Good points. Bad points.

Today I have points on my mind. Hit Points. Action Points. Experience Points.

For starters I love having lots of Hit Points. For pretty obvious reasons. So I`ve certainly got nothing against getting some extra HP at 1st level. A little cushion might come in handy against that dreaded critical hit.

That aside, 4e seems to be going a little overboard.

Now I don`t know how much damage a ``1st level`` monster is going to be capable of, or how easy it will be to hit my character in his starting studded leather, but come on. Based on the sample character sheets 1st level characters start with HP in the 20 to 35 range. Nice.

But then they also get Healing Surges. At least 6 per day and most have in the area of 10 or so. That's 6 to 12 surges of 5 or more HP. Add that onto the starting 20 HP and your 1st level character basically starts with 50 HP (at the low end). The sample fighter gets 137 HP.

137. I had an epic character who didn't have that many HP to burn.

"But Griff, this is a good thing. More HP is awesome."

Sure. But 137? At first level? My god. How much damage can a goblin striker or orc controller do?

"But Griff. It's not about that. The idea is for Healing Surges to replace all those Cure Light Wounds spells cast by the party cleric."

Fair enough. They want to give clerics (and the players who like the cleric class) more to do during combat than just casting cure spells. The thing is, if you don't like "wasting" rounds casting cures and heals, then DON'T PLAY A CLERIC. Duh!

Pushing that obvious logical solution aside, let's give every character Healing Surges to replace the Cure Light Wounds spell/potion/wand. That way, instead of the cleric doing his job, or ROLE if you prefer, every character now has to "waste" a round per encounter on a "Second Wind" for healing. Yeah. That makes sense.

The good thing here is that the player only gets one Second Wind per encounter. What I don't get is why the rest are used during the Short Rest that happens between each encounter. I suppose this will encourage DMs to design encounters in waves, and pack more into each adventuring "day". This in turn should mean faster level ups. I just wonder if a bit of the tactical planning will disappear as players with their nearly limitless HP plow through dungeons like a chainsaw through cheddar.

The jury is out on the change in Action Points too. I was never a huge fan of the Eberron setting, but the concept of Action Points was pretty cool. Every gaming session includes a roll or two that falls into the "I think I made it but I'm not sure it was quite high enough" category. Or a critical save throw or skill check that you just want to be sure of. Perfect times to spend an AP and get an extra d6 added on.

Nice mechanic and simple to keep track of since they replenish every level. For some reason they're changing that in 4e. Instead of a pool of APs you get 1 per day, plus 1 for every other encounter (or "milestone"). Keeping track of the number of encounters in a "day" strikes me as a little awkward and a needless headache. But whatever. An extra action sounds pretty sweet (I'll use 'em mostly for the Second Wind) but I think I'd prefer the old 3.5 mechanic.

Finally Experience Points. My personal favorite. And from what I've seen, there's not a whole lot to be written. Sounds like it'll take a few extra encounters before getting that delicious level up. However, all those phat HP will make that easy enough. The best thing about XP in 4e is in terms of encounter design. Even as a player I'm excited about everything I've seen in regards to encounters. The mix of monsters with varied roles in each encounter, along with social and trap encounters promises nothing but positives.

Rogue sneak-peak

The latest Ampersand column has a sneak peak at the rogue class traits. Let's take a look.

Role... check. (See how I didn't go on and on and on about how they're forcing roles upon us, and taking away the creativity and role-playing aspect, and how... oh, right.)

Power Source. This makes me wonder what happens if you multiclass. You'll have multiple power sources, right? So ... how does it matter what we put here? Really, does it matter what the power source is called? Don't we just use our powers, regardless of what the source is called?

Key Abilities. Strength? Interesting... sure, everyone likes Strength for extra damage (unless they've changed that!) but it doesn't seem to fit with the archetypal rogue.

Armor Training. Why isn't this "proficiency" anymore?

Weapon proficiencies... same as 3.5? I'm not sure - I never memorized those special-case lists.

Bonus to Defense. Okay, I'll give them that; by putting saves and AC into the same "class" of statistic, it allows an easier way to state the bonuses in one place.

Hit points at 1st level. Wow! If the rogue gets 12+Con, what do others get? This feels like Dungeons and Dragons Online with the extra 20hp you get just to make sure you stay alive long enough to pay your subscription. This change makes me sad, because I'm sure even the wizard is going to have 8- or 10-plus-Con, which really breaks a tradition of a wizard with 4hp to start.

Hit points per level gained. Static gains. Static gains?? Yuck. Why not just give me a chart on a piece of paper, where I can look up my adventure: "Let's see... we're a 5th-level party, we're going to face 11 goblins, a kobold chieftain with some croneys numbering less than 20, and an ogre. Yep, it looks like we'll win. Okay, shall we play some Uno?" Rolling for hp was useful for adding suspense to levelling up, instead of having everything pre-arranged. I bet this gets house-ruled in a lot of campaigns, back to a die roll.

