Tag: dnd

Can’t see the forest for the trees

5.5e Player’s Handbook is out and some folks are going through it. Treantmonk has a video exploring the updated version of the Ranger, and while he goes through all the features and analyzes them decently – including comparisons with the Ranger variants from 5e and the 5.5e playtest for context – he still seems perplexed by people not liking this new version. I think he’s too lost in the details to see the big picture.

Conceptually, Rangers are supposed to be wilderness specialists. Specifically, they’re supposed to specialize in ranging (travelling across a wide area) – that’s why back in 1e, Rangers weren’t allowed to own more than they could carry. That specialization just isn’t meaningful in 5.x D&D – it’s not that you can’t be good at it, but rather that the game just doesn’t care about it. In fact, it actively avoids engaging with anything like logistical concerns: encumbrance; ability to forage for supplies or even the need to do so (q.v. Goodberry); ability to replace scarce resources like ammunition (you can tell the game doesn’t care about this because if it did, spellcasters using damaging cantrips would be seen as having a significant advantage over characters using thrown and projectile weapons); travel challenges like environmental hazards and getting lost; etc. All this means the Ranger’s core concept doesn’t have any real place in 5.x D&D.

Another issue he seems to gloss over is the move to make the Ranger more of a spellcaster. This is another systemic issue in 5.x D&D: the transition to make basically every character intrinsically magical in some way, even if they aren’t a spellcaster per se. Yes, Rangers learned to cast spells back in TSR-era D&D: starting at 8th level (Paladins started gaining their spells at 9th). You know what else happened around that level? Fighters and Clerics started to gain their strongholds, with Thieves and Magic-Users not far behind. Characters in that level range were transitioning away from the life of itinerant dungeon-delving and starting to embed themselves in the world in a larger context. In the language of 5e, they were moving to a different tier of play*. Rangers and Paladins should start off as spellcasters – they should have other points of interest to their classes to distinguish them from Fighters without needing spellcasting, ideally until at least 5th level, and preferably until 9th**. But because 5.x doesn’t care about the Ranger’s core activities, it mechanics it can use to help provide a distinct identity without falling back on spellcasting.

Is there anything we can do about this? I don’t see a lot of options: either we have to houserule 5.x to care about what Rangers do and then redesign 5.x Rangers to actually do that; or we have to reduce Rangers’ design space in the game (perhaps demoting them to be a mere Fighter subclass, at which point they only need as much distinctiveness as an Eldritch Knight); or we give up and just accept a lot of feel will continue to see them as a bad class***.

* Except that none of the tiers identified in 5e or 5.5e really match up with this – the 5.x descriptions of tier 3 (almost identical between 5e and 5.5e) say things like “Other characters gain features that allow them to make more attacks or to do more impressive things with those attacks. These adventurers often confront threats to whole regions.” (emphasis added; 5.5e PHB page 43).

** I like using 9th level as a tier breakpoint because it’s when Clerics – and thus PC parties – gain the ability to revive the dead under their own power. 5.x blurs the line a bit with the 3rd-level Revivify spell, but even so I think gaining the ability to Raise Dead is a real turning point in PC power, and should be recognized in how it can transform play. A similar concern applies to Teleport in earlier editions, or Teleport Circle in 5.5e – the ability to bail out of locations without having to traverse obstacles is transformational. Assuming the group and the game care about challenges like these, of course.

*** A bad class isn’t necessarily a weak class – you could give Rangers + 10*Ranger level to all rolls, and it would make them much more powerful. It still wouldn’t make them feel like much of anything except overpowered.

Posted on by azabaro 0

A quick test to see if a class change is overpowered

If you’re thinking of making changes to a class, you’re probably concerned about doing something that makes the class too powerful – I believe the current term is “overtuned”? There’s a quick heuristic you can use in strongly class-based games like D&D.

First, pick a benchmark class – this is a class seen as one of the more powerful ones for the game, if not the most powerful. Let’s assume we’re looking at 5e, and the benchmark class is wizard.

