Apologies for the lack of posting; I’ve been busy with my Christmas gifts. Highlights include:

1. A Garmin GPS unit for my car. Extremely useful.
2. A Nintendo DS, along with two games (The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass and Age of Empires: The Age of Kings). I’ve finished Zelda already, due primarily to extremely heavy play, rather than brevity of content. The game is decidedly not brief; it’s exactly the right length, and is highly satisfying and challenging from start to finish. Not only that, but it’s got a very clever and well-implemented multiplayer mode, which I enjoy immensely. AoE I’ve just started, and I’m currently working my way through the tutorial campaign (Joan of Arc’s campaign). It’s a lot of fun and very addicting, and I love having a turn-based strategy game that I can keep in my pocket.
3. A fancy new chess board, wooden, with Asian-themed pieces. I can’t wait to use it.
4. Dungeon Twister, an excellent little two-player strategic board game with some cool mechanics and interesting gameplay.
5. Arkham Horror. ‘Nuff said.
6. The first of the 4th Edition preview books, Races and Classes, which I’ve already read and enjoyed thoroughly. I am somewhat sad to say, however, that (according to that book, at least), the ranger is indeed a striker, and not a controller. It makes me wonder whether or not there will be more than eight classes in the Player’s Handbook, for it would seem that they’d need another controller.
7. Lots of other great stuff!

Happy holidays, happy new year, etc.!

I’ve been speculating about the role of the 4th Edition ranger lately. The following items have been posted on En World, and this is where my speculation springs from:

1. There will be fewer than 11 classes in the Player’s Handbook. “Mearls said 8 was about the ‘middle range’ of the number of classes that might be in the PH when I asked him about it yesterday, specifically mentioning that the Internet was taking 8 classes as confirmed.”

2. There are four party roles in 4th Edition: defender, striker, leader, and controller. The defenders are the fighter and the paladin; the leaders are the cleric and the warlord; the strikers are the rogue, ranger, and warlock; the controller is the wizard. That’s 8 classes.

3. Apparently “elves make for good rangers”. This implies that rangers are in the PHB, since elves are.

4. There are three power sources in the Player’s Handbook: arcane, divine, and martial.

5. “[A] controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller. “Very little is known about the ranger, other than the fact that it is supposedly a striker and has some “scoutish” abilities. Here’s the thing, though. There are four roles, eight classes.

It would make a lot of sense, in order to maximize player choice, for each role to belong to two different classes. Why, then, are there three strikers and one controller? We know more about the rogue and the warlock than we do about the ranger. The rogue has sneak attacks and follow-up attacks, both of which allow the rogue to deal lots of damage to a single opponent, as strikers do. The warlock has curses, which make enemies more vulnerable to his eldritch blast and soul ruin abilities, allowing him to deal lots of damage. We do not know anything about the ranger’s striker abilities. It might have something to do with favored enemy, or some sort of skirmishing damage, if the ranger is indeed a striker.What if the ranger is a controller, though? There is only one confirmed controller (the wizard), and three strikers. Also, every role is filled by members of classes powered by
different sources. The defender has the fighter (martial) and the paladin (divine); the leader has the warlord (martial) and the cleric (divine); the striker has the rogue (martial) and the warlock (arcane); the controller might have the wizard (arcane) and the ranger (presumably martial). It seems redundant to have two martial strikers in the first book, let alone three strikers and one controller.

If you think about it, it isn’t hard to imagine the ranger as a controller. An ability like manyshot could easily be an area of effect attack, and it’s not hard to see other multi-target ranged attacks, or to see the ranger as a highly-mobile skirmisher who is able to strike multiple targets in quick succession. It’s also easy to see the ranger as able to utilize his surroundings more effectively than other classes, both on his own behalf and on behalf of his allies. Allowing allies to ignore the effects of difficult terrain while not doing so for enemies (or even worsening their effects), or allowing allies to gain greater advantage from cover or concealment, seems very controller-ish.

