Creating Characters- Part 1

Character creation is different depending on the game. This is no surprise, character creation should feel different depending on the game. The depth of character creation and the style will take a variety of forms. I think it also explains the homebrewing phenomenon in Dungeons and Dragons and even multiclassing. In order to understand this claim, we need to look at what creating a character is about. If you immediately answer with, “Creating a character,” I recommend you stay awhile and listen.

Dungeons and Dragons character creation ought to be contrasted to another system. Lets look at a system that uses a little bit more to actually define a character: Cypher system. Each character is created by proclaiming that the character is a ________ ________ who ___________. An adjective (charming, graceful, strong, etc.) noun (“class”), and a verb (your power or theme.) This immediately offers a new way of viewing your character. Of course, it is a summation with much more depth, but, at the same time, it is different mold than Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, we all make certain assumptions about characters based on their class-- Rogues are sneaky, bards are goofy, barbarians are dumb. Although that may not be true, a system like Cypher system’s does not immediately allow for this kind of assumption. The character sheet immediately gives a glimpse of what sort of character we are looking at by avoiding those class definitions altogether. Although 5e’s archetype system gives us a better look at what sort of character it is, it doesn’t define the character. There is more character information in an adjective more than there is in calling a character a monk in D&D. When you spout the mouthful that is Chaotic Good Noble High-Elf Multiclass Rogue/Bard Swashbuckler-College of the Sword we still know nothing about the character. In fact, we’re only told what their training is, not who they are. 5e’s addition of background has included an easily ignorable and in my opinion fairly bland attempt to create actual characterization. It isn’t a bad inclusion, but I think the character traits are suggested further only encourage the cookie cutter nature of the Dungeons and Dragons. You might say, “Derek, how is it a cookie cutter form of character creation when Cypher system offers you three slots to fill?” One word: Optimization. In Dungeons and Dragons it pays off to play strong classes like Wizard and Rogue. A good number of players don’t pick anything in D&D without considering what it does for them solely on mechanical level. However, I do believe 5e is more balanced than previous iterations, especially 3.5. 

That’s not to say that every player tries to optimize. There are many players, myself included, who try to build characters who are more based on a character concept. I think Cypher System does this better than Dungeons and Dragons does. You want a character that uses magic, but you want it to be light magic? Done. Now what's he or she like? Graceful? Charming? Done. Inside each of these character options are more choices. Dungeons and Dragons offers most of its choices once. At character creation. Spells, and feats don't really apply as these choices do not apply to everyone. At each step of progress, every player at the table is offered choices to make, and depending on the play style or character they want, one Warrior can feel very different from another. Depending on the character, even mage type characters can stand a decent chance of survival in melee. They aren't limited to being just "mages". Ultimately the characters are how the player and GM interpret them.
This isn't to say there is never overlap, but the way I might make a character is different than how you would make a character. 

Regardless, this does not inherently mean that either of these two systems are perfect. Another system with an interesting method of character creation is the Powered by the Apocalypse game, City of Mist from Son of Oak Game Studio. Each character is given tags that describes the character's abilities. For instance, one of your character's tags might be, "Master Swordsman." For any check that involves the character being a "Master Swordsman." You gain a single +1 to your roll. These tags can stack up to a bonus of +3. The only trade off are character related weaknesses. So if your character has a fear of heights, you'll have a penalty on anything related to that weakness. This model truly creates characters, however for players who want more mechanical representation this might feel that this isn't much of a game. It's hard to optimize a character in this system, but the story is key. What is optimal about a story? Nothing. A story is a story, the characters are not optimal people. They may be extraordinary, but they have flaws. City of Mist takes this into consideration and characters are exactly that: Characters. Numbers have less of a hold on this system allowing what is in and out of character to decide. 

Regardless of the system you land on, what defines a character will ultimately differ depending on how the system implements character creation. The in between pieces that the game might not reward are ultimately up to you, but it is nice when the mechanics reflect the identity of the character. As D&D is a perfect model of it, characters in some systems can only be so complex until the system is strained. Take one of my favorite PCs, Akyas for example. In concept he is an assassin/ detective/ spy/ hunter--Essentially he's almost Batman. If you look at how many ways there are to develop a Batman-esque character, that character could be exemplified by any class from the following: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Ranger. However, there is a major issue with the D&D class model. If a character is a single class character, they will obviously have access to all of the best features of that class. Subclasses, as I have said previously, will help incorporate a theme into that base class, but the more complex a character is, the conventional character building model slips away. Skills help, sure, but when we want favored enemy, sneak attack, evasion, assassinate, extra attack, ambush, whirlwind attack, etc. We're looking at a character design that is a combination of a lot of cool ideas, but are more easily accomplished in 3.5 or pathfinder then in 5e. One might argue that it is because of how new 5e is. To a certain degree, that is true. There are not as many  character options in 5e as there are in 3.5 or pathfinder. At the same time, in both older games, there are more moving parts. Feats are gained at every third level defining character abilities outside classes, and ability scores improve on a separate but slower track. There in lies the role of homebrewing. Homebrewing and hacking your game is risky. I enjoy it as a creator, and I enjoy when players like my work. I personally don't like using my own homebrew classes because I feel like I am getting away with something.

If there a problem with these differences? How do we make up for them? Think it over. When we come back to this theme, we'll look at what defining a character should be and how I as a creator intend to deal with them as I continue developing Chronicle & Tale RPG. 
'Til Next Time, Happy Creating Arcanists!

Re-imagining and Roleplaying Part 1

You've decided to play a Battle Master Fighter. Kevin, your table's optimizer says, "Oh, well at least isn't Champion, because that would be really boring." At this point you say, "Well, the story is with my character is that he's a Shadow Blade." Kevin raises an eyebrow and says, "he's a Battle Master." You reply, "Yeah, but his Lunging strike isn't a long fencing lunge, his shadow powers make the sword temporarily longer. His menacing strike manifests as a swarm of shadows that torment the mind of his target. That's also why as feats I took Stealthy and Skulker. There's not an archetype that does 'Shadow Blade' stuff, but this works!"
Kevin mutters something like "that works," and proceeds to create his Half-Elf Lore Bard because Kevin is that guy. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Re-Imagining the Classes

In this "exercise" of character building, we try not to take classes for their face value. In the example above, we offer an alternative to the normal Battle Master fighter to make use of a simple flavor change. By considering a flavor change, the possibility of playable characters increases dramatically. Some classes are very well defined by their archetypes in 5e, but even then, remember that a class, or archetype is only a compilation of instructions and numbers. In addition to that, Feats, skills, and backgrounds can easily change the way a class might look on a character. Multiclassing also contributes to this over all idea. In each case the main idea is to break away from tropes that we associate with these classes. They can also open new benefits that your GM may consider as your character is not the usual sort.

Below are examples for the first three classes that may help inspire various iterations of different uses for a class:

Barbarian

Rage doesn't need to be "Rage." Rage could be instead some hidden power that the "barbarian summons." Ask yourself if you think Goku from Dragonball Z is just a monk. Super Saiyan isn't just a "rage"; it's a total power up. Rage as a concept could also be the release of a darker personality, or darker set of powers. Another example would be Devil May Cry's Dante. When Dante uses his Devil Trigger ability, he unleashes the demon powers within him. For a short while, Dante's speed and strength increases. A type of ability like this would be a great application of Frenzied Barbarian. Not every barbarian needs to be some guy in a loincloth who talks like the caveman version of Patrick Star and swings a greatsword around. Another pop culture reference would be Winston the gorilla from Blizzard's Overwatch. Winston is the smartest character in the game, but in his ultimate ability, he enters a primal rage and his fury fuels his power. Outside of that, Winston is a well spoken character, an inventor, and more civilized than the human character Roadhog. Roadhog is more like your classic barbarian.

Also remember, that each archetype offers a new use or flavor for your Rage ability. Rage doesn't have to be entering a screaming bloodlust-driven fury. It can be though. When considering backgrounds, an Outlander Barbarian may be your loincloth clad murderhobo, however, you may have a criminal background barbarian who is more a "thug". One villain in one of my campaigns I run is a Pirate background barbarian/fighter. Essentially, this character, Corvis, is more like a corsair. An entertainer barbarian could very well be a strong-man in a circus. 

Bard

Everyone has the same image of bards. Critical Role's Scanlan Shorthalt, is perhaps the epitome this trope. Mind you, I think Sam Riegel is the coolest guy, and I love Scanlan, but playing a witty, lecherous, goofy, bard does not have to be what you sign up for when you write "bard" on your character sheet. Not to say that Scanlan is one-dimensional either. In one of our more recent games, Andy (DM Starhelm) played a Dragonborn College of War bard but was nothing like the normal interpretation of bard. He was instead a skald. For those of you unfamiliar with what a skald is, a skald is a "composer and reciter of poems honoring heroes and their deeds." (Thanks Google.) However, skalds are often interpreted in roleplaying games as being rougher, viking/barbarian-esque heralds of battle. In our game of White Plume Mountain,he played a lore bard who was more a treasure hunter than a traditional bard. His character, Julius was more the Indiana Jones/Nathan Drake kind of adventurer. As he came across varying puzzles, and the like, I didn't make him roll "knowledge" checks. He was a level 9 bard who was a treasure hunter/dungeon delver. If he saw something he usually would have some comparable familiarity as far as most standard traps were concerned. What's more, Andy played him like a character who knew what he was doing. As a DM, I was happy to offer more because of that specific profession the character had.

There may not be a lot to each bard college, but remember that bard's are combinations of skills and magic. The skills you choose and the spells you pick can make each bard seem different. Besides, how does a bard that has the entertainer background differ from a bard with the spy background, or the far traveler background (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide)? A spy bard is probably a trickster of some kind. The College of Whispers is perfect for this bard, who may be more of a back-stabbing scoundrel. An entertainer bard might not be some smooth-talking minstrel, but could be an enchantingly beautiful flautist with a mysterious but magnetic presence. For those of you that like more East Asian style fantasy, geisha would almost definitely be bards.