Second, you ask these questions:

1. Is the class I’m modifying at least as powerful as the wizard before making these changes?

2. Will the change make the class I’m modifying more powerful than the wizard?

3. Am I doing anything to reduce the power of the wizard?

If the answer to all 3 of these is no, the change probably doesn’t make the class overpowered. We can’t be too certain – a change may not make a class too powerful on its own, but may do so in concert with various build choices like feats or multiclassing combinations. But this is a good first approximation.

Incidentally, this suggests that any improvement to your benchmark class is a bridge too far, at least if that class really is the most powerful class already. For 5e, that means don’t buff wizards. Well, I’m sure the designers of 5.5e already know that…

Posted on by azabaro 0

Alignment

Alignment has been the source of a lot of unnecessary arguments across D&D’s history. It’s kind of strange – if you look back at original D&D, it was just a faction marker: shirts vs. skins (or togas vs. woad if you prefer). Its only real effects were to determine what types of monsters you could recruit – a Lawful character could ride a pegasus and a Chaotic one a griffin, but not vice-versa – and which magic swords a character could use (since back then they were all intelligent enough to have their own alignments). But that was it.

Somewhere along the way alignment became a description of a creature’s morality – or more problematically, of an entire creature type’s innate moral character, regardless of their actions. Orcs who are Evil by birth; elves who are Good by nature even when they enslave each other (that’s from an actual Dragonlance module, by the way). There’s no salvaging that.

A lot of folks just discard alignment, and while I can’t blame them I feel it’s one of D&D’s more iconic contributions to popular culture – I don’t know how many 3×3 alignment grids I’ve seen for ways to close a bag of bread or whatever, and there’s even an entire subreddit for alignment charts. I think it would be a terrible mistake to throw away that mindshare if we can salvage the concept, especially if we can do something interesting with it.

My take

Alignment is the state of being mystically connected to an extradimensional reality – in traditional D&D cosmology, to one of the Outer Planes. This connection can arise in a number of ways:

  • Being composed of the substance of that reality (for example, demons being literally made of the Abyss).
  • Powerful supernatural effects like a curse, perhaps even one passed down for generations; or a Helm of Opposite Alignment.
  • Behaving in a way that supernaturally resonates with that reality via magical sympathetic principles.
    • This last is the route traditionally assumed for alignment – that a character is Chaotic because they behave chaotically.

This proposal allows for a Hellboy-style character who is by origin tied to an infernal plane despite being completely out of sync with the ideals of that place; such a character isn’t born Evil, but they are born aligned with Hell (or just Lawful Evil) regardless of their feelings in the matter. This also allows for us to have weird objects (a rock that’s so evil just touching it will turn you into fiddler crabs!) or even places (which are strong in the the Dark Side), and corresponding phenomena for other alignments.

We still need to give alignment some mechanical definition. Let’s start with the following:

  1. A character may choose whether or not to have an alignment.
    1. If the character chooses not to have an alignment, they can simply write “unaligned” in any alignment field used to describe their character. A lot of beings are unaligned, including many people.
    2. If a player chooses to have an alignment, it never forces the player or their character to make certain choices or otherwise reduces the character’s agency or the player’s control over their character’s actions.
  2. Spells and effects which deal with alignment detect and operate on the mystical connection, not on the character’s thoughts, intentions, or historical behavior.
  3. Alignment has mechanical effects. A character
    1. Gets advantage on rolls to resist being forced, coerced, or manipulated into behaving contrary to their alignment’s ethics.
    2. Gets advantage on rolls to communicate with beings who share their alignment – they’re on the same wavelength.
    3. Gains Inspiration when they behave according to the ethics of their alignment at the cost of causing themselves non-trivial trouble.
  4. Available alignments
    1. The usual assumption
      1. There are 9 alignments, each made from a combination of choices along 2 ethical axes: Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic and Good-Neutral-Evil.
      2. Under this assumption, “Neutral” is simply a lack of a commitment along that axis, so a character who is Neutral on both the Law/Chaos axis and the Good/Evil axis is effectively unaligned. This means the standard alignment choices end up as follows:
        1. Lawful Good
        2. Neutral Good
        3. Chaotic Good
        4. Lawful Neutral
        5. Neutral (aka unaligned)
        6. Chaotic Neutral
        7. Lawful Evil
        8. Neutral Evil
        9. Chaotic Evil
      3. Each choice along an axis (other than Neutral) is associated with an ethic. A character doesn’t have to believe in the ethics associated with their alignment, but they may find it easier to adhere to those ethics in the long run – what’s that bit about the Dark Side being “quicker; easier; more seductive”?
        1. Law: the ethic of law is that things matter to the degree to which they endure over time. Transient things are ephemeral, less real (though views on this can be complex, since some transient things can be seen as part of a larger enduring whole, as with the cycle of seasons). A Lawful character will tend to adhere to traditions, plans, and other commitments even in the face of adversity.
        2. Chaos: the ethic of chaos holds that things matter to the degree to which they are present in the moment; more radical takes on this ethic claim the present is the only actual reality, with the past a ghost and the future merely a dream. A Chaotic character will tend to treat traditions, plans, and other commitments of all sorts as non-binding, or at least subject to reinterpretation in the moment.
        3. Evil: Evil’s ethic prizes the self, and more precisely self-interest above the interests of others. Evil characters aren’t necessarily unfeeling – they may like or even love some people, or feel loyalty to an organization or a larger entity like a nation or ethnic identity and therefore feel it’s in their own interests to help those people or groups – but fundamentally, an Evil character will tend to act in their own self-interest without concern for the interests of others.
        4. Good: Good’s ethic is easy to outline but hard to pin down: nobody’s interests are more important than anyone else’s, and therefore it’s only right that all parties be considered when determining a course of action. There’s still lots of room for disagreement: determining how to balance various interests against each other, especially when faced with the idea of a necessary sacrifice (for example, if there isn’t enough food or other necessary resources to go around) and even figuring out if something is considered to properly have interests of its own (does a magical construct carrying out the final orders of its long-gone creator? How about a nation-state, or an insect?). Even when faced with all these complexities, a Good character will tend to look for ways to act on behalf of others and try to avoid acting on their own behalf at the expense of others.
    2. Non-standard alignments. Some campaigns may have alignments other than the standard 9 alignments. For example, a campaign or setting might:
      1. Have the notion of an alignment of Balance (sometimes called True Neutral), whose ethic would involve trying to keep any of the other standard alignments from effectively marginalizing any of the others.
      2. Remove the Good/Evil axis and only use the Law/Chaos axis
      3. Build a completely distinct set of alignments around e.g. Aristotelian elements and the medieval humors and temperaments associated with them, so a characters alignment might be Sanguine (or Airy); Choleric (or Fiery); Melancholic (or Earthy); or Phlegmatic (or Watery).
Posted on by azabaro 0

Revisiting Prepared vs Known Spells in 5E

Background

In 5E spellcasters either know spells or prepare spells.  These describe a selection of spells on the caster’s spell list which they can actually select for casting at a given time. The primary difference between these categories is how often this list of castable spells can be changed: a caster can change their prepared spells after completing a long rest, but can only change known spells when they gain a level (and in fact they can only replace one known spell per level gained). In either case, a character can only have a specific number of spells known or prepared at a given time based on their class.

There’s an exception to this: wizards (of course). Wizards prepare spells, but they do so from their spell books. Spell books act as bit like a list of spells known except there’s no limit on how many spells a wizard can have in their spellbook. In addition, while a wizard adds 2 spells to their spellbook every time they gain a level, they can also add spells they find in play.

