Last night I talked about some common character builds for Fighters and broke things down by the numbers to help you decide which type of Fighter you think you would most like to play. Today, we're going to get a bit more in-depth with special techniques. The builds examined here are specialists, meaning they do one thing very well, but if they are denied their chance to use this ability, they are only an average fighter.
Chain Fighter
This has to be my favorite low-level Fighter build. The idea behind this build is tripping the opponent. To play this build effectively, you need to become familiar with the rules for tripping. The quickest way to achieve this build is to play a human and put at least a 15 in your dexterity (the higher the better). Your first level feat choice is Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain. Your Fighter bonus feat will be Combat Reflexes, and if you go with a human, your human bonus feat will be either Weapon Finesse: Spiked Chain or Weapon Focus: Spiked Chain.
So, what does this build do? Well, first of all, a spiked chain has a 10ft reach, but it also lets you attack adjacent opponents. It can also be used as a double weapon. It has a base damage of 2d4, so an average damage of 5. It is a two-handed weapon, so attacks with your primary end will get 150% of your strength bonus. You will need the exotic proficiency for this build. Combat Reflexes will allow you to capitalize on your high dexterity by getting extra attacks of opportunity. Weapon Finesse will let you use that dexterity to boost your attack bonus. At level 2, you should use your Fighter bonus feat to take either Weapon Finesse or Weapon Focus, whichever you didn't take at level 1. With your 3rd level feat, you will want Combat Expertise if you have a high enough intelligence, or maybe consider two-weapon fighting. Your level 4 Fighter bonus feat should be Weapon Specialization: Spiked Chain, and your 6th level feat will be Improved Trip and your Fighter bonus feat will be Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.
This build gives you a few options of good feats you can take depending on if you want to focus on building up your damage faster, number of attacks faster, or trip success rate faster.
Combat Reflexes let you make attacks of opportunity against multiple opponents. You can declare trip attempts with your chain instead of a normal attack. Getting up while within an opponent's threatened area provokes attacks of opportunity. You threaten all spaces your weapon can attack into. So, right off the bat, as a level 1 character with exotic proficiency and combat reflexes and assuming a dexterity bonus of +2, you threaten twice as much ground as other level 1 characters, you can make AoO against up to 3 opponents each round. Right off the bat, this means that after you are no longer flat-footed, opponents can't charge you without getting attacked, and anyone you trip will give you a free attack on their turn. If the rest of your party is smart, they will move into melee with tripped opponents so the opponent provokes from multiple characters at once.
Pros: The vast majority of opponents in D&D are humanoids, who are vulnerable to tripping.
Cons: This strategy doesn't work against larger creatures and monsters with four or more legs.
The Bulldozer
What is more effective: charging an opponent to swing for 2d6 damage with your greatsword, or charging that opponent and pushing them back over a cliff? Many opponents are effectively removed from combat if they are pushed over a cliff, and that is what the bulldozer is shooting for.
To build a bulldozer, you need Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush. A level 1 Fighter can take both starting out.
Pros: 1- Even if you aren't in a situation where you can push an opponent out of the fight, the prerequisites for your feats include Power Attack, which also leads you to the most effective damage-dealing melee build discussed last night. 2- Improved Bull Rush is the only feat you really need, after that your other feats can work towards melee combat, such as Cleave, Improved Toughness, Dodge, etc.
Cons: 1- Ineffective against non-humanoids or larger humanoids or dwarves. 2- If your attempt fails, you have effectively wasted your turn this round.
Spiked Shield
For this build, you will need a spiked shield and a one-handed weapon. A shield's spike is considered a weapon, and is technically a separate weapon from the shield, so you could potentially get a +2 Arrow Catching shield with a +2 Holy spike. For this build, you will want Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting. Improved Shield Bash will let you retain your shield's AC bonus when attacking with your spike, and Two-Weapon Fighting will reduce your penalty for attacking with your sword and shield.
One of my friends wanted to try this build with the Two-Weapon Defense feat, which says your off-hand weapon grants a +1 shield bonus to AC. However, after considering it, I realized that shields grant a shield bonus, the feat grants a shield bonus, and as we all know from the Dungeonmaster's Guide, like bonuses don't stack! So, taking Two-Weapon Defense while using a spiked shield is pointless, however the other Two-Weapon feats are still perfectly applicable, and by using a shield and Improved Shield Bash, you don't have to worry about the Two-Weapon Defense feat, and you can still enjoy the defensive abilities of magic shields without sacrificing your offensive power.
There are plenty of other options available for fighter specialists. These are just some of the fun choices you can make using only the Player's Handbook. Let me encourage you to break the mold, try something new, and experiment. If you usually play power-attacking heavy weapon fighters, try a chain fighter or even a bulldozer since the build isn't too different it'll be somewhat familiar. Above all, have fun with whatever choice you make.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Playing Your Best (D&D), Lesson 1-1: The Fighter
Today's guide will be one of many in a series titled "Playing Your Best." This little series of guides will focus on a single game at a time and will cover various aspects to help you play the "best" character you can from whatever choices you can make.
We're beginning with Dungeons & Dragons because it is the single most popular tabletop rpg around right now, and the one with which I have the most experience.
One thing I want to discuss before we begin is min-maxing. Min-maxing is a technique used by many players, usually power gamers, in which you put your best attribute values into the attributes most "useful" to your character and then place your worst in the attributes you don't care about. While, sadly, this is a valid strategy, and most game systems don't penalyze you for doing so, it is frowned upon by some game masters and actor-type players. These guides aren't going to be guides for optimizing your character build per se, but instead, making smart decisions and how to work as a team to overcome challenges.
The Attributes
Because of the physical nature of fighters, they tend to care about the first three attributes (strength, dexterity, and constitution) more than their mental attributes. This makes them tempting to min-max, but before you put your 18 in strength, 15 in constitution, and dump your other stats, let's look at a few character options.
Ranged vs Melee
In the D&D game mechanics, it is a lot harder to dish out as much damage with ranged attacks as it is with melee attacks. Unfortunately, this is just part of the game mechanics. However, with a few smart decisions, you can build an effective archer.
Before you make your decision, let's look at some numbers. If you want to be a melee fighter, that means you're also going to be a melee target! Not only will you need a high strength for dishing it out, you'll want a high constitution for taking it. Let's face it, in D&D, no matter how high your armor class gets, you're still going to get hit by someone, so you still need those hit points. So, if you plan for melee, already you know you want high strength and constitution. You'll want a decent dexterity to help make it a bit harder for the weaker enemies to hit you so you don't have to worry so much about getting worn down before you reach the bigger threats. However, if you choose to play an archer, your primary attribute becomes dexterity, since it affects how accurate your ranged attacks are. Having a high dexterity means that you not only have a higher attack bonus, but a higher armor class bonus. So, you're killing two birds with one stone. You have your offense and defense in a single attribute. This also means you can wear lighter armor and still have the same armor class as a lower-dexterity fighter with heavier armor, so you save on gold. Also, attacking from range means that if you have melee fighters in your party, they're going to become melee targets before you do, so you can afford to have less hit points than they do as you will likely be taking less damage. So, you only need one high attribute. This means you can put your other good attributes in something like... wisdom maybe? You don't want to be the one keeping watch and failing that listen check, resulting in a party ambush situation. If your primary attribute covers your offense and defense, then you can use your other high attribute values to work on utility coverage. Go with a higher wisdom to help that spot and listen skill, or go with a higher intelligence to counteract the fighter's low base skill points. Maybe even go with charisma to be the spokesman of the party and perhaps boost that diplomacy skill when you need to negotiate or barter.
So, there are some advantages to ranged combat. Are there any other advantages? Well, yes. The other biggest advantage is subtle and you won't see it until later levels, but once you do, it can become your biggest advantage. Your arrows. Specifically, magic arrows. Let's take a look at this scenario:
You are fighting against a demon that's immune to fire. The other fighter in the party already has his flaming sword in hand. Your partner has to use one of his actions to put away his sword and draw another (assuming the quick draw feat, or combine a move and drawn weapon in a single action). This means, your partner can only make a single attack this round, and if he was within an opponent's threatened space, he provoked an attack of oportunity for drawing his weapon. You, however, have a bow with no elemental enhancement. Perhaps your bow is a simple +3 bow. You're carrying a bundle of +1 flaming arrows, which you've been using quite a good bit, but you also have a bundle of +1 frosted arrows. When the demon appears, all you have to do is nock your bow with the other type of arrow, which is a free action. You can still make a full-attack this round, and use a weapon that the demon isn't immune to.
