Mystrael Shawk -- An Effect Based Lightning Wizard for D&D

Last week, I discussed how useful it can be to approach D&D magic from an effects based or special effect design philosophy as both a player and a DM. Using this approach allows for gamers to add a little of narrative magic without the need to have a deep understanding of the mechanical balance underlying the game system required to make new spells from whole cloth. This is an approach used by the Champions role playing game and by Pinnacle Entertainment Group's Savage Worlds rpg. The Savage Worlds rule book describes this approach in the following way:

"But just because these powers work the same from setting to setting doesn’t mean they have to look the same, have the same names (to the characters in that world), or even have the exact same effects—that’s where Trappings come in. 

For the most part, Trappings should be merely cosmetic. But sometimes it makes sense for there to be additional effects. A heat ray should have a chance of catching combustible objects on fire, for example, and an electric blast should do slightly more damage to targets in full metal armor."

Coming at magic from a special effects approach can be intimidating and you might not trust me that it can be done without creating a lot of work for players and DMs, but I'm going to attempt to show you how it does just the opposite. It allows for the creation of a lot of imaginative and narrative effects without the need for creating new mechanics. To aid in this process, I will be posting a series of D&D 5e Wizards based on Power Themes and who use effects based spells.

Image Source Anna Steinbauer

Mystrael Shawk 

Human Lightning Wizard (Soldier) 

Level 5

Str 8 (-1)   Dex 14 (+2)  Con 14 (+2)  

Int 16 (+3)  Wis 10 (+0)  Cha 12 (+1)

HP (5d6+10) 32           AC 12 or 15 (dex; Crackling Aura + dex)

Init +2      Speed 30      Proficiency Bonus +3

Attacks: Dagger +5 (1d4 piercing), Dagger (ranged) +5 1d4 piercing, Spells +6 
Senses: Investigation 16, Perception 10
Saves: Intelligence +6, Wisdom +3
Skills: Arcana +6, Athletics +2, Intimidation +4, Investigation +6, Sleight of Hand +5 
Feats: Keen Mind
Human Traits: Bonus Skill (Sleight of Hand), Bonus Feat (War Caster)
Wizard Traits: Spellcasting, Arcane Recovery, Arcane Tradition (Abjuration), Lighting Ward (13 HP)
Spell Casting Ability (Known: 3, 6, 6, 4; Slots: 4, 4, 3, 2; DC 14)

Cantrips:Lightning Ball (Acid Splash), Crackling Illumination (Light), Shocking Grasp

Spells

1 -  Arc of Lightning (Burning Hands), Crackling Aura  (Mage Armor), Electric Shield (Shield), Synaptic Shock (Sleep), Static Tickle (Tasha's Hideous Laughter), Plasma Arc (Magic Missile)
2 - Lightning Cloud (Cloud of Daggers), Immobilizing Shock (Hold Person), Electrify Weapon (Magic Weapon), Mystral's Lightning Arrow (Melf's Acid Arrow), Clinging Field (Spider Climb), Electrical Flash (Blindness/Darkness)
3 - Electrical Animation (Animate Dead), Sphere of Lightning (Fireball), Ride the Lightning (Fly), Lightning Bolt

As you can see, merely by renaming some of the spells the descriptive effect in play of certain spells is altered without changing their effects. Take Crackling Illumination as an example here. When it comes to game effects, it doesn't matter whether light is produced by illusory fire, real fire, crackling electricity, or radiant illumination. All that matters is that the spell produces the effect of light. Similarly for Mage Armor, since we aren't categorizing any kind of damage, the appearance of Mage Armor doesn't affect game play.

It isn't until we get to spells like Lightning Ball (Acid Splash) that one's "but that's a typed damage and it matters" alarm should flash a warning that there might be some mechanical differences of consequence. One could merely hand wave such concerns and point out, as Michael Shea at Sly Flourish often does that Dungeons and Dragons isn't designed to be a balanced game and that imbalance is a part of what we like. I won't do such hand waving here, though that is a perfectly "D&D" thing to do. Instead, let's take a look under the hood of Acid Splash.