Cleric

Clerics tend to differ by their domain pretty frequently, but abstracting the concepts further may prove useful. A knowledge domain cleric could be more like one of the Greek oracles. A tempest cleric could be a sort of Thor-esque character (as obvious as that is). Flavor-wise, a nature domain cleric could be more like a shaman and rather than serving a specific god, takes a more animism approach. Maybe their spells manifest more in the form of aspects of animals. This of course could be argued about druids, but by nature (pun intended) they are very similar. The entire class rather than being priestly in nature could be interpreted as a being closer to the divine than than just being a cleric. Perhaps having cleric as a class is more liken unto being a demigod? I see plenty of homebrews that try to create angels, gods, etc. Each one of them usually is, as you'd expect grossly overpowered. Why can't a cleric be reskinned to fit this kind of character if someone wants to play one so badly. If you think back to the days of AD&D Elf and Dwarf had their own classes. In 5e's design a race be a class is absurd. There isn't any reason why you couldn't say that is what the cleric class can be used as, it represents a connection to the divine and by the end of the class progression, they can perform miracles, and in the eyes of less powerful individuals, what appear to be acts of a god.

Considering backgrounds while making a cleric could also be an interesting influence in the character as a whole. A cleric who is more of an exorcist could be the Haunted One, or Investigator background, and produce more of a John Constantine type character. A charlatan cleric could easily be some kind of false prophet, or a trickery cleric who uses his divine ability to go about his business in a more dishonest manner. A sailor cleric could be a divine blessed ship captain with the tempest domain, or a pirate who commands the storm to aid in his plundering.

More to Come

 As this is a long topic, I will cover the other classes in continuations of this article. Let me know if you have any good ideas in the comments down below. Until next time, happy reinventing, Arcanists!

The Worst Status Condition- Part 2: Inflicting Death and Dying

Death's Role

Now that you've established death's role in your game. You can begin to employ it as a mechanic. After all, you have hit points in most games, or a death spiral, or something of the sort. What most GM's should do is explain what dying entails.

For example, in the Acquisitions Incorporated games as run by Chris Perkins, death is escapable. Spoiler warning: After Wil Wheaton's character Aeofel dies, the rest of Acquisitions Inc. were able to go to another plane to save his soul, and pull him back from the afterlife. In Critical Role, spells that resurrect the dead can fail, making the person to be resurrected lose any chance to be resurrected from then on.  In games like Cypher system, or Star Wars RPG, dead is just that. Dead. Though, those games tend to have a greater threshold for death. That is, it takes more work to kill a character, unless the circumstance is entirely unsurvivable. "How does it take more work?" you might ask. Systems like that (unless death is all part of the fun like in Dungeon Crawl Classics) tend to use different action economies. My Star Wars RPG character, Dash, has only 14 hit points.  Thanks to his training a Makashi Duelist (think Count Dooku) when someone hits him in melee, he can parry it to reduce the damage significantly. This is whenever he is attacked, mind you. However, if he uses this ability, he does take an amount of strain that represents his exhaustion. In addition to his armor which reduces damage further, Dash has a pretty good chance of survival despite having a whopping 14 hit points.

With this example we're given a fun equation:





Chance of (R)esurrection over (M)ortality (number of hit points) times m(I)tigation of damage is equal to (E)ase of death.  Now this isn't a concrete equation, its a representation. You math majors, put away your calculators. The chance for resurrection and the closeness to death (hit points) are related at first. Take D&D for instance. By level 10 most people are sporting over 100 hit points. That is a barrage of pokes from several dozen goblins. In real life it could take one. Lethality in real life is more of a binary scale. Of course, repeated harm "stacks" as we nerds would say about anything. However, generally something kills you, or it doesn't. You can be grievously wounded, but you're dealing with homeostasis. The human body, (or living things rather) tries to right itself. They're brilliant systems. If someone was stabbed to death, generally its organ failure and moreso blood loss that is their undoing. The wounds were simply a vehicle for irreversible tip in the balance of homeostasis. Hit points can't reflect homeostasis well. Though they do reflect fragility. The hardest your barbarian can hit someone in a single hit with a normal greatsword in D&D 5th edition is 23 damage assuming Strength is a 24 and you are raging. 23 damage. The most resilient 2nd level rogue (Con of +5, 2d8 HD) possible can survive that (26 hp). If someone was more than twice as strong as the average individual, stronger than a hill giant, most normal people would be dead several times over from such a hit. Games like Dungeon Crawl Classics and Dungeon World relish this mortality. 

Death Comes

So in these power heavy games how do we make death real?

Well if you have decided that you want death to be semi-permanent, proceed with caution. If death is permanent or semi-permanent, that's fine but be prepared for some comments from people who like clerics. Your necromancers, however, will be happy if they like more corpses lying about because undead will be even more taboo and spooky.

