Yearly Archives: 2013

Counter-spell

14 Replies

Magic-user spell, level 1, range 120′

Counter-spell may be cast in reaction to any spell being cast, even if the caster has already taken an action, as long as the enemy caster is within range. Any save against the targeted spell may be re-rolled once if failed. Counter-spell must be cast, however, before the first save is rolled. Counter-spell has no effect against spells that do not grant a saving throw. Though counter-spell is a first level spell, it may be prepared using any level of spell slot. The level of spell slot used grants a bonus to the saving throw re-roll (thus, the extra save granted by counter-spell prepared using a first level has a +1 bonus and counter-spell prepared using a third level slot has a +3 bonus). Scrying magic (such as that provided by a crystal ball or ESP spell) allows a counter-spell to be cast at greater range.

Variation: counter-spell is not a spell, but rather a reaction that any magic-user can take at the cost of a prepared spell, much like how clerics in 3E can substitute a cure spell for any prepared spell. Rules otherwise as above. I can’t decide which is better. On the one hand, magic-users are the planning class, and should thus maybe need to plan for counter-spells. On the other hand, spell casting enemies are not that common, so there is a risk that the option would never be taken.

See also this earlier approach to counter-spells.

Magic save as magic defense

7 Replies
The Enchantress (source)

The Enchantress (source)

Many spells allow a saving throw to avoid or mitigate spell effects. This saving throw is a property of the spell target that represents how good they are at throwing off the effect of magic. Thus, it is in effect a magic defense stat (much like the “will” defense in 4E).

Now, I already have magic-users roll a saving throw when they cast a spell to see if the spell is retained. Why not roll the retention save and the monster save together? One minor problem is that the player wants to roll high on the retention save, but wants the monster to roll low on the defense save. However, this is easy to address; just subtract the monster save from 20 to get a new target number.

For example, say the target of a spell has a saving throw versus magic of 15. That means they have a 30% defense against magic. Also assume that the caster has a save versus magic of 15 (and thus a 30% chance to retain the spell). The player rolls 1d20. Above 5 and the monster is affected (30% chance preserved). 15 or higher and the spell is also retained. This is a quick and easy single roll spectrum system that uses all the default game numbers.

The one minor hack that I would add is to have the magic-user apply spell competency* as a bonus to the roll and spell level as a penalty to represent spell difficulty (at first and second class level these modifiers balance out, so no math is required until a magic-user reaches third level). This makes the all-in-one saving throw more like a direct “spell roll.”

* Spell competency = the highest level of spell that the magic-user can prepare. This is usually equivalent to experience level divided by 2 (round up). For example, a fifth level magic-user has a spell competency of 3.

Escape or Initiative

14 Replies

In my previous necrology post about Satyavati, Hedgehobbit brought up a rule from The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures regarding when it was appropriate to call for an initiative roll. The situation involved a PC approaching something carefully that they knew to be dangerous, presumably ready to turn and flee at any moment. Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a threat to engage a PC in combat? Hedgehobbit suggested that the rule was if within 20 feet, roll initiative, otherwise compare movement rates to see if the PC can outrun the monster.

The actual text (from page 20 of TU&WA) is:

There is no chance for avoiding if the monster has surprised the adventurers and is within 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised. If the adventurers choose to flee, the monster will continue to pursue in a straight line as long as there is not more than 90 feet between the two.
…
Distance will open or close dependent upon the relative speeds of the two parties, men according to their encumbrance and monsters according to the speed given on the Monster Table in Volume II. In order to move faster characters may elect to discard items such as treasure, weapons, shields, etc. in order to lighten encumbrance. 

Though initiative is not mentioned explicitly (in fact, as far as I know, initiative is not mentioned at all in the 3 LBBs), Hedgehobbit notes that “no chance for avoiding” does seem to imply that combat rules, whatever they are, become active if those requirements (surprise, within 20 feet) are satisfied. Now, in Satyavati’s case, no surprise dice were rolled (though I suppose that a perfectly still statue suddenly moving could maaaaaaybe be considered surprising) so strictly speaking this rule would not be relevant.

The rule “distance will open or close” is difficult to manage without a grid or doing extra math. I actually prefer Hedgehobbit’s version as originally stated. If a PC is within 20′ of something, the combat rules are potentially in effect. If farther than 20′ away, the pursuit rules are used (movement rates are compared directly).

