Trimming the Fat, Part 2: Shooting Skill Challenges in the Face

Today we continue to take a look at certain aspects of 4e that will be left out of my upcoming zine, 4e Forever. I want to say that these are just my opinions. If you like some of the stuff I mention, more power to you. I want everyone to play the way they like, and I am not here to diss anybody's playstyle. That said, I freaking hate Skill Challenges with a passion.

For me, it is really pretty simple. Despite the myriad long-winded defenses of skill challenges that I am sure you have read, and regardless of all the usual tidbits of advice that have been floating around since their inception, it is my opinion that Skill Challenges do irreparable harm to roleplaying. I like roleplaying to be free-form. I hate adding structure to it. I much prefer calling for checks on the fly, letting the PCs actions flow naturally, and having the possible repercussions of their failure come to me organically, rather than devising some pre-plotted outcome based on how many dice rolls a party fails. It was just a bad idea. I can respect that they were trying to add another mechanism to gain experience points outside of combat, but the whole "Three strikes, you're out", "Let's make some lists that extrapolate hypothetical skill checks, then force a few into every adventure", etc, was just a bad idea.

I realize that products like the DMG 2 and the Rules Compendium try to massage this a bit and offer alternatives, but to me that is just back-tracking on a crappy idea; polishing a turd if you will. It is too much, too late. It is kind of like when someone says, as if it is the secret of the universe, "Don't tell them they are in a Skill Challenge." I get two things from that statement. One: Skill Challenges are such a downer that alluding to the fact you are running one hurts your game. Two: you must not have a very high opinion of your players' intelligence, because any fool can tell when you are running one, whether you say so or not. "But it's different at my table." Perhaps it is, and I am happy for you if you like them. Seriously, I am. I just do not use them, and you won't see them in the magazine's adventures.

Now am I saying that PCs having to use some skills during a combat is a bad thing? Of course not. Am I saying that there shouldn't be consequences for failure? Of course not. All I am saying is that in my experience, roleplay works best when it is loose and natural, and there is no solution to Skill Challenges that I have ever read (and I have read hundreds) that works as well as simply not using them.

I hope nobody took offense! As always, I am interested in your thoughts, so leave a post!

Trimming the Fat, Part 1: Death to Sunrods!!!

This is Part 1 of a short series of blog posts about parts of 4e that I am cutting from the game for my 4e Forever mag. First thing to go: sunrods.

Oh, how I hate sunrods. They make Demi-Human vision meaningless. They make imaginative notions of light and shadow evaporate in a 20 square radius. They take a DMs attempts at moody Gothic atmosphere, and bathe them in garish fluorescence. It is as if the designers just decided that darkness was not going to play any role in 4e, unless it is from a PCs perma-invisibility build. A player saying that their character ties a sunrod to his belt is to me the equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. 

I have heard of lots of houserules on sunrods, everything from having them sometimes fail, to having certain structures prevent them from working, and on and on, but I think it best just to go ahead and take them out behind the woodshed and shoot them.

I like ditching them for several reasons. I like resource management, and using torches and lanterns adds an extra layer of this. Torches can burn out fairly quickly, and since 4e Forever uses "turn"-based exploration (more on this another time), those suckers can be going out before you know it. I like Demi-Human vision, or powers that give you unusual vision, to mean something more than just "I don't have to be the one to put a sunrod in my belt". I like being able to design encounters where every PC on the table cannot immediately see a clear-as-day 20 square radius, without having to trick the system with a gas cloud or other convoluted crapola.

Long story short: they take away from one of the greatest aspects of D&D exploration: darkness. Cave-black, impenetrable darkness. And so they have to die.

I am always interested in readers' thoughts! Do you have an opinion on sunrods? Let it fly!

Giant Stag Beetles, Strongholds, and Other Updates

I thought I would drop a couple of minor updates. First I have a new monster for you to check out, the Giant Stag Beetle. The reason I wanted to share this one in particular is that it has some "Memorable Mechanics" in the form of extreme forced movement. Picturing these guys tossing your PCs to and fro makes me happy. You will have to wait on the mag for the fluff.