Range: 60 feet
Damage: Save or Take 1d6 Acid Damage
# Creatures affected: 1 or 2 within 5 feet.

The reskinned Lightning Ball only changes one aspect of the spell, the damage type. In fact, since the spell already can damage up to 2 creatures in close proximity the spell's mechanics fit nicely with the reskin. The question here becomes, "Does the spell significantly improve if it becomes lightning based?" There are after all different creatures who are resistant/immune to different damage types and affecting a disproportionate number might affect game balance. This criticism only holds so much weight since the Elemental Adept feat allows casters to ignore type resistance (though not immunity). So...what are the differences between Acid and Lightning regarding number of creatures affected?

Creatures Resistant to Acid in Monster Manual: 17
Creatures Immune to Acid in Monster Manual: 15
Number of Creatures Vulnerable to Acid: 0

Creatures Resistant to Lightning in Monster Manual: 34
Creatures Immune to Lightning in Monster Manual: 19
Number of Creatures Vulnerable to Lightning: 0

Here we can see that by choosing a Lightning damage type, the spell has become more limited with regard to the number of creatures it can damage. Given the negligent effects of changing the damage type, we can quickly see that this won't change game balance.

Similarly, describing Sleep as an effect that results from a quick electrical burst or Spider Climb as a static field that surrounds the hands and feet of the caster does nothing other than add a narrative touch to play. The same is true for describing Animate Dead as electrical impulses arching through corpses to control their movements.

There are some damage types that are clearly better or worse than average when it comes to this kind of analysis. Very few creatures are resistant to Radiant damage and 98 monsters are immune to poison, for example, and you would have to decide whether or not to do the "it doesn't really matter" hand wave or ban those as reskinnable trappings in your games. One thing to consider for spells like Sleep is that you might have the creature's resistance apply to the hit points rolled against the spell. That significantly reduces the power of that particular spell against certain foes, but it adds the illusion of unpredictability to your magic and makes magic more magical.

My next character will be a cold themed Wizard.

Pinnacle Announces Their Projects for 2015 and Beyond

I'm a huge fan of Pinnacle Entertainment Group's Savage Worlds role playing game. It combines the simplicity of play of early games in the hobby with the customization and player choice of the modern game. It is easy to learn, but has a depth I've yet to tap out. I've run a number of campaigns and am looking forward to getting an East Texas University game running in the next couple of weeks.

This week, at the rpg hobby's largest convention GENCON, Pinnacle gave a presentation discussing their upcoming projects for the year. They are revisiting some of their best settings and are expanding their offerings. One key new offering comes in around the 7 minute 30 second mark that I think presents a good marketing strategy for the company. Pinnacle has released some excellent "genre" sourcebooks over the years, but when it comes to adventure support that has tended to either be "setting" specific or digital only. It now appears that they'll be doing an adventure compilation for each genre with less setting specificity. Their first one deals with...well...maybe you should just watch the video to see all the exciting things they've got planned. Make sure to watch the last minute of the video as well. It's a doozy.

D&D -- Manuals of Monsters and How They Have Presented Them OD&D to Present

This year marks the 40th Anniversary of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game and the release of the "5th Edition" of the Dungeons & Dragons rules. Long time fans of the game will understand that there are scare quotes around 5th Edition due to the fact that there is room for discussion that there have been seven or more editions of the game, depending on how you count a new edition. I've enjoyed each edition of the game and have never taken sides in any of the edition wars. If you were to ask me what my favorite edition of the game is, I would answer with the Weem's rallying cry:

While I haven't taken part in any edition wars, I have noticed some things that I think have contributed to negative sentiments some players have regarding various editions of the game. For example, I believe that one of the main factors contributing to criticism of 4th edition D&D is quite simply the graphic design choices and "fluff" choices that the game designers made in the construction of that rules set. I believe that Robert Schwalb's observation are essentially correct . You can see an example of how Robert would have reformatted some of the information here. It's a little rough around the edges, but you can quickly see how 4th edition could have been formatted to look more like previous editions.

