Wizards, Warriors, and Wedding Anniversaries

Jody drew this image a couple of years ago for a wedding anniversary card she made me. Last year, I used Cafe Press to put this image on mugs and a wall tile as an anniversary present for her.

Quick Review -- "The Temple of Yellow Skulls" by Don Bassingthwaite

Bassingthwaite's Eberron books are among the best examples of how to balance good storytelling while making a work of media tie-in fiction reflect its origins. Bassingthwaite had a way of incorporating the tone of the Eberron setting and the mechanics of D&D into the narrative without the game mechanics getting in the way of the mechanics of good storytelling. His Dragon Below series is among the best D&D media tie-in fiction written to date.

I had high hopes for The Temple of Yellow Skulls -- and the Abyssal Plague series of stories -- because Bassingthwaite's involvement in the project. Sadly, the shallow world design of the "Points of Light" setting (and the Nentir Vale in general) were a little too much for Bassingthwaite's talents to overcome. Don wasn't given the same kind of rich background he had available in his earlier work, and he wasn't given the same freedom to create characters within the story, and the book suffers as a consequence. The characters that Bassingthwaite introduced in "Skulls" are well developed and engaging, but the writing on the carryover characters seems a bit pro forma.

Those criticisms stated, Bassingthwaite tells an entertaining tale that has some genuinely enjoyable moments and the "Points of Light" setting -- and the Nentir Vale -- have more depth as a setting after this book than they did before it. I have been impressed with the way that the authors of this new "Points of Light" series of D&D books have begun to fill in the massive gaps in the setting to create a world. Reading these books is like watching world building in action. This book would have been better if the setting itself had either been flushed out, or the author given more freedom in world building, but the book was a fun way to spend an afternoon.

Gaming*Mirth -- Fantasy Odd Couples: Louise Couldn't Help Falling for Chaotic Evil Guys

Combat Maneuvers in 4th Edition D&D

One of the chief innovations of the 3rd Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons role playing game was the incorporation of robust mechanics for combat maneuvers. Earlier editions of D&D had vague rules for parrying blows, but little to no guidance with regard to how your character could disarm an opponent or trip a foe. To be fair, some products featured what I would call "patchwork" fixes that allowed for these activities (case in point the D&D "Master's Set" for the Mentzer edition), but the mechanics didn't seem organic to the system. With 3rd edition, this changed. The maneuvers weren't always easy to accomplish for all characters, and often contained a "feat tax" to perform them without consequences, but they were clearly defined and articulated.

Paizo's Pathfinder role playing game took the basic mechanics of the combat maneuvers in 3.5 and expanded them, clarified them, and aided Gamemasters by adding listings for "Combat Maneuver Defense" and "Combat Maneuver Bonus" which helped to speed up calculations during play. They also made some small adjustments to the system.

The combat maneuvers -- other than basic strikes -- that 3.x and Pathfinder presented mechanics for include: Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint. Each of these can add some narrative dynamics to combat that empower players to control the "story" of how combat takes place and they add to the excitement of the combat experience.

A chief complaint is that 4th Edition is that the system lacks a robust system like that presented in 3.x -- in fact it is one of the complaints I hear most frequently about 4e. The typical response to those who make this complaint is that the "basic combat maneuvers" of 3.x and Pathfinder are difficult to achieve without appropriate feats and that 4e "solved this" by incorporating the effects of most of these maneuvers into the "powers/maneuvers" of the classes for which these maneuvers are appropriate. After all, the line of argument goes, making a grappling mage in 3.x/Pathfinder isn't an easy thing to do -- the feat tax "trap" and the method of calculating basic attacks -- meant that it was primarily Fighters who were good at these maneuvers.