What's the subtle relationship between magic bows and magic arrows? Magic ranged weapons grant their enhancements to any ammo they fire, however, the attack/damage bonus doesn't stack, you just use the better bonus. So, in the above example, with a single bow, you have access to a +3 flaming and a +3 frosted weapon, without ever changing weapons. Also, if you decide you need something else, you can spend the gold to purchase a +2 equivilant weapon (+1 enhancement bonus and other special ability with a +1 equivilant price) and you get 50 arrows of that type that you can fire from your +3 bow, effectively giving you another +4 weapon (+3 enhancement plus the +1 equivilant ability) that you can use 50 times for the price of a +2 weapon!
Are there any other advantages to being an archer? Yes. Let's say a human melee fighter wearing medium armor is standing 110ft away from you. You've both drawn your weapons. You have the higher initiative, so you get to go first. Let's assume your attack bonus and chosen feats let you make three attacks with a full-attack action. You shoot 3 times. Now, your opponent is too far away to charge. Medium armor only allows you to run at x3 speed instead of x4. So, he moves 90ft towards you. He still can't reach you! In the following round, you could make 3 more attacks. Your opponent charges. He gets a single attack as he charges. In round 3, you make a simple 5ft step backwards as a free action, and you can make 3 more attacks! Now, your opponent is close enough to do the same to you, but before he's unleashed a full-attack on you, you've already gotten in 9 shots total, while he's only attacked you once so far. Against an opponent in heavy armor, as many melee fighters will likely wear, his speed is reduced to 20ft base, so he runs even slower, so you're quite likely to land even more attacks before he attacks you even once.
How Can Melee Compete?
For the longest time, my players and I have incorrectly believed that dual-wielders are the best melee damage dealers. Well, after crunching some numbers, we've realized that we were pretty far off. Assuming the proper feats, a single one-handed weapon and a light weapon, your penalty is reduced to as little as -2. One of the most popular one-handed weapons is the longsword. So, we'll use that for this example. We'll assume a short sword for the off-hand weapon. What you have here is a -2 penalty to all of your attacks for a base of 1d8 damage with your primary weapon and 1d6 damage with your secondary. The benefit to this is the one extra attack you get, which is your secondary weapon. So, if you are level 1-5, you get 2 attacks, one primary, one secondary. Let's assume a 5th level fighter with a strength score of 15, about average. This equates to a base attack of +5, strength bonus of +2, then two-handed penalty of -2, for a total of +5 attack bonus. Your primary weapon will deal 1d8+2 damage and your secondary 1d6+1. The average damage rolls are 6.5 and 4.5 (the average for any single die is the average of its highest and lowest values, so 4.5 and 3.5 in this example, modified by the +2 and +1 damage bonus. The secondary gets only +1 damage because your off-hand gets only half your strength bonus to damage). So, you are sacrificing 10% (-2 penalty) to your accuracy for the chance to deal an extra 4.5 damage on average.
What would happen if this same fighter used a two-handed weapon and used power attack instead of two-handed fighting? Let's assume a greatsword to keep a sword in each example. A greatsword deals 2d6 damage. Because you wield it with two hands, you get to add 150% of your strength bonus to damage instead of the normal strength bonus. So, your damage is 2d6+3. Let's assume you use the power attack feat for the same attack penalty that you would have had with two-weapon fighting, so -2. The power attack feat lets you add double your penalty to damage if you use a two-handed weapon. So, you take a 10% accuracy penalty for a +4 damage bonus. You are getting only a single attack, but your total damage 2d6+7, or an average of 14 (7 is the average for 2d6 +7 for the damage bonus). Both fighters have the same +5 attack bonus. The first fighter, if he hits with his first attack, deals 6.5 damage on average, then if he hits with the second, deals 4.5. The second fighter, if he hits, deals 14 damage. This results in an average of 3 more points of damage per hit than the first fighter. Of course, you may argue that fighter 1 has two attacks, so he has two chances of hitting. Well, yes, he does. However, even if both attacks hit, he's dealing less damage overall. Let's take this scenario:
The enemy has an armor class of 16. Now, both fighters need to roll an 11 or higher to hit the opponent. This means that 50% of the time they will hit.
So, in round 1, Fighter A gets 2 attacks, one hits, for 6 damage, the other missed. Fighter B gets 1 attack, it hits, 14 damage.
In round 2, Fighter A gets 2 attacks. He gets lucky and both hit for 11 damage. Fighter B attacks, misses, no damage.
In round 3, Fighter A misses with both attacks!. Fighter B attacks, hits and deals 14 damage again.
In round 4, Fighter A attacks, his first missed, his second hits for 5 damage. Fighter B misses again.
Ok, after 4 rounds, Fighter A has dealt a total of 22 damage, Fighter B, 28 damage.
The above scenario uses a lot of average rolls. Obviously, some oddities will occur, but over many rolls over the course of the entire campaign, the averages eventually work themselves out. You will notice, I allowed each attack to hit exactly twice in this example. Fighter A's longsword landed 2 hits, the shortsword landed 2. I rounded damage down in the first hit, then rounded up with the second hit.
Also, keep in mind that since Fighter B rolls 2 dice, his damage will be more consistent than Fighter A, which isn't shown in the example. It's a fact of probabilities that when you roll a single die, each value has an equal chance of coming up, but when you roll 2d6 your chances of rolling a 7 is a little more than 16%, your chances of rolling a 6 or 8 is 14%, a 5 or 9 is a little more than 11%. So, the chances of rolling between 5 and 9 is ~41% not quite half, but as you can see, you have a much better chance of rolling decent damage, while the single-die roller has equal chance of rolling awesome, decent, or sucky damage. This brings me to my next point...
Which Weapon?
Obviously, from the above example, you will want a two-handed weapon, but which one? Well, the greataxe is a popular choice, but it deals 1d12 damage. The greatsword is an all-round great weapon with 2d6 damage, and is also the only 2-handed martial weapon to roll 2d6 damage. Now, there are a lot of nice options in the 2-handed department, some of them with reach, some with other fun little perks, but let's concentrate on these two for right now. The greataxe is 1d12 damage with an x3 critical, while the greatsword is 2d6 with a 19-20/x2 critical. What does all this mean? Well, when you crunch the numbers, the greataxe has a little more than 8% chance of rolling any single value. This means a 33% chance of rolling 1-4, and a 25% chance of rolling higher than 9.
d12 vs 2d6
Chance of rolling higher than 9
d12: 25%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling less than 5
d12: 33%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling 5-9
d12: 40%
2d6: ~41%
What can we tell from these numbers? The d12 and the 2d6 both have a good chance of dealing average damage, but the d12 has a better chance of dealing greater damage, but it also has a much greater chance of dealing low damage.
Let's look at the criticals. The greataxe has an x3 critical. The greatsword a 19-20. This means that 5% of your attacks with the axe have a chance of dealing triple damage, while 10% of your attacks with the sword have a chance of dealing double.
What does this mean? Well, overall, it means the sword will score criticals about twice as often as the axe, if wielded by the same fighter. So, assuming average damage, a strength bonus of +2, and a power attack of -2/+4, here's the breakdown:
Axe deals 6.5+7 for 13.5x3 total damage, or 40.5 after a single critical
Sword deals 7+7 for 14x2 total damage, or 28 after a single critical
You'll notice the average damages aren't quite equal. Why? As explained above, the average roll is equal to the average of the high and low values, or 1 and 12 for the d12, while the 2d6 has values of 2 and 12, for a slightly higher average.
Ok, the axe seems to win on criticals... until you remember that the sword will score criticals roughly twice as often as the axe. What does this mean, numbers wise? Well, it means that assuming both weapons score the same number of hits, both will deal the same critical damage over time. Want an explanation?
Axe crits for x3, then doesn't crit for x1. Total damage dealt: average x4
Sword crits for x2, then crits for x2. Total damage dealt: average x4
Now, while you won't actually score criticals that quickly... at least you shouldn't, what this really means that given X attack rolls, the Axe will score criticals X/20 times, while the sword crits X/10 times. So, every crit of the axe is x3 damage, every crit of the sword is x2. Since the sword crits twice as often, you could just as easily work this out in the equation as saying X/10 = 2. Or X/20 = 4. So, when you assume two criticals from the sword are equal to a single critical at x4, this means that in two attacks, the sword did x4 damage, while in the same number of attacks, the axe did x3 with one attack, and normal damage, or x1, with the other attack, so in two attacks, a total of x4!
This means that for the purpose of comparing damage directly, going strictly by averages, you can ignore their criticals and compare average damage, in which case, the sword wins by a slight margin. However, the more total attacks made will increase this margin more and more. As seen in the above example, the sword's average damage was 14, while the axe was 13.5. So, let's say after 10 attacks, the sword is averaging 140 damage, the axe 135. Now, that .5 is starting to make a difference.