However, if resurrection is relatively more easy, don't be afraid to throw death and injury at your players more readily. If it can be healed (with work) why not? One of the coolest things I did to a character was his arm got cut off, but because he was an artificer, and he made himself a really cool magical prosthetic arm.

To utilize injury and death I have a few recommendations:

The Dungeon Master's Guide has some pretty great rules for massive damage found on page 273. These rules allow for creatures to be killed more easily if they take damage equal to more than half their hit points, but other results can happen such as being knocked unconscious, stunned, or an equivalent of dazed. This is one more reason I use exploding damage dice. Massive damage is easier to inflict.

The page before it has a list of potential injuries that a character might sustain, however the suggested triggers for this are on a critical hit, dropping to 0 hit points, or failing a death saving throw by 5 or more. The second one is fine, however, every time someone takes a critical hit, they would have a chance to lose a limb, or an eye, or some such injury. I would stipulate that they might have to make a Constitution save with a DC equal to half the damage they took before rolling on a table after every critical hit, or else your characters will look like the squad of bad guys from Logan. Everyone and their mother would have a prosthetic.

Coup de Grace: Coup de grace was an action in 3.5 that you could take against a "helpless" creature. You automatically hit the creature and it was a critical hit. The creature had to roll a Fortitude save equal to 10 + the damage dealt or die.

To fit this into 5e, as most of our game hacking goes, you could apply similar to an incapacitated creature. (Maybe you'd have to still make the attack roll against a restrained creature). The saving throw DC for a Constitution save is 15 (like Massive Damage). If the creature fails it is automatically dead (or dying if you want a little cushioning between your players and the Reaper)

For killing creatures by surprise, this rule could also be used. A lot of players tend to be unhappy that you can't just take someone by surprise in D&D and almost definitely kill them unless "your numbers are higher than their numbers." You could also use the same rule to knock creatures out rather than killing them.

Reason: Maybe something that shouldn't be survivable happens, like falling into lava, being launched into space, being thrown infinitely because of the  a Setting Sun practitioner. (Seriously, 3.5?) As a GM it is totally fine to say something kills someone if it is impossible to survive. Especially if choices have lead to it. Not obnoxious arbitrary rolls (Never make death the result of a natural 1 on a check, I will tear apart "nat 1's" someday soon), but the result of choices. Death is a rational result for a series of choices. Did the dwarf choose to jump into the lava? If yes, than that is a dumb choice unless he is immune to fire damage. 

Ultimately, death is reasonable. As a GM, you control death. Do you want a fight to be particularly lethal? Does death sound like a reasonable result for an attack and ultimately speed up your process, thus saving you from a 10 minute encounter with Steve the guard who is the first of many guards? GMs call the shots but what is most important is consistency.



Coming this week and next:
Redefining classes
More Magic Items
A Monk that knows how to throw down

The Archmage’s Alternate Rules: Part 1

The Archmage’s Alternate Rules: Part 1

One of the most fun aspects of any tabletop roleplaying game is being able to tinker with the rules and create an experience that you and the rest of your group is interested in having. Over my course of GMing in Dungeons & Dragons there have been several rules we have expanded on and revised over time for the sake of our game. Some of these you may have seen me mention or explain before, but I wanted to give an idea of all rules currently used or considered for any 5e game that I run.

“Spider-Sense Initiative” or Awareness Initiative

A lot of us are familiar with Spiderman. If Spiderman was a D&D character, his initiative would be ridiculously high, but any of us who know anything about Spiderman know that it is arguable as to whether his initiative is based on his Dexterity, i.e. his superhuman reflexes, or his famous and extra-quotable “Spider-Senses”. Essentially, Spiderman’s reaction time are always augmented by this 6^th sense that gives him omnidirectional awareness of the world around him. We could argue one of three things, Spiderman has a super high Dexterity, he has the Alert feat, he combines his Dex & Wisdom on his initiative rolls, OR he can use his Wisdom modifier on his initiative checks… plus having Alert.

In many turn based video games, there is often a speed factor in combat. Pokemon is a prime example. I have Pikachu, have Blastoise. I use Thunder, you had a Blastoise. Speed factors, like Initiative assume it is only based on reflexes. Though Spiderman, and real life beg to differ. Awareness plays a tremendous part in response time. 3.5 highlighted this well their rules for the “surprise round.” In lieu of this, there is a “surprised” state in 5e. Surprise and awareness are not two halves of the same coin. Surprised creatures still roll initiative, they just can’t move or act. However, awareness and perception play no greater part in initiative. It is you’re surprised or you’re not. In this contest everyone but Dexterity based characters loses. Fast characters, yet again have the upper hand.

What about creatures that are just aware, and ready to act? In a real fight, the guy who is more ready, is usually the winner, not the guy who is faster. The guy who is faster has a physical advantage, but it is not the only factor.

So we have two versions of the Awareness Initiative:

A creature may use its Dexterity or Wisdom modifier to determine its initiative bonus.

OR

A creature adds its Dexterity + its Wisdom modifier to determine its initiative bonus.

In this style of initiative, the first rule allows characters with high Wisdom scores to compete with characters with high Dexterity scores. If your healer closer to first, he has less work to do early on, but if he is always going last, he has the hardest job.

The second version allows the two concepts of Speed and Awareness to play a direct roll with each other as they do in more realistic situations. With a lower attribute with either, the character will be, naturally, less ready to fight, but that is more of a reason to be careful choosing your ability scores, however, this doesn’t doom characters to always go first or last still, it gives a better chance to characters of more mediocre stats. If you have +3 in Dex, and a +1 in Wisdom, congrats! You now have a much higher chance of going before say, an adult red dragon who would only get a +1 to initiative rather than a flat +0. Solars, the Fabio-esque celestials, would get an other worldly +13 to their initiative which is more befitting than just a +6 because (sarcasm warning) a level 1 halfling rogue is, of course, almost as likely to be as fast as an archangel in combat readiness. If you look at the Monk, you may notice that the Monk’s Unarmored Defense bonus is based off of this same formula. Monks, would of course, have amazing initiatives. Have you seen a Jet Li movie? If you can move like that, there is no way you aren’t ready for a fight.

Of the two, I am more likely, with my player’s permission, to use the second of the two. It will create a more interesting dynamic for players, and alter how battle tends to go. Keep in mind, should a character get a bonus to initiative from a class feature, it will propel them ahead, but no more than it already does. Should you use this rule, be careful with your dump stats.

Ready and Waiting rule

I have encountered another problem regarding initiative: How does it feel when you roll a natural 20 on initiative, and the guy who rolled a 15 goes before you? Same team or not, it doesn’t feel great. Your character was ready and waiting to act. There is no reward for it. Traditionally, we like to be rewarded for natural 20’s and punished for natural 1’s. Like may be a strong word, but it is tradition. To right this, I employ what I call the Ready and Waiting rule: 

When a creature rolls a 20 on an initiative check, the creature has advantage on the first attack roll or ability check it makes in that encounter. If a creature rolls a 1 on an initiative check, it has disadvantage on its first attack roll or ability check it makes in that encounter.

In essence, it is a pretty simple rule for a simple concept, if you are at your most ready, you should have the highest chance of success, at your most unprepared… well, the opposite.

Morale Advantage/Disadvantage

Aside from being shaken, as we once called it, or frightened, there is very little that is representative of the emotional effect that the events of the game have on the characters. DM_Starhelm, aka Andy told me about a method used in one of the many podcasts he listens to, in which on a natural 1, when the character fails at whatever they are trained at, the GM asks the player, what went wrong in the fiction of the game. If that isn’t enough and you want some backup to your natural 1’s and 20’s I recommend the following:

When you roll a 20 on an ability check, you gain advantage on the next ability check you make within the next minute. When you roll a 1 on an ability check, you gain disadvantage on the next ability check you make within the next minute.

This rule is reflective of a character’s confidence, and hitting a “streak” of sorts. People have off days, and on days, people perform better when they are confident and less so when they are shaken by something. I would rather see this system used than the cockamamie idea that a natural 1 or natural 20 cause the impossible to happen. You can’t intimidate doors, you can’t seduce mindless undead, if you fall a distance of 2 feet, you don’t explode on impact! A natural 20 meant you did your utmost, not that reality now bends for you. A natural 20 is not always an automatic success, because I can try to jump into a different dimension by using a human slingshot, a radio antenna, and a copy of Hitchhiker’s Guide. I promise you it will not work 5% of the time. If we want to reward/punish these numbers to make more interesting gaming, use these play forward rewards/penalties. If you think advantage or disadvantage is too much, add or subtract an extra half of your proficiency modifier to the next roll instead.

Exploding Dice

In a previous article, I wrote about exploding dice. Essentially when you roll damage from an effect, if you roll the maximum number on a damage die, roll another of the same type and add it to the roll. If you roll the maximum number again, do it again. Continue this process until no dice have rolled the maximum number. As a personal rule, I tend not to use this with things like persistent damage like poisons and the like, because no one wants to die from a bad cut from a Sword of Wounding, but that’s just me.

However, I did not expand upon two important rules I learned to add later on: Healing, and how to handle critical hits. To keep healing from being disproportionate, because miracles do happen, actual healing die (not temporary hit points) do explode. If damage explodes only, that makes healing far less effective, especially if someone only has a 1^st level Cure Wounds waiting.  This also, makes healing potions far more effective. Rolling 2d4 + 2 can be a disastrous waste of an action/bonus action. It may save a life, but on a result of 4 (1+1+2), that grants you one more hit, which may turn the tide of battle, but that isn’t really healing. It’s practically only triage, at that point.

Exploding dice are to add a new element of danger into the combat to emphasize lethality. Critical hits as they have existed in table top gaming can be pretty weak. No one likes rolling a 1 on a critical hit and doubling it, or as 5e has, rolling snake eyes on a critical hit. Critical hits can feel seldom critical. All of that design space went to people like rogues, paladins, and even my own duelist and slayer. Exploding damage however, explores this pretty well. However, when you introduce exploding damage dice, what happens to critical hits? A “critical” hit can be weaker than an exploding die. To fix this, I introduced the following rule on top of exploding damage:

When you score a critical hit, rather than rolling twice the damage dice, maximize the damage from each die, and roll the damage dice once adding it to the maximum result. When you roll the damage dice, any exploding dice still apply.

For example, if you have 1d8 damage with a Strength +3 from a longsword, and you score a critical hit your damage will become 1d8 + 11 (3 +8). Having a starting point assures that critical hits will be at least as good as a normal exploding dice, with the potential of being better. However, I would also recommend an alternative. Damage as good, but as my wizarding friend Nick, would remind me, damage is a stupid use of a spell. Extra damage alone, may not be as good. So thus why critical hits on a natural 20 could, and probably should have a little bit more oomph to them. Fighters, Hexblades, and Magus (Mage College Homebrew) have an expanded critical hit range. If critical hits alone are rewarded then these three classes, (two if you don’t want to use Magus), will be even further augmented to be more dangerous than they already are. Setting an extra effect on a natural 20 levels that playing field in doing damage and adding an effect. This brings us to a rule I call Effective Critical. Effective Critical is partially based in Monte Cook’s Cypher system, Dungeon World, and real world combat application.

In Cypher System, on a critical hit, the player gets to add a minor or major effect to the attack, depending on a roll of 19 or 20, and this is, in part, discussed by the player and GM. Dungeon World is very based in narration and the method of deciding how things occur play out more like a discussion between player and GM. In a real world fight a critical hit is reflective of placing a strike exactly where you want it. Combining these aspects, it encourages narration and creativity. Effective Critical works as following when applied by itself to the normal game:

When you score a critical hit with a roll of 20 on the die, in addition to dealing extra damage, with the help of your DM you may determine an additional effect to try to apply as part of the critical hit. The DM should specify a duration for the effect, and any conditions that apply at their discretion.

Should you fear that the granting something through this kind of dialogue may be a bit much, you can instead add the following stipulation:

The creature must roll a saving throw as determined by the DM to resist the effect after damage is rolled, receiving the full effect on a failed save, and a lesser adverse effect on a successful save. The saving throw DC is 8 + the attacker’s proficiency bonus + their attack modifier.

With the Exploding Dice mechanic attached to the DC variation add the following line:

For every damage die that explodes as part of this critical hit, increase the DC to resist the adverse effect by 1.

Example effects:
On a failed Constitution saving throw the target is stunned until the start of your next turn, on a successful save, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks, and can’t use reactions.

On a failed Constitution saving throw the target is blinded for 1 minute. At the each of the end of its turns, it may repeat its saving throw at the end of each of its turns to end this effect. On a successful save, it has disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks, attack rolls, and Dexterity saving throws.

By opening the discussion for these effects to take place, critical hits will feel more “critical”. One of D&D’s weakness is that called shots tend to be a mess. With this modification it puts a little bit more control in player’s hands with DMs help, and will make fights more interesting. Do not hesitate to use this rule against players as well, the same goes for any combat rule, unless you want to give your players a definite example, but we don't need kid gloves on do we?

Wrapping Up

I will work on a compendium of these extra rules for D&D 5e that I have come up with or developed, and that will be a separate page. You may notice I have changed a few things in the lay out, there is now a link to the "Laboratory" which is a link to the google drive folder that houses all the available homebrew at the top of the page. You can now search the blog, and more easily look through previous articles by month.

Coming this week:
New Ranger Conclave: The Crimson Arrow
The third and final draft of Slayer

Next week:
We take a look at how to create the perfect Summoner.
The Worst Status Condition: Death
Magus: Version 2

Tabletop One-on-One, Part One.

When I first started GMing tabletop games, I thought the idea of playing one-on-one, GMing for a single person was entirely possible, but what  I didn't realize is that it is an entirely different game. My first major experience with this was my friend Mike DMing for me as my favorite PC. I later carried this story on to DM for my wife in the same fashion, and we now have one-on-one tabletop gaming as one of our favorite pass times. There is a very strange dynamic to one-on-one games, and there are a few things to take into consideration before you as a GM or a player wade into a one-on-one game:


The Difference

In a one-on-one game the focus can and often does shift from a party-centric story to a player character centered story. This will allow your player to really dig into playing the type of character they want to and make decisions as their character would. This will also help the GM learn the character, and later, should the character be incorporated into a group, the player and the GM will be able to understand better how to keep the character involved in the story. This player-centric story can be a lot of fun to create, and usually has a plethora of good roleplaying opportunities. This is especially good for players who are newer, or even more quiet at the table.  However, these new perspective means several shifts will occur in the mechanics and the dynamic between the GM and player. As this is a brief summary we'll skim these before we visit them in full articles.

Harder On Everyone?

