Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In the Year of Our Lord, 1066, Uther Pendragon, Duke of Normandy, sailed his army across the English Channel and defeated King Vortigern at the Battle of Hastings.  He moved quickly to consolidate his rule over the island, which lasted from A.D. 1066 until his death in A.D. 1215.  In that year, the boy Arthur, foster son of Sir Ector of the Castle of the Forest Sauvage, was revealed to be Uther’s son and heir by pulling the sword Excalibur from the stone.  Although he had the backing of Merlin, and the miracle to substantiate his claim to the throne, Arthur was immediately beset by rebellion, led by King Lot of Orkney.  With war brought the usual scavengers of civilization; monsters who seized the opportunity to pillage and wreak havoc on a defenseless people.  Arthur, guided by Merlin, re-established the national Adventurers’ Guild that his father had previously abolished.  A royal stipend was given to the Guild to train up new heroes to fight the darkness which had spread over the land.

Advertisements

D&D 4th Edition

I was on another forum, and some benighted soul started spouting the nonsense that 4e was only “an MMO on paper”. I searched out a thread I started on enworld.org, (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?522610-Speculation-about-quot-the-feelz-quot-of-D-amp-D-4th-Edition) to read some of the counter-arguments from people who are more eloquent defenders of the rules than I.

 

Here, for example, is a post from one “Manbearcat”:

  1. #71

    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

            

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    3,263
    Reviews

    ø Friend+

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fighter-CricketView Post

    Well, they produced a game edition where the combats are tactically engaging and can take too long for certain people. I wouldn’t call that “onetrueway-ism”. I can’t see anyone who is saying “Why can’t I play grid based and tactical combat in Vampire? Clearly White Wolf suffers from onetrueway-ism.” 

    There are different games for different audiences. I am quite happy that the D&D scene is so divided that D&D can’t really be seen as a “game for all tastes” anymore. It doesn’t have to be imo. There are so many great games for everyone: story driven handwavy things, games for the grid crowd, boardgamey rpgs, games building up on a vast lore background, just plain silly ones, and even some where you die of blood poisoning because you have been stabbed by a rusty blade and you ran out of dried fruit to eat (I’m looking at you “Torchbearer”). There is no WotC monopoly anymore that forces a gamer to play the newest edition of D&D or any edition.

    Great post. I’m going to elaborate a bit on the “feelz” of AD&D1e vs Basic vs 2e vs 3.x vs 4e vs 5e in a future post. I’m sorry, but this idea that each system doesn’t have a distinct, systemitized (either due to tightness in design or incoherency) play experience is not true. While 5e harkens back to AD&D2e with a mash-up of some 3.x/Castle and Crusades (and a smidgen of 13th Age indie tech), they’re all pretty different.

    I think there are a lot of people that use a WHOLE LOT of GM Force and Illusionism to impose metaplot and/or maintain genre coherency (because the system produces a lot of genre incoherency when deployed naturally) and bridge the gaps of rule absence or wonky interactions. Because of this they feel “system doesn’t matter.” Well of course you’re going to feel that system doesn’t matter if you’re just going to (typically covertly) override the system by disregarding the resolution mechanics outright or by disregarding their outputs!

    The amusing irony here is…system still matters even when “its not mattering!” (1) If the system “just worked”, you wouldn’t have to apply (covert or above board) Force and (2) while your Force is almost assuredly an arbitrary process which is arbitrary applied…it is still shakily erected scaffolding/bubble gum/paper clips to stand-in for system architecture (albeit rife with incoherency)!

    Quote Originally Posted by MwaO View Post
    I think that’s a hindsight 20/20 kind of view, but not actually correct. 4e had the following unforgivable problems in marketing:
    No SRD for 4e+restrictive OGL. That made it extremely difficult to write 3rd party material. That’s extending even now, making it complex to clone 4e and run a Pathfinder equivalent.Told off Paizo without giving them a revenue stream.

    Bad initial adventures. Particularly Living Forgotten Realms with a huge oversupply of substandard material.

    Promised the moon on digital, something WotC’s always bad at and should never do. Even if the murder-suicide by head of digital hadn’t happened, probably would have gone wrong somehow.

    —–

    Basically, WotC placed Paizo in what they thought was a box – give up Dragon/Dungeon and sell 4e products. But instead, they gave them a ton of incentives to do 3.5 material. Even though companies could see the need for good 4e adventures, they were afraid to write them. And there was Paizo putting out 3.5 compatible material.

    Maybe they still end up going to 5e at some point. But they forced a competitor into existence who would have been happily writing adventures and crunch for them otherwise. Cut off that air supply for 3.5 and very few people leave 4e to go back.