This would have resulted in the outcome produced by the session, is easy to remember, allows players to reason about risk without introducing certainty, and seems intuitively reasonable.

The 20′ threat range could also potentially be derived from monster movement rates (movement divided by 4, round down maybe) so that faster monsters would be more able to force combat. It might also be reasonable to factor reach into the equation, so that an ogre (with a movement of 9) would have a 30′ threat range (9 / 4 = 2.25 + 10′ for reach = 3.25, round down to 30′ effective threat range). This also makes ranged attacks and missile weapons more dangerous, which is as it should be.

Necrology: Drona

8 Replies

During the previous Vaults of Pahvelorn session (February 3), there was another PC death. In fact, it came perilously close to a TPK. The setup was as follows: there were two chambers, one external (pictured to the south in the map) and one internal. The external room was a makeshift shrine to demonic invaders and was guarded by several fanatical savage worshippers and a priest dressed in demon-lookalike armor. These foes were dispatched quickly but without great stealth.

Following that fight, the party went through the door leading to the inner chamber, and encountered a black armored demon warrior (actually, these creatures have armor as skin, much like an exoskeleton). He was positioned behind a heavy table on the northern side of the room.

Both sides were aware of the other, so there was no need to check for surprise. We went directly to initiative, which the black armored demon warrior won. I asked the players where all the PCs were to confirm that no characters had stayed behind in the previous room, and they verified that everyone was in the 10′ x 20′ hallway leading to the chamber. The demon warrior then discharged an energy weapon, which was 4d6 area effect damage (save versus spells for half).

All PCs and retainers were in the weapon’s area of effect. The damage dice came up 16 in total, so even those that made the save still took 8 damage. The PC Drona (fighter 3) was killed, as were two retainers (Eraria’s apprentice Genk and Drona’s retainer Gillim). Given that this was combat damage that reduced them to 0 HP, the various characters also got the standard death saving throw that I use to determine if 0 HP means true death or just unconsciousness, and those three mentioned above all failed that save as well (if I recall correctly, Eraria and a few other characters were also reduced to 0 HP, but made their death saving throw and so were successfully revived after the combat).

Session as recounted by the player of Drona:

The party returns to the barrow, which looks to have been fortified since their last visit. Tarvis and Darulin foolishly step into a snare trap, and the party are ambushed in the entry way. They make quick work of the savages that attack them, and charm their leader. The party makes their way into the barrow, led by the charmed man. Entering the second level, the party is ambushed once more. They make short work of the fellows and continue South. Beyond that path leads to a room full of more savages. A sleep spell gets rid of most of the group, and Fitzwalter gets rid of their leader. Drona and Gillum run the rest of the sleeping fellows through. Beyond the final door is a short corridor leading into a small room. At a desk sits a demon, similar to tangle. He shoots the party with a crazy magical crossbow. DEAD!

Final thoughts. Engaging in a frontal assault robbed the party of potential surprise. Also, approaching in a tight formation exposed everyone to the demon’s weapon.

RIP Drona, fighter 3 (picture by Gus L)

Vance without DRM

1 Reply
Image from JackVance.com

JackVance.com is offering DRM-free ebooks (in epub and mobi formats) of most or all of Vance’s books. Some of the cover art (particularly for the Dying Earth books) is quite good. For example, see the covers of Mazirian the Magician or Cugel the Clever. I also like this Demon Princes cover.

I have yet to be disappointed by any Vance story (though I haven’t yet read them all). Particular pointers to Dying Earth stories (of course) and the Arthurian Lyonesse cycle seem warranted. Note that there is an all-in-one option for the DE tales.

Footnote placement is one minor issue with the ebook files. They seem to be embedded in the text several paragraphs below the reference, which looks wrong to me. I wrote to the site administrator about this, and was informed that they were aware of the problem but that it was a conscious compromise. Also, strangely, despite the files being DRM-free, it seems like purchase is limited to certain countries. Perhaps the original contracts for various locations differ (I noticed this only because I’m writing this post from the UK).

Despite those two minor downsides, the availability of these titles without DRM is something to celebrate.