I also believe that many of the complaints people had about changes in the rules of 4th edition are actually due to their own house ruling of earlier games. For example, complaints about required miniatures use ignore the fact that 3rd edition's flanking and attack of opportunity rules made miniatures a vital component of that game. In fact, 3rd edition was the first time I ever used miniatures in any non-Champions game I'd played. This isn't to say that there aren't legitimate criticisms of 4th edition's combat system - it can bog down and take an hour plus to run a combat - just to say that some of those criticisms also apply to other editions as well. In fact, I would argue that the presentation of the rules in 4th edition is WHY so many people think the game is radically different rules wise. There is no fluff or context for almost anything presented in the rules. The abilities of the classes are presented in a Magic the Gathering style box, with Magic style text, but there is no sense of place in any of the rules. That is a killer and the graphic design hurt tremendously.

No where is this more evident than in the presentation of monsters. For over 30 years the Dungeons & Dragons game had been increasing the amount of "fluff" in its monster entries. Early editions of the game had minimal information scattered over many pages - or even a couple of booklets. By 3rd edition there was a combination of beautiful and useful statistic blocks combined with ample ecological and sociological data about the monster that was being presented. 4th edition - prior to the publication of the excellent Essentials Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale - completely reversed this trend. It returned to the earliest days of presenting monsters as little more than a set of numbers. I believe that this was one of the primary reasons players thought that 4th edition was less able to facilitate "role play" instead of "roll play" than earlier editions. I have often argued the opposite as page 42 of the DMG and the Monster Manual on a business card are almost everything a DM needs to run 4th edition. The DM can wing the rest and up the role play all day. I have argued that many times, and believe it to be true, but I cannot argue that the presentation of the monsters as mere lines of numbers doesn't convey the sense that "role play" was far less important in the minds of the designers than "roll play." 

I think the best way to demonstrate the history of monster presentations in D&D is not a discussion, but a demonstration. The following are stat blocks from the various editions of D&D selected to highlight how each edition added depth of presentation to the monsters...until 4th edition...and how 5th edition has restarted the tradition of more detailed entries with greater verisimilitude. One caveat. The entry for OD&D was pieced together by me from information contained on multiple pages in two booklets. Those booklets are Book II: Monsters and Treasure from the OD&D box set and the Greyhawk Supplement. I own physical copies of all the books featured in this article.

Original D&D

The OD&D Gnoll features very little information about Gnoll's as a creature and the illustration makes it difficult to visualize what kind of creature this actually is. The reference to "Lord Sunsany" (Dunsany?) not making clear what Gnolls are like only ads confusion to the reader. There is room for the Dungeon master to expand on the information, but there is no context for the creature and it is primarily being presented as a set of numbers that players can fight. The "number of attacks" and "points of damage" information come from the Greyhawk supplement as all attacks did 1-6 in the primary OD&D rulebooks.

Advanced D&D Monster Manual

You can clearly see a radical shift in emphasis between OD&D and the Monster Manual. Gygax not only describes what the Gnoll looks like, but provides sociological and ecological information. We know where Gnolls live. We know a little bit about their social  structure. We also have a better illustration of the creature.

Moldvay Basic Set

The Moldvay Basic Gnoll is very similar to the one presented in the OD&D boxed set. This is likely due to the introductory nature of the rule book. It should be noted here though that the presentation here is cleaner than in OD&D and that there is some description of appearance and mannerism. It isn't as complete as the Monster Manual, but it is still a step up from OD&D.

Second Edition Monstrous Compendium

By Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, TSR was providing a great deal of information about their monsters. This Gnoll entry takes information from the earlier MM and organizes it into a more cohesive order and provides some roleplaying information about Gnoll behavior. This is a very useful stat block.

Third Edition Monster Manual

The 3rd edition Gnoll has excellent art, but after the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium's single page per monster layout the need to flip between two pages to get the information is less than ideal. The description provides a number of interesting bit about society and appearance. There is also a good section on how to use the monster in combat. Notice here the inclusion of factors like "reach" which comes into play for the attacks of opportunity. This has the best art so far. The 3.5 rulebook is similar with added information regarding level adjustments and Gnolls as characters. The stat block section is considerably larger in 3.5 due to the inclusion of information regarding "touch" and "flat footed" armor classes. All of which is done to speed up play in a tactical game by removing from the DM the need to do math on the fly.