Both the complaint and the answer are deeply flawed and don't accurately represent the problem or solution. The problem isn't that the system lacks a robust system for using these maneuvers, nor is the solution that they've incorporated the maneuvers into powers/exploits of the various classes. The problem is that 4e does have the mechanics, and they even show you how to use them on page 42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, but that they only clearly articulate the rules for a couple of them and expect that DMs will follow the advice on page 42 for the remaining maneuvers -- or extrapolate them from the information contained in the rule books.

This is a problem of rule book drafting philosophy. As role playing games have grown as a hobby, many rules systems have become more specific in how combat maneuvers and abilities are expressed. In a manner of speaking, the mechanics of the game systems have become more like computer program subroutines and have become less subject to "DM interpretations" that may differ from group to group. The pinnacle of this style of mechanical subroutine presentation are the Hero System and GURPS, but 3.5 wasn't far behind. A key advantage to these systems is that groups can do narrative combat actions using the Rules As Written (RAW) rather than the Rules As Intended or even the Rules As Interpreted. This kind of design doesn't end rules arguments at gaming tables, but it does lessen them from the days of "rulings rather than rules." Neither the "rulings instead of rules" or "rules instead of rulings" philosophies are superior to the other, but each has its advocates and 3.x was pretty heavily on the "rules instead of rulings" side.

Surprisingly, to those who might think otherwise, 4e has a heavy "rules instead of rulings" philosophy. So much so that some gamers think of 4e as a board game or miniatures war game more than a role playing game. But the game also has a heavy -- and deep -- "rulings instead of rules" philosophy. The game tried to have the best of both worlds. It wanted the rules stability, balance, and statistical predictability of a game like Feng Shui -- where the "average" result of a character's action against a difficulty number is equal to their skill/ability score -- but they also wanted the narrative flow of a game like The Burning Wheel or Savage Worlds. In fact, once you understand the underlying math of the game it can be played entirely using the "Skill Challenge" system without ever using the combat rules -- but that is another post entirely.

The 4th Edition of D&D has a great deal of advice for playing with RAW, but they have moved beyond "Rules as Intended" or "Rules as Interpreted" and have many "Rules as Possible" which are a combination of written and interpreted rules that allow for DMs to recreate the maneuvers from the prior edition without ever creating new rules systems. To do it well, a DM does need to understand the underlying math of combat, but 4e has a pretty simple and a very static (from level to level) system. This is the game's greatest strength -- it makes designing balanced encounters easy -- and its greatest weakness.

The game provides specific examples for how Bull Rush and Grapple work in 4e, and they provide the mechanics for the rest -- but they never construct those remaining maneuvers. Page 42 of the Dungeon Master's Guide gives specific guidance on how to construct the maneuvers, but the specifics are left to the DM to construct.

The basic 4e combat math is as follows. Monsters will have an Armor Class equal to approximately 14 + level -- 15 for a Level 1 monster -- with some slight variation for the monster's "role." Monsters will have a base to hit bonus vs. Armor Class of 5 + Level -- +6 for a Level 1 monster -- and will attack other defenses at 3 + Level -- +4 for a Level 1 Monster. A Player Character will have between a 16 + Level and 20 + Level Armor Class -- depending on "role" -- and will have between a 5 + Level to 8 + bonus to hit an opponent's AC (2 less versus NADs). There is some variation of this, but these are fairly good baseline assumptions.

This means that a Monster -- attacking AC -- will be +6 vs. an AC of 17 to 21 thus hitting 30% to 50% of the time, while players will hit between 60% to 75% of the time. Tactics will modify both of these numbers upward with some roles ("Strikers") hitting 90% of the time. These percentages remain the same -- with very little variation -- throughout a character's "career." The game's progression is relatively level so that challenges have a similar character risk regardless of level, though the growth of Encounter and Daily Powers make the dynamics of combat change as the levels progress.