Further, it’s possible that animal companions might be abstracted into abilities that the ranger can use to move opponents around or immobilize them. A ranger’s wolf companion might have hit points and AC, with all other abilities represented by actions that the ranger takes to command it. Tripping opponents, harrying them in specific directions, using a bear to hug an opponent into immobility, using a hawk to momentarily blind an opponent or disarm him. This would not only give the ranger more battlefield-control abilities, but would significantly simplify animal companions (and give them a more concrete effect on the combat).

I may be wrong about all of this, but this is the way I’d like to see it play out. I’d love to see the ranger reimagined as a controller; I think it would help bring further definition to the class, making it a tactical skirmishing combat class with bow-and-arrow skill that others can’t even get near.

I’ve been reading up on what some people have had to say about the Races and Classes 4th Edition preview book (those that got their copies early, at least) over on EN World, and such readings have sparked a lot of speculation in my mind.

First, allow me to share those things that have been revealed over on EN World. Speculation for these items is in (parentheses).

1. All classes will follow the same attack bonus/AC/save progression, netting a +5 bonus every 10 levels. (Presumably this would be to streamline multiclassing somewhat. If things like saves, AC, and attack bonus are all tied to character level rather than class level, then that means that the only things tied to your class would be class skills, hit dice, and specific powers.)

2. There are feats, such as Fighter Training or Wizard Training, that allow you to pick up some class-themed abilities if you are not a member of said class. (To me, this seems like the replacement for multiclassing. Here’s how I’d do it, assuming item 1 is also true. Virtually everything is tied to character level rather than class level. attack bonus/AC/save progression is as above, and all classes get the same hit die (more on this later). This means that specific powers and class skills are really the only thing you get from your class, aside from some 1st-level benefits (more on this later, too). Every level, you can choose either a power from your class list or a feat. If you choose as your feat say, Fighter Training if you are a wizard, you get to choose a fighter power as if you were a 1st-level fighter. Every time thereafter that you choose Fighter Training, your effective ‘fighter level’ goes up and you get to choose a new fighter power. Multiclassing doesn’t really exist, per se; if you start as a wizard, you’re a wizard until you hit level 30, but you might pick up some abilities from other classes along the way. Now, I mentioned that I’d give all classes the same hit die, right? It’s a d4. Yes, you heard me right. But here’s the thing: feats and powers grant additional hit points. Most wizard and rogue powers would grant +2 hp, most cleric powers would grant +4, and most fighter powers would grant +6. Feats would run the gamut, with feats like Endurance granting a larger boon while others like Alertness don’t grant quite so many. Each class would also get certain first-level benefits, such as starting feats (armor and weapon proficiencies for the fighter, maybe some skill-boosting feats for the rogue, etc.). Assuming class skills work the way they do in Star Wars Saga Edition, skill points would be a non-issue; instead, you’d choose your trained skills at first level based on your class, and then your list of class skills would cease to matter. Taking the Skill Training feat would simply grant you a new trained skill from the full list, and maybe 2 hit points.)

3. Prestige classes have been replaced by paragon paths (levels 11-20) and epic destinies (levels 21-30). (My assumption is that these prestige class replacements are simply collections of new powers that you can choose from, provided you meet the prerequisites for entry into the path/destiny. Again, if you decide that your fighter is going to become a weapon master, he’s still really a fighter. Once he meets the prerequisites for that entry-level power, though, a whole new collection of weapon master powers opens up to him.)

4. Most short-term buffs will last for the whole encounter. (Awesome. I’m guessing that most ongoing effects are going to follow this model. It allows for a lot less bookkeeping, which is nice. I like the idea of something like barbarian rage or bless simply being cast and then become part of the encounter until it ends, rather than having to track several ongoing effects started at different times. Not only will this minimize deliberation over which spell to cast first, it’s also going to speed up play at higher levels, when more ongoing effects are available.)

