About D&D 4e, D&D Next, and a new personal project

I don’t think I will love the fifth edition of D&D (what is currently known as D&D Next). Sure, I will give it a chance, and go along with the playtest, and do my best to help make it a great game. And, barring some kind of disaster, I will buy the core books, and try to organize a campaign. I’m fairly confident I will be able to enjoy the new game to some degree, but I seriously doubt it will inspire me the same passion that 4E has.

It boils down to this: D&D 4E has the best tactical combat of any game I’ve played, by a mile. It is deep and varied, remarkably (though not perfectly) balanced, and just a ton of fun -beating down monsters and taking their stuff has never been this satisfying. And that's all there is to the game, really:  the mechanics for roleplaying and other non-combat interaction are merely decent, exploration is almost non-existent, and the settings (which I tend to like) are system independent. By contrast, Next is constrained by design requirements that weren’t much of a consideration for 4e, such as pleasing a wide fanbase including hardcore old schoolers, and keeping true to the spirit of earlier editions - which are things that can make it a great, successful product, but that I personally don’t care much about.

The bad news, of course, are that 4E is dying. Granted, it’ll always have a place in our hearts, and we can keep playing it,  but content releases have dropped drastically, and will stop altogether in a matter of months. One could argue that enough 4e material has been released already to cover for many years of future campaigns (and that would be mostly accurate, unless you intended to play at the desolate epic tier), but there s a kind of release that I will be missing dearly: errata. While not everyone is a fan of the rather aggressive errata cycle used for 4e, in my mind it has been a crucial factor in keeping the game alive and constantly improving. Frequent errata has made 4e a much better game than it was at release, but there are still major issues (psionic power point progression jumps to mind) that will remain unaddressed.

Ever since I started writing this blog, one of my main missions has been to support D&D 4E through house rules, making it a more fun and balanced game by improving and fixing what is already there - not unlike official errata. I believe this approach can go a long way, but very often I have found myself wishing for a way to clean the slate for some specific systems, like feats, magic items, or paragon paths. Frankly, I think these parts of the game have become cluttered with too many options of wildly different power levels, and their implementations present some fundamental problems on top of that, so rewriting them from scratch (an idea I already experimented with in the Magic Item Reset) could bring major improvements. One thought led to the other, and suddenly I found myself playing around with concepts for a full revision of 4E... And this (after much digression) is the project I want to present to you today.

So, to summarize: I am working on a full featured game that intends to preserve the awesomeness of D&D 4E, but also to polish it and get rid of its clunkier elements. It should be playable as a standalone, but also remain compatible with the most important mechanical material from 4E supplements: races, classes, adventures and monsters. An option to use isolated modules from my game in regular 4e campaigns would also be provided.

In tomorrow’s post, I will explain in more detail what exactly I have in mind for this project. Keep in mind that this will be a personal endeavor, and thus limited by my (currently very scarce) time to write  - I cant really tell if it will take me months to complete, or years, or if I will be unable to finish it. So please be patient: whatever content I end up producing will be available for free at this very blog.

As for the name of the thing? Square Fireballs Role-Playing Game, of course.

Read More......

Game Math: Attack of the average adventurers

How hard does an adventurer hit? The underlying math behind monster stats in D&D 4E is well known by this point, but working out the numbers for player characters is a much trickier proposition, due to the insane amount of customizability that the game offers. Indeed, if one looks to the most extreme build options and loopholes available out there, we come up with characters that can one-shot standard monsters of their level, and it’s even possible to engineer wizards capable of dealing hundreds of damage in a single turn... while charging with a melee weapon.

Since the optimized scenarios present so much variability, I want to focus on the most basic builds. What kind of numbers should you expect from characters of a certain level, provided they have the essential options and gear, but nothing else to boost their attacks? The answer is in the table below:

Note that this builds on some previous articles, like my study on basic attacks, and on character survivability. Damage Per Round, or DPR, is defined here.