Healing Surges. Yeah, we know what I think about those.

Trained skills. Oo, what's that. Starting ranks, some of which are required? These new skill names are going to confuse me for a bit, but I think even now I get 3.0 and 3.5 ones mixed up (survival? wilderness lore?)

Build Options. Oh. Good. I have two options. Heaven forbid I actually get more choices. Why don't we all just take one of the characters from the back of the adventure -- I'll be Mialee! -- and have the DM write scripts for us on what our characters say and do? And don't let me see the dice, which I think only the DM can use now!

(Sorry, I'm grumpy... someone just walked by my office stinking of eau de toilet (no, I didn't spell that wrong - figure it out.)) It looks like these build options are similar to the packages that 3.0/3.5 had for getting started, with suggestions.

Class Features. Are these just 1st level ones, and more are on the way? Or are these what are all available as class features, and they improve through advancement?
It seems that some do. Wow, and it looks like sneak attack got neutered. I hope some of the other rogue abilities make up for it.


Oo, and some Rogue Powers:

Deft Strike. It's not clear whether the "move 2 squares before the attack" avoid attacks of opportunity; perhaps this is meant to work in conjunction with the First Strike of the rogue, catching everyone flat-footed. "Dexterity vs. AC"? Does this mean that the rogue gets a Weapon Finesse-like feat for free? Very nice. 21st level for a damage increase, though... what an optimistic player that must be.

Piercing Strike. Attack versus Reflex. Very nice. To hell with you armored beasts!

Positioning Strike. Very handy for setting up flanking and such. Wow, two in a row!

Torturous Strike. Now I'm starting to see what they mean by not using basic attacks that often.

These last few have all had "Rogue Attack 1". What does the "attack" signify? A class of powers? Why classify them? Are there things that boost attack powers (versus utility ones)? Allow them to use them when normally unuseable? Are you only allowed to choose them at certain times? One of each?


Tumble. Is it a skill no longer? It *is* conspicuously absent from the class skill list. Does this mean youcan't have a tumbling fighter any longer (since this power says Rogue Utility 2)? Or is there a fighter's equivalent?

Crimson Edge. Dexterity vs. Fortitude. Very interesting. Here's a good example of that continuous-effect-until-they-save instead of lasting-X-rounds which they eluded to, obviating the need to keep track of repetitive things. I like that a miss still does damage.


Over all, the powers look very interesting. I was suspect before about the idea that all a character does is "special moves", and that the old-fashioned swing-a-sword idea was dead. But from this list, it looks like the attacks aren't overly powerful or overly flashy, but rather just better suited to the style in which that class would fight.

Ugh... am I starting to warm to 4e?

Dying to play 4e -- and then stabilizing

I just finished reading the Design & Development article on Death and dying and amazingly, I have an opinion.

If you haven't read any previous posts, then you should know that 95% of the time I'm the DM in our campaigns, so my views on death and dying in D&D are from a slightly different viewpoint than the players. My goals are a little different than the players'.

Player death has got to be more inconvenient, for me as a DM, than it is for the players. If one or two members of the party die, then it's up to the party to either find a way to get them resurrected (unless they're playing a race that can't be resurrected, but who would do that, Griff?) or the party loots their fallen comrades and hope to stumble upon some new adventurers that would like to join their quest -- the newly rolled-up characters to replace the dead. Both of these situations have to be dealt with, and even anticipated, by the DM: the party will now turn around and start the long journey back out of the Underdark, dragging their friends' bodies (or toes, if they're morbidly aware of the resurrection spell's requirements), back across the plains, back into town, and then in search of a high-level cleric, undoing the progress they just made on the way to the Undercity of Doo'oom; or, you've got to quickly come up with a situation where the now-being-rolled-up characters are going to be encountered, in about 15 minutes of playtime, so they can join up with the remaining party. In this latter case, you hope there's a nice convenient you - stumble - upon - a - [insert monster here] - camp - where - they - have - captured - some - adventurers - and - conveniently - left - them - alive - and - their - belongings - in - that - chest - over - there encounter already planned, just around the corner.


The What We Hated part of the article definitely hit home. I have observed exactly what the devs point out -- that the -1 to -9 range is too small at higher levels -- and have fudged monster damage more than once to avoid the above-mentioned situation. That's right, players, I've pulled my punches on a few occasions. Once or twice you even accused me of doing so, and yep, I lied to you when I said I hadn't. But once it looks like a party wipe is inevitable, I pull no punches -- at that point I don't want that ONE party member to get away. Oh yeah, new house rule: no more winged races, you bastard.