In terms of playing difficulty, unless the GM runs a a GMPC or uses a hireling system of some kind, your challenge ratings for enemies won't be accurate as they would in a four person party. If a gm for a one-on-one player is going to challenge that player. It is important to carefully consider the character that the player is using to create challenges. Some systems like the newer Scarlet Heroes has rules to fix the scale for one on one play. Scarlet Heroes' fix for this is using a different damage system and what is called a "Fray die" that sort of cinematically help deal with "minions," so solo characters can deal with larger encounters faster and with the odds less stacked against them. 

It may also be difficult for the player at times to feel in charge of the story, and they could very well feel like the story idea that the gm is offering doesn't match up with their character. Sometimes, it is better to resolve it to be more sandbox like until something more attention grabbing comes along. In a one-on-one session, the player may feel less compelled to follow what will feel more like a "generic quest for some adventurers." The very nature of this style of session is to allow the character navigate as they would like. To some degree, this style of game allows the GM to be more reactionary than proactive. The player will innately indicate where they want to take the character by asking questions. Railroading a player in this style of session will only upset them as much as any other player.

Even though the player is in charge of where they are going and constantly telling the GM where they're are headed to next, it is still, coincidentally, more work for the GM in these kinds of things. The GM is not planning in advance but instead needing to react to the desires of the player. Of course, this isn't always the case but it is common for the GM needing to either improvise more, or plan accordingly after the fact.

Easier On Everyone!

However, ultimately, one on one can allow the player and the GM to take more time with their roles. Because of my own one-on-one sessions, my homebrew setting has been much more fleshed out, making larger games much easier to manage. With the player at the forefront of the story, the party decision discussion which can be overly long, and with the wrong players take most of a session, the story moves faster, and you can accomplish more. In another interesting note, the GM gets a better glimpse as to how player mechanics work and why. Rather than having to try to acclimate to four character classes to GM for, the GM will become very familiar with a single one, and may very well gain a better insight as to the design ideas behind the class. I don't think that without my extensive experience with these kinds of games/sessions that my homebrews would be as cohesive as they are.

Another reward to one on one sessions, is that because they follow a single player, that player could even create other characters that should they not feel like playing one story one week, they can instead use another character allowing them to stay interested in the game without boredom. Probably one of the worst feelings is being "stuck" with a character you don't like.

Communication between the GM and player is, of course, easier. It is a 1:1 ratio, and therefore the game that the two want to play can be made more easily. Sometimes when a party has a problem with the GM communication can be less direct and there can be more drama, confusion, and general lack of fun while forgetting the key idea of the game; Having fun.  Though mechanically the styles are different, one-on-one games are an awesome way to hang out with a friend who may be too busy to join a full game, or for you guys to scratch that gaming itch.

Summing Up

One-on-one games are big topic to cover, and I would definitely attest that with a bit of practice, the pros outweigh the cons. I will be talking more about this in the future, as you may be able to tell in the title. Next time we approach this subject, we'll talk more about the mechanical end of things and what it does to the story.

Til then, happy one-on-one-ing, Arcanists. 

The System is Your Console

Establishing Complexity and Choosing a Game

In a recent article, I talked about starting a game and what it requires, and in case you are a firm believer of "TL;DR" (too long didn't read), what it boiled down to is meeting the basic needs of the game: players, a comprehensible system, and a GM who is willing to "make it work."  Keep in mind, what it is important in this context is that these base elements are important to form a new group consisting of new players a new GM, and an entirely a new game. Any combination of these will require some degree of simplicity. Once a group has taken off and learned to play a tabletop roleplaying game, then it is time to choose that delicious layer of complexity that adds all the fun rules we like using (and hopefully not abusing). This is metaphorically, like selecting the type of video game that we feel like playing, we have all agreed that we want a particular experience.

The Engine of Complexity

We very well may have chosen a game we want to play, but there is an important aspect in choosing a system, and this extends to any system not just the ones I mentioned previously. The system you choose better be able to accommodate the game you want to play. To continue our video game analogy, based on the hardware in a Sega Genesis, we couldn't play Bethesda's Skyrim as we know it today. Though, we can definitely play the original Sonic the Hedgehog on any modern console with no difficulty.  In fact, this very phenomenon is why we see remakes and rehashes of old games, we want the ability to play things we enjoy in an updated fashion. (More on this later)

Aside from remaking a game, we may want to choose what game we want to play, and then choose the console to play it. For instance, for the longest time, Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus was only on Playstation 2. If I wanted to play that game, I needed to use my Playstation 2 and not my Playstation 3, but sometimes, we find that rather than buying the new remake, we can just save the money because we still have the console and game. As DM Starhelm likes to remind me, in tabletop games the systems and the games are often mistaken for being one in the same. The way I play Dungeons & Dragons is not the way your group plays it because Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition may be the game, but it is more liken unto the console, what I do with the hardware (the base rules) as a GM is entirely up to me. There are, in video games, good games and bad games, just as in tabletop gaming there are good games and bad games, because you guessed it, we may all be playing Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (Wizards of the Coast brand new console) but we aren't playing the same game. 