    Great post. I know the narratives of “4e failed (at all)” and “4e failed because (not D&D, not an RPG, not other reasons” is very important to people who dislike the edition. Its important to keep context (and this isn’t even all of it…the groundswell of immature, many of them 50+ so no excuse…I know some, fruit loops endlessly unleashing their jilted lover ire such that their teapot tempests seemed a great noise indeed) front and center…even in the absence of all kinds of legitimate quarterly report numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrivener of DoomView Post

    And as I pointed out in another thread, that’s patently false.

    I can make an interesting, tactically-rich short encounter using only minions. If I want to make it difficult, I use minion artillery. If I want to make it last a bit longer, I use over-level minion soldiers. But, basically, I can mix and match the level and role of minions to create short 4E encounters that run as quickly as any encounter in a Four Yorkshiremen edition but are still interesting.

    Great point. The moment I saw that “4e can’t do smaller combats”, this is exactly what came to mind.

    4e’s encounter budgeting system is extraordinarily robust to all manner of budget load-out. You can trivially reduce the HP proliferation of the bad guys while retaining the encounter threat level.

    Fill out the encounter budget with things like:

    1) Large number of up-leveled Minions.
    2) Minion Soldiers + blocking terrain + hindering terrain + Y axis protected Minion Artillery.
    3) You can give some of the Minions an Encounter Utility Power that turns them into “2-hit Minions” (Imm Int + 4 defenses).
    4) Give the bad guys a single down-leveled Leader Standard that force-multiples (who is also protected, perhaps by a punitive aura).
    5) Fill the encounter budget out with one or more Hazards/Traps that either block, control, just do damage, or interestingly change the situation somehow when they’re triggered/interacted with.
    6) Give the PCs terrain/battlefield effects to stunt/interact with that will give them an advantage but can also hurt them.
    7) Lesser enemies flee (Skill Challenge ensues) or surrender at Bloodied.

    Its trivial to have small, quick combats in 4e (ones where HP ablation and status effect induction don’t have primacy). The system has so many tools to facilitate it.

    What 4e doesn’t have…what it doesn’t support…is Rocket Tag. That is because (a) Save or Suck basically doesn’t exist, (b) NPC capacity is front-loaded, and (c) PCs have so many abilities to “come off the ropes/get off the canvas.” This is by design. I’m calling that a FEATURE all day…not a bug. I’m not interested in anticlimactic rocket tag which only exists because of the artificial system architecture of turn based combat governed by initiative (with squishy particompany on both side or encounter ending save or suck)

Becmi #4

A discussion of alignments begins this next section. The character the reader has just played (“Halleck” in my case) is described as one of the “good guys” (you took poor Aleena’s dead body back to her church, because it was the right thing to do), while Bargle the Bandit and his goblin minion were characterized as the “bad guys” (they cared for no one but themselves, and were selfish and nasty).

Halleck, because he wants to do the right thing regardless of the situation, is described as being of “Lawful” alignment. He “tries to protect others and defeat monsters”. Aleena was also of Lawful Alignment, which is part of the reason she and Halleck got on so famously. Bargle the Bandit, however was of the opposite, “Chaotic” alignment. He only cared about others insofar as he could exploit them for personal gain. The ten-foot rattlesnake was of “Neutral” Alignment, which meant it was concerned with neither Law nor Chaos. It was dangerous, but not willfully malicious.

The reader is next notified of a second adventure, which begins on page 13, but first, some discussion of the Character Sheet. A character sheet “already filled out” is referenced; it is in the middle of the book, and is printed on a perforated sheet that the reader is encouraged to detach and look at. The only problem is that the sheet is not filled out completely, or correctly. The saving throws seem to be right for a fighter, but the ability scores are different from those listed in this section.

What’s interesting is that this fighter (“Halleck”) and the sample characters listed elsewhere in the book seem to be using an array of scores, consisting of 17, 16, 14, 11, 9, 8. In 4th edition, which makes using an array the standard rule, the array is 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. In the 4th Edition “Essentials” Player books, three arrays are given: 16, 14, 14, 11, 10, 10; 16, 16, 12, 11, 11, 8; or 18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8. I digress, but, in any case, I would feel comfortable, as a DM, in allowing players to use this “Basic Edition Array” when creating characters, even though the scores are not officially given as such. I might require that the scores be used “as is”, though, and disallow the exchange of ability points (a process explained later).

In the next section, we will learn all about ability score adjustments.

