Sadly, it had been almost 2 years since I posted a volume of my main Tellurian Tales line. After being inspired by a post over at Head Injury Theater about spending more time posting excuses about not posting than actually doing something productive, I decided after my afternoon nap to do something about it. Yay!
Lately, Tellurian Tales has involved simply slogging through a long dungeon. Running this solo, now that I'm comfortable with the D&D rules, is not quite as exciting as it once was. Also, I've moved on to hacking on Zludge rules as my primary form of entertainment, rather than building D&D characters that need a story to shine in. I guess this partly explains why it's been 2 years.
I'm looking forward to the end of the current story cycle. I'd like to dust all the characters off while I level them up and (as already planned) break the party into smaller groups for more story-focused adventures. I'll probably leave things running as D&D though. The characters I have (some of whom haven't even entered the story yet) represent countless hours pouring over D&D rule books and supplements, squeezing out the max advantage from combining diverse feats and prestige classes. Seems a shame to lose all that history by switching to Drudge. Also, it's a good idea to keep one foot in d20 while I contemplate translating it to Drudge.
Besides, I already have plans to alpha-test Drudge with Ailithorn, and I'm currently toying with a Western D&D setting for beta-testing games (with either S., B., or even a gaming group). I'm also wondering about a Zludge adaptation of Dark Heresy...
Time's at a premium though, so we'll see how it goes. I really need to focus...
Oh, and the slowest point in this evening's game was the pause to determine whether a ranged touch attack counts as a simple or natural weapon. My conclusion: No. Which makes sense if you think of it as just an attack and not a weapon. But there's confounding issues such as unarmed attacks sometimes being equivalent to simple weapons and the ability to take Weapon Focus for magical rays.
Showing posts with label rule interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule interpretation. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Notion: Creation-time versus Play-time
In computer programming, there is the difference between compile-time and run-time. To create a program, the author first writes the instructions in a particular programming language. But a computer does not understand those instructions directly; they must be translated into binary machine code relevant to that particular computer hardware. The translation from the author's source code to executable machine code is called compiling. Once an executable program has been compiled, it can then be run. It is during run-time that the program actually does what it was written to do.
While compiling, the compiler can do a lot of error-checking--making sure that the syntax is correct, confirming that the data types for different variables are correct, etc. It can also link in other libraries or modules. It can optimize the program so it runs more efficiently. Generally, the more error-checking done at compile-time, the fewer errors encountered at run-time.
Not all programs are compiled in a separate stage like this, however. Some are interpreted: translated into machine code line-by-line from the source code at run-time. (This is a spectrum, of course: many modern languages compile to an intermediate form and are then interpreted from that form at run-time.)
The point of all this is: there's stuff you can validate at compile/creation time, and then there's stuff you validate at run/play time.
This is the same for RPGs. Something like D&D is like a compiled language: it takes hours to translate levels and skill ranks and equipment lists into all the particular modifiers listed on a character sheet. This is not necessarily a bad thing: character creation and optimization can be a very enjoyable activity, especially for power-gamers. And, as with programming, the more error-checking of modifiers you can do beforehand means fewer errors during play time.
On the other hand, a game like Risus is rather interpreted. There's still some authorship beforehand, but characters are represented as cliches. How those cliches then translate into particular skills or feats is actually determined during game time.
Overall, I'm a fan of compiled over interpreted, both for my programming languages and my RPGs. There's an initial overhead, but things seem to run smoother if as many details as possible are composed and validated beforehand. But this is just a preference.
Hopefully this difference/metaphor proves useful when considering RPG design.
While compiling, the compiler can do a lot of error-checking--making sure that the syntax is correct, confirming that the data types for different variables are correct, etc. It can also link in other libraries or modules. It can optimize the program so it runs more efficiently. Generally, the more error-checking done at compile-time, the fewer errors encountered at run-time.
Not all programs are compiled in a separate stage like this, however. Some are interpreted: translated into machine code line-by-line from the source code at run-time. (This is a spectrum, of course: many modern languages compile to an intermediate form and are then interpreted from that form at run-time.)
The point of all this is: there's stuff you can validate at compile/creation time, and then there's stuff you validate at run/play time.
This is the same for RPGs. Something like D&D is like a compiled language: it takes hours to translate levels and skill ranks and equipment lists into all the particular modifiers listed on a character sheet. This is not necessarily a bad thing: character creation and optimization can be a very enjoyable activity, especially for power-gamers. And, as with programming, the more error-checking of modifiers you can do beforehand means fewer errors during play time.
On the other hand, a game like Risus is rather interpreted. There's still some authorship beforehand, but characters are represented as cliches. How those cliches then translate into particular skills or feats is actually determined during game time.
Overall, I'm a fan of compiled over interpreted, both for my programming languages and my RPGs. There's an initial overhead, but things seem to run smoother if as many details as possible are composed and validated beforehand. But this is just a preference.
Hopefully this difference/metaphor proves useful when considering RPG design.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
D&D: Slow Monks
A couple days ago I got to thinking how I've created over 25 D&D characters, yet I've never had a monk character. The reason for this is I feel that monks are a cool idea but lame in practice.
My biggest complaint about monks is that a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a pair of gauntlets is better at unarmed combat than a Monk of equivalent level performing a flurry of blows. Under 3.5 rules, a 1st level fighter with 2WFing could perform two attacks at -1/-1 BAB. A flurrying monk would be at -2/-2. The monk stays -1 behind the fighter until 11th level when he at least gets an extra attack.
Sure, monks do a bit more damage (initially d6 vs the fighter's d4), and monks have a bunch of saves and other special abilities--but nothing that couldn't really be duplicated with some good magic items. And the fighter has the option of armor and upping his damage using a long and short sword at the same attack bonus.