These assumptions are quite different than the underlying mathematical assumptions of 3.x/Pathfinder. 3.x combats are a little harder to balance, as the combat atop the Belltower in Paizo's first Adventure Path can attest, but they can be quite exciting. While high level threats in 4e might be as challenging to characters as threats were at low levels, they are still relatively narrow in tactical options -- each monster is only expected to live a certain number of rounds so there are only so many attack options given to each opponent -- whereas 3.x/Pathfinder opponents can become quite complex in their tactical offerings in later levels. Anyone who has stated up high level NPC or Dragons knows how detailed these characters can be. This level of granularity is refreshing to many players, and as an old Hero grognard I have a deep appreciation of it. This difference of granularity could be a post in and of itself, just let it be said that 4e characters are always at the same risk of death as they were at low levels and that 3.x characters encounter more tactically diverse (within a single opponent) challenges.

What is key here is that 3.x/Pathfinder is slightly harder to balance for as its combat system is looser. I'm going to use 3.x as a reference for constructing 4e versions of

So how do we bring Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint to the 4e table without actually creating new rules? How do we use the existing rules set to bring in more tactical options? Will it break the balance of the game?

I'll answer the last question first. Adding these maneuvers as powers will not break the game. There are already a number of classes, the two Essentials Rangers for example, who have "trip" effects as part of damaging powers, and the Essentials Knight has a Bull Rush capability added to one of its powers. Additionally, 4e does allow anyone to use Bull Rush and Grapple as maneuvers. We'll be using those mechanics to establish our guidelines. This leaves only Disarm, Overrun, Sunder, Trip, and Feint for us to create maneuvers for.

First, let's take Trip. Given that there are currently classes that -- at 1st level -- can Trip as a part of a normal attack action, it isn't game breaking to create a Trip Maneuver. Additionally, being knocked prone in 4e -- while bad -- isn't as horrible as being knocked prone in 3.x/Pathfinder.

TRIP

Essentially, Trip is an attack based on your combatant's Strength against your opponent's Reflex defense. If you hit, then you knock the opponent prone. No damage, just a prone opponent.

You might add a "Trip Training" feat that allows characters to use other statistics as the basis for tripping, just as the game has Combat Training to allow Basic Attacks to be based on alternate stats. I recommend doing so, and making it an Heroic feat.

I also recommend creating a "Sweeping Trip" power that can only be used by those who have the feat -- which I recommend be a Paragon level feat. This feat will allow a combatant to Trip anyone in a Blast 1.

It might also be wise to create feats that allow characters to used certain weapons with Trip attacks, thus gaining the proficiency bonus for those attacks. Weapons like Pole Arms and Staffs should have a "Trip Weapon Proficiency" feat, that lets you use their "Trip Weapon" feature.

Disarm is a little trickier, but not much. Given that damage for monsters is based on level, and not on weapon, a disarm attack's effect isn't just the removal of the weapon it also has an impact on damage dealt.

TRIP

I would represent this through the Weakened condition, which halves the damage done by character, that can be ended by spending a move action to pick up a weapon. In essence, the monster must choose between spending an action to pick up a weapon -- or doing less damage. I would also make the attack a little more difficult than a normal melee attack and give a -2 penalty to attack rolls. Given 4e's tendency to have Non-AC Defenses 2 lower than AC, and most weapons provide a Proficiency bonus of +2, this works nicely.

Feint could easily be represented as a Weapon Attack using Strength - 2 vs. Reflex attack that grants the next attack Combat Advantage. Given that there are feats that grant Combat Advantage in easy situations, and that Doppelgangers have a Minor Action that does just this effect, it seems in line with the game's intent.

Sunder would be a Strength vs. Reflex -2 attack that specifically targeted the opponent's weapon or shield. I will give this its own post, as calculating the HP and DC of the attack requires me to look through the Essential DM's book.

Overrun is also easy, but I'd like to give it its own post as well.