5. Most non-combat spells have become rituals. (I’d imagine rituals take longer to cast and/or involve some sort of cost to enact above and beyond what combat-oriented spells require. It’s easy to envision something like comprehend languages being a ritual that takes 10 minutes to cast and requires that each language to be comprehended be spoken by at least one willing participant. Thus, it becomes a sort of ‘opening ceremony’ for diplomatic meetings and business transactions when language is an issue, and doesn’t use up potential combat resources. I always thought it was kind of hinky that a spell like comprehend languages, which is really useful but only in specific situations, took up a spell slot that could be devoted to a spell with more immediate utility.)

Ok, I think that’s enough for now. I’ll mention again that this post is mostly speculation, and that I have no inside information about 4th Edition.

Since time immemorial, D&D has been a generic heroic fantasy game. That is, the focus has always been on heroic fantasy, and the flavor of the game has always been pretty setting-neutral. The intent, I’m guessing, was to give budding world-builders a blank slate as far as setting goes, allowing them to create their own setting and feel with which to use the rules provided. 3rd Edition, despite using Greyhawk as an implied setting, was still pretty generic. Sure, there were specific gods, all from Greyhawk, and some of the spells had the names of famous wizards attached to them, but really, the game was almost wholly devoid of anything resembling original flavor; it was all pretty typical fantasy stuff, nothing too out there. If you wanted something more flavorful, less generic, you could use Forgotten Realms or Eberron.

That seems to be changing somewhat in 4th Edition. Wizards reps have stated that there is no implied setting within the game, Greyhawk or otherwise. However, some of the changes that have surfaced on the various Internets strongly suggest that there will be more inherent flavor within the game. It’ll probably still be highly adaptable to player-created settings, but they seem to be making it somewhat less generic in feel. There is, for example, the addition of core races like eladrins, tieflings, and dragonborn, races that are not an intrinsic part of the School of Tolkien (with the possible exception of eladrins, whom I perceive to be “high elves” of a sort). There is the introduction of minor races without mythological counterparts, such as shifters and warforged, into the core rules. And there is the fact that the different races are being thematically tied to specific types of environments. Halflings, for example, are now diminutive river-folk. Elves are tied to the woods, while eladrins are tied to the Feywild. Dragonborn are tied to the desert; even humans are tied to the plains. It’s a small thing, but goes a long way toward injecting some flavor into the races of D&D.

So, after I sent them an email, Triond sent me an email telling me that Saga would, in fact, be published via their service. So I guess they’re not so bad after all.

I’ve always wanted to know what GWB does to unwind. Now we know why he’s so concerned about zombies.

Over at Treasure Tables, there’s a post about describing the death of a PC. The gist of the post is that when a PC bites the dust, it usually comes as a surprise to the GM and the group as a whole, and thus the GM probably has some trouble doing any kind of justice to the character’s death when put on the spot. Now, I’ve never actually killed a PC (though I’ve killed major NPC allies before, both intentionally and not), so I can’t really speak from experience on this issue. I do know what I’d probably do in that situation though. I’d let the player handle it.

My reasoning is thus. As the GM, I have a strong connection to and investment in the world, the supporting cast, the allies of the PCs, and the villains, since they’re all under my control and, in many cases, I’ve created them all by hand. When something major and dramatic happens to an important NPC or group or feature of the setting, chances are I can do it some kind of justice in describing its demise because of that connection and investment. The thing is, while I might like the PCs, and while I may be secretly rooting for them to win, I don’t have that same connection with them because I didn’t create them and they aren’t under my control. I’m not invested in the PCs. The players are. Especially if a player has been playing a character for a while, he/she is invested in that character and likely thinks about that character a great deal more than I do. A player often knows how his/her character will behave in a given situation, what that character wants out of life, what his/her hopes and fears are. The player may even have given some thought as to how he/she wants the character to die eventually (or even how the character wants do die).