Ok, but let's look at it in real terms. How many enemies take 140 damage to kill? Enemies of 10th level and up maybe? Dragons? Demons? By the time you face enemies with that many hit points, you should have access to magic weapons, which we haven't factored into the equations. So, while the equations and averages may be true, let's face it, at low levels, when you are relying purely on your damage rolls and no magical enhancements, your enemies can't really take that much damage. So, let's assume 5 enemies with 20 hit points each. Which fighter defeats them quicker? Well, neither. The sword hits for 14, then again hits for 14, enemy can only take 20, so the other 8 is a waste. How many GMs really care if their NPC is reduced to -8 or -7? They're still defeated. The axe fighter similarly deals 13 then 14, again, 7 damage is wasted. In both scenarios, both fighters deal at least 10 damage per hit. Wait! The axe has just as good of a chance of dealing less than 10!
Ok, look at this:
Chance of rolling 1 or 2 (damage needed with a +3 damage from strength and +4 from power attack to deal less than 10 damage)
d12: 16%
2d6: 3% (actually more like 2.76% or something close)
Also, keep in mind that the sword can't actually deal less than 2 damage! So, all you need is +1 more damage from anything, and suddenly your minimum damage is 10.
Alright, so the axe will roll less than 10 damage 16% of the time. However, we already established that on average, both weapons will need 2 hits anyway, and we also established there was 7 damage leftover from the axe's second attack. So, even if you did 8 damage (minimum of the axe in the above example), you only need to roll a 5 or better on your second damage roll (66% chance) to finish off the opponent.
So, what does this prove? Basically, at lower levels, before magic weapons get involved, the sword wins out against the axe only against opponents who can suvive multiple hits (major villains), and wins out when you want to consitently one-hit enemies that require damage rolls of 5 or higher to one-hit (total of 81-82% chance of rolling 5 or more on 2d6). Otherwise, you'll do just as well with the axe, and maybe better at times since the one critical from the axe may be enough to drop weaker opponents, but you will require a critical plus a second hit with the sword to drop that same opponent.
Now, there are a lot of other variables we could look at, and a lot of other situations, examples, and math we could work through, but that's more about the axe vs the sword, and this guide has already delved enough into that realm. This guide is supposed to be about the fighter himself, so let's take a look at one more option with the fighter.
Shield?
We've discussed being an archer, two-weapons, and the 2-handed weapon, but what about a 1-hand weapon and a shield? This is also a feasible option, but I have seen fewer good feat choices for shield uses. Improved shield bash comes to mind, but that's really the only one. Using a shield is basically sacrificing your off-hand weapon or your chance to use a 2-handed weapon for a little extra armor class, usually +2. Is it worth it? Probably not. One of the best single-handed weapons is the longsword for d8 damage. 4.5 average before any modifiers. A full 2.5 points lower than the greatsword. What do you get? An extra 2 points of armor class? That reduces opponents' accuracy by a total of 10%.
Now, while the shield doesn't look all that favorable yet, let's also consider that there are still a number of good feat choices for your offense, and you can use a one-handed weapon just fine, and eventually you can get a magic shield which can have some fun abilities, so don't discount the shield option just yet.
The Best Fighter?
Now, numbers-wise, the power attacking fighter, and the archer have the advantage, but let's consider some other situations. Is the archer equal to the power attacker while in a dungeon full of narrow cooridors and cramped rooms? Is the power attacker equal when fighting a flying enemy?
What point am I trying to make here? Well, I've crunched some numbers for you, and while it looks like I might be trying to encourage the min-max, I'm actually just trying to show you some choices you can make to make your character more efficient so you don't have to max out certain attributes because you think that's what a fighter is supposed to be. Also, my last point that I'd like to make is that while specializing looks very appealing, when you do that you become a specialist. You become really great at doing things a certain way, but what happens when you can't apply your strength? Let me give you one more example:
In a recent campaign, I had two players playing barbarians. One was a straight barbarian build using a greataxe with power attack, the other took 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats and barbarian the rest of the way. He also used a greataxe and power attack. Neither character bothered to purchase a ranged weapon with their starting money. All of their feat choices revolved around melee combat. These two could dispatch minions like crazy, but what happened everytime we reached the end of the adventure and faced the big bad guy (boss) who could fly? Suddenly, our biggest power houses were reduced to level 1 efficiency! Guys who were used to hitting for d12 damage had nothing! Even after several adventures, gaining several levels, they were hitting for d12+9 damage, and still hadn't purchased a ranged weapon even after facing at least 3 big baddies that were unreachable with melee attacks. Finally, they bought javelins and throwing axes. From then on, these giants in melee were reduced from d12+9 damage to a measely d6+3 or maybe d6+4 damage when facing a ranged opponent.
Moral of the story: When you focus entirely on a single aspect of your character, you have no one to blame but yourself when your GM makes you face an opponent you have no answer to.
Which fighter should you build? That's up to you. I won't tell you how to make your character. If I did, it wouldn't be your character. You make your fighter however you want. All I've done is provide some information about the effectiveness of different choices. Now, if you want to play a dual-wielding swashbuckler, or a sword and shield fighter, knowing that a greatsword or a longbow would be a more effective choice... then congratulations. You've graduated from power gamer to actor/roleplayer. As a gamemaster, I'd much rather see my players play a character because of the concept as opposed to which character type racks up the numbers faster.
We're beginning with Dungeons & Dragons because it is the single most popular tabletop rpg around right now, and the one with which I have the most experience.
One thing I want to discuss before we begin is min-maxing. Min-maxing is a technique used by many players, usually power gamers, in which you put your best attribute values into the attributes most "useful" to your character and then place your worst in the attributes you don't care about. While, sadly, this is a valid strategy, and most game systems don't penalyze you for doing so, it is frowned upon by some game masters and actor-type players. These guides aren't going to be guides for optimizing your character build per se, but instead, making smart decisions and how to work as a team to overcome challenges.
The Attributes
Because of the physical nature of fighters, they tend to care about the first three attributes (strength, dexterity, and constitution) more than their mental attributes. This makes them tempting to min-max, but before you put your 18 in strength, 15 in constitution, and dump your other stats, let's look at a few character options.
Ranged vs Melee
In the D&D game mechanics, it is a lot harder to dish out as much damage with ranged attacks as it is with melee attacks. Unfortunately, this is just part of the game mechanics. However, with a few smart decisions, you can build an effective archer.
Before you make your decision, let's look at some numbers. If you want to be a melee fighter, that means you're also going to be a melee target! Not only will you need a high strength for dishing it out, you'll want a high constitution for taking it. Let's face it, in D&D, no matter how high your armor class gets, you're still going to get hit by someone, so you still need those hit points. So, if you plan for melee, already you know you want high strength and constitution. You'll want a decent dexterity to help make it a bit harder for the weaker enemies to hit you so you don't have to worry so much about getting worn down before you reach the bigger threats. However, if you choose to play an archer, your primary attribute becomes dexterity, since it affects how accurate your ranged attacks are. Having a high dexterity means that you not only have a higher attack bonus, but a higher armor class bonus. So, you're killing two birds with one stone. You have your offense and defense in a single attribute. This also means you can wear lighter armor and still have the same armor class as a lower-dexterity fighter with heavier armor, so you save on gold. Also, attacking from range means that if you have melee fighters in your party, they're going to become melee targets before you do, so you can afford to have less hit points than they do as you will likely be taking less damage. So, you only need one high attribute. This means you can put your other good attributes in something like... wisdom maybe? You don't want to be the one keeping watch and failing that listen check, resulting in a party ambush situation. If your primary attribute covers your offense and defense, then you can use your other high attribute values to work on utility coverage. Go with a higher wisdom to help that spot and listen skill, or go with a higher intelligence to counteract the fighter's low base skill points. Maybe even go with charisma to be the spokesman of the party and perhaps boost that diplomacy skill when you need to negotiate or barter.
So, there are some advantages to ranged combat. Are there any other advantages? Well, yes. The other biggest advantage is subtle and you won't see it until later levels, but once you do, it can become your biggest advantage. Your arrows. Specifically, magic arrows. Let's take a look at this scenario:
You are fighting against a demon that's immune to fire. The other fighter in the party already has his flaming sword in hand. Your partner has to use one of his actions to put away his sword and draw another (assuming the quick draw feat, or combine a move and drawn weapon in a single action). This means, your partner can only make a single attack this round, and if he was within an opponent's threatened space, he provoked an attack of oportunity for drawing his weapon. You, however, have a bow with no elemental enhancement. Perhaps your bow is a simple +3 bow. You're carrying a bundle of +1 flaming arrows, which you've been using quite a good bit, but you also have a bundle of +1 frosted arrows. When the demon appears, all you have to do is nock your bow with the other type of arrow, which is a free action. You can still make a full-attack this round, and use a weapon that the demon isn't immune to.