Speaking of the mag, I have made a lot of progress and I am almost done with my portion of the writing. I still cannot give a set date of release, but I think that before the end of the year is not unreasonable. It has kind of swollen in size, and has two adventures I have written, dozens of new monsters, and lots of other surprises that I will talk about more in coming days.

Please don't forget to check out the first playtest. I have gotten a lot of good feedback, so thank you for that. I have gotten to run a couple of tests of it myself and I am working on scheduling the third. I have already made a lot of tweaks based on feedback, and it has helped tremendously, so again, thank you.

Lastly, I want to hear from any armchair designers like myself that have worked on their own "stronghold" systems for 4e. I am toying with some ideas about acquiring and managing them, doing something almost identical to OD&D, keeping it fairly simple, but with the prices adjusted to 4e levels.

I am interested in any stories you might be able to share about using them in your games. Leave a post!

Let's Play Labyrinth Lord!

Hi, a quick post today just to let people know that I have a Labyrinth Lord (B/X D&D retro-clone) game on the online RPG Table, and I still have a couple of slots open!

If you ever played on the old Wizards VT, basically when they decided to drop it, the company that developed it picked it up. The great news is that it is free to play; the rules are also free to download.

We meet kind of loosely on Fridays at 8 pm EST (GMT-5). Once you have registered above, you can join the game here. Full details on the game, including character creation rules, can be found here at the online retro-game Wizards group.

Anyways, if anybody is interested in checking it out, even for a session, it would be cool! Have a great weekend!

P.S.-Don't forget to check out the 4e Forever playtest if you haven't already!

Memorable Mechanics Part 5: Poison

Hello, hello! Before I get started, I really want to thank readers for the response to the first 4e Forever playtest. That post quickly became my most viewed of all-time, and I have gotten lots of feedback. It is much appreciated! If you haven't checked it out yet, it is free to download, and I would love to hear your "two cents". I had the pleasure of running an online game with some folks and it was a sight to see 20+ PCs and henchmen take on 40 Giant Ants!

I haven't made a post in the "Memorable Mechanics" series in a while, but thought I might share some of my recent ideas regarding Poison in 4e.

In the old days, poisonous creatures were feared and dreaded. In fact, if I was playing, and I knew a creature was poisonous, I would likely yell to the party to run. Why? Well, one bite could mean death. Since that time, the history of poison in D&D has been one slow, gentle retreat from the cruelties of yore. Nowadays, there are only a few points of light in the 4e community and blogosphere that feature anything approaching save or die mechanics.

Now, I do not want to go back to insta-death from poisons, but I do want to bring a healthy fear of poison back to the game. To do that, I first wanted to differentiate between common "poison damage", and capital-letters-run-like-hell Poison. As you know from this blog series, I want to add memorable mechanics to games. Even if it goes badly for your PC, things are a lot easier to take if you died a spectacular or memorable death. I also like 4e conditions a lot; as I have mentioned before, I like the codified nature of them, how they are the same table to table. So, my thought was to come up with a "Poisoned" condition. Something not quite "save or die", but still "run like hell".

As I was thinking about bringing this idea into my 4e Forever project, I realized that if I gave EVERY Giant Snake and Centipede the ability to poison PCs, it would be too much. So I decided to make "poisoning" a daily, perhaps weekly, ability for a creature. Once they have "spent" their poison, it has to have time to build back up. The determination of whether a creature is currently "poisonous" is left to random chance, partly because I am always looking for any excuse to make a random roll. So for example, if a Giant Rattlesnake is encountered, there may be a 2 in 6 chance that it is currently poisonous.

So what is the "Poisoned" condition?

Poisoned (edit): A poisoned creature is weakened, slowed, and grants combat advantage (save ends all). If the creature is not currently bloodied, its hit points also drop to their bloodied value. On each failed saving throw, the creature's hit points drop to zero.

I am really digging this! I hope you like it too! If you have any thoughts, leave a post, and thanks again to everyone for checking out the playtest!