4th Edition Monster Manual

First, let me say that there is some cool stuff in here. There are multiple types of Gnoll, each with distinct attack types. The art is more cartoony than 3rd, but I really like it. If you want to run combat, there is good advice. If you read the "Gnoll Lore" section, there are some interesting tidbits. BUT...everything is presented related to some mechanic. The Gnoll Lore is given in increments based on skill checks. It isn't narrative fluff, it's "stuff you roll for." Encounters are set up including terms like "level 8 brute" which means almost nothing to the new gamer and makes it seem like you are putting together a Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warmachine group. And that's the crux of the ire right there. The entry focuses on the mechanical and miniature wargame elements of D&D. Is there stuff that makes for good role play here? Sure. Take this quote, "slaves who show strength and savagery might be indoctrinated into the gnoll vanguard." That's pretty cool, but it requires a DC 25 to know. Huh? The DC to know set up was something that I largely ignored in 4th edition, just like I ignored "segments" and "weapon vs. armor type" in AD&D (though a recent issue of Gygax Magazine demonstrated that at least Lenard Lakofka uses them in his games). 

What About 5th Edition?

It looks like they've returned to - and taken a step further - the presentation style they used in 3rd edition and merging it with the ease of use of the 2nd edition presentation. This post at Critical Hits shows the Bullette and this one from Dread Gazebo shows the Umber Hulk.  Wizards of the Coast has been kind enough to provide us with the Sphinx.

If you want to know why I'm so excited about 5th edition. This is why. There is a full page of narrative description of sphinxes that also includes an inset of the riddle from a classic AD&D module. The art is very good and the layout is wonderful. The stat block tells you a lot about the new D&D edition. Check out that Armor Class. It's only 17 for a Challenge 17 monster. For a 4e player, who is used to AC increasing by one per level or for a 3rd edition player who is used to Fighters adding +1 to hit every level, this must seem quite low. In fact, it isn't for 5e. Yes, the monster is likely to be hit fairly frequently by appropriate level opponents - but the 199 hit points will help it stick around. Also examine that section on Legendary Actions. This is a modification of one of my favorite developments in later expansions for 4e, monsters taking actions during an opponent's turn. In this case at the end of an opponent's turn. The stat block also isn't as reliant on miniatures based mechanics as the 4e block. I've written a couple of posts on "Zones of Control" for this blog that demonstrate that D&D has always been a miniatures war game, but it has typically been one where one can ignore that element and move on with game play. 3.x and 4e made that more difficult than earlier editions, but we seem to be moving back toward a nice balance.

Tyranny of Dragons Trailer Looks Pretty Cool

My favorite effect in this video is how the Adamantine shield shatters one of the Cultist's weapons. This looks to be a much better use of Tiamat than I managed in my middle school all-night first DM-ing session. I guess it helps when one has a story to frame the encounter.

#RPGaDAY #4: Most Recent RPG Purchase -- What Do You Mean by Most Recent? Espionage vs 5th Edition Player's Handbook

I've been having fun thinking about Dave Chapman's (aka +Autocratik or @autocratik) #RPGaDAY prompts. While I haven't been keeping up with the calendar, and am about nine days behind, the list of 31 ideas for rpg related blog posts have been thought provoking in different ways. One of the most interesting things about the prompts is that there are many ways to approach each one. For example, when I wrote my response to prompt #2 I made some distinctions about what it was to actually be a gamemaster. The distinctions led me to two different answers. A similar thing happened when I thought about today's post on the "Most recent RPG purchase." I began asking myself whether Dave was asking what was the most recent RPG I've purchased  or whether he was asking which RPG I've purchased most recently. These are two different things.