Forgotten Realms Adventures

17 Replies
Image from D&D Classics

The primary selling points of the Forgotten Realms, to me, are the manipulative, interventionist gods. I’m not a big fan of canned settings, particularly those that accrete a large amount of setting canon, but I think that this basic play on Greek-style gods could work well in a tabletop RPG. I had this book back in my Second Edition days, and though I don’t have memories of using it much, I do remember enjoying the detailed pictures of the specialty priests. I just picked up the PDF from D&D Classics.

This book came out in 1990 and was the primary FR setting product for Second Edition until an updated boxed set was released in 1993. In hindsight, it’s a rather strange book that doesn’t focus much on tools or information that would actually be all that useful for starting up a campaign set in the realms, being instead a mix of splatbook (things like new spells) and gazetteer.

The actual contents are (approximately):

  • Conversion from 1E (7 pages)
  • Time of Troubles metaplot changes, including some firearms rules (5 pages)
  • Gods and specialty priests, essentially each a new class (25 pages)
  • New spells and a few pages on magic in the realms (25 pages)
  • Cities (50 pages — yes, seriously)
  • Several pages on secret societies (Harpers, Zhentarim, Red Wizards of Thay)
  • Replacement treasure tables with lots of info on gems and jewels

Do those sound like the first resources you would want when starting a new campaign? At least for me, they are definitely not, but there are still a few interesting things in this grab bag.

Fabian

The first pleasant surprise was that all the black and white interior art was done by Stephen Fabian, one of my favorite fantasy artists. I had totally forgotten this detail, which, alone, is enough for me to recommend the book; everything else is a bonus. I have included a few samples of some of my favorite pieces throughout this post, though there are many, many more within. This further reminds me that the 2E Tome of Magic also featured Fabian art. Hopefully, that will be one of the next PDFs released. Second Edition also had one of my favorite layout styles: two-tone, clean, unpretentious, and balanced. Third Edition layouts are just gaudy, and Fourth Edition layouts are functional but uninspiring.

Fabian

In terms of actual gameable content, there are several random tables, including a good d100 table of art objects (contained in the treasure chapter), a collection of tables for randomly determining spells, and a somewhat boring table of wild magic effects (not worth your time). The spell tables divide all the spells from each level into common, uncommon, and rare (each with a table) and then provide a meta-table to select which rarity table is consulted. This seems like it would be a decent way to award spells, if you don’t mind dipping into 2E for the spell definitions (virtually all of them should work just fine with any clone). I think that all the spells listed are from either this book or the 2E Player’s Handbook.

Most of the specialty priests have an illustration

As I noted above, each specialty priest is essentially a new class, with ability score requirements, weapons useable, armor wearable, cleric spell spheres available, and granted powers. There are a lot of them (over 30). For example, priests of Ilmater (The Crying God, lawful good, portfolio: endurance and suffering) require constitution 14 and wisdom 12, can use bludgeoning weapons and the scourge, may not wear armor, has +4 to saves that involve endurance, can survive without food and water for a number of weeks equal to level, etc. The presentation is somewhat dry, but this content actually plays to the strength of the Realms as a setting (the divine machinations, mentioned above) and is illustrated with a verve not often seen for this kind of my-precious-setting infodump material. It actually makes me want to roll up a specialty priest.

Fabian

The pages on magic in the realms are not very useful (this is an enchanter, necromancers prefer black robes, etc) but many of the spells are useable. In fact, the spells and monsters of Second Edition deserve more attention than they get, being so easy to slot into pretty much any early edition of D&D or simulacrum. Of special note are a number of necromancy spells, as the school of necromancy is often either underrepresented or significantly underpowered in TSR D&D (the few interesting and effective spells being high level). This is probably because the authors expected necromancers to primarily be NPCs. Given that this is one of my favorite types of character to play, this has always annoyed me.

There are around 20 maps in this style

Cities as presented suffer from the 2E template fetish. Every single one has who rules, who really rules, population, major products, armed forces, notable mages, and now I’m bored before I even get to the end of typing all this out. There are some interesting background bits, but I would have preferred if the cities were presented more dynamically, highlighting the aspects that make specific towns distinctive. Each of the 20+ cities also has a rather detailed map that could easily be repurposed. There are some interesting ones, such as Marsember, which seems to be built out over a series of islands (all connected by bridges), Procampur (divided by walls into obvious districts), and Scornubel (a reasonable large unwalled town). Sort of a dry section overall, but not without its uses.

Overall, even though the book feels disorganized and sort of arbitrary, it seems like there are things to use, even for a reader who cares nothing for the setting as a whole. Many parts of the treasure chapter seem like they were just paraphrased from a geology book, but the system as a whole looks like a reasonable (and more detailed) replacement for the official random treasure tables.

Fabian

Point buy alternative

4 Replies

A method for randomly generating 3-18 stats:

  • 12 + 1d6
  • 10 + 1d6
  • 8 + 1d6
  • 6 + 1d6
  • 4 + 1d6
  • 2 + 1d6
The resulting scores could then be distributed randomly or arranged to taste. This is meant to be more consistent (guaranteed one low and one high score) while still being somewhat unpredictable.
The total expected value of both this method and 3d6 each is the same. Expected value of 3d6 down the line is 10.5 each and thus 63 in total. Expected value of this method is:

(12 +10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2) + (6d6) = 42 + (3.5 * 6) = 42 + 21 = 63

I posted this on G+ already, but I figured it was worth putting up here too.

Necrology: Satyavati

18 Replies
Tomb/prison of Ibarkaju

It seems like analyzing player character deaths might be a good way to discuss the issues of risk and fairness, so I am going to make this a regular feature. This exercise is not intended to be a celebration of lethality or a collection of macabre DM trophies. Instead, I want to think about the interplay between clues, hazards, and player decision-making. Basically, I’m interested in reflecting on the actual play experience of specific character deaths because I think they can help inform scenario design. Rulings required to adjudicate will also be noted.

The first entry is a relatively straightforward death. The magic-user Satyavati was slain by animated statues that were guarding the tomb or prison of an ancient wizard. This is how the session went down. The party entered a 50′ x 30′ hexagonal chamber that had pillars carved in the form of stately warriors running down the room. At the north end was a plain stone slab upon which was lain a perfectly preserved body in loin cloth. There was writing all over the body and slab recounting wizardly crimes. The figure on the slab was holding a stone tablet over his chest that was inscribed with magical symbols.

Satyavati cast read magic on the tablet, and it turned out to be the equivalent of a scroll of protection from evil, which he cast. As the characters were investigating the area around the body, two of the columns animated, stepped down from their pedestals, and attacked. There were several rounds of combat (one of the PCs needed to make a save against paralysis, which was successful; though the players didn’t know what it was for, it still scared them and they retreated).

As they moved away from the slab, the statues disengaged and resumed their pedestal positions. Safely at the south end of the room, the characters regrouped. Someone suggested that Satyavati approach and continue to investigate since he still had protection from evil active and had not been attacked previously. They didn’t know whether or not it would ward away the statues, but thought that it would be worth a shot. As he approached, the statues animated and attacked again. Satyavati lost initiative, and was reduced to 0 HP by the attacks. He then needed to make a save versus death (we don’t play with auto death at 0 or negative HP, but instead use a saving throw) which was automatically failed due to a previous effect (which the player knew about).

Ramanan (the player of Satyavati) described the session thusly:

The party ventures off to the glass forest of Pahvelorn. They investigate the statue of St. Azedemar, the disgraced cleric / wizard killer. They move on toward the Ziggurats, and come across some 6-legged moles, who are being eaten by a werid fury centepede snake. A battle ensues, but the party of Gavin are victorious. Entering the Ziggurat, a staircase leads down to a submerged chamber. The party manages to cross the first room they find, despite a giant ooze that makes their life difficult. The second room contains an altar, which the party decides to muck around with–twice: Satyvati didn’t survive the second time. My next saving throw is a automatic fail. DEAD!

Referee note: the chamber with the ooze was partially flooded, not totally submerged. The “automatic fail” saving throw was the result of a “natural 1s” LotFP table (from Green Devil Face 5) that we have been using, the text of which is:

7. Your next saving throw attempt automatically fails.

Yes, this effect is dissociated, but we have been having lots of fun with this table.
Were any rulings required? I needed to decide if animated statues counted as evil for the purposes of the protection from evil spell. This is something that I had already determined beforehand, though the players did not know the mechanics. Undead and summoned creatures are “evil” but constructs are not unless they are possessed by a spirit. I’m in favor of things like this being mysterious and requiring experimentation and discovery. The danger was clear here, and the choice to potentially reengage with the statues was made explicitly. Further, there were a number of second chances involved (initiative, statue attack & damage rolls), so chance could have still saved the intrepid magic-user.

RIP Satyavati, magic-user 2 (picture by Gus L)

5E goals

5 Replies

The fourth part of the D&D Next goals series was just posted, covering the proposed “advanced” rules. Here are links to parts one, two, and three if you are interested (they are all worth reading). Overall, I have to say that I am quite impressed and intrigued, even regarding the advanced rules.

Previously, I had assumed that this would be the basic structure of 5E:

  • Basic: similar to Moldvay, simple traditional classes
  • Standard: more classes, feats, and other build options such as multi-classing
  • Advanced: detailed tactical rules, miniatures, domain rules, etc
However, it seems like in addition to detailed rules for adding depth to particular parts of the game, “advanced” will also cover a number of what Mearls calls “dials.” That is, guidelines about how to adjust things like XP rewards and lethality. These elements would replace elements of the core game rather than adding to it. Anyone who has been following my blog recently knows that these are the things that I am probably most interested in adjusting when tinkering with rules.

For example:

This seems like an excellent way to structure the game, and I really look forward to seeing the final presentation.

Combat & movement

3 Replies
Image from Dark Classics

Jack recently wrote about differentiating weapons. I have also in the past sought to make weapon differences meaningful over and above damage dice, with varying levels of success. Jack’s proposal has some Third Edition assumptions (such as critical ranges) that I don’t use, but I find one of the properties he gave daggers particularly interesting. In his system, dagger wielders may use movement actions to attack. Presumably, this is to represent quick close attacks and perhaps grappling.

5E is also experimenting with using movement as a resource that can be “spent” in combat. For example, five feet of movement can be used to stand up from prone, allowing a character to stand up, move (slightly less than normal) and attack all in the same round. Now, this particular rule might be too fiddly (and might be difficult to make work without using a grid). If doing combat only using a shared imaginary space, is there really much difference between 30 feet worth of movement and 25 feet worth of movement? Probably not.

I am, in general, not enamored of the action economy approach to combat. It tends to slow play down and make the decision process more complex without adding corresponding depth. For more on how this worked in 4E, and the proposed simplification for 5E, check out this blog post. Fifth Edition is also experimenting with other ways to spend combat time resources which look intriguing, such as spell concentration being required to maintain continuous effects (which should help control the problem of appropriately enchanted wizards being potentially better at any conceivable task, a problem that I gather can be relatively acute in Third Edition and Pathfinder, though I have never played high level games in either of those systems). For more on concentration in 5E, check out the second half of this Legends & Lore article.

Back to the topic at hand though, I still like the general idea of a tradeoff between mobility and other weapon properties. However, multiple attacks have the potential to be both cumbersome (extra die rolls) and unbalanced (that is, clearly superior to other weapons in damage dealing potential), so this needs to be handled carefully. Further, without a grid, it seems difficult or impossible to keep geometry and tactical placement relevant. Again, this makes me wish for a simplified and non-quantified representation of combat beyond conversational description. Something that would perhaps be gained by using miniatures in a loose, almost informal manner.

What kind of OD&D implementation based on movement might work for the dagger? Before a dagger wielder can get any kind of benefit from close fighting, they must first get inside an enemy’s guard. It seems reasonable to model that as a successful to-hit roll. They must also successfully bypass any kind of “hold at bay” active from pole-arms. Once the dagger has hit, the attacker is considered up in it and future attacks do “two dice, take highest” damage. Note that this also applies post-backstab for thieves. As long as the attacker chooses to maintain this disposition, no significant movement is possible, as they are focusing on carving up the target.

This is similar to a grapple (though there is no grabbing going on). Pole weapons are almost impossible to bring to bear against a dagger wielder up close, and all weapons other than a dagger or short sword attack at -1. The target may disengage by spending an action and making a successful dexterity check. Fighters may attempt a disengage maneuver along with a standard attack, but all other classes must spend all their efforts just to get the sharp thing away from them. Whether or not dagger work can be used effectively against non-humanoid enemies should be determined situationally (bear: sure, purple worm: not so much).