Looping the Hen Games

Rodney and I had talked a while back about hit points, going negative, dying and the like. I've been thinking about it, and having only 10hp between unconsciousness and death might be a little low. It seems that higher level monsters have more of a chance of outright killing someone if they are at low HP at the beginning of a round. Whether this is 'realistic' is less of a concern for me than whether it is fun. I always want there to be a chance for player death because without that there's no true risk, but having a very small margin disallows me as DM from allowing other things to happen to the players.

For example, BBEGs (Big Bad Evil Guy or somesuch) in many books, movies and other fantasy literature love capturing people for their schemes or just to attempt to gather information. Being captured could also provide a different type of roleplaying, as well as allowing for some interesting escape attempts. It also gives any surviving party members a conundrum as they attempt to figure out whether to finish a quest or attempt a rescue. However, at least to me, it seems these things are unlikely to happen when one slight wrong move on an NPC's part can kill someone.

One other aspect of this for me is that in the new campaign, blood debt, ransom, honor and servitude will be part of the warrior culture (Similar I think to some of Feist's work), where capturing an enemy provides a valuable resource where killing someone is only something one does to the dishonorable or on a battlefield.

So anyway, my basic thought is to come up with a formula to extend 'death's door'. My initial thought is to allow players to go negative = 2*constitution+level. Fighter classes would also get a bonus of 5 or 10 additional hp. Players would still go unconscious at 0, they would just not die quite so quickly. For example, this would allow a 10th level rogue to not die until -40, assuming a 15 Con.

Now, all this assumes people think this rule needs modifying. If folks don't mind the rules as written, I am ok with keeping them, but I wanted to offer an alternative. Please let me know what you think!

Posted by at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Question for everyone: are random encounters a good or bad thing?

My thought has always been that I don't want the world to appear empty as you travel from one spot to another. At the same time, it might be easier to accomplish more adventuring per se by doing away with them, except in certain circumstances. It does allow some alternate storylines into the main arc (such as the Lich keep) and future potential adventures (many of the ruins you find). However, as far as I can tell, y'all are booked (or could be if you chose to) adventure wise for at least 10-12 sessions out, and if doing away with random encounters gets you to and through them quicker, is it worth getting rid of them?

There would be exceptions to this rule, such as travel through particular hostile territory, or in the case of the devil, who was going to hunt you until he found you. Additionally, if I have a 'neat' encounter I've thought up or one that might gain you some important object or plot hook, I may drop it in while you are travelling without any rolling.

Anyhow, I won't go into too many details on the options, as y'all probably realize the pros and cons as well as I do, so I'll just open it up to everyone. Random encountes: stay or go?

Posted by at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Crafting:

For basic crafting, I tend to let the players try anything basic, such as leatherworking, tailoring and the like. If they have a mentor of any sort, they can try more advanced crafts such as blacksmithing, fletching. This way, often early in campaigns with a lot of down time, they have something to do. It also lets players feel more a part of a world, instead of apart from it. My rules so far on crafting have been fairly random, as many of my others, so I am looking to provide some basic boundaries.

Crafting, basic

Base DC 12
Complex Item +2-+20
Multiple Materials - +2
Masterwork - +8 (additionally, rolling +10 over the total DC of an item will also confer the mastercrafted designation)
Time-sensitive (typically alchemical/poisons/vinting) - +3
Increased saving throw- +2 for each bonus +1 to save
Need to cross over disciplines to create- +3 to +10 (E.g. to create steel arrows, a fletcher will need to have blacksmithing to create the base components; if the player procures the appropriate base materials, this does not apply)

Example 1:

The resident druid decides he would prefer to create leather man-purses and backpacks for a living instead of doing something silly like changing into animals, running off woodcutters or the like.

A standard leather purse would be a DC 12, and the druid needs to roll 8 or higher (+2 dex, +2 leathercrafting). However, if the druid wants to make very cool masterwork backpacks (+3 total saves, -10% encumbrance, +10% capacity), his DC would be 27: base 12 + 3 complexity + 8 masterwork + 2 multiple materials (metal buckles, bone reinforcement) + 2 saving throw. In this case he would need to roll a natural 20 to succeed. Leather armor: DC 18 (Base 12+4 complexity+2 multiple materials)

Example 2:

The Egotistical Half-Caileim Arcane Assassin/Blood Cultist/Rogue/Wizard of the party decides he needs to take up fletching in order to flirt with the resident single hottie bowmaker chick.

Base DC 12, Dexterity Based
Wooden arrows: DC 12 (Yield 1-8)
Metal Tipped: DC 15 (+1 complexity, +2 multiple materials, yield 1-4, +1 damage)
Barbed: DC 17 (+3 complexity, +2 multiple materials, yield 1-3, +2 damage, 3 points total bleed)
Steel Shafted: DC 22 (+3 complexity, +7 blacksmith crossover, yield 1-2, 1-8+1, +50% range)
Payload Arrow: DC 24 (+7 complexity, +2 multiple materials, +3 time sensitive, yield 1; base arrow +2d4 acid/fire/etc, )

I will add more specifics to the list as we play through this campaign. The above will most likely be freely modified as smarter people than me explain why something is more or less complex than I think!