The point about characters having 'no way to "lose" a combat except by being killed' is definitely a big problem -- on the occasions where I've pulled a punch so a character is only dying, not dead, I immediately start figuring out if the "classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum" will fit into the adventure and what flavor the chewing gum will be.

Above the inconvenience of having to deal with dead characters, though, is the fact that I, too, have become attached to them, even as the DM. Unless we've started at 15th level, as we sometimes do, chances are that I've watched these characters grow just as much as their players have, have learned their personalities, and, with Dungeon Master prescience, know what the Fates have planned for them. I feel like I've raised them, my adventuring children, and it, frankly, sucks when "I" lose a character, too. Don't get me wrong, though -- I do still relish killing them, if the dice tell me to.


This new negative threshold seems like it will work. There's still the very real possibility of dying, even in one hit with a lucky critical or powerful spell, but it's not a foregone conclusion that the next hit to any party member hovering around 0 is going to be certain death. This was a voiced concern on numerous occasions, where, with a little metaknowledge about their health and the mechanics of the world, a party member would back out of combat because they just know they will not survive another hit. This new range will allow characters to be heroic, as they ought to be, by risking it all to try and get that one last lucky blow in before they fall.

I'm not sure about this 'no "negative hit point tax"', however. As a DM, one of the edge-of-my-seat moments is when a character is at -8 or so, and the cleric has rushed over with his last cure light wounds spell: will the spell bring the character to consciousness, allowing the cleric to get back to the fight, and the character to drink his or her own potion? Or will the spell disappoint (them, not me) and only stabilize them at -2, occupying the cleric even longer as he rummages for a potion to pour down the throat in an agonizingly long full-round action? Now, as mentioned at the end of the article, the CLW will "set" their hit points, so instead of healing 11 points, it sets the dying character to 11 hit points.

I'm also not too sure about the "[m]onsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so" part. While on the one hand, I hope that every monster gets smacked down to -10 and beyond because there are times where the party wants to question one, and I, frankly, don't want that to happen. Failure to diplomatic doesn't mean to get to fight and ask questions later! Well, not always, but of course there are times where I need a foe to survive to be questioned, or to scream out their final threat and telling clue. And I'll admit that it has happened (at least once, less than a hundred times) where I've fudged the number of hit points on-the-fly, so that critical max-diced sneak-attack didn't quite kill him -- oh, and he quickly takes a free action to tell you that his master, Evil Boss #3, will avenge him! While this is covered by the "unless the DM has special reason to do so", I think it's best to just let the rules play out as they should -- let the monsters have their negative-hitpoint range as well.

One last thing about the new negative range. Is it always half-of-your-hitpoints, in the negative? Does that mean that your 1d4 wizard with no constitution has a life-range of +4 to -2? Ouch. Or, as hinted below, is there a minimum range?


The article ends with a Try It Now! section, on how to try 4th-edition-LIKE rules, which they do say are not quite the 4e system. It suggests using -10 or one-quarter of hit points (to account for less damage in 3e rules). Hopefully that -10 is in 4e, to help out the poor wizard.

If you're dying, roll d20. I never understood why it was percentile in 3e - 10% chance of stabilizing is still doable on d20. But now, less-than-ten makes you worse, and three times without stabilizing and you die. I think this is a really good way to do it - it gives a good amount of tension to dying, as intended, but your odds aren't as clear-cut (I'm curious about the odds using this method versus the 10% stabilizing, but am too lazy to figure them out).

Unfortunately, this system doesn't stop the meta-knowledge that the players give to their characters, which is how quickly they need to run to the aid of their fallen friend. You haven't rolled under ten yet? I've got a round or two before I'll worry. Let me just smack this guy a few more times. That was your second under-ten? I'm on my way -- roll high if I don't get there in time! It does change things a little, because they can be dead in three rounds regardless of their hit points, whereas 3e allowed you to finish the fight if they were only at -1. I've considered keeping the state of dying hidden from the players, where only I know how low they are, and only I know if they've stabilized or not, because I make the roll. But when it comes down to their character's survival, who wants to leave that up to the DM's evil dice when they've got their lucky d20 warmed up?

But it's the roll of the 20 that I strongly disagree with.

20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

How do they rationalize this? Heroic stability? Take a feat. I don't think this has any place in the rules. I don't care if there's only a 5% chance each turn for this to happen; Collins himself says earlier in the article that "[b]elievability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count", and this rule defies both believability and realism. Make a 20 reset how many under-tens you've rolled. Make it set you to -1. Make it stabilize you. I just can't imagine a power-gamed barbarian with his heaps of hit points not only fighting down at one hit point (because he knows that he can go to -50 safely) but then waking up, out of chance, with 25 hit points after he does go down?


Overall, I like the new death-and-dying rules, but I'll need some convincing that it's completely right.