The "most recent RPG I've purchased" isn't a recent RPG at all. For the past month I have been scouring through my gaming collection to find the copy of the Espionage adventure Merchants of Death that belongs in my Espionage boxed set. I've never played Espionage, nor it's follow up Danger International, but I have always been intrigued with how his game shaped the future of the Hero Game system and more importantly the Champions RPG. Though I own - and have played - Top Secret and James Bond and have run sessions of Night's Black Agents (which is awesome and currently available from Pelgrane Press), I haven't run or played an spy thriller using the Hero System. I am a fan of the system overall and have wanted to run a game ever since I read Aaron Allston's Strike Force where he discussed how he had adapted the martial arts rules from Danger International for use in his Champions campaign. He believed that the way martial arts were modeled in DI were superior to the old 3rd edition and earlier Champions system. Clearly the other designers agreed because the 4th edition of Champions uses a modified version of Aaron's adapted system.

So my interest has been high for a long time and Espionage and Danger International have long been a part of my game collection. Recently I've been wanting to play a superhero game with my gaming group and have been confronted by one significant problem. All of my favorite superhero role playing games that have tactical components have a fairly extensive character generation system. DC Heroes, Champions, and Savage Worlds each have qualities I very much like, but since they allow you to build characters based on a concept and my group has little experience with this kind of character generation. In fact, it often leads to analysis paralysis due to an overwhelming number of choices. Yes, 3.x D&D/Pathfinder have a daunting number of choices too, but some of them are spaced out across play and not all the decisions have to be made up front. My thoughts were that if I could run a game of Espionage which utilizes the Hero System, but where the choices are more confined, it would be a nice introduction. Trust me when I say that character generation sessions have broken down by merely asking the question "How strong is your superhero?" Given that some of my players don't own all the games I own...scratch that...none of my players own all of the games I own, we often have to have character creation sessions. Given the build a character nature of Champions/DC/Savage Worlds this can lead to some pretty dull "game time."

Long story short, I wanted to run Espionage for the players and I wanted to use the introductory adventure Merchants of Death. I couldn't find it anywhere, so I had to hunt eBay and various online used RPG stores until I found a copy of Espionage that had the adventure. I am clearly not the only person who has misplaced the adventure as it took quite some time to find a copy. But find one I did, and it arrived today making it my "most recently purchased RPG."

As for the most recent RPG that I have purchased, I will spare you the long context laden backstory. Last Friday I got my copy of the D&D 5th Edition's Player's Handbook at my Friendly Local Game Store. Let me just say that I am a big fan of D&D in all of its editions, but that I am very impressed with this particular edition and look forward to playing it. I am also intrigued how Hasbro has chosen to have D&D be the only brand mentioned on the cover of the Player's Handbook. Wizards of the Coast is mentioned inside the book, and Wizards and Kobold Press are listed on the module, but D&D is the only brand present on the cover of this book. It's a very interesting assertion of brand commitment.

Dungeons and Dragons: 5th Edition and "Zones of Control"

Back in 2012, I wrote a blog post discussing how every edition of Dungeons & Dragons had miniature use as a part of its default mechanics assumptions.

Let me repeat that in clearer language. Every edition of Dungeons & Dragons is a miniatures based tactical role playing game.

As I wrote in the earlier post, this doesn't mean that those playing without miniatures were "playing the game wrong." I've played in at least one adventure in every edition of D&D and there are plenty of rules my gaming groups have either ignored or added to make our own experience more fun. Here are just a few ways my groups have modified game play:

1) None of the 1st Edition AD&D campaigns I've played in has ever used the Weapon Speed Factors or the Modifications for Armor Class.
2) I've played in 1st Edition games that used "Spell Points" for spell casters.
3) As a Game Master, I've disallowed non-Lawful Good Paladins in 3.x and 4e.
4) I had a DM who used Arduin's Damage System in his AD&D Campaign.
5) I've never used the initiative system from Eldritch Wizardry.
6) I give every race a second wind as a minor action (Dwarves get it as a free action) to speed up play.
7) One campaign I played in had us set our miniatures on the play mat in "Marching Order." No matter the shape of the room our characters were attacked based on that formation in Bard's Tale-esque fashion. We could have been in the center of a room 100' x 100' and all of the melee attacks would have been targeted at either the front row or the back row without anyone attacking our Magic Users in the middle.