What's the subtle relationship between magic bows and magic arrows? Magic ranged weapons grant their enhancements to any ammo they fire, however, the attack/damage bonus doesn't stack, you just use the better bonus. So, in the above example, with a single bow, you have access to a +3 flaming and a +3 frosted weapon, without ever changing weapons. Also, if you decide you need something else, you can spend the gold to purchase a +2 equivilant weapon (+1 enhancement bonus and other special ability with a +1 equivilant price) and you get 50 arrows of that type that you can fire from your +3 bow, effectively giving you another +4 weapon (+3 enhancement plus the +1 equivilant ability) that you can use 50 times for the price of a +2 weapon!
Are there any other advantages to being an archer? Yes. Let's say a human melee fighter wearing medium armor is standing 110ft away from you. You've both drawn your weapons. You have the higher initiative, so you get to go first. Let's assume your attack bonus and chosen feats let you make three attacks with a full-attack action. You shoot 3 times. Now, your opponent is too far away to charge. Medium armor only allows you to run at x3 speed instead of x4. So, he moves 90ft towards you. He still can't reach you! In the following round, you could make 3 more attacks. Your opponent charges. He gets a single attack as he charges. In round 3, you make a simple 5ft step backwards as a free action, and you can make 3 more attacks! Now, your opponent is close enough to do the same to you, but before he's unleashed a full-attack on you, you've already gotten in 9 shots total, while he's only attacked you once so far. Against an opponent in heavy armor, as many melee fighters will likely wear, his speed is reduced to 20ft base, so he runs even slower, so you're quite likely to land even more attacks before he attacks you even once.
How Can Melee Compete?
For the longest time, my players and I have incorrectly believed that dual-wielders are the best melee damage dealers. Well, after crunching some numbers, we've realized that we were pretty far off. Assuming the proper feats, a single one-handed weapon and a light weapon, your penalty is reduced to as little as -2. One of the most popular one-handed weapons is the longsword. So, we'll use that for this example. We'll assume a short sword for the off-hand weapon. What you have here is a -2 penalty to all of your attacks for a base of 1d8 damage with your primary weapon and 1d6 damage with your secondary. The benefit to this is the one extra attack you get, which is your secondary weapon. So, if you are level 1-5, you get 2 attacks, one primary, one secondary. Let's assume a 5th level fighter with a strength score of 15, about average. This equates to a base attack of +5, strength bonus of +2, then two-handed penalty of -2, for a total of +5 attack bonus. Your primary weapon will deal 1d8+2 damage and your secondary 1d6+1. The average damage rolls are 6.5 and 4.5 (the average for any single die is the average of its highest and lowest values, so 4.5 and 3.5 in this example, modified by the +2 and +1 damage bonus. The secondary gets only +1 damage because your off-hand gets only half your strength bonus to damage). So, you are sacrificing 10% (-2 penalty) to your accuracy for the chance to deal an extra 4.5 damage on average.
What would happen if this same fighter used a two-handed weapon and used power attack instead of two-handed fighting? Let's assume a greatsword to keep a sword in each example. A greatsword deals 2d6 damage. Because you wield it with two hands, you get to add 150% of your strength bonus to damage instead of the normal strength bonus. So, your damage is 2d6+3. Let's assume you use the power attack feat for the same attack penalty that you would have had with two-weapon fighting, so -2. The power attack feat lets you add double your penalty to damage if you use a two-handed weapon. So, you take a 10% accuracy penalty for a +4 damage bonus. You are getting only a single attack, but your total damage 2d6+7, or an average of 14 (7 is the average for 2d6 +7 for the damage bonus). Both fighters have the same +5 attack bonus. The first fighter, if he hits with his first attack, deals 6.5 damage on average, then if he hits with the second, deals 4.5. The second fighter, if he hits, deals 14 damage. This results in an average of 3 more points of damage per hit than the first fighter. Of course, you may argue that fighter 1 has two attacks, so he has two chances of hitting. Well, yes, he does. However, even if both attacks hit, he's dealing less damage overall. Let's take this scenario:
The enemy has an armor class of 16. Now, both fighters need to roll an 11 or higher to hit the opponent. This means that 50% of the time they will hit.
So, in round 1, Fighter A gets 2 attacks, one hits, for 6 damage, the other missed. Fighter B gets 1 attack, it hits, 14 damage.
In round 2, Fighter A gets 2 attacks. He gets lucky and both hit for 11 damage. Fighter B attacks, misses, no damage.
In round 3, Fighter A misses with both attacks!. Fighter B attacks, hits and deals 14 damage again.
In round 4, Fighter A attacks, his first missed, his second hits for 5 damage. Fighter B misses again.
Ok, after 4 rounds, Fighter A has dealt a total of 22 damage, Fighter B, 28 damage.
The above scenario uses a lot of average rolls. Obviously, some oddities will occur, but over many rolls over the course of the entire campaign, the averages eventually work themselves out. You will notice, I allowed each attack to hit exactly twice in this example. Fighter A's longsword landed 2 hits, the shortsword landed 2. I rounded damage down in the first hit, then rounded up with the second hit.
Also, keep in mind that since Fighter B rolls 2 dice, his damage will be more consistent than Fighter A, which isn't shown in the example. It's a fact of probabilities that when you roll a single die, each value has an equal chance of coming up, but when you roll 2d6 your chances of rolling a 7 is a little more than 16%, your chances of rolling a 6 or 8 is 14%, a 5 or 9 is a little more than 11%. So, the chances of rolling between 5 and 9 is ~41% not quite half, but as you can see, you have a much better chance of rolling decent damage, while the single-die roller has equal chance of rolling awesome, decent, or sucky damage. This brings me to my next point...
Which Weapon?
Obviously, from the above example, you will want a two-handed weapon, but which one? Well, the greataxe is a popular choice, but it deals 1d12 damage. The greatsword is an all-round great weapon with 2d6 damage, and is also the only 2-handed martial weapon to roll 2d6 damage. Now, there are a lot of nice options in the 2-handed department, some of them with reach, some with other fun little perks, but let's concentrate on these two for right now. The greataxe is 1d12 damage with an x3 critical, while the greatsword is 2d6 with a 19-20/x2 critical. What does all this mean? Well, when you crunch the numbers, the greataxe has a little more than 8% chance of rolling any single value. This means a 33% chance of rolling 1-4, and a 25% chance of rolling higher than 9.
d12 vs 2d6
Chance of rolling higher than 9
d12: 25%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling less than 5
d12: 33%
2d6: 16%
Chance of rolling 5-9
d12: 40%
2d6: ~41%
What can we tell from these numbers? The d12 and the 2d6 both have a good chance of dealing average damage, but the d12 has a better chance of dealing greater damage, but it also has a much greater chance of dealing low damage.
Let's look at the criticals. The greataxe has an x3 critical. The greatsword a 19-20. This means that 5% of your attacks with the axe have a chance of dealing triple damage, while 10% of your attacks with the sword have a chance of dealing double.
What does this mean? Well, overall, it means the sword will score criticals about twice as often as the axe, if wielded by the same fighter. So, assuming average damage, a strength bonus of +2, and a power attack of -2/+4, here's the breakdown:
Axe deals 6.5+7 for 13.5x3 total damage, or 40.5 after a single critical
Sword deals 7+7 for 14x2 total damage, or 28 after a single critical
You'll notice the average damages aren't quite equal. Why? As explained above, the average roll is equal to the average of the high and low values, or 1 and 12 for the d12, while the 2d6 has values of 2 and 12, for a slightly higher average.
Ok, the axe seems to win on criticals... until you remember that the sword will score criticals roughly twice as often as the axe. What does this mean, numbers wise? Well, it means that assuming both weapons score the same number of hits, both will deal the same critical damage over time. Want an explanation?
Axe crits for x3, then doesn't crit for x1. Total damage dealt: average x4
Sword crits for x2, then crits for x2. Total damage dealt: average x4
Now, while you won't actually score criticals that quickly... at least you shouldn't, what this really means that given X attack rolls, the Axe will score criticals X/20 times, while the sword crits X/10 times. So, every crit of the axe is x3 damage, every crit of the sword is x2. Since the sword crits twice as often, you could just as easily work this out in the equation as saying X/10 = 2. Or X/20 = 4. So, when you assume two criticals from the sword are equal to a single critical at x4, this means that in two attacks, the sword did x4 damage, while in the same number of attacks, the axe did x3 with one attack, and normal damage, or x1, with the other attack, so in two attacks, a total of x4!