Choosing an Engine

Therein lies the beauty of choosing a system. I have been playing the master(sword)piece that is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild because I can't play it on my Playstation 4. At the same time, we have the option of playing the game on both the Wii U and the Nintendo Switch. There we reach the secret of choosing the system, what do I need and want? The Switch is marketed for being portable, and a new revolution in gaming with friends. I own a Wii U and I generally, if I am out somewhere, I don't have the time or need to play a video game, so the Wii U fits me just fine, and how else am I going to play Super Smash Bros.? The analogy is continued here as we see that I have my reasons for playing the game on the console I have. To step back into our situation of choosing the system for the game, the way you want to play, that game you have chosen to share, unlike a console which generally are fairly universal aside from peripherals and available games, will dictate which tabletop roleplaying systems are right for your group and your game. Let's take a brief rundown of some examples and my subjective and objective thoughts on them: 

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

I have no inherent problem with 3.5 other than balancing issues, but that is part of my reasoning for my choice, it is not an objective expression, my own conclusion from my observations. 3.5 is good for games in which character diversity is paramount to you and your group and you all have little complaint for diversity and want more exact rules. This system may be more work for your GM and players overall depending on the game you want to run and how you handle it. Homebrewing is much harder in 3.5, mind you but there isn't much that is not covered here. Definitely for groups that want a game and story with a more "hardcore high fantasy". If you want to feel like your characters go from 0 to legendary hero in this, this system is great, just be aware of obvious rules issues and broken characters.

Pathfinder
I personally like this system a little more than 3.5 but it is undoubtedly based in it (and there for backwards compatible) this game is more balanced with the same level of diversity that 3.5 offered, with similar rules. Major changes are an increased diversity of characters through archetypes while arranging the system so prestige classes aren't necessary, but math gets slightly heavier here. Broken characters can still occur, but players are more likely to have a far more balanced time. New material is still being made for this system by the publisher and a lot of good 3rd party publishers alike. The feeling of growing in leaps and bounds and becoming a legendary hero is also in this system and good for a game that has a high fantasy feel while also having "realistic" rules but with more balance than we saw in 3.5. 

Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition
This system is controversial, but it is balanced, and that may be some people's gripe with it, but it is great for new players and GMs alike, as the system is written in full acknowledgment that it is a game you are playing with the flavor and fiction being left entirely to the players and GM. This system breaks a few standard conventions concerning D&D but if the players want an experience where not much can be broken, and the playing field is fair, in a sort of Justice League everyone is a hero kind of way, welcome to D&D 4th edition. Although, one thing to remember is that this game leaves very little to rules arguments and can be good for having a solid system in which a story can be crafted around. 

Dungeon World and Other PBTA Games

The games that are based on the Apocalypse system that I have mentioned are completely fine systems, and very engaging for both the GM and the players. Some of my favorite sessions have actually been in this system because it is less bound to a huge stack of rules. Alternatively, what is important to remember is that a large amount of what you feel your character can do is up to you and your GM. Unlike D&D, your character class isn't going to explicitly tell you how things work in the fiction of the game while giving you your own unique mechanic. Class features in this game are light and are very driven by the story and how you play not by what your class is, or "who" you are. This game will feel odd to many D&D veterans because they like having those huge blocks of text that make them feel like they have a list of cool stuff they can do, when in this system, the power to be cool is inside of them all along. 

Mutants & Masterminds
This system has a decent following, and can be used to tell essentially any superhero or high power anime/JRPG-esque story. The main consideration is that it is a lot of work at first and without a well read GM, the rules can be daunting, especially for players. Though it has its rewards and you can play superheroes and all that it entails and the rules for player creation are very open, it can be a nightmare to keep it all straight. GMs unfamiliar with the possibilities can be surprised by what their players are capable of and then you may have a problem. The GM being surprised by a decision is ok, but being unaware of a mechanic or power in their game until the moment of can be disastrous. Days of planning can be undone simply because of the "Chunky Salsa Effect". A friend's campaign was abruptly ended when the players essentially create the perfect death trap of cascading damage for the main villain within the course of a couple sessions, and the main damage source was the building damage thanks to the "Chunky Salsa Effect" or the property of energy reflecting off unbreakable walls, magnifying damage and ultimately turning the villain/victim into...well... a thick, chunky salsa like paste. One can be sure that the GM was surprised. If your group can handle it and keep it all straight and want to bench press continental shelves, then have at, just be prepared. 

 

The Start Button

This list doesn't incorporate all the systems out there, but it gives you a glimpse of what systems are good for, I DM and play a lot of 5e (clearly, look at this blog), but at times I miss Pathfinder because of the open options. It is up to everyone (EVERYONE) in the group to decide. No one like being lost in rules, or being beaten up without a clue in Smash Bros. Like any other time, tabletop roleplaying games are about cooperation and cohesion with your players-- your friends. Without that, you have an impending melee, brawl, or dare I say, Mario Party on your hands.