So our models are:

  1. Spell list -> spells known -> spells cast
  2. Spell list -> spells prepare -> spells cast
  3. Spell list -> spells in spellbook -> spells prepared -> spells cast

Analysis

Models 1 and 2 each have their own problems. In model 1, spells known being difficult to change as well as very limited pushes players toward monotony, a pattern of selecting only those spells they think are optimal; those who are plugged into online communities of optimizers will be more likely to align with community lists of optimal spells. In Model 2, spells prepared being able to draw upon a class’s entire spell list can easily cause analysis paralysis or lead players to monotonous selections to avoid that issue; they’re also pone to power inflation issues as any publication which increases their class’s spell list immediately gives them more power that other characters don’t get.

I think we want to use a hybrid approach like the wizard’s for all spellcasters. This allows us to expand a class’s spell list without worrying about all those new spells instantly showing up for characters to use. Players will then have to filter the list of spells their character can use at all down to an even narrower list of those they’re ready to use in a given session. In effect, we’d make every caster have both spells they “know” (for wizards, those they have in a spellbook) and spells they have prepared.

Research

Spells known/prepared by class (approximate):

  • Bard: Level + 2
  • Cleric: Level + Wisdom modifier
  • Druid: Level + Wisdom modifier
  • Paladin: 1/2 Level + Charisma modifier
  • Ranger: 1/2 Level (rounded up) + 1
  • Sorcerer: Level +1, eventually slowing way down after 12th level
  • Warlock: Level  + 1 through 9th level; + 1/2 Warlock level beyond 9th level
  • Wizard:
    • Prepared: Level + Intelligence modifier
    • “In spellbook” (i.e. known): at least 6 + 2/level. Also any spells found in play

The number of spells prepared seems to be fairly standardized at spellcaster level + modifier for spellcasting attribute; Paladin uses 1/2 level because they’re a half-caster (that is, their access to new higher levels of spells happens at 1/2 the rate of full casters like Clerics, Wizards, and Bards. We can take that as our general formula, though ideally we’d express it in a way that doesn’t require learning weird exceptions for some classes. 

A wizard starts off knowing about 50% more spells than they can have prepared, and automatically gains spells known at twice the rate the number of spells they can prepare increases. Taking the wizard as a guideline, we should have characters know about twice as many spells as they can have prepared. The wizard’s ability to exceed this limit with spells found in play and transcribed intro their spellbook can be treated as a distinguishing feature of the class.

Proposed solution

Let’s add the following definitions:

  • Casters cast spells from those they have prepared 
  • A caster can prepare a number of spells for a class equal to their caster level in that class + the class’s casting attribute modifier. They prepare those spells from the list of spells they know for that class. They can change the spells they have prepared after a long rest. 
  • A caster can know a number of spells for a class equal to twice the number of spells they can prepare for that class. They can only know spells from the class’s spell list, and only those of a level up to 1/2 their caster level in the class, rounded up.
    • A character’s known spells for a class only change when the character gains caster levels in that class – a Paladin gaining Warlock levels can’t make any changes to the Paladin spells known. When a character gains a caster level, they can:
      • Learn 2 spells from the class’s spell list of a level they can know for that class
      • Change 1 spell already known from the class’s spell list to another spell known from the same list of a level they can know for that class.
    • In place of known spells, Wizards have spells recorded in their spellbooks. These are the same as known spells, except:
      • A wizard can’t replace a spell in their spellbooks when they gain a level.
      • A wizard has no maximum number of spells recorded in their spellbooks (though any one spellbook of the wizard’s might not be able to contain all their spells; they may need to have multiple spellbooks).
      • A wizard can add spells to their spellbooks without gaining additional wizard levels; assuming they have a source for a wizard spell not already in one of their spellbooks (e.g. a scroll of wizard spells, another wizard’s spellbook another wizard willing to teach them the spell) they can add the spell to their spellbook in play or during downtime.
  • A character’s caster level is defined for a specific class. Their caster level in a class equals:
    • Class level for Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, or any other class which can cast up to 9th level spells
    • 1/2 class level (rounded down) for Paladin, Ranger or any other class which can cast up to 5th level spells but not 6th or higher level spells
    • 1/3 class level (rounded down) for Eldritch Knight, Spellthief, or any other class which can cast up to 4th level spells but not 5th level or higher level spells
Posted on by azabaro 0