This means that for the purpose of comparing damage directly, going strictly by averages, you can ignore their criticals and compare average damage, in which case, the sword wins by a slight margin. However, the more total attacks made will increase this margin more and more. As seen in the above example, the sword's average damage was 14, while the axe was 13.5. So, let's say after 10 attacks, the sword is averaging 140 damage, the axe 135. Now, that .5 is starting to make a difference.
Ok, but let's look at it in real terms. How many enemies take 140 damage to kill? Enemies of 10th level and up maybe? Dragons? Demons? By the time you face enemies with that many hit points, you should have access to magic weapons, which we haven't factored into the equations. So, while the equations and averages may be true, let's face it, at low levels, when you are relying purely on your damage rolls and no magical enhancements, your enemies can't really take that much damage. So, let's assume 5 enemies with 20 hit points each. Which fighter defeats them quicker? Well, neither. The sword hits for 14, then again hits for 14, enemy can only take 20, so the other 8 is a waste. How many GMs really care if their NPC is reduced to -8 or -7? They're still defeated. The axe fighter similarly deals 13 then 14, again, 7 damage is wasted. In both scenarios, both fighters deal at least 10 damage per hit. Wait! The axe has just as good of a chance of dealing less than 10!
Ok, look at this:
Chance of rolling 1 or 2 (damage needed with a +3 damage from strength and +4 from power attack to deal less than 10 damage)
d12: 16%
2d6: 3% (actually more like 2.76% or something close)
Also, keep in mind that the sword can't actually deal less than 2 damage! So, all you need is +1 more damage from anything, and suddenly your minimum damage is 10.
Alright, so the axe will roll less than 10 damage 16% of the time. However, we already established that on average, both weapons will need 2 hits anyway, and we also established there was 7 damage leftover from the axe's second attack. So, even if you did 8 damage (minimum of the axe in the above example), you only need to roll a 5 or better on your second damage roll (66% chance) to finish off the opponent.
So, what does this prove? Basically, at lower levels, before magic weapons get involved, the sword wins out against the axe only against opponents who can suvive multiple hits (major villains), and wins out when you want to consitently one-hit enemies that require damage rolls of 5 or higher to one-hit (total of 81-82% chance of rolling 5 or more on 2d6). Otherwise, you'll do just as well with the axe, and maybe better at times since the one critical from the axe may be enough to drop weaker opponents, but you will require a critical plus a second hit with the sword to drop that same opponent.
Now, there are a lot of other variables we could look at, and a lot of other situations, examples, and math we could work through, but that's more about the axe vs the sword, and this guide has already delved enough into that realm. This guide is supposed to be about the fighter himself, so let's take a look at one more option with the fighter.
Shield?
We've discussed being an archer, two-weapons, and the 2-handed weapon, but what about a 1-hand weapon and a shield? This is also a feasible option, but I have seen fewer good feat choices for shield uses. Improved shield bash comes to mind, but that's really the only one. Using a shield is basically sacrificing your off-hand weapon or your chance to use a 2-handed weapon for a little extra armor class, usually +2. Is it worth it? Probably not. One of the best single-handed weapons is the longsword for d8 damage. 4.5 average before any modifiers. A full 2.5 points lower than the greatsword. What do you get? An extra 2 points of armor class? That reduces opponents' accuracy by a total of 10%.
Now, while the shield doesn't look all that favorable yet, let's also consider that there are still a number of good feat choices for your offense, and you can use a one-handed weapon just fine, and eventually you can get a magic shield which can have some fun abilities, so don't discount the shield option just yet.
The Best Fighter?
Now, numbers-wise, the power attacking fighter, and the archer have the advantage, but let's consider some other situations. Is the archer equal to the power attacker while in a dungeon full of narrow cooridors and cramped rooms? Is the power attacker equal when fighting a flying enemy?
What point am I trying to make here? Well, I've crunched some numbers for you, and while it looks like I might be trying to encourage the min-max, I'm actually just trying to show you some choices you can make to make your character more efficient so you don't have to max out certain attributes because you think that's what a fighter is supposed to be. Also, my last point that I'd like to make is that while specializing looks very appealing, when you do that you become a specialist. You become really great at doing things a certain way, but what happens when you can't apply your strength? Let me give you one more example:
In a recent campaign, I had two players playing barbarians. One was a straight barbarian build using a greataxe with power attack, the other took 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats and barbarian the rest of the way. He also used a greataxe and power attack. Neither character bothered to purchase a ranged weapon with their starting money. All of their feat choices revolved around melee combat. These two could dispatch minions like crazy, but what happened everytime we reached the end of the adventure and faced the big bad guy (boss) who could fly? Suddenly, our biggest power houses were reduced to level 1 efficiency! Guys who were used to hitting for d12 damage had nothing! Even after several adventures, gaining several levels, they were hitting for d12+9 damage, and still hadn't purchased a ranged weapon even after facing at least 3 big baddies that were unreachable with melee attacks. Finally, they bought javelins and throwing axes. From then on, these giants in melee were reduced from d12+9 damage to a measely d6+3 or maybe d6+4 damage when facing a ranged opponent.
Moral of the story: When you focus entirely on a single aspect of your character, you have no one to blame but yourself when your GM makes you face an opponent you have no answer to.
Which fighter should you build? That's up to you. I won't tell you how to make your character. If I did, it wouldn't be your character. You make your fighter however you want. All I've done is provide some information about the effectiveness of different choices. Now, if you want to play a dual-wielding swashbuckler, or a sword and shield fighter, knowing that a greatsword or a longbow would be a more effective choice... then congratulations. You've graduated from power gamer to actor/roleplayer. As a gamemaster, I'd much rather see my players play a character because of the concept as opposed to which character type racks up the numbers faster.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
How to be a Better Roleplayer
Ok, so I had a guide for non-roleplayers, so now it's time for a guide for roleplayers, so... if you aren't a roleplayer... um... I dunno, go read a magazine or something... us gamers gotta talk. :)
Today we're going to talk about becoming a better roleplayer. Before we get to that, though, we're going to define a few types of roleplayers and discuss why you might or might not want to be that type of player.
First up, we're going to cover the Casual Gamer. This type goes by various titles, but we're just going to call him Casual. Casual is the guy who came to your game because that's what his friends do, or he had nothing better to do. Casual usually doesn't get too into it, but he at least participates when he should, but he's liable to get distracted.
So, what are Casual's good points? Well, in a combat-oriented game, he provides an extra pair of hands in battle. Where he shines is the fact that Casual usually doesn't care too much about what kind of character he plays, so he doesn't mind picking up whatever character type the group needs to balance it.
Why shouldn't you be Casual? The simple answer is because Casual isn't really following the story, and as soon as he finds something better to do, he'll probably stop showing up altogether. Casual can be inattentive until it's his turn to do something, too.
Next up we'll talk about the Rules Lawyer. Judging from the name, you can probably guess what this guy is. A Rules Lawyer knows the books forwards, backwards, inside out, upside down, can quote stats in his sleep, and won't hesitate to let you know when you're wrong. It is easy for Gamemasters to become Rules Lawyers when they play in someone else's game.
The good? Well, if you ever need to reference an obscure rule, it is often quicker and easier to ask the resident Lawyer than to look it up and read through a page of text to figure out how to handle the die rolls.
Why shouldn't you be a Rules Lawyer? Well, first of all, the GM's word is law, and GMs typically don't like to be contradicted. Also, in some game systems, there are spells and abilities some enemies could have that let them get around certain situations in the rules, and the Rules Lawyer wouldn't be aware of these special situations, so questioning the GM's apparent disregard of the rules in this instance is actually a result of being ignorant of a rule-bending ability the enemy may have that the GM doesn't want to divulge yet.
Alright, let's look at Power Gamers, Min-Maxers, or Munchkins. This type of player likes to build characters that "win". In a combat-oriented game, that means this guy is going to play the party tank or artillery. The name Min-Maxer comes from the tendency to build your character focusing only on a few stats you think are most useful for your win condition and ignoring the other stats. If this means you're playing a tank, you try to maximize your strength and stamina, if you're playing the party sorcerer, you buff whatever stat your magic is dependent on to the exclusion of most others.
Why do we like Power Gamers? Well, honestly, because the fights become a lot easier when you have a character or two built around destroying the enemy as fast as possible.
