Showing posts with label DnD 4e. Show all posts

I've been DMing a campaign in my Ralsenna setting, the first session of which took part in the process of travelling from city to city. Since the tech level in Ralsenna is higher than in the traditional D&D/Pathfinder setting, this necessitated a bit of research on my part, presented here for your benefit.

Steam Era Transportation
Service	Speed	Cost
Steam ship's passage	5 mph	15 cp per mile
Train ride, fast	70 mph	25 cp per mile
Train ride, slow	50 mph	2 sp per mile
Trolly	—	1 cp per ride

Steam ships: Steam ships are essential keelboats with steam engines, allowing them to travel at about 5 miles per hour.

Trains: Average trains can travel anywhere between 35 and 80 miles per hour between stops, moving along a fixed track. Depending on how many cars are in the train, the vehicle can be a hundred feet long or more. A passenger car can usually hold 24 to 30 passengers, and a freight car can hold about 25 tons of cargo.

Trolly: Larger cities may have trolly systems in place, wherein an electric system of train cars travels a set track around the city at regular intervals. In a larger city, where coach cabs are in high demand, sometimes the trolly is the only way to get where you need to go.

I recently received a review copy of Kobold Quarterly's Imperial Gazetteer, a 68-page tome detailing the undead domains of Morgau, Doresh, and the the subterranean Ghoul Imperium of the Free City of Zobeck campaign setting. While this review is of the Pathfinder version (available in print or PDF), the Gazetteer is also available for D&D 4e (print/PDF).

If you're a fan of Zobeck, or even just a KQ subscriber, you're probably somewhat familiar with the empires detailed in the Gazetteer: Realms ruled by the undead. While kingdoms fitting this general description aren't uncommon in fantasy settings (I remember the one I made for my first homebrew setting, the oh-so-originally named "Vampyria"), there are a number of great things about Morgau, Doresh, and the Imperium that caught my interest.

First, authors Wolfgang Baur and Scott Gable go to great lengths to give each faction within the empire a face, detailing many specific undead nobles' and generals' personalities and motivations. As a whole, this gives the empire a lot of personality, but these villains are also easily transplanted if you're running an undead-heavy campaign in another setting.

I also liked the faiths if the empire; Marena, the Red Goddess, and her matriarchal clergy. Goddess of death and lust, her priestesses (and priests) are the arbiters of justice in the empire. Mavros, The War God, is also interesting because his clergy is the source of many of the more powerful magical weapons, so enterprising PCs may have to seek out this cruel order.

There are also plenty of undead items and mundane details of undead society that really help a DM flesh out such a society, such as how much a zombie costs and how fast ghoul armies travel underground.

The only part of the empire I didn't like was Baba Yaga; this legendary, setting-transcending witch is portrayed as being the fear of god and mortal alike, with no possible rival. While sort of interesting, it adds little interest to campaign to have a challenge that cannot be overcome, and, at best, can only serve as a deus ex machina (and as a TPK machine at worst).

There were also a few editing errors that I noticed; there's a chart that listed "Endurance" check DCs that seemed to be leftover from the 4e version, and the 'PC' classed NPCs didn't include the –1 CR that Pathfinder introduced (though, oddly, the NPCs with NPC classes included the appropriate –2 CR).

I'll give the Imperial Gazetteer a 6 on a d10; like I noted above, there are a few mechanics-related errors, but the majority of the stats are solid and the fluff is great.

It's that time again, kids! Now, gather 'round so Uncle Spenser can tell you about the new issue of Kobold Quarterly* and how I came to possess it.

It was a cool spring day, not more than a week ago, that I was approached by a member of the shadowy reptilian enclave that prints and binds Quarterly. I was tending to my studies at the time, perhaps lost in thought over the depths of ancestral literature or the lost history of some defunct nation, locked away in my quarters in any event. I recall now it was long past sundown, as candle wax had glued several pages of my notes together. It was then that the one the kobolds call Shelly came before me.

It must have been nearing the witching hour. I first felt a tingling in my fingertips, and though I never set eyes on the Serpent Queen, I was sure she stood just over my shoulder. She spoke—ah! her voice, remembering it, even now, sends me reeling with thoughts of ecstasy and darkness—of the new lore her mongrel minions had uncovered, deep in the forbidden recesses of the earth. It was perhaps more fear than anything else that broke my will to resist the temptress's offer.

