attack.) If that doesn’t sound like enough to make cool items, well… Make them cooler based on what else they do.

So, enough of that. Alien creatures.

What do I mean by that? Primarily, I mean creatures that are not only grossly inhuman, but whose very concepts revolve partly around their inhumanity. Mind flayers. Aboleths. That sort of thing.

Modules and novels–even those written by good writers, who I really like and really respect–have a bad habit of treating them just like other NPCs. You have aboleth who want to rule. You have mind flayers wandering around the markets of Skullport, or plotting to take over portions of a drow city.

No. No, no, no. I realize it’s hard to write creatures with inhuman motivations–I’ve tried it myself–but if you can’t, don’t use them! There are plenty of other monsters to choose from. One should never fully understand the motivations or thought processes of a mind flayer. The entry of one into Skullport should be momentous, with even the other denizens of the Underdark recoiling in fear and horror–not necessarily because the thing’s more powerful than them, but because they can’t damn well understand it. The notion of a mind flayer merchant is an oxymoron. The notion of a mind flayer "adviser" to a drow noble should fill everyone–including the drow–with dread, because you never, ever know to what ends the thing is actually driving you.

These things are Lovecraft-inspired, so let them be Lovecraftian. I’d rather never see a mind flayer in D&D fiction or adventures again than to see one used in such a way that a psionically-empowered human would have done the job just as well.

In the midst of an utterly unrelated search, I came across a post of mine from back in the early days of D&D 4E, wherein I foolishly predicted that Paizo would move to 4E after a few years of Pathfinder.

And it occurs to me that this post may be the origin of the (mistaken) idea that I dislike Pathfinder. It was, in fact, merely an utter misread of the market, not a comment on the quality of anyone’s game, and certainly not the expression of any sort of wish. But I can see how it might have seemed that way.

Thus, I would like to apologize…

A) To Paizo, for not giving them near enough credit for their coming success;

B) To WotC, for throwing more fuel on the fire of those who were angry about the edition switch;

C) And to any/all gamers who felt that I was in any way denigrating their choice of system. That was absolutely not my intent, but obviously I’m as capable of getting swept up in the moment as anyone else.

So… I love D&D. I love Pathfinder. I love the creative folks at both Paizo and WotC. I’m happy to be part of, and contribute whatever I can to, both sets of fans. And I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has ever given the impression otherwise.