I will devote the rest of the article to analyze these numbers, and explain how I came up with them. For now, keep in mind that although it is possible to have characters with attack stats slightly below these, it won’t be a common scenario - in most games, you can expect PC attacks to deal at least as much damage as shown in the table, if not considerably more.

Building our baseline adventurer

My philosophy for building the reference character was to give it all the offensive resources that can be considered essential - and nothing more. Any character built without particular attention to damage dealing should have attack stats very similar to those of the reference character, whereas damage-focused PCs (even if not particularly optimized) should easily outperform it. For reference, I also added damage numbers for a baseline striker (adding just the striker extra damage class feature), though in practice you will very rarely see a striker character which doesn’t devote feats, powers and equipment to improve his attacks.

Following these ideas, the character was build under these assumptions:

• For simplicity, we only examine the character at certain critical levels: 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 30.
• Starting 18 on primary ability score, with the usual boosts for levelling up. At epic, the PC gains a +2 to his ability score from an epic destiny .
• At-will attacks are implement vs For/Ref/Will or weapon (with +2 proficiency) vs AC (same hit rate), and on a hit deal 2d4 + primary ability modifier damage (4d4+mod at level 21).
• Encounter attacks are like at-will, but on a hit they deal 4d4+mod damage (levels 1,3,7), 6d4+mod (levels 11, 13,17) or 8d4+mod (levels 23,27).
• Magic weapons/implements by level: Level 6 (+2), Level 11 (+3), Level 16 (+4), Level 21 (+5), Level 26 (+6). Extra crit damage is 4 per plus (rounded for convenience).
• Only two feats are considered: Weapon/Implement expertise, and Weapon/Implement focus. Both are gain at level 6.
• Magic items granting item bonus to damage (like Iron Armbands of Power or Rod of Ruin) are assumed. Item bonus to damage by level is: Level 6 (+2), Level 16 (+4), Level 26 (+6).
• For the striker damage numbers, a class damage bonus of +4/tier is added.
• Character themes are not considered.

Most of these points represent very common choices. The use of 2d4 for attack damage is unusual, but I chose it because the most common damage dice are d8s and d10s, so this is an intermediate point between those, with the advantage of averaging an integer value ( 5), allowing for much cleaner results. The starting 18 ability score is more or less standard (though 20s are also common). Likewise, the magic weapon/implement progression and use of expertise feats are pretty much universal. The most controversial points are probably the addition of weapon/implement focus and item bonuses to damage. Focus feats are often ignored at lower levels (though usually because players take superior weapons instead, wich are roughly equivalent), but tend to become too tempting to pass on by paragon tier. As for item bonuses to damage, virtually every character who can take them does so, though certain builds (i.e. implement PCs not using staves) have a hard time acquiring them. I have come to accept that game math works better with them, to the point of giving them for free as a house rule.

Note that attack powers (both at-will and encounter) have been greatly simplified. Non-damaging effects of the attacks are ignored, and we assume that the attacks themselves don’t provide extra damage, above that of a basic attack (for at-wills) or a basic attack plus extra damage dice (for encounters). Power damage shows great variance, though a very common implementation for attacks with extra damage consists on adding a secondary ability modifier to the damage roll, which can be roughly approximated as an extra 3 damage per tier (or about 25% more damage than the attacks in the table).

A look at the numbers

A spreadsheet with the calculations used for the stat table can be found here.

Some quick facts that can be derived from the table and spreadsheet:

• Hit rate against same level monsters averages 65%.
• Base damage of strikers is about 30% more than that of non-strikers.
• Average base damage actually decreases a bit between level levels 26 and 30.
• Interestingly, crit damage is almost exactly twice the normal damage for most levels.