Why do we not like Power Gamers? Because a Power Gamer builds his character around one task, usually combat, the PG often gets bored when not performing that task, which usually leads the PG to become a Casual Gamer as well. Some PGs will get distracted with their cell phones, perusing through a book or something until they need to do something in combat.
The last group we're going to talk about is Actors. I can't really think of a better name for this group. Actors sit attentively at the table and enjoy interacting with NPCs and solving puzzles and avoiding traps just as much as fighting the bad guys. Actors try to design their characters around a theme or a concept as opposed to trying to max a particular set of stats. That doesn't mean that Actors don't design their characters for combat, but that isn't their sole objective.
What is so great about being an Actor? Actors are attentive to the story and the NPCs. They love the details and like to feel that they're part of an imaginary world. They will participate openly throughout the entire game and usually end up becoming the party leaders because of this.
Why would you not want to be an Actor? Um... really, I can't see a downside to this one. Unfortunately, though, not everyone can be an Actor right off the bat. Some players can jump into their role and get immersed in the story easily, and some end up as one of the other types, but may gravitate towards being an Actor later.
Alright, now that we've covered the different types of players, let's discuss ways you can become a better player.
First of all, respect your GM and your fellow players. When you come to the table, you came to play, and your GM probably put a lot of work into designing his world and writing his story and, if he's anything like me, he wants to share it with you. You should leave all distractions behind. You came to participate in the story. If your cell phone rings, don't answer it, it can probably wait. When you get to a point in the game where the action has slowed down, request a break from your GM and return the missed call. Obviously, if it's from your spouse, fiance, parent, or maybe sibling, if you feel it may be urgent, excuse yourself from the table and take the call in another room. Your GM won't make you miss anything important. Oh, and above all else, don't text during the game! You may be able to pay attention while texting, but your GM won't know that. Texting, in general, not just during a game, sends a message to everyone around you that what you're doing is more important than what they're doing, so don't text while you're with friends.
Second, if you're going to be a Rules Lawyer, be a respectful RL. Don't contradict your GM at the table. If you feel the GM has made a major mistake, and it may happen, despite what they want you to believe, GMs aren't perfect, speak to the GM during a break or after the game. Nothing breaks the flow of the game like having to stop and look up a rule because there's a disagreement between the GM and the RL. Remember, within the GM's game, his word is law. If it turns out he was wrong about a rule, and it didn't drastically affect the game, he may just decide to go ahead and follow the rule correctly in the future, or if the misinterpretation had a major impact, he may decide to rememdy the situation right away.
Third, pay attention, especially during combat. I feel that the GM is well within his rights not to repeat something if you weren't paying attention, especially if you're at the table, and even moreso if the information is regarding an enemy in combat and you're using miniatures on a map.
Fourth, if you're thinking about using a rule that isn't used often, or casting a spell you haven't cast before, look it up before your turn so you don't have to slow down the game while everyone waits for you to make your decision.
Finally, when it comes to combat, tactical planning is the best form of power gaming. You don't have to min-max your character to optimize him or her for combat. Using good tactics can go a long way towards winning a fight. For example, the wizard may be able to deal 15-20 damage with a blast spell to 2-3 enemies in one turn, but he might be able to cast a spell that gives all of his teammates a bonus to attacks or damage that last multiple turns. That one spell could easily add up to much more total damage than that single blast, especially if the enemies have a chance of negating or reducing the damage from the blast. Power Gamers playing tanks would do well to wait until after being buffed by the party caster before taking their turn. Look for chances to gang up on a single opponent and take it down before engaging the other enemies. Try to identify the major threats first. Eliminating easy targets early in combat could prevent them from ganging up on you and becoming a major threat later. Party healers... remember that an ounce of defensive magic can prevent a pound of healing spells.
Today we're going to talk about becoming a better roleplayer. Before we get to that, though, we're going to define a few types of roleplayers and discuss why you might or might not want to be that type of player.
First up, we're going to cover the Casual Gamer. This type goes by various titles, but we're just going to call him Casual. Casual is the guy who came to your game because that's what his friends do, or he had nothing better to do. Casual usually doesn't get too into it, but he at least participates when he should, but he's liable to get distracted.
So, what are Casual's good points? Well, in a combat-oriented game, he provides an extra pair of hands in battle. Where he shines is the fact that Casual usually doesn't care too much about what kind of character he plays, so he doesn't mind picking up whatever character type the group needs to balance it.
Why shouldn't you be Casual? The simple answer is because Casual isn't really following the story, and as soon as he finds something better to do, he'll probably stop showing up altogether. Casual can be inattentive until it's his turn to do something, too.
Next up we'll talk about the Rules Lawyer. Judging from the name, you can probably guess what this guy is. A Rules Lawyer knows the books forwards, backwards, inside out, upside down, can quote stats in his sleep, and won't hesitate to let you know when you're wrong. It is easy for Gamemasters to become Rules Lawyers when they play in someone else's game.
The good? Well, if you ever need to reference an obscure rule, it is often quicker and easier to ask the resident Lawyer than to look it up and read through a page of text to figure out how to handle the die rolls.
Why shouldn't you be a Rules Lawyer? Well, first of all, the GM's word is law, and GMs typically don't like to be contradicted. Also, in some game systems, there are spells and abilities some enemies could have that let them get around certain situations in the rules, and the Rules Lawyer wouldn't be aware of these special situations, so questioning the GM's apparent disregard of the rules in this instance is actually a result of being ignorant of a rule-bending ability the enemy may have that the GM doesn't want to divulge yet.
Alright, let's look at Power Gamers, Min-Maxers, or Munchkins. This type of player likes to build characters that "win". In a combat-oriented game, that means this guy is going to play the party tank or artillery. The name Min-Maxer comes from the tendency to build your character focusing only on a few stats you think are most useful for your win condition and ignoring the other stats. If this means you're playing a tank, you try to maximize your strength and stamina, if you're playing the party sorcerer, you buff whatever stat your magic is dependent on to the exclusion of most others.
Why do we like Power Gamers? Well, honestly, because the fights become a lot easier when you have a character or two built around destroying the enemy as fast as possible.
Why do we not like Power Gamers? Because a Power Gamer builds his character around one task, usually combat, the PG often gets bored when not performing that task, which usually leads the PG to become a Casual Gamer as well. Some PGs will get distracted with their cell phones, perusing through a book or something until they need to do something in combat.
The last group we're going to talk about is Actors. I can't really think of a better name for this group. Actors sit attentively at the table and enjoy interacting with NPCs and solving puzzles and avoiding traps just as much as fighting the bad guys. Actors try to design their characters around a theme or a concept as opposed to trying to max a particular set of stats. That doesn't mean that Actors don't design their characters for combat, but that isn't their sole objective.
What is so great about being an Actor? Actors are attentive to the story and the NPCs. They love the details and like to feel that they're part of an imaginary world. They will participate openly throughout the entire game and usually end up becoming the party leaders because of this.
Why would you not want to be an Actor? Um... really, I can't see a downside to this one. Unfortunately, though, not everyone can be an Actor right off the bat. Some players can jump into their role and get immersed in the story easily, and some end up as one of the other types, but may gravitate towards being an Actor later.
Alright, now that we've covered the different types of players, let's discuss ways you can become a better player.
First of all, respect your GM and your fellow players. When you come to the table, you came to play, and your GM probably put a lot of work into designing his world and writing his story and, if he's anything like me, he wants to share it with you. You should leave all distractions behind. You came to participate in the story. If your cell phone rings, don't answer it, it can probably wait. When you get to a point in the game where the action has slowed down, request a break from your GM and return the missed call. Obviously, if it's from your spouse, fiance, parent, or maybe sibling, if you feel it may be urgent, excuse yourself from the table and take the call in another room. Your GM won't make you miss anything important. Oh, and above all else, don't text during the game! You may be able to pay attention while texting, but your GM won't know that. Texting, in general, not just during a game, sends a message to everyone around you that what you're doing is more important than what they're doing, so don't text while you're with friends.
Second, if you're going to be a Rules Lawyer, be a respectful RL. Don't contradict your GM at the table. If you feel the GM has made a major mistake, and it may happen, despite what they want you to believe, GMs aren't perfect, speak to the GM during a break or after the game. Nothing breaks the flow of the game like having to stop and look up a rule because there's a disagreement between the GM and the RL. Remember, within the GM's game, his word is law. If it turns out he was wrong about a rule, and it didn't drastically affect the game, he may just decide to go ahead and follow the rule correctly in the future, or if the misinterpretation had a major impact, he may decide to rememdy the situation right away.
Third, pay attention, especially during combat. I feel that the GM is well within his rights not to repeat something if you weren't paying attention, especially if you're at the table, and even moreso if the information is regarding an enemy in combat and you're using miniatures on a map.