New "John Carter of Mars" Anthology to Be Released in 2012

It would not be an understatement to say that Edgar Rice Burroughs is the reason I read as voraciously as I do today. My introduction to SF/F were the Fairy Tales of Hans Christian Anderson. My first glimpse into modern Fantasy was Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. The author who came to define the genre for me was Michael Moorcock. But it was Edgar Rice Burroughs who showed me all that SF/F can be. His fiction had everything. If I wanted to read "lost worlds" fiction, Burroughs was there. Historical fiction that bordered on Fantasy? Burroughs was there. Wild visions of other worlds that combined soap operatic romance with pulse pounding action? Burroughs was there. Westerns? Cave men? Dinosaurs? Bizarre Aliens? Post Apocalyptic adventure?

Burrough's imagination has always seemed limitless to me. His writing style was workmanlike and efficient in delivering its tale, and finding poetic beauty in one of his tales isn't always an easy task, but the story telling and the ideas are truly remarkable. He arguably created the genre of Planetary Romance with his John Carter stories (though they become formulaic at times), a genre that Leigh Brackett then mastered, but Burroughs returned to the genre in his Venus adventures and did a little post-modern deconstruction of the genre.

Burroughs showed me that written stories were the best tool to open up the imagination. He showed me in ways that a less prolific author, or a better writer, never could have. My mind filled in the details of the gaps in his writing, and it wondered what new genre Burroughs would be introducing me to in the next book I picked up.

What made Burroughs great, and why he inspired me to be a voracious reader, was that he wrote essentially every genre. My love for one author made me a lover of stories. Not a lover of stories of a particular genre, but of stories in the broader sense. It's the reason I'll read anything, and it's also the reason I'm able to talk with people about Gossip Girl, Hellcats, and uncountable Romantic Comedies. I love story, and I have Burroughs to thank for that.

I mention that Burroughs created my love of story because it was just announced that Simon and Schuster books will be releasing a new anthology of John Carter stories written by many of today's leading authors. The book is being edited by one of my favorite anthology editors, John Joseph Adams, and is scheduled to be released just before the new John Carter movie next year.

But it wasn't just the announcement that made me think about why I love Burroughs was the list of authors who will be contributing to the tome. If you were to ask me to create a list of authors "I would select" who would write in a publication featuring new tales of John Carter, it might look like the following:

1) Michael Moorcock
2) Lois McMaster Bujold
3) James Enge
4) Chris Roberson
5) Howard Andrew Jones
6) Ursula K. LeGuin
7) George R. R. Martin
8) Mike Resnick
9) C.J. Cherryh
10) Michael Chabon

Those would be the "big names" I would include off the top of my head. Some of these authors would be chosen for their own confessed love of Burroughs, and others to see what they would do with Burroughs' characters. I'm particularly interested in what Bujold would do.

Surprisingly, not one of those authors is listed as a writer in the upcoming publication. I actually find the lack of Moorcock and Roberson shocking...shocking I tell you.

Instead, this is the list of authors:

1) Joe R. Lansdale
2) Jonathan Maberry
3) David Barr Kirtley
4) Peter S. Beagle
5) Tobias S. Buckell
6) Robin Wasserman
7) Theodora Goss
8) Genevieve Valentine
9) L. E. Modesitt, Jr.
10) Garth Nix
11) Chris Claremont
12) S. M. Stirling
13) Catherynne M. Valente
14) Austin Grossman

There are many talented authors on the list, as well as a few I've never read. What sets this list apart from the list I wrote earlier, is that I wonder what exactly a John Carter story would look like from each of these authors. I have a good idea of what a Moorcock one would look like -- he did do his own Mars planetary romance series after all -- but I have no idea what Theodora Goss' version of planetary romance is. These authors come from across the speculative fiction spectrum. The list includes authors who write Young Adult Fiction, Horror, Short Fiction, Comic Books, "Literary" SF/F, and Classic Fantasy.

I excitedly await the volume and will be investigating the fiction of some of its authors -- the ones I haven't read yet -- to get a glimpse of what Adams has in store for us as Burroughs fans.

Another Gaming Music Video

Gaming*Mirth -- Beauty and Beholders