Posted by at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Hopefully this one will be a tad shorter than the last!

In my campaign, we use spell-casting checks for both mage classes and cleric classes. Generally, a Mage's base success is 90% and a clerics is 80%; the latter is due to the campaign world having had most of the good gods/goddesses killed off by the forces of evil, thus their power is not nearly as absolute as in some planes. These can be modified in the case of mage by armor, difficult conditions, attempts to modify the spell on the fly and the like. Clerics' chances can be additionally modified by the waxing and waning of the power of a deity, an incident of which occurred in our last session where a player was completely out of touch with his druidic goddess for 3 days due to world events.

In any case, a player who has a normal chance of casting a spell can have their spell empowered or weakened by where it falls on the spectrum. For example, a mage casting fireball will do -2 damage per die on a 86-90%, -1 per die on 81-85%, +1 damage per die on 11-15, +2 damage per die on 06-10 and +3 damage plus an additional hit die damage on a 01-05. Additionally, a mage rolling a 01-05 will gain between .25 and 1 point of 'affinity' for fire.

For a long time, I had players gathering affinities for various spell schools, from healing to electric to cold to conjuration, without any good base line for what it did for the character. Sometimes we added to it certain skill checks and saving throws, sometimes we added it (or reduced from) damage dice. I had a good thought about them a few nights back (it was actually while I was putting together this weekend's DDM band) and my players and I discussed last night and I think we came up with Affinties 1.0. One of my main concerns is that adding or removing damage from dice was going to get way overpowered too quickly, and this addresses that nicely while still giving the player with a decent affinity in something a couple of cool effects.

For each level of affinity in a spell type, the player gets to add 1 to any spells in that category DC rating, and gets to add 1 to their saving throw against spells in that category. Also, each level of affinity in a spell type allows a base 1% magic resistance against that spell type. For example, the resident half-Caeleim (elf) Bloodmage/Arcane Assassin casts a lightning bolt at Evil Bird-Dragon Beast (as AKBar would put it), and he has 3 points of air/electric affinity (we're still debating on the spell classes). Normally the BDB would have a save of 12+3 (spell level), in this case because the elf has affinity in electric, it would have a DC of 18.

Now Raistca, the mage, not being too bright doesn't notice that the lightning bolt is going to reflect off the solid wall behind the beast. First, because of his affinity he gets a 3% change the spell has no effect on him; if that fails, as it most likely will, he gets a +3 on his reflex save to take 1/2 damage (in his case 1/4 because he has a modified form of evasion).

We just implemented this rule as law last night, so we are still tweaking some spell classes and the like, but I think it allows some better flavor to each character. Also, as I am a firm believer in balance, characters who fail their spells badly lose and can actually have a negative affinity (called susceptibility) meaning it will be harder to save against that spell type or cast that spell in the future.

I'll let y'all know how it goes!

Posted by at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The D&D alignment system has to me never seemed very complete, or effective. Too often it is hard for players (and DM's) to adapt their playstyle to their chosen alignment or the alignment of their NPC's. Some alignments end up as the 'holding tank' for players who want to keep their options open (chaotic neutral, anyone?).

At first level, who really knows their character anyway? It is like another skin a person is putting on, and players have yet to find out their new ticks, their foibles, their fears, their aspirations. Sometimes the Paladin ends up acting like the resident ogre, or pushing too hard on the 'lawful' stick over the 'good'. Only once have I truly enjoyed someone playing as a Paladin in one of my campaigns; he was hysterical, arrogant, generous (secretly), loyal (secretly), narcissistic. In other words, human. I sitll find myself shaking hands with people in real life and joking 'Hi there, I am the Lord o' Leisure, and you are pleased to meet me!' Another problem is many folks try to pigeonhole the alignments, often into specific stereotypes we have all read in over 20 years of fantasy literature. After so long, I don't blame the players for the inability to properly play (or desire to play) specific alignments; I blame Wizards for not creating a more elegant system.

Fifteen years ago, I started something new. Players wouldn't get an alignment until 3rd or 4th level, after they had a chance to get to know their characters, and find out who they were. It actually worked pretty well, as we didn't have many folks striving to be alignment specific characters like Druids or Paladins. However, in those cases we could have run into some difficulty, as what happens when your Paladin gets to third level and you realize she is Chaotic Selfish?

After many years, this approach did not satisfy me either, as we still had difficulty assigning folks to one alignment over another. People, let alone fantasy characters, are incredibly complex, and 9 alignments is just not enough to encompass the essence of even a small portion of them.

So about 6 months ago, with some initial confusion among the players starting their 2nd campaign with me, we tried something completely different. It is simple, but infinitely more flexible than the 9 alignment rainbow. It can more easily cover a knight's fall from grace, a thief's change of heart, a druid's reconciliation with his goddess. It is an open system, easily adopted and modified. And best of all, it is fun and brings some real meaning to the balance between good and evil, law and chaos.

Continue reading "House Rule I - Alignment" »

Posted by at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)