One very interesting parameter that can be calculated from these attack stats is the average time it takes for a PC to kill a monster, which allows us to estimate how many turns combat encounters usually last:

And for striker PCs:

These tables show the number of turns that the reference character would need, on average, to kill a skirmisher monster. The PC first uses all his encounter powers, and then attacks with his at-wills. Daily attacks were not considered because they are hard to characterize and not always available. Action point usage is also ignored - for the purposes of this table, using an action point is equivalent to taking an extra turn.

In the tables and spreadsheet, we see that:

• Non-strikers take 4-6 turns to kill a monster at heroic, 7-8 at paragon, and 8-10 at epic.
• Strikers take 25% less turns.
• Very challenging encounters can take almost twice as long.
• The contribution of encounter attacks amounts to about 1 turn of saved time.

An important point about these numbers is that they suggest that combat at paragon and epic tiers takes too long. In my opinion, easy encounters (between level and level +1) should last about 4 turns at heroic and 5-6 turns at paragon and epic, to allow characters to use all their attacks without requiring them to spend a long time spamming at-wills. However, it should be noted that the deviation between the stats of our base character and actual damage-focused PCs increases with level - in my experience, it is perfectly possible to build a party of characters that end fights in reasonable times with little or no optimization effort.

Read More......

Psion in 4E: Mind-blowing!

If you are a DDI subscriber, go login to D&D Compendium right now. If you aren't, this could be a good time to start. The first playable chapter of Player's Handbook 3 has just been released on the compendium and character builder, as promised. It shows the new Psion class, featuring the weirdest class mechanig yet seen on 4E. Psionic Power Points are back, there are augmented at-wills instead of encounter powers, and the D&D universe will never be the same.

An iconic Psion

Ok, maybe I got a bit carried away. But there has never been an exception to 4e's strict power system before. Amazingly, this might not break the game, after all. The basic principle isn't too complex: you start at level 1 with 2 at-wills and 2 power points (more on that later), gain an extra at-will and power points at level 3, and from there on, you get new PPs and an option to replace an at-will with another of higher level whenever you would get an encounter power.

Power points are used to augment at-will powers, enhancing their effects or damage. Several augmentations are listed per power, but only one can be used at any given time. The beauty of the system lies in the fact that at any given level, if you use the strongest augmentations available you get an equivalent effect to that of another class' encounter powers. And you have roughly enough power points to get as many such pseudo-encounters as the number of encounter powers other classes would have. So it's kind of a wash.

Except it isn't - there is the option to use lesser augmentations, which gives you unprecedented flexibility.

I'll make a more in-depth post on this topic one of this days. Meanwhile, here are a few cool compendium links (subscriber-only, I'm afraid), but you'd better check it out for yourselves.

Dishearten (at-will 1) - The ultimate controller at-will
Memory Hole (at-will 1) - Are psions pacting with fey?
Betrayal (At-will 1 ) - Reverse Commander's Strike!
Mental Trauma (Daily 1) - Despite power points, daily powers still exist.
Mind Blast (Daily 9) - Go Illithid on your enemies!
Dominate (Daily 15) - Guess what this one does...

Full Psion class description. My poor tooltips won't do the job here, just click on it.
Read More......

D&D class overview (II): What's wrong with current classes?

In the first installment of this series I gave a list of good attributes to look for in a class. Today we'll explore the opposite end of the spectrum, as I go over the most important, common problems I have found in Player's Handbook classes (plus Swordmage).

As I will prove below, the ranger stands for all that is evil

The following patterns stood out to me:

- At-will attack powers are more sensitive to lack of variety than any other area. Most of a character's adventuring life will be spent using these powers. A pool of four at-wills is the bare minimum to allow for any character customization at all. When one of those fails to do its duty (careful attack/sure strike, I'm looking at you), characters of that class start to look the same. When they split the four in two halves, usually by using different main ability scores, members of each build will actually be the same, barring some clever ability engineering. And don't get me started on the Warlock.

