From multiple sources I've come to the conclusion (and pretty much confirmed) that most everything in D&D was just conjured from thin air. In other words, there is no rhyme or reason to Monster stats, or spell abilities, etc. Because of this, the best advice almost anyone has for converting or creating material is "eyeball it". This is a problem, not because of balance obsession, but internal consistency. I want my players to be able to use logic to play the game. I don't want them rushing in to fight a Giant Ram, because they've slayed a Dragon, and the Giant Ram should be easier to fight. (Just an example.)
Because of this I'm thinking it might be best to simply develop my own guidelines, possibly referencing D&D or trying to keep some level of similarity. I'm thinking (and redbaron at the ODD74 boards has a similar system) of simply making a Hit Dice by size chart (as in Human =1, Giant = 10, etc.), and possibly Hit Dice by human level chart (Peasant = 1/2, Knight = 5, etc.). Then have an armor class by type chart as an example (Leather/Natural Hide = AC12, Chainmail/Scale = AC14, etc.), and then maybe a few modifiers (Small = +1, Flying = +2, etc.). The same for damage (Natural attacks = 1d6, Fireball = HD x d6, etc.). Then you could obviously use the various XP determination charts from either 1E or 2E.
Spells would be a little harder, but you could still devise a similar system. Level 1 spells = 1dx+1/level, Level 5 = (level)dx, etc. Non combat spells might be a little harder, but I'm sure there is a metric you could devise and such.
This would obviously be a large undertaking, but I think it would be easier in the long run, to have nice guidelines for creating and converting monsters in a solid way.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Types of Classes
This is a quick discussion on the types of classes I've been able to discern from working on D&D. These are basically the abilities and progressions. I think they use a "Tier" system in 3.5/PF, but I'm not familiar with them. These types of classes can usually be combined in various ways, as with all D&D/derivatives, there is no cut and dry classifications.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Dungeon Crawl Revised; Playtest
I'm actually in the middle of writing another blog post (my fist Monster Comparison), but I figured I should post something positive for the first time in a while. I haven't blogged in a couple weeks because I am employed once again, which is nice. A lovely perk of my job (kind of working with computers), is I've met some other nerd friends, who also happen to play RPGs. One friend in particular is very fond of Old School D&D, the other (and his brother who joins us) play a lot of Paladium RPGs. Last weekend we got together, and they agreed to help me playtest my "Dungeon Crawl" rules.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)