4e Forever Playtest!!! Check it out!

***NOTE: THE FIRST ISSUE OF 4E FOREVER IS NOW UP FOR FREE DOWNLOAD**

I am very happy to be able to share with you a short playtest of some material from my upcoming FREE zine, 4e Forever. It includes the new stat block! Please check it out and follow the instructions if you can! You should be able to finish it in one session. Even if you cannot playtest the material, I would still like to hear your thoughts. Oh, and there's a new Savage in there too!

4e Forever Playtest 1





*EDIT 8/9- I made some small edits and have re-upped it. I clarified some rules questions I had received regarding henchman initiative, savages, skills, etc, as well as made a few edits to the stat block to help its readability, something else I had some comments on. Please keep the comments coming! Thanks! 

The Hybrid Stat Block: Special Attacks

Welcome to the final installment of my series on my new hybrid stat block for 4e monsters. This is basically an alternate stat block for 4e that incorporates classic edition statistics, and it will be used in my upcoming zine, 4e Forever. Today we look at the way the stat block presents powers.

I love the clarity of the 4e stat block. I love the way powers are basically coded so that anyone can understand them. On the flip side, I also love the more conversational, narrative tone that classic edition monsters were presented with. It might seem that these two approaches are too incongruous to work together. However, I think they can, given a few considerations.

As readers of my blog have noticed in previews of my monster design, I am all about an "attack routine". I like multi-attacks as a fix to 4e's lack of high-level encounter balance, and I LOVE me some old-school Claw/Claw/Bite action, so it should come as no surprise that my 4e Forever monsters typically have a go-to attack routine consisting of multiple attacks. Simultaneously, I have also previewed and shown how I am working with variable encounter levels, and groups of the same monster. Both of these things make my new monsters very, very, easy for DMs to run, something that I am hoping will help speed up combat (along with Morale). You do not have to worry about multiple sets of statistics and a bunch of little powers here and there, hiding, spread out amongst 3 to 4 different monster types.

Since the monsters are easier to run, and since the DM is only having to look at one, perhaps two, different stat blocks for the entire encounter, I can afford to be slightly more conversational in tone with the powers. In other words, the simplicity of running the monster encounter groups allows for a more relaxed power presentation, without adding any extra prep time or difficulty to the DMs job. Now, I don't mean to make it sound too "loose", because it isn't. When I reveal the stat block later this week, you will see what I mean.

Now let's take a quick trip down memory lane. In 1e monster statistics, you have a couple of listings that I really wanted to include in my new block: Special Attacks, and Special Defenses. I decided to put a monster's primary attack routine under the listing "Attack". This listing also includes a creatures "basic attack", as its basic attack tends to be included in its primary attack routine. I also kept the "Traits" listing, used exactly the same way as it is in late 4e. Then, if needed, there are three other possible listings underneath "Attack". "Special Attacks" is used if a creature has any other attacks besides its primary attack routine and basic attacks; it also can include situational bonuses or tweaks to the primary attack routine. "Special Defenses" is used if a creature has a purely defensive power, i.e. one that does not include an attack. Finally, "Special Movement" is listed if a creature has a special power that is purely movement related.



This ends up looking and feeling very intuitive. I must say, I am quite happy with it. I still am a step or two away from revealing the complete block, however. This is because I am putting together a free playtest of some new material! This PDF will include a copy of the new 4e Forever stat block, along with three new monsters! Some basic rules (Morale, Henchmen), will be provided as well. I am trying to get it done as quickly as possible, and hopefully some of you gamers out there can run the monsters, using the variable encounter ranges, and let me know how it goes. More on this to follow! In the meantime, leave a post and let me know what you think!

The Hybrid Stat Block: Alignment

Today we continue taking a look at my ideas for a classic edition/4th edition stat block for my upcoming 4e Forever project. We are getting very close to the end of the series. I have found it helpful to talk about my ideas here, and I feel it has been a good way to not only show some of the stats that will be listed, but also the philosophy behind including/excluding things. Today we tackle alignment.

Lots of folks love the way 1e did alignment, and lots of folks hate it. 9 alignments always felt like a lot to me, and I was never completely sold on the whole punishment thing for PCs that deviated from alignment. 4e simplified it considerably, but still ended up feeling a bit like "damaged goods" to me. For creature alignment in 4e Forever, my choice was easy: take it back to OD&D.

In the Men and Magic book in the OD&D set, alignment is handled in a pure, straightforward, non-mechanical manner. "It is...necessary to determine the stance the character will take: Law, Neutrality, or Chaos." Me likey. There is no other explanation, no in-depth analysis, no forced punishments. Just Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. It seems to me so much more grand to think in terms of law and order, entropy and chaos, rather than tired old good and evil. If you go back to Chainmail, Gygax states that, "It is impossible to draw a distinct line between 'good' and 'evil' fantastic figures." I wholeheartedly agree. I could speculate on why this later changed; maybe people playing supposedly chivalric knights that steal from the poor? Who knows? All I know is that it eventually went sour, at least in my opinion. By Eldritch Wizardry, Gygax was already showing signs of the (needless) complications to come.


Anyways, in Men and Magic it was pure. That is what I want. At first, I was tempted to not provide alignments at all, but I actually quite like the OD&D alignments, and they help provide a little old-school flavor. So there we have it!

Love it? Hate it? Please share any thoughts!

The Hybrid Stat Block: Hit Points

We continue our look at the 4e Forever monster stat block today with some changes I am making to hit points. We are not going back to hit dice, so don't panic. The basic concept of hit points isn't changing, and they are still listed just like they are on the 4e stat block. However, the formula for calculating monster hit points has changed.

Recently, I posted about how I am experimenting with different ways to derive certain statistics. It is a push towards simplicity. I have also mentioned a few times that many of the encounters in my upcoming project are with variable numbers of the same monster, much like the wandering monster tables of yesteryear. Partly because of this, I have dropped some of the roles from monsters. I retain Minion, Solo, Standard, Elite, and Savage, but drop the rest. It isn't that roles are bad, they just really didn't fit my project mechanically or aesthetically. In the process, I had finally realized the obvious: the way 4e does hit points is really annoying.

4e has different formulas for different types of monsters. This makes perfect sense for Solos, Minions, Standards, and Elites, because these categories are based on the overall ratios of hit points. However, Brutes, Skirmishers, and the rest have hit points based more on flavor. Weak little Artillery guy in the periphery of the fight? Fewer hit points. Big tough Soldier? More hit points. Makes sense. It also makes it a nightmare to calculate hit points. Heck, I'm not even giving Constitution scores to monsters in the first place!

It was with all of these things in mind that I came up with the formula for hit points. Overall, it gives monsters a tad fewer hit points. Of the 4e monster roles, only Lurkers and Artillery would average fewer. Everything ends up about "Controller" level. It isn't a huge difference, but I do think that this will still help a titch with combat speed at high levels (something I have gone to great lengths in this project to address). The early playtesting has shown that the monster difficulty will not suffer as a result. But the most important thing is that it's easy. That's the real point of it. With this formula, you do not even need to look in the DMG (or whatever source you use).

The 4e Forever formula for a Standard monster's hit points is (Level x 8) + 20. Elites and Savages have twice that. Solos vary and can have 4 to 5 times the hit points of a Standard. Minions of course have 1 hit point.

Check it out the next time you are making monsters. The slightly lower hit points should help a touch with slow combat, and they are a lot easier to calculate. Leave a post and let me know what you think!

The Hybrid Stat Block: Move

We continue today looking at my ideas for a new "hybrid" monster stat block for 4e. These will eventually appear in my upcoming fanzine, and they are basically combinations of old Oe/1e/B/X stats with those of 4e. Today we look at how the stat block will note monster movement.

As you are no doubt aware, 4e stats simply say "Speed", followed by a number. This number is the base amount of squares a creature can move (unless immobilized, running, etc) with its "move action". Squares correspond to a grid, where a 1" by 1" square is equal to a 5 foot by 5 foot area. Land speed is typically listed first, