Weekend Chainmail: Plate Mail

There has been a lot of talk recently about the way women are portrayed in fantasy art. I tend to stay out of those conversations mostly because of my anatomy. Obviously I enjoy the pictures I post here, but I also would like to see some more realistic art, particularly as we approach DnDNext. So in aid of that here are some pictures of women in plate mail.

Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth

First we have Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth the first is well known as a strong woman who ruled England in her own right. I don't want to bore you with history, but she was widely regarded as a good ruler and was probably a patron of Shakespeare. 

Woman in Plate with large sword

I really like this picture. She looks like she is about to pick up the sword and behead Edward Longshanks. Maybe I'm reading into it, but I think she would be right at home with William Wallace shouting freedom. The pose isn't completely natural and there is something strange about the way her hair flows, but she definitely pulls off the reasonable armor. 

Female Barbarian

Ok so this isn't reasonable armor. It does cover a bit more than most of your chainmail bikinis. All politics aside I will continue to like the chainmail bikin and I won't apologize for it. I think reasonable armor and a portrayal of people who aren't Hollywood perfect deserves a place in the game. If you have any thoughts please feel free to post a comment or find me on Twitter or Facebook. Until next time remember don't let your DM tell you no. It's always, "Yes, and...?"

In defense of the healing surge

Is this where I audition for DnD Next?

It has been a while since I have written an article like this. But I have seen a couple of things lately that I would really like to respond to. Specifically I have seen a lot of comments on this article about self healing in DnD next that make me cringe. When I see people attack the way I like to play D and D my first response is to attack them back. I mean we are playing a game with floating wolf spirits, magical elves, colossal pixies, and dragons. Do we really need to quibble over whether the dragon bit me in half or only made me bloodied? I don’t think so.

 I like to keep healing abstract, and I don’t think insisting hit points are damage does any favors to the game. Furthermore, I feel that insisting healing surges, and non-magical healing are game-y, misses the point. But, if I simply respond with a pat answer and put down their style of play I am not any better than they are. So, I feel a more detailed defense of some of the “game-y” elements that 4e added is in order. I hope to see them available in DnDnext, but I don’t think anyone is doing it wrong if they don’t like them.

Heroic characters in fiction often call on inner reserves of strength. Almost every action movie has a fight scene where it looks grim for the hero, but somehow they pull through. Whether it was John Mclane in Die Hard, Rocky Balboa in Rocky or pretty much anyone Arnold Schwarzenegger played you could expect the hero to go down to one knee and then stand back up, spit and get back into the fight. There are some good examples in the fantasy genre as well. To use King Leonidas in 300 as an example might be stretching fantasy as a genre to its limit, but it works. The best example by far is the death of Boromir in Lord of the Rings.

A rousing speech can wake the dead. Okay not literally, but there are plenty of examples of using a rousing speech to get people into a fight, or back into it. Additionally yelling snap out of it and slapping someone to wake them up happens so often it is a trope. In fact a recent episode of mythbusters found that slapping someone can increase their adrenaline which would give them a boost. I think the best example of this idea was when Tinker Bell was brought back from the verge of death by clapping.

Yes but he didn't know the peasants were going to rebel

Not everyone wants to play a Cleric. I know this is more of a metagame concern, but I think it’s good to at least keep the idea that we are creating a game in mind. I have done a medieval history simulation, in a history class. It has its place. Honestly it was kind of fun thinking about being a peasant for a bit. In general however, I refer you to Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be the king.” But, there are many things about medieval reality that just wouldn’t be fun in a game. I don’t want to write a history paper here, but if anyone is interested in a list I’ll be happy to write one for you.

The main thing is that it’s not fun to be knocked out of the action. It’s bad enough to be out for a round or two, but with more realistic healing you either need access to magical healing or you could be out for weeks or months at a time. As a player it isn’t fun to be pigeon holed into playing something you don’t want to play, or to be out of the action for a whole session or even more because of a few poor dice rolls. I am of the opinion that while the threat of death is needed for the game to be fun, but actually dying is usually anything but fun for a player and can wreck havoc with your plans as a dm.

As the dm having really fragile characters can be very limiting to the types of encounters you want to run. If the characters can’t bounce back from encounters fairly quickly you have to be very careful with the balance. More importantly if your characters have to rest for weeks between encounters to become healed you either need to hand out tons of magic or the system will play havoc with your pacing. The players play havoc with things enough you don’t want the system to do it as well.

How many weeks do I need to rest to get rid of this face?

I feel gritty, realistic combat has a place in D and D.  I’d like to say here that if you want gritty, realistic combat play another game, but I have committed to not being an edition warrior. I understand the motives for a more realistic expression of combat. I certainly feel that if someone wants to use wounds or some other mechanic to track damage that the game should let them. I do get irritated with people who say there is something wrong with how I play the game because their abstraction is more realistic than my abstraction. I hope I have made the case that my abstraction deserves a place in the game as well. If I have go and vote. Let's make DnD Next a game we all want to play. Until next time remember don’t let your DM tell you no. It’s always, “Yes, and…?”

Rituals in D and D: The gift of Now

Scadouche!

There is a saying from Kung Fu Panda which explains why the time we live in is called the present. I really like it, and I was reminded of it when I started writing this post about rituals. I’d like to take a look at what I liked about spellcasters in earlier editions and how that plays into ritual use and I’d also like to talk about some things DnDnext that I have heard in the twitter rumor mill. But rather than focus on the past or the future I would like to live in the now and enjoy the gift of the present, even if that means I need to rewrap it a bit.

I have always been attracted to spellcasters. Since I started playing I have played mostly spellcasters. Occasionally I played against type, even going so far as to play a character who was afraid of magic. What really attracted me to spellcasters was their versatility. I always enjoyed having a magical answer to situations. Whether it was asking The Powers That Be for answers to life’s big questions or flying over canyons, I liked my wizards to be able to do awesome magical things.

It was a bummer having to choose between something like Levitate which could be very useful and a Fireball which was almost always useful. To alleviate this problem I always tried to find a way to make my non combat spells useful even in combat. For example what would happen if I levitated an orc and then let it drop? Why it would fall and get hurt that’s what. That’s one of the things I miss most about the older editions.

No door can stop me for I am the master of Knock!

I think its ok for spells to be used in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. That was part of the fun of playing a spellcaster. When you were up against the wall and the red dragon had just eaten the paladin and the rogue was just knocked down from the breath weapon you know you only have one chance to save the day. What do you do you when you look at your spellbook and you have just one magic missile left in your combat spell section? You polymorph the dragon into a rat, which then explodes and leaves rat/dragon guts all over a disgusted looking Paladin.

In 3e and 4e you can’t do things like that. The spells and there effects started to become more clearly spelled out and you couldn’t use them as creatively anymore. The trade off in 4e is that you don’t have to fire a crossbow five minutes into the day, you will always have something magical and awesome to do, which is nice. The problem is that you lose out on some of the non combat awesomeness as well. A plus five bonus to your next diplomacy check is more specific than you make friends with the target, but it’s not nearly as much fun, unless you make it be so. To be fair I have had a couple of experiences lately where I have been able to bring a little bit of the creative spellcasting back into D and D and it made my day when the DM’s let me do it. In fact, one of the things that excites me about DnDnext is that they seem to be bringing back some of the creativity and exploration to the game.

Yes! I have completed my summon Lassie
ritual. Now we can save Timmy!

Where 4e really shines in this regard is the often overlooked ritual system. By divorcing the combat spells from the non combat spells 4e made it possible to be effective and magical in combat and still have interesting magical things to do outside of combat. The problem is that because of some of the costs inherent in the system it often gets completely ignored. Many classes get ritual casting for free, and some other type of benefit when using them. Other classes however have to pay a feat to have access. A problem here is that some classes that really need access to rituals to do their jobs like the warlord don’t get ritual casting for free. In fact it’s pretty common now to have no ritual casters in the party at all. It is certainly possible to play that way, but you are really missing out if you do.

There are a couple of must have rituals. First, unless you have an artificer in your party you really need the Comrade’s Succor ritual. I recommend cure disease and the other healing magic related rituals. You never know when you are going to need to bring someone back from the dead or get rid of a horrible curse. The Linked Portal and other similar rituals are good for helping you get where you need to go. Another favorite at low levels is the Eye of Alarm ritual. You never have to be surprised from sleep again if you make good use of this ritual.

The major problem for me with ritual casting is the material cost associated with casting them. Not only do you have to pay to get the rituals, but you also have to pay to cast them. On top of this they usually have a significantly long cast time. It’s not that you are really giving anything up. The cost of casting low level rituals is usually negligible especially compared to magic items of similar levels. The problem is that I have never really enjoyed the logistics resource management in D and D. I hate tracking ammunition, and I despised tracking spell components. So, often I don’t use a ritual even when it would be perfect to use it. Even worse sometimes I even forgot to use rituals I could have used for free because I forget about them among all the other options I have on my sheet they kind of get lost.

I have had a couple of ideas for making ritual casting a part of your game. First if you are really concerned about the costs, see if you can use the inherent bonuses system. If you distance the expected math of the game from magic items it frees you to spend your gold on other things. You could also keep a list of your rituals handy. One of my friends actually has copies of his rituals in a folder he keeps with his characters. Another thought I have had is asking for, or handing out rituals or ritual components as treasure. If you have some ideas how to use rituals in your game or want to recommend some must have rituals of your own feel free to post them in the comments below. Until next time remember, don’t let your DM tell you no. It’s always, “Yes and…?” 

A Time for (Edition) War, A Time for Peace (I Swear it's not too Late)

This post is a response to Bruce Cordell's blog post A Time to Heal on the DnD Next playtest group. You should take the time to read it if you haven't and vote on the poll. If you haven't yet and you are at all interested in DnD next you should bookmark that page and make your voice heard. For those of you expecting Weekly Homebrew I am going to try to get an article out at the normal time, but I really wanted to respond to Cordell's article.

I did pick up the t-shirt though

If you follow my blog you know that although I am definitely not an Edition Warrior (tm), I do have some concerns about the direction DnD next is going. If all you play are home games with your friends who all have similar playstales perhaps my concerns sound overblown to you. But imagine this, you go to your FLGS, a con, or even the D and D Virtual Table all set to play some 4e DnD. When you arrive the DM says I'm sorry I'm running Basic D and D I hope you can adjust. If you are a 1e Veteran the scenario also works in reverse just imagine your DM started running 4e one day without letting you know.

But you say DnD next is big enough for everyone. You can play your 4e Wizard with my 1e Fighter all at the same table. Well first I am not entirely convinced that will be the case. I certainly hope it is the case. I have no problem with someone else playing a Vancian Wizard, but I have no interest in it. I have talked a lot more about this subject here, but even if I can bring my character to the table, there is another problem which Cordell's article pointed out that I hadn't even considered. That problem is the Cure Selfish Wounds Cleric.

What do you mean all I know how to do is one sword swing?

I am a big fan of party optimization. I think D and D works best when you have a well rounded party both mechanically and for story purposes. At the very least you should try to have some connections between your characters so they have some reasons to work together and you should at least think about how they will work together in combat. I tend to weigh in on the side of game versus simulation, even though I really enjoy the shared storytelling aspect. I may be in the minority, but I believe that the game will run better if you have a balanced and well planned party.

Because of this I think it's very important to know what you are getting into for party composition. I know not everyone agrees with me, but it's how I prefer to roll. I like to have an idea what the others are playing so I can either pick something that will make us totally awesome, like a lazylord for a group with lot's of good basic attacks. Or conversely, I can fill in some roles to keep us at least at the baseline. That's one reason I really like the Berserker. I can provide some baseline defense while also bringing the pain to those who oppose me.

I am Delzoun you will FEAR ME!

The problem with bringing back some of the older edition stereotypes is that we left them behind for a reason. Some things can be fun to have at the table even if I don't like them. I suppose a Vancian wizard would probably fall under this, although I really don't want to have to rest after one round because my friend cast his one spell for the day. What I really don't want to deal with at the table is a cleric who doesn't heal or lead in any other way. I think a destruction cleric trope is fine, but if you are going to have a cleric there needs to at least be some baseline that they operate at for healing and whatever else leading means to you. I really like how this was handled in 4e all leaders have a baseline healing that is cheap and easy. I don't want to see a return of CoDzilla.

When I play D and D I want to show up at the table and have an idea what experience I am going to have. I want to be able to talk to my DM and the other players before the game and show up knowing whether I am going to play something like 4e, something like 1e or something like GURPS. I may enjoy playing all those games, but if I show up to play 4e and I am handed GURPS I will be disappointed. Furthermore if I am told to expect a cleric and I find Delzoun god of destruction sitting across from me I'll be disappointed as well. Not because I want Brian to play a cleric, but because I would have brought the cleric if I had known Brian was going to play Delzoun. As always your mileage may vary. Until next time remember don't let your DM tell you no. It's always, "Yes and...?"

D and D Class Design Seminar Special: Rarity

Ok maybe a little Magic in D & D is ok

I am working on a post for tomorrow about the use of rituals past, future and especially, present, but I am also following the D and D XP Seminar on class design and I feel the need to respond to one of the bits they just released and a reaction I saw from @deadorcs on twitter. I want to be very clear that I am not accusing Wizards of the Coast from turning D and D into Magic the Gathering. I am also still kind of excited about D and D next, but I was very concerned when they said that they were considering making some classes common, some uncommon, and some rare. I know Wizards isn't trying to magicify... magictate... magic... they aren't turning Dungeons and Dragons into Magic the Gathering. I think the wording is perhaps just unfortunate.

What really bothered me though was a reaction I saw on Twitter. More on this later.  At first I wasn't pleased with the idea. Both because of the inevitable comparison to Magic, and because broadly I think the idea might be a good one in general, it is not something I want to see coded into the game. The idea actually fits much better as a module perhaps even one associated with campaign settings. That is I think it would be ok to have Wizards in Forgotten Realms be common, while sorcerers are uncommon and warlocks are rare. What I don't want is that idea coded into the core.

No, you can't play a warlock in my game Scott.

As a DM I wouldn't mind the book giving me some ideas for how to detail class rarity, but maybe I want Wizards to be rare and warlocks to be a dime a dozen.  As a player I want to be able to play the character I want to play without undue hassle. So when @deadorcs suggested that in his campaign he was going to want a truly awesome backstory if one of his players wanted to play a rare class. I have no problem limiting myself for a theme game, such as this one. But one of the things I liked about 4e was that everything was core. I hated when I bought a book to play the cool new class, that my DM would say no we are limiting things to core.

It really bothered me Wizards introduced magic item rarity into the game with Essentials. If magic items are a player resource, which they had been from the beginning of 4e then they should stay a player resource. If you want them to be a DM resource that's fine, but the rest of the game needs to support that. I happen to like having them as a player resource, again because so many times I "needed" a magic item which my DM wouldn't let me have. On the other hand,  I have enjoyed the mystery of discovering cool new magic items that comes along with them being a DM resource. My main concern is that if anything in the game is a player resource it should be class. Let's keep the core big and inclusive so I don't have to work harder than the swing a sword fighter just to get to the table. Until next time remember don't let your DM tell you no. It's always, "Yes and...?"

Modularity in D and D

I don’t want people to get the wrong idea. I am actually tentatively excited about the next D and D. I’m not ready to give up on 4e, but I think there is plenty of time to finish it out with a bang. If anything the idea of another edition coming gives me the motivation to get back in and finish some of my games, Primordial Threat I am looking at you. I am also playing in three excellent paragon tier games and I hope that there is enough time to bring them to their logical end. Whether that is level twenty, thirty or some other place remains to be seen.

I do have some real concerns about the modular nature of the next D and D. I was very excited when I read this about the goals for the new edition. It really speaks to one of my main concerns about the modular nature of the game. I am concerned that when I step up to the table to play D and D I’ll find something else instead. Maybe that’s a bit of an overstatement. I do kind of agree with the Dungeon Bastard’s take on the Edition Wars. On the other hand there are some things from old editions that I am not excited to have to deal with again. It’s not to say they aren’t problems with 4e either, but I like the basic assumptions 4e makes about the game.

Feats? Check. Skills? Check. Magic Missile all day? Check.-- Red Mage
I like Swords!--Fighter
Stabbity goodness-- Black Mage

So when the author said that I could play my character with lots of skills and feats and powers and my friend can play his character who likes to hit things with his sword at the same table, it made me very excited. It does sound a bit impossible, but if they can pull it off I would love to see it. Maybe there could be a day when I can play D and D with my wife again. Who knows, stranger things have happened.

I read a blog post this week about some history of the game and what the author would like to see in the upcoming new edition. I really wish I could find it, but one thing the author talked about was in older editions the dm had more power and it was ok. I’ve actually played D and D since second edition and my first dm did have a lot of power. In fact he even leveled our characters for us. It was awesome he told great stories we still talk about to this day. I don’t think my wife will forget when Lady Lark suddenly became a cleric after the god of the moon showed up to save us one time to many. It’s funny now that I think about it I don’t really have any awesome memories about my characters. I think there might be a blog post in there somewhere. In any case I think if a dm tried a trick like that today I would have a fit.

I'm a what now?

I think the reason I trusted the dm to take that level of control was that he was a good friend. Besides, part of me was just excited to be playing. I’m not saying we didn’t have some issues, but I wouldn’t let a dm level up my character today. I have had too many problems with DM’s with god complexes. I’ve actually talked about some of my bad dm experiences in my post about pirates. Part of the problem is that I have moved a couple of times and I’ve lost touch with friends so in order to play I’ve had to find pick-up games and play with strangers. I won’t say it’s been all bad. I have certainly found my share of good times and good DMs. Even more I have found some good friends as well. It’s not the same though I just don’t trust a stranger to tell a good story and run with it. I want to go in with some guidelines so we can start a shared experience.

I could give you a laundry list of things I want in the next iteration of D and D. Things like powers and being able to do something magical as a wizard more than one time per day.  I was thinking of doing just that, lists of modules that I wouldn’t play without, and when the Angry DM said he was excited about limiting them I was all set to write a post about not limiting my D and D. But, I realized what I really want in DnDnext or whatever it ends up being called is not a list of fiddly bits or rules. What I really want are the baseline expectations that make for a good 4e game.

Home wrecker and Game killer.

So here is what I would like in DnDnext, at least for today, tomorrow I might change my mind. I want page 42. That is I would like an easy way to adjudicate things the rules don’t cover and have it spelled out clearly that it’s ok to make calls. I am ok with a bit of Rule 0 thrown in as well. I want the information imperative continued. I want to be able to know the information I need to make good tactical decisions. I think the bloodied condition was one of the best additions to the game. It gives me an idea where to have my friends attack if I am playing a warlord. I think adding some mechanical bits to the condition make it better than just having it be half hp. Some of my favorite monsters get more deadly when they are bloodied. But the one thing I really want in DnD next is Yes and… I have had too many DMs shut me down with a no.

 I think the best example was the encounter that killed D and D for my wife. We were doing an investigative adventure and we ran into dead end after dead end. My Paladin was about ready to start knocking random heads together and my wife asked if the family whose disappearance we were investigating had a maid servant. The DM said no shutting down yet another avenue to adventure.

The worst part that when my wife explained that a well to do family would have had a maid servant it devolved into an argument about medieval politics and actually ended up killing the whole game. I know I have fallen into the trap as a DM myself because it requires a great deal of thinking on your feet to run with what the players give you. If you follow it yes and can vastly improve your game, which is why I am glad it is a baseline expectation of 4e and hope that it continues to be in DnDnext as well. Until next time remember don’t let your DM tell you no. It’s always “Yes and…?”