Every one of the games I played with these groups was fun and thus none of these groups was playing "wrong." None of these groups played games to the rules as written either. No one - with the exception of organized play - should play to the rules as written. Role playing games are written to be adapted to play for your local gaming group. There are two key elements that allow for this without "breaking" the game. First, there are no winners and losers in D&D. The only way to win is to have fun and changing the rules for your local group is one way to create fun. Some changes are fun for a short time before they create more boredom than fun - in general - so there is room for advice regarding power scaling and Monte Haul campaigns, but the aim is to maximize fun. Second, most role playing games - excepting a couple of innovative Indie games - have a Game Master who moderates the game and who has absolute authority in rules interpretation in the local gaming group. So long as the Game Master is fair and focuses on keeping the game entertaining for the players in his or her group, then what rules are included or left out don't matter much.

Man...that's a lot of prefatory information. You can read the older post to see how each edition of D&D has implemented the use of what are called "Zones of Control" or "ZoCs" in great detail in the older post. The short version is this:

Original Edition (Chainmail): Once engaged in melee a unit was stuck until death or a failed morale check.

Original Edition (Alternate Combat): Not locked in combat, but adds "flanking" rules in Greyhawk Supplement. Swords & Spells supplement adds attacks of opportunity.

D&D Basic (Holmes): Attack of Opportunity against those leaving combat.

D&D Basic (Moldvay): Adds "Defensive Withdrawal" similar to "5 foot move" or "shift" in later editions.

1st Edition AD&D: Attack of Opportunity for withdrawal and Rear Attack Rules (Page 69 & 70 of DMG)

2nd Edition AD&D: Similar to 1st (Pages 81 to 84 of Revised DMG)

3rd Edition D&D: See image below.

3.5 Edition D&D: See image below.

Pathfinder: See image below.

4th Edition D&D: See image below.

Each of these editions demonstrates the influence of tactical wargames on the combat systems of each edition. It should also be noted that each edition of the game adds new layers of complexity regarding what affects whether you are in a Zone of Control and whether you are flanking an opponent. Pathfinder, 3rd Edition, 3.x, and 4th edition all have creatures with reach that expands their Zones of Control and each of those games has specific rules regarding how conditions influence your ability to flank other combatants. If you read the earlier article and examine the pages of the 1st Edition DMG you will see that there are rules similar to those implemented by later editions, but you will also wish that the earlier edition had created cool graphic representations like those of later editions.

5th edition (in the Basic Rules) takes a big step away from the trend and is even more abstract than the earliest editions of the game with regard to flanking. I would argue that 5th edition is the first edition with takes "no position" with regard to miniatures and carefully crafts descriptions so that combat can be run either way without house rules or dropping rules -- though it does still refer to "squares" from time to time. The new edition still includes Opportunity Attacks - a firm Zone of Control concept - as described on page 74. But instead of listing a specific amount of distance moved as in Moldvay, 1st AD&D, and later editions it merely lists the need to use the "Disengage" action. The Disengage action can be used with a tactical map, but doesn't require one as it is more narrative in its description than the older "Defensive Withdrawal."  The Rogue class on page 27 hints at the flanking rules for 5th edition which does not seem to entail a good deal of examining to see if combatants align properly on opposite sides of an opponent in a way that require illustration. Under Sneak Attack, the Basic rules state that you can deal extra damage if you have advantage OR "if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the die roll." That's a pretty big shift toward simplicity and away from map use. While it could be argued that the 5 foot rule implies the use of maps, one could easily assume that a creature engaged in melee has an enemy within  feet. If this replaces needing opposite sides for advantage, this is a boon for mapless gaming. It is easily adaptable regardless. So what does this make 5th edition's Zone of Control rules based on the Basic Set?

5th Edition D&D: Attacks of Opportunity (strong ZoC) and potentially with Flanking if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it.