Given that the player has a much stronger connection to the character, why not capitalize on that when it counts? A PC’s death is arguably one of the most important things that will ever happen to that character. It only seems right that the player should be able to decide how that happens. Obviously the circumstances surrounding the PC’s death will color the description somewhat, but I’d much rather let the player have that moment than take it away and make a mess out of it. It might even make the death of a well-loved PC easier to take.

Recently I purchased Puerto Rico: The PC Game, and I haven’t been able to stop playing since. I’ve only played the physical game a couple of times, mainly because I don’t own it (my friend Chris does), and it’s difficult to get everyone to agree on the game sometimes. The PC game isn’t quite as good as sitting down with your friends, but it satisfies that board gaming itch well enough, and it’s really quite a lot of fun. I’ve heard complaints that the AI isn’t that great but really, for a beginner like me, it’s fine. I may outgrow it eventually, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

What it’s gotten me thinking of is how I wish more PC translations of board games were out there. There are a few out there. Over at AsoBrain.com you can play pretty faithful online translations of Carcassonne and Settlers of Cataan. You can even play BattleLore online with your friends using the Vassal Engine. And of course there are things like Magic The Gathering Online.

Still, I wish there were more. I’d love to be able to play the HeroCard games, or Munchkin, or Arkham Horror on my computer when I can’t get my friends together. Or, better yet, with my friends, online. It would be awesome.

My buddy Dean just posted this really interesting explanation of how Viking culture can be applied to the ‘points of light’ model that I discussed earlier. Some of this I’m not sure I can reconcile with what I have in place right now (such as it is), but other things intrigue me.

The idea of “Sea Kings” (or, in Wild Blue’s case, “Sky Kings”) is a good one. I like the idea that, while the Demesne is the major power, there may be a number of nomadic pirate lords, or even warlords in control of entire city-states, outside the purview of either the Demesne or the Folk. This could even feed into the concept of one people selling high-quality weapons to another, only to have them used against them somewhere else. Perhaps some of the border towns manufacture high-end swords or guns, sell them to a neighboring city-state in order to appease their warlord, and said warlord sends out pirate ships to raid the Demesne’s merchant vessels. Along these same lines, Dean inquired about the relationship between the Demesne and the Folk, and whether or not it would be conducive to trade in border areas. The answer is, probably not. The issue isn’t necessarily one of animosity (though there’s no shortage of that), but of the fundamental differences between the two peoples. The people of the Demesne are human. The Folk are very much not. Many of them are ageless, a number of them have vast amounts of power at their disposal, and they are almost universally inscrutable and unknowable by human beings. They are the Other, in every aspect of the term. Some trade might be possible on an individual basis, but such trade would likely make no sense to humans, with the Folk offering bits of worthless junk (toadstools, bits of string) for valuable tools, or vice versa.

Recently I read an article in the electronic version of Dungeon Magazine that talked about a new philosophy present in 4th Edition: Points of Light. This is not a mechanical idea, but an idea that affects story and theme. It goes like this: the world is a dark place. Civilization is comprised of tiny settlements and the occasional large city, mostly isolated from each other and separated by vast expanses of wilderness. They are, effectively, points of light in a sea of darkness. This philosophy is present, they say, to provide more opportunities for adventure, and to make creating your own setting, one point at a time, easier.

It’s an idea that speaks to me, largely because I’m using a similar philosophy in Wild Blue. The Demasne is a new territory, and most of it is unsettled. The capital, Bastion, is a sprawling metropolis, a point of light that burns particularly brightly. There are a few other smallish cities, as well, but most settlements are villages, towns, hamlets, isolated from all but their closest neighbors. The presence of the Folk, a mysterious and frightening race of beings, enhances the feeling of isolation, because a trip through the wilderness is that much more dangerous. The only reasonably safe ways to get from place to place are with a merchant caravan (strength in numbers) or on a skyship (fast, and high above most of the danger).