The release of power books, and the subsequent increase in available at-wills, should definitely help in this regard. Unfortunately, Martial Power was very inconsistent in the number of at-wills featured for each class. I hope future books in this series err more towards the four powers given to the fighter than the couple that other classes had. Rangers in particular were a blatant failure, since they had a dire need of new options, yet both new at-wills can only be picked by the Beast Master build.

- Having two main ability scores is terrible. When both builds of a class use different key abilities, there is a sharp divide between them, to the point that they can be considered mini-classes that happen to share a common name and a few features. But there is no overlap in power selection, no common denominator. As much as I have advocated variety, there must be some degree of similarity among class builds, or you'd be better off turning them into different classes altogether. Besides, each half-class is, in itself, terribly monotonous, rare allowing for more than two powers at each level.

As with the previous point, with more published supplements the playability of these classes will improve. Still, they will remain at a disadvantage compared to more focused classes, limiting the freedom for character customization to a fraction of what it could be.

- Implement users don't have as many choices as weapon wielders. This is true at many levels. The most basic one is that weapons have stats that directly affect powers. Implement selection becomes relevant only through magic item powers and some class features. But those factors apply for weapons, too. Worse still, implement feats, or energy type ones, for that matter, are few and far between, and the ones available in Heroic Tier are utterly disappointing. The cycle of damage enhancing energy feats with annoying prerequisites is particularly depressing, when a character with a sword can just take Weapon Focus.

- No class should have less than three combat-related features. This is the average number, and it works fairly well: one feature defined by the role, and a couple others that set the class apart from its analogues. It gets even better if some of them vary depending of a build, or are powered off a secondary ability. But when you don't reach that minimum, it shows.

The two current cases of featurelessness are the wizard and the ranger. The wizard, at first sight, doesn't actually look bad, having several nice, flavorful features. However, only one of them, implement mastery, has any relevance in combat, and neither one has any relationship with the controler function. The class is only defined by its powers, which feels like a waste, and has unfortunate implications with power theft through multiclass.

The ranger, on the other hand, lacks even the cool yet useless features. Other than hunter's quarry and the ability to wield normal weapons in the off-hand, the offer is disappointing: feats disguised as features, and a prime shot that is useless to the melee build and merely marginal for the archer.This, at least, is somewhat solved in Martial Power with the Beast Master. I may still doubt the efectiveness of the pet, but you can't deny its coolness.

Next: An actual (gasp) class overview!
Read More......

D&D class overview (I): How should classes be?

As I stated in my opening post, the long-term mission of this site will be to fix and improve D&D 4e rules. Of course, an important part of this process should be to decide which areas of the game can be improved upon, and which ones should be preserved as key to the game's success. I will start by analyzing currently released classes, i.e. those in the Player's Handbook, plus the Swordmage.

The wizard is, hands down, the best controller published to date

Today I will discuss which characteristics make a great class, and in the following posts I'll talk about the classes published up to date: the problems I have observed and my opinions on the state of each one. As a disclaimer, my views are probably skewed towards Heroic Tier game issues, since my campaign hasn't reached paragon levels yet.

What should a well-rounded class have? Generally speaking, we want classes, and in fact any other game element, to be fun to play. More specifically, I think classes contribute to fun by providing characters with variety and personality. Balance, while harder to notice (its importance only being evident when it's absent), should also be taken in consideration.

Variety is necessary both while generating and levelling a character, and in actual play. Classes in 4e usually present the player the choice of two main builds, and up to four possible powers to pick when levelling up. The number of available feats varies a lot depending on the type of character, from up to a dozen good options in the best scenario, to virtually none, in the worst. Being forced to pick Skill Training is far from amusing.

In my experience, these base numbers are good starting points: two distinct builds, four choices for powers, and at least half a dozen feats. Less than that, and characters start to feel premade or, even worse, unmakeable, like the sad example of the level 9 Strength Paladin, who can only pick Charisma-based daily prayers.