 

HotFL 5MB

HotFL5MB3.1c (2)

 

HotFL5MB3.1c (3)

 

redbox5mbc (2)

 

redbox5mbc (3)

HotFL5MB4.1 (2)

HotFL5MB4.1 (3)

 

 

redboxco in color (2)

 

redboxco in color (3)

 

Also:

redboxco2.1c (2)

redboxco2.1c (3)

 

redbox4mb1.1 (2)

 

redbox4mb1.1 (3)

 

Red Boxers2Color (2)

Red Boxers2Color (3)

 

 

 

 

 

HotFL 4 Roles Color (2)

 

HotFL 4 Roles Color (3)

 

HotFL 4 Roles Color2 (3)

 

HotFL 4 Roles Color2 (4)

Red Boxers in color (2)

Red Boxers in color (3)

 

 

 

Recycled Doodle

 

Six member party: Elf, Dwarf, Thief, Magic-User, Halfling, Cleric

Basic Adventuring Party w Color 1.2 (2)

Basic Adventuring Party w Color 1.2 (3)

 

BECMI Party in Color (2)

BECMI Party in Color (3)

BAC2 (2)

BAC2 (3)

 

 

 

 

Class Titles

Basic D&D includes “Level Titles” for each character class. Players are instructed to use these titles when interacting with each other and NPCs. For example, a third-level dwarf would introduce himself as “Thorin the Dwarven Swordmaster” instead of “Thorin the Level Three Fighter”.

Here are my updated level titles:

CLASS TITLES

Cleric:
Level 1: Deacon
Level 2: ArchDeacon
Level 3: Pastor
Level 4: Priest
Level 5: Elder
Level 6: Bishop
Level 7: Archbishop
Level 8: Cardinal
Level 9 (and after): Patriarch

Dwarf:

Level 1: Delver
Level 2: Dungeoneer
Level 3: Adventurer
Level 4: Minewarden
Level 5: Caveshield
Level 6: Axemaster
Level 7: Dwarf Squire
Level 8: Dwarf Knight
Level 9 (and after): Dwarf Lord
Elf:
Level 1: Mystic Swordsman
Level 2: Magician-at-Arms
Level 3: Leftenant of the Scrolls
Level 4: Captain of the Scrolls
Level 5: Battle Mage
Level 6: Warrior Mage
Level 7: Mage Squire
Level 8: Mage Knight
Level 9 – 10: Mage Lord

Fighter:

Level 1: Sergeant
Level 2: Master Sergeant
Level 3: Leftenant
Level 4: Captain
Level 5: Squire
Level 6: Knight
Level 7: Knight Captain
Level 8: Baronet
Level 9 (and after): Lord

Halfling:
Level 1: Yeoman
Level 2: Franklin
Level 3: Constable
Level 4: Bailiff
Level 5: Reeve
Level 6: Sheriff
Level 7: Gentleman
Level 8: Squire
Magic User:
Level 1: Wizard’s Apprentice
Level 2: Illusionist
Level 3: Enchanter
Level 4: Transmuter
Level 5: Invoker
Level 6: Conjurer
Level 7: Magician
Level 8: Wizard
Level 9 (and after): Archmage

Thief:
Level 1: Apprentice
Level 2: Pickpocket
Level 3: Footpad
Level 4: Burglar
Level 5: Robber
Level 6: Highwayman
Level 7: Thief
Level 8: Master Thief
Level 9 (and after): Prince of Thieves

In the original Basic Game, there are a few titles that do not make sense to me. The cleric, for example, has a list of Christian-derived titles (Vicar, Bishop, etc.), but right between “Bishop” and “Patriarch”, where “Archbishop” is the obvious fit, is the title “Lama”, which is a honorary title in Tibetan Buddhism.

Some of the titles I arranged differently, to try to represent more of a progression. For example, the magic-user would be able to master illusions before learning and mastering enchantments. Once the magic user masters enchanting objects and organisms, he learns to magically change them (transmutation), then begins to learn to magically summon energy forces (evocation), and then summon physical objects (conjuration).

In the Basic Game, Elves have dual titles, representing their ability to simultaneously fill the fighter and magic user roles. So, the elf’s first-level title is “Veteran Medium”, which is a combination of the Fighter’s “Veteran” title and the Magic-User’s “Medium” title. I thought up names that seemed more appropriate. Same with Dwarves and Halflings, who in  Basic D&D share the same titles as the Fighter.

Looking at the list, I’m thinking that it might be better to use the titles “Elf Squire, Elf Knight, and Elf Lord”; maybe just “Elf Lord”. The Halfling’s title of “Squire” might need to be “Halfling Squire” to avoid confusion with the Fighter’s title of the same name. The Halfling Squire I envision as more of the “country gentleman” than “knight’s apprentice”, which is a bit anachronistic, but, hey, it’s D&D.