In short, I feel the monk should be a whirlwind of accurate unarmed blows. Sure, they might not do much damage verses armored foes, but I see this a damage issue, not a base attack issue. (I guess part of the problem is they only have a fair BAB progression.) I'm imagining Wing Chun style combat here (think Matrix or wooden dummy speed). This is the flavor of the monk, but it constantly disappoints me that the math doesn't match.
However, I started thinking... what if the monk also took Two Weapon Fighting? Would that stack with a flurry of blows? After much pondering and research, it seems that the basic answer is: yes. Some of the finer details are still a little fuzzy though. Specifically, if performed unarmed, does the offhand attack get +STR or only +1/2 STR to damage? The rules say there's no such thing as an offhand attack for an unarmed monk; additionally, even offhand special monk weapons receive the full +STR bonus during a flurry. This suggests the first interpretation: even when 2WFing, the monk should still receive the full STR bonus if the offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or special monk weapon. This seems to be the interpretation of Skip Williams (at least when the offhand is unarmed), and the one I favor.
However, the official FAQs (by the Sage, Andy Collins, I believe) imply that a monk's off-hand attack would receive only +1/2 STR, even if made unarmed.
The DM's always right, so I'm basically going with: Monks can take the 2WF feat to get an extra attack. This stacks with flurry of blows, so now a first level monk could make 3 attacks at -4/-4/-4. (An impressive display, but most of them will probably bounce off the opponent's armor.) By the rules of 2WF, one of those attack must be made by the offhand. However, if this offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or a special monk weapon, it still gets the monk's full STR bonus. The offhand weapon doesn't actually need to made with a hand, but could be an unarmed attack such as a kick, etc. (This simplifies book-keeping and seems to keep with the general flavor of the monk's Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows.)
Technically, I still have a moratorium on new character creation. However, there's a future major NPC in Dragonwars that was going to be partly monk, so (loophole!) I'm fleshing him out a bit. For story purposes, I'm taking a level of Rogue and two of Ranger first. I'm thinking of using a glaive and Combat Reflexes too, which will provide a nice reach. While the glaive can't be used with a flurry, it can still be used with 2WF. Though the glaive occupies two hands, I can still make "offhand" attacks with kicks. By that reasoning, I could carry the glaive in one hand, make primary attacks with kicks in a flurry, and then an offhand attack with the other hand.
This should make for interesting/powerful enough martial prowess. Now I just need work on fleshing out the rest of the character and the non-combat aspects...
My biggest complaint about monks is that a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a pair of gauntlets is better at unarmed combat than a Monk of equivalent level performing a flurry of blows. Under 3.5 rules, a 1st level fighter with 2WFing could perform two attacks at -1/-1 BAB. A flurrying monk would be at -2/-2. The monk stays -1 behind the fighter until 11th level when he at least gets an extra attack.
Sure, monks do a bit more damage (initially d6 vs the fighter's d4), and monks have a bunch of saves and other special abilities--but nothing that couldn't really be duplicated with some good magic items. And the fighter has the option of armor and upping his damage using a long and short sword at the same attack bonus.
In short, I feel the monk should be a whirlwind of accurate unarmed blows. Sure, they might not do much damage verses armored foes, but I see this a damage issue, not a base attack issue. (I guess part of the problem is they only have a fair BAB progression.) I'm imagining Wing Chun style combat here (think Matrix or wooden dummy speed). This is the flavor of the monk, but it constantly disappoints me that the math doesn't match.
However, I started thinking... what if the monk also took Two Weapon Fighting? Would that stack with a flurry of blows? After much pondering and research, it seems that the basic answer is: yes. Some of the finer details are still a little fuzzy though. Specifically, if performed unarmed, does the offhand attack get +STR or only +1/2 STR to damage? The rules say there's no such thing as an offhand attack for an unarmed monk; additionally, even offhand special monk weapons receive the full +STR bonus during a flurry. This suggests the first interpretation: even when 2WFing, the monk should still receive the full STR bonus if the offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or special monk weapon. This seems to be the interpretation of Skip Williams (at least when the offhand is unarmed), and the one I favor.
However, the official FAQs (by the Sage, Andy Collins, I believe) imply that a monk's off-hand attack would receive only +1/2 STR, even if made unarmed.
The DM's always right, so I'm basically going with: Monks can take the 2WF feat to get an extra attack. This stacks with flurry of blows, so now a first level monk could make 3 attacks at -4/-4/-4. (An impressive display, but most of them will probably bounce off the opponent's armor.) By the rules of 2WF, one of those attack must be made by the offhand. However, if this offhand weapon is an unarmed attack or a special monk weapon, it still gets the monk's full STR bonus. The offhand weapon doesn't actually need to made with a hand, but could be an unarmed attack such as a kick, etc. (This simplifies book-keeping and seems to keep with the general flavor of the monk's Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows.)
Technically, I still have a moratorium on new character creation. However, there's a future major NPC in Dragonwars that was going to be partly monk, so (loophole!) I'm fleshing him out a bit. For story purposes, I'm taking a level of Rogue and two of Ranger first. I'm thinking of using a glaive and Combat Reflexes too, which will provide a nice reach. While the glaive can't be used with a flurry, it can still be used with 2WF. Though the glaive occupies two hands, I can still make "offhand" attacks with kicks. By that reasoning, I could carry the glaive in one hand, make primary attacks with kicks in a flurry, and then an offhand attack with the other hand.
This should make for interesting/powerful enough martial prowess. Now I just need work on fleshing out the rest of the character and the non-combat aspects...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)