Fourth, if you're thinking about using a rule that isn't used often, or casting a spell you haven't cast before, look it up before your turn so you don't have to slow down the game while everyone waits for you to make your decision.
Finally, when it comes to combat, tactical planning is the best form of power gaming. You don't have to min-max your character to optimize him or her for combat. Using good tactics can go a long way towards winning a fight. For example, the wizard may be able to deal 15-20 damage with a blast spell to 2-3 enemies in one turn, but he might be able to cast a spell that gives all of his teammates a bonus to attacks or damage that last multiple turns. That one spell could easily add up to much more total damage than that single blast, especially if the enemies have a chance of negating or reducing the damage from the blast. Power Gamers playing tanks would do well to wait until after being buffed by the party caster before taking their turn. Look for chances to gang up on a single opponent and take it down before engaging the other enemies. Try to identify the major threats first. Eliminating easy targets early in combat could prevent them from ganging up on you and becoming a major threat later. Party healers... remember that an ounce of defensive magic can prevent a pound of healing spells.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Dyrian's Guide to Roleplaying for Non-Roleplayers
If you're reading this, you likely know someone who plays roleplaying games, or you just want to know more about them, possibly considering joining one yourself. I hope I can shed some light on the subject for you and you leave with a better understanding of just what an RPG is.
The first question we're going to answer is "What is roleplaying?" The answer is very simple. Split the word into two parts and swap the order. Roleplaying means playing a role. What does this mean? It means every Hollywood actor, every kid in a school play, everyone who has performed a skit in a talent show, is a "roleplayer." Ok, not really in the gaming sense of the word, it means you're an actor, but every actor has played a role. So, what is a roleplaying game? It's a game in which you play a role. Simple, huh? What do I mean by play a role? I mean you adopt the persona of another character, you play the part of someone other than yourself.
That is the most basic definition of a roleplaying game. In order to learn more about it, let's take a look at one of the most popular, in fact, probably the single most popular, RPG available, Dungeons & Dragons. Dungeons & Dragons, or D&D as it's commonly called amongst gamers, began in the 70s when Gary Gygax and some of his gaming buddies were playing wargames and one of them had the brilliant idea of keeping track of their army's heroes and having them improve as they gained experience on the battlefield. This soon led to them developing rules in which they played as a small group of heroes instead of entire armies, and finally the first version of D&D came from this concept. Since then, D&D has gone through a few different versions as the rules improved and the product changed hands from one company to another. Even though the game has changed a lot since its origin, it is still based around the same principle: playing a single character.
Before we go any further, there's a second question we need to address, and that is "Are roleplaying games evil?" In the late 70s and early 80s when D&D was becoming mainstream gaming amongst nerds, it began to get a lot of negative press. One of the biggest sources of negativity was when Irving Pulling, a D&D player, committed suicide in 1982, leading his mother, Patricia to file a wrongful death lawsuit against TSR, the company that owned D&D at the time. The suit was dismissed, but it lead Patricia to form a one-person advocacy group called BADD (Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons). When Patricia died in 1997, BADD died along with her as she was the only member. James Dallas Egbert III committed suicide in 1980, after having disappeared the year before and failed a suicide attempt. It was speculated at the time that D&D may have been the cause of his suicide, that the young man failed to distinguish reality from fantasy, but it was later determined that depression and great stress was the cause of the boy's suicide, and the detective hired to find him after his initial disappearance speculated that his domineering mother had more to do with his depression than fantasy gaming did.
The biggest issue at hand here lies around the fact that during the 80s when D&D and fantasy gaming in general was catching all this flak, the media purportedly stated that D&D included witchcraft, occult, wiccan, demonology, and satanic rituals. Patricia Pulling stated all this and more, but let me ask you this: do you think she ever played the game to find out?
Some of the D&D sourcebooks may look evil, such as the Draconomicon, Necronomicon, and Book of Vile Darkness. These may sound like occult tomes, but in reality, they only contain rules and story ideas for using some new stuff in your games, specifically new options for dragons, undead, and just really bad bad guys. People who report negative press about D&D probably don't want you to know that in addition to the Book of Vile Darkness, there is a Book of Exalted Deeds. Does that sound like an evil tome? No. It's just the counter-point to the BoVD. The Book of Exalted Deeds contains information for playing really good good guys.
Alright, so let's get to the nitty-gritty here. Since I've played D&D for the past 5 years or so, I'll tell you just how evil it is. First of all, when you open the Players Handbook (the first book new players are likely to open) you'll find instructions for creating your character. Well, that doesn't sound too evil yet, so let's move on. You'll see options for playing good or evil characters. Ah-ha! There we go, you can play an evil character! You'll see rules for using various skills and abilities your character possesses, and even how to cast spells. Oh, there we go! The game does encourage witchcraft! There are entire chapters just about spellcasting. Yes... in-game spellcasting. Let's take a look at a particular spell. How about, Fireball. The spell lists a material component, specifically, bat guano. Um... ok, I need poop to cast this spell. It also says I have to speak some magic words. Wait, there are no words listed. What do I have to say? It also says I have to perform some sort of gesture, but it doesn't say what. So, how exactly do I cast this spell? Well, if you recall, this is a GAME. Your character is assumed to know the word and gesture required to cast the spell, assuming you're playing a spellcaster and the spell is one of the ones you know. Wait a minute, did I just say that right? Did I say that the game designers don't actually provide words and gestures so you can try this out yourself? That's right. Now, granted, some of the really powerful spells in the game do include some sort of ritual your character must perform, but these were included so that you couldn't just cast the spell anytime you felt like it. You're required to actually have the time and be able to put forth the effort to cast the spell. One other thing, in the chapter on magic, particularly arcane magic, it mentions that most spells are written in, and cast by speaking, Draconian, the language of dragons. Do you know anyone who knows what language dragons speak? Wait, have you even seen a dragon? Um... so, the designers didn't intend for any real person to actually know how to cast a spell.
Alright, so maybe you aren't given enough instructions to try to cast spells in reality, but this game still promotes spellcasting! Well, yes, but so does J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series. One of the main characters is a wizard and is seen casting a few spells in the story. So, are you telling me it's evil to read or watch Lord of the Rings? Hopefully not. Anyone with any sense should realize that it's just a story about a fictional world. Well, that's all D&D is. Wait, didn't I mention before that you could play an evil character? Well, yes I did, but doing so is extremely difficult. Out of all of the source material available for D&D, somewhere close to 90% of it assumes you're playing a good guy. Take a look at the Monster Manual. It includes rules for pretty much any type of enemy you could think to include in your game. If you take the time to read each monster's entry from cover to cover, you'll find about 90% of them are evil. So, if you actually plan to play a bad guy, be prepared to face the same monsters over and over again until you get sick of them.
I think I've gone on enough about this. How evil is D&D? Well, no more evil than the players make it. That's the real answer. Any parents reading this, my advice to you is this: There's no reason not to let your kids play. If you have good kids, and you know the people they're going to be playing with, then you're alright. If you have bad kids... well, wouldn't they be doing something bad anyway? Also consider that the time spent playing D&D could also be time spent going out drinking, or running with some gang. At least playing D&D is done indoors, usually around a table, and (at least most of the time) there's no drinking and nobody's getting into any real trouble. If you want to read more about the issue and see where I got some information, you can check out this article.
Ok, so getting back to roleplaying in general. We've had a rather long discussion about morality, so what about some positive aspects of roleplaying? Well, consider that your average roleplaying game involves 4 or 5 people, all sitting around the same table. This requires direct face-to-face interaction with your fellow players, something you're not going to get from X-Box Live or internet gaming. In fact, roleplaying is proven to improve your social skills. Most games involve the rolling of dice and adding and subtracting numbers. I've seen living proof that roleplaying can improve your math skills. One of my players used to have to count on his fingers to add or subtract from his roll, and now he's able to give me his total much quicker, without using his fingers. Roleplaying also requires a lot of imagination as many gamers can't afford game mats and miniatures to represent their characters, so you have to picture the battlefield in your mind as it's changing. Also, most gamemasters don't lay out a diagram of every single scene they describe, so even if you do have miniatures and a game mat, you will likely still have to use your imagination a lot. Let's also not forget that you have to read the rules, you don't have a program running the game for you, so reading skills are important. Most games involve a group of heroes fighting for a common goal, which encourages teamwork, so roleplaying games can teach players to work together. Also, some of the challenges in the game can be made a lot simpler when tackled a certain way, which encourages creative thinking and strategy.
Roleplaying is starting to look better and better all the time.
Alright, so, think about this: if you're a parent, or if you're not, pretend for a moment that you are, would you rather your child spend two hours sitting in front of the TV being a couch potato, or would you rather him/her be sitting at a table with friends for two hours pretending to be a great hero in some long-forgotten realm, learning to be a team player, improving valuable skills that can actually be useful later in life?
It's about time to bring this guide to a close. So, what is a roleplaying game? Ultimately, it's a game of the mind. It requires the use of your imagination, it requires creative thinking, and it requires teamwork, and if you don't want the game to drag on for two hours longer than you planned, it requires quick thinking. I hope I've been able to shed a little light on an unfamiliar subject. If you want more information, I'll be covering some aspects of roleplaying games more in-depth in future guides.
The first question we're going to answer is "What is roleplaying?" The answer is very simple. Split the word into two parts and swap the order. Roleplaying means playing a role. What does this mean? It means every Hollywood actor, every kid in a school play, everyone who has performed a skit in a talent show, is a "roleplayer." Ok, not really in the gaming sense of the word, it means you're an actor, but every actor has played a role. So, what is a roleplaying game? It's a game in which you play a role. Simple, huh? What do I mean by play a role? I mean you adopt the persona of another character, you play the part of someone other than yourself.
That is the most basic definition of a roleplaying game. In order to learn more about it, let's take a look at one of the most popular, in fact, probably the single most popular, RPG available, Dungeons & Dragons. Dungeons & Dragons, or D&D as it's commonly called amongst gamers, began in the 70s when Gary Gygax and some of his gaming buddies were playing wargames and one of them had the brilliant idea of keeping track of their army's heroes and having them improve as they gained experience on the battlefield. This soon led to them developing rules in which they played as a small group of heroes instead of entire armies, and finally the first version of D&D came from this concept. Since then, D&D has gone through a few different versions as the rules improved and the product changed hands from one company to another. Even though the game has changed a lot since its origin, it is still based around the same principle: playing a single character.
Before we go any further, there's a second question we need to address, and that is "Are roleplaying games evil?" In the late 70s and early 80s when D&D was becoming mainstream gaming amongst nerds, it began to get a lot of negative press. One of the biggest sources of negativity was when Irving Pulling, a D&D player, committed suicide in 1982, leading his mother, Patricia to file a wrongful death lawsuit against TSR, the company that owned D&D at the time. The suit was dismissed, but it lead Patricia to form a one-person advocacy group called BADD (Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons). When Patricia died in 1997, BADD died along with her as she was the only member. James Dallas Egbert III committed suicide in 1980, after having disappeared the year before and failed a suicide attempt. It was speculated at the time that D&D may have been the cause of his suicide, that the young man failed to distinguish reality from fantasy, but it was later determined that depression and great stress was the cause of the boy's suicide, and the detective hired to find him after his initial disappearance speculated that his domineering mother had more to do with his depression than fantasy gaming did.
The biggest issue at hand here lies around the fact that during the 80s when D&D and fantasy gaming in general was catching all this flak, the media purportedly stated that D&D included witchcraft, occult, wiccan, demonology, and satanic rituals. Patricia Pulling stated all this and more, but let me ask you this: do you think she ever played the game to find out?
Some of the D&D sourcebooks may look evil, such as the Draconomicon, Necronomicon, and Book of Vile Darkness. These may sound like occult tomes, but in reality, they only contain rules and story ideas for using some new stuff in your games, specifically new options for dragons, undead, and just really bad bad guys. People who report negative press about D&D probably don't want you to know that in addition to the Book of Vile Darkness, there is a Book of Exalted Deeds. Does that sound like an evil tome? No. It's just the counter-point to the BoVD. The Book of Exalted Deeds contains information for playing really good good guys.
Alright, so let's get to the nitty-gritty here. Since I've played D&D for the past 5 years or so, I'll tell you just how evil it is. First of all, when you open the Players Handbook (the first book new players are likely to open) you'll find instructions for creating your character. Well, that doesn't sound too evil yet, so let's move on. You'll see options for playing good or evil characters. Ah-ha! There we go, you can play an evil character! You'll see rules for using various skills and abilities your character possesses, and even how to cast spells. Oh, there we go! The game does encourage witchcraft! There are entire chapters just about spellcasting. Yes... in-game spellcasting. Let's take a look at a particular spell. How about, Fireball. The spell lists a material component, specifically, bat guano. Um... ok, I need poop to cast this spell. It also says I have to speak some magic words. Wait, there are no words listed. What do I have to say? It also says I have to perform some sort of gesture, but it doesn't say what. So, how exactly do I cast this spell? Well, if you recall, this is a GAME. Your character is assumed to know the word and gesture required to cast the spell, assuming you're playing a spellcaster and the spell is one of the ones you know. Wait a minute, did I just say that right? Did I say that the game designers don't actually provide words and gestures so you can try this out yourself? That's right. Now, granted, some of the really powerful spells in the game do include some sort of ritual your character must perform, but these were included so that you couldn't just cast the spell anytime you felt like it. You're required to actually have the time and be able to put forth the effort to cast the spell. One other thing, in the chapter on magic, particularly arcane magic, it mentions that most spells are written in, and cast by speaking, Draconian, the language of dragons. Do you know anyone who knows what language dragons speak? Wait, have you even seen a dragon? Um... so, the designers didn't intend for any real person to actually know how to cast a spell.
Alright, so maybe you aren't given enough instructions to try to cast spells in reality, but this game still promotes spellcasting! Well, yes, but so does J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series. One of the main characters is a wizard and is seen casting a few spells in the story. So, are you telling me it's evil to read or watch Lord of the Rings? Hopefully not. Anyone with any sense should realize that it's just a story about a fictional world. Well, that's all D&D is. Wait, didn't I mention before that you could play an evil character? Well, yes I did, but doing so is extremely difficult. Out of all of the source material available for D&D, somewhere close to 90% of it assumes you're playing a good guy. Take a look at the Monster Manual. It includes rules for pretty much any type of enemy you could think to include in your game. If you take the time to read each monster's entry from cover to cover, you'll find about 90% of them are evil. So, if you actually plan to play a bad guy, be prepared to face the same monsters over and over again until you get sick of them.
I think I've gone on enough about this. How evil is D&D? Well, no more evil than the players make it. That's the real answer. Any parents reading this, my advice to you is this: There's no reason not to let your kids play. If you have good kids, and you know the people they're going to be playing with, then you're alright. If you have bad kids... well, wouldn't they be doing something bad anyway? Also consider that the time spent playing D&D could also be time spent going out drinking, or running with some gang. At least playing D&D is done indoors, usually around a table, and (at least most of the time) there's no drinking and nobody's getting into any real trouble. If you want to read more about the issue and see where I got some information, you can check out this article.
Ok, so getting back to roleplaying in general. We've had a rather long discussion about morality, so what about some positive aspects of roleplaying? Well, consider that your average roleplaying game involves 4 or 5 people, all sitting around the same table. This requires direct face-to-face interaction with your fellow players, something you're not going to get from X-Box Live or internet gaming. In fact, roleplaying is proven to improve your social skills. Most games involve the rolling of dice and adding and subtracting numbers. I've seen living proof that roleplaying can improve your math skills. One of my players used to have to count on his fingers to add or subtract from his roll, and now he's able to give me his total much quicker, without using his fingers. Roleplaying also requires a lot of imagination as many gamers can't afford game mats and miniatures to represent their characters, so you have to picture the battlefield in your mind as it's changing. Also, most gamemasters don't lay out a diagram of every single scene they describe, so even if you do have miniatures and a game mat, you will likely still have to use your imagination a lot. Let's also not forget that you have to read the rules, you don't have a program running the game for you, so reading skills are important. Most games involve a group of heroes fighting for a common goal, which encourages teamwork, so roleplaying games can teach players to work together. Also, some of the challenges in the game can be made a lot simpler when tackled a certain way, which encourages creative thinking and strategy.
Roleplaying is starting to look better and better all the time.
Alright, so, think about this: if you're a parent, or if you're not, pretend for a moment that you are, would you rather your child spend two hours sitting in front of the TV being a couch potato, or would you rather him/her be sitting at a table with friends for two hours pretending to be a great hero in some long-forgotten realm, learning to be a team player, improving valuable skills that can actually be useful later in life?
It's about time to bring this guide to a close. So, what is a roleplaying game? Ultimately, it's a game of the mind. It requires the use of your imagination, it requires creative thinking, and it requires teamwork, and if you don't want the game to drag on for two hours longer than you planned, it requires quick thinking. I hope I've been able to shed a little light on an unfamiliar subject. If you want more information, I'll be covering some aspects of roleplaying games more in-depth in future guides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)