When gameplay diversity is at its best, players can make significant strategic decisions every round of an encounter. In addition, there should be variance from one encounter to the next, so that there is not a single sequence of actions that a character does every battle. Achieving this depends mostly on the selection of powers that the class provides. No power should always be the right choice. Likewise, powers should be different enough from one another that choosing between them isn't irrelevant.

Another, often undervalued source of in-game variety is character movement. Class features that reward good positioning and allow movement of the characters, their allies and their enemies literally add new dimensions to the game.

While the number of available options is often a good measure of game variety, it can also be misleading. Option relevance must be taken into account, as well. When some of the choices are much weaker than the rest, they might as well not exist, since they will more often than not get ignored. In extreme cases, they could tend a trap for inexperienced players, leading to severely underpowered characters. Options that are much stronger than their counterparts, on the other hand, are even worse. Even if they don't 'break' the class, they can become mandatory for their slot, obsoleting the alternatives.

Related to variety is class personality, which I'll consider here in its most mechanic meaning. It's not enough that a fighter and a wizard have different features and powers - rather, each one's advantages and disadvantages should follow a certain theme, defining a distinct style. A player should be able to figure out, when looking at a brand new power, whether it belongs to a wizard or a fighter. The real challenge, of course, would be doing the same when the classes share power sources, like a wizard and a warlock, or roles, like a fighter and a paladin.

Personality can also be achieved through common elements. Class roles and power sources are an example of this, by grouping characters with similar functions or backgrounds. Even reused mechanics can feel unique, if small but crucial details change, as with Hunter's Quarry and a Warlock's Curse, which differ only in their application on targets beyond the first, and their interaction with other class features. Repetition in different contexts also works here, as is the case of a Paladin's Bolstering Strike and the Barbarian power with the same effect. The same effect,an attack that grants temporary hit points, is completely changed when used by a low-defense melee striker rather than a defender.

Game balance is not always appreciated, but it's nevertheless essential. It is not, intrinsically, a fun concept, but lack of balance can make a game monotonous, frustrating, or unfair. Balance in roles means that every role is required in a party, and none is clearly better than others. This is not completely true under the current rules - I don't think controllers, while useful, are essential right now. As I see it, the problem lies in the wizard's lack of defining class features: Defenders mark, Leaders heal, Strikers hurt, but the guys in the pointy hats don't have such a clear function.

The rest of roles are at a similar level, though. The first Leader or Defender is perhaps more important, but Strikers are the most tolerant to redundancy in a party. Once you have someone to tank and heal, you can't have too much raw damage.

In order to measure balance of individual classes, we should compare within each role, taking into account how well each one fulfills its function, the presence of secondary roles, and general utility. I find that most classes are pretty close, although rangers (and sometimes fighters) strike a bit too well. Warlock's damage, on the other hand, can be a bit disappointing, though their self-defense and controlling capabilities almost make up for it.

Next: What's wrong with current classes?

Read More......

Introduction: why another blog on D&D

I'm an avid gamer, and a longtime Dungeons & Dragons fan. I think its latest incarnation, D&D 4e, is not only the best one to date, but one of the best games out there. Yet, as much as I enjoy it, I know there is still much room to improve. That's why I've decided to write this blog.

My goal, my Main Quest if you prefer, will be to take a deep look at every aspect of the game's rules, identifying potential issues and providing alternate rulings, when appropiate. It is not my intention to implement radical changes - I really like the game as is, after all, and I intend to preserve as much of it as possible. Rather, I'll propose a number of relatively small tweaks: a class feature here, a couple of powers there, a different take on a skill, or a more balanced implementation of a problematic magic item.

Of course, I won't limit myself to rules fixes. I regularly come up with design ideas for new class powers, feats or monsters, and I'll share them here. You will also find reviews of D&D supplements, adventures and other releases, as well as ocassional discussion on other games. Finally, feel free to suggest any D&D or gaming related topic that you'd like to see covered. I don't promise I'll attend to all petitions, but I'll do my best.

Read More......