I felt a cold nail dig into the flesh of my neck, though it left no mark, so all that followed may have been naught but a dream or nightmare. The lore she spoke of flashed before my eyes with no need to paper or ink. The last thing my cursed mind recalls was, again, her voice—and perhaps the lash of a forked tongue?—asking me, commanding me: Tell the others.

I woke the next day miles from the safety of my quarters, clutching a few illegible notes I'd managed to scrawl during the night: Cook, the famed havoc mage, rambles for pages on his theories of the Unknown, and ought to fascinate even the sanest among you, and is matched only by the vulgar rantings of Mario Podeschi in his essay on sex and romance—both men write admirably on how to enhance the private worlds we mages spin. Maurice de Mare documents well both the bloodlines and the wizardly study of Shadow magic for the Pathfinders among you, and may we all pray he doesn't disappear down some shady alley for his efforts. Ryan Costello also documents recent and, might I add, very exiting Gnomish advances in flying technology; on a similar note, and David Mallon has thoroughly itemized the capabilities of these so-called firearms I've been hearing so much about, as well as the people who use them. There is also talk of dark gods and strange beasts, but I dare not describe them myself.

For obvious reasons, I cannot recommend you, my fair-minded readers, subject yourselves to the document in question, but it may already be too late for you to turn your back, and if I were to venture numerical summation, I'd assert a 7 out of 10.

Just don't come to me for help when it's you the Serpent Queen visits next.

There comes a point in every DM's tenure when he or she is, for some reason, be it lack of preparation or wily players unwilling to follow an adventure hook, caught without stats for a monster or NPC in a situation where those stats matter. Maybe you need to oppose a Bluff check, make a save against a charm spell, or just smack a PC in the face with a dire flail. It is times like these when one needs to wing it.

The general problem with winging stats, however, is that it can be distracting to the players if it's too apparent. When the game is running smoothly, it's transparent, and the players can take the roles of their characters without thinking too 'meta,' but when things get bumpy, the veil drops and the story loses some of its spark. To avoid this, it's best to improvise in a structured way, so as to maintain the players' sense of mechanical stability from behind the DM's screen.

The absolute easiest way to improvise a monster is to 're-mask' an existing monster. After all, without its description, a monster is just numbers, and those numbers can easily be described a different way. The stats for a constrictor snake can easily be used to describe an overgrown sewer worm, and a centaur's stats can be used with only a few minor modifications for a lesser drider. However, sometimes there's not a close enough analogue, and you have to do some real improv. But don't worry, because you've still got an ace up your sleeve.

Two resources make winging monsters and NPCs extremely easy for a D&D or Pathfinder DM, those being the Pathfinder monster creation guidelines (which should apply just as well to D&D 3.X games) and, for 4th edition D&D, the monster creation rules (page 184 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). Once you've decided on an appropriate CR or Level, these tables lay out most of the statistical aspects of an appropriate monster/NPC, and it's just a matter of painting over the mechanical framework with the suitable flavor.

Of course, those are just generic values. Especially in a 3.X/Pathfinder game, the PC's statistics can vary wildly from the expected values. To adjust for this, below is my personal methodology for coming up with combat statistics (these are 3.X/Pathfinder-specific, but you get the idea):

• Hit Points: Don't worry about these too much, just use the Pathfinder-suggested value.
• Attack Modifier: If the creature depends on attack rolls, give it an attack modifier in the ballpark of the party tank's AC — 12. This should give the tank a decent chance of fending off a given attack while making sure the monster hits every once in a while.
• Damage: Like with hp, the Pathfinder values should be good. With this you'll have to do some quick math to get the average damage to sync up with the dice, but it's okay if it's not perfect. Just don't throw down too much damage or you could unintentionally wipe the floor with your PCs.
• AC: Similar to before, I like to set the creature's AC based on the party tank. Somewhere around 8 + the tank's attack bonus (though this number could be higher if it fits the flavor).
• Saves: Generally assign one good save (two if it's a powerful monster), with the other two being poor. The good one should about about equal to its CR + 2, and for poor save just halve its CR.
• Skills: When a skill check is needed, decide if the creature would have it trained. If yes, use a bonus equal to its CR + 5 (add a couple more points at higher levels). A bonus of around half the creature's CR for untrained skills should be fine (this is a bit incongruous with the actual rules but better for game tension). Usually assign no more than four 'trained' skills.
• Other: Anything else can be improvised easily. Need a monster's CMB? Just use its previously-assigned attack modifier. Does it have energy resistance? If it fits the flavor throw a resistance of 5 or 10 on it. What about SR? CR + 9 should be about right. And so forth.

These guidelines work best for mooks who have few special abilities or distinguishing features. Making up abilities more complicated than a simple attack is a little trickier. However, this doesn't mean you should avoid making up fantastic effects on the spot; these improvised abilities can often add to the mystique and wonder of a D&D world. It's just important to decide how the ability works and stick with it. Special abilities could range from a melee martial artist being able to throw an opponent 10 feet after a successful trip attempt (perhaps into an ally) to an arcanist having a couple spell effects and an eldritch blast type ability, throwing around a ray that deals 5d6 cold and slows the target for a round. Like with damage, make sure you don't improvise yourself into a TPK with overpowered abilities, but after you get the hang of it you'll be able to judge how to make up abilities that are powerful but not overpowering. It just takes practice.

I hope this helps you DMs out there, and remember: It's a game, so never do more work than you have to!

I, like most D&D players at some point or another, have heard a lot of praise for Kobold Quarterly. I'd always thought of KQ as Dragon's little sister, providing similar articles on a quarterly time frame. That was back when Dragon was still published in dead tree form by our friends over at Paizo. Well, I just got my hands on a review copy* of KQ #11, and let me tell you something: little sister's all grown up, and she's looking pretty hot.

The magazine has content for players of both 3.5 and 4e D&D, as well as one Pathfinder-specific article. As readers of this blog probably know, I'm a 3.5/Pathfinder guy, and I went not knowing what to expect in the way of support for my favorite edition. The first time I read through the magazine, I actually felt like there was more 3.5 content, and I only realized how evenly the content is distributed between the editions. No matter which way you swing, though, each article is clearly marked with the edition it's written for.

There are several timely articles for DMs planning on running horror adventures during the spookiest month of the year. If you run a 4e game and, like me, enjoy inflicting mind-bending horrors from beyond the cosmic veil of reality on your players, you'll enjoy the sanity rules. There are also articles (for 3.5) on two staples of horror: One on werewolves, detailing Savage Species-style monster classes for PCs who gain the lycanthropy affliction, and one on the ecology of vampires with tons of great information on the lords of the night. For DMs looking to add a grittier tone to their games, there are the simple but effective rules for torture. Finally, there's a short article on the mad derro city of Farragum which is accompanied by a beautiful map (I'm a sucker for cartography).

This issue of KQ also features a number of other great articles as well, including a fresh take on dwarves by John Wick (part of a series called Wicked Fantasy which I am definitely looking in to), a medley of monstrous weaponry (SPOILER: One of them is a ballista-sized six-shot crossbow, all six shots of which can be fired at once), and a "spell-less ranger" variant of the Pathfinder ranger core class that, in a nutshell, is sort of a mix of the old ranger and the rogue and actually made me want to play a ranger. There are also several DM-centric advice articles and a interview column with input from 16 pro DMs.

...And that's not even all of what's in there. Having been a longtime fan of Paizo's Dragon I feel like Kobold Quarterly has picked up where Dragon (in its previous form, of course) left off. Great artwork and interesting content, the two never fail to inspire me.

I'd rate this tome as an 8 on a d10. With the print copy priced at $7.99 (and the PDF priced $2 less), definitely consider checking out this issue of Kobold Quarterly.

Despite being mainly a 3.5e (and now Pathfinder) guy, skill challenges are a concept that really interested me about 4e. Since the first time I opened the 4e DMG I wanted to use them in my games, but even in the few 4e games I DMed, there were times when skill challenges were just a bit... awkward. A predetermined length made the lengths of certain challenges seem arbitrary, and an undesirable amount of meta-game exposition was needed to get the challenges rolling.

Perhaps this would have smoothed out over time as I became more deft in my use of this tool, or as my players grew more accustomed to jumping into it, but as there are still many articles offering advice on the subject, I suspect it takes a truly skilled hand to make skill challenges a seamless part of a game.

A week or so ago I had the good fortune to run across a link to this article by Ari Marmell regarding the same subject. His answer to the problem, placing the decision of which skills were most important to the challenge almost solely in the hands of the players, struck me as a step in the right direction, but not quite at the logical conclusion yet.

Choosing which skills to use and how to use them is great, but what about announcing the challenge started in the first place? Why not leave that to the players as well?

Player-Announced Skill Challenges

In this model for skill challenges, the DM is only responsible for setting the skill check DCs (not hard to do on the fly with the easy/moderate/hard paradigm) and deciding how long the challenge takes to complete. However, if the challenge comes to a nice close before this predetermined length is reached (such as may happen in a roleplay-heavy skill challenge), just let it end and give out XP for the complexity you had decided upon; think of it in the same terms as if the PCs had cleverly used powers and tactics to defeat an enemy using less time and resources than you anticipated they would.

The challenge may still be failed as normal, but I'd recommend, if there's no clear in-game reason for it to be 'over' after the third failure, you let the PCs keep going at it and just don't award XP.

Skill Challenges in 3.X/Pathfinder

Average Party Level	Skill DCs
	Easy	Moderate	Hard
1st–3rd	7	12	17
4th–6th	10	15	20
7th–9th	13	18	23
10th–12th	16	21	26
13th–15th	19	24	29
16th–18th	22	27	32
19th+	25	30	35

You knew it was coming. Really, there isn't much to translate, just the check DCs and XP awards. I've come up with a good progression of DCs to the right; the moderate DCs should give PCs with the appropriate class skill trained about a 75% chance of success; the hard DC knocks that chance down to around 50%. PCs without a particular class skill trained will have a harder time, and if you feel that's too hard, bring the DCs down by a couple points and that should make things easier. I prefer the 'school of hard knocks' approach: "What? You didn't train Knowledge (geography)? Guess you'll know better next time!" *cackles*

As for XP, hand out experience points appropriate for a CR equal to the average party level – 4 per level of complexity of the challenge (use the same rules to determine complexity as detailed in the 4th edition DMG). So, a group of four 5th-level PCs that has just overcome a complexity 2 skill challenge would get 150 XP each.

One of ChattyDM's tweets reminded me of a little chart I made over the summer. You see, back in the wild days of D&D 3.X, we calculated treasure based on the power of the monsters you faced, not based on these newfangled "treasure parcels." Naturally, I began to wonder how much gold a monster in 4e is worth. Well, one excel spreadsheet later, and here we are. Note that the values below are based on the treasure parcel amounts that would be given out to a PC of the same level. Also, I'm almost certain the math is right... but, strictly speaking, numbers aren't my thing, so proceed with caution.

Monster	gp Value by Monster Type
Level	Standard	Minion	Elite	Solo
1	26.56	6.64	53.12	132.8
2	38.08	9.52	76.16	190.4
3	52.06	13.02	104.12	260.3
4	68.8	17.2	137.6	344
5	88	22	176	440
6	132.8	33.2	265.6	664
7	190.4	47.6	380.8	952
8	260.8	65.2	521.6	1,304
9	344	86	688	1,720
10	400	100	800	2,000
11	664	166	1,328	3,320
12	952	238	1,904	4,760
13	1,304	326	2,608	6,520
14	1,720	430	3,440	8,600
15	2,200	550	4,400	11,000
16	3,320	830	6,640	16,600
17	4,760	1,190	9,520	23,800
18	6,520	1,630	13,040	32,600
19	8,600	2,150	17,200	43,000
20	9,625	2,406.25	19,250	48,125
21	15,177.14	3,794.29	30,354.29	75,885.71
22	21,948.89	5,487.22	43,897.78	109,744.44
23	30,229.09	7,557.27	60,458.18	151,145.45
24	40,023.08	10,005.77	800,46.15	200,115.38
25	51,333.33	12,833.33	102,666.67	256,666.67
26	74,700	18,675	149,400	373,500
27	95,920	23,980	191,840	479,600
28	115,266.67	28,816.67	230,533.33	576,333.33
29	132,857.14	33,214.29	265,714.29	664,285.71
30	156,250	39,062.5	312,500	781,250

I also have some estimates on gp value of monsters of greater than 30th level, but those are based more on speculation than anything since, obviously, there are no treasure parcel values for those levels. I guess this is also a good time to point out that I have no idea what practical purpose this chart actually serves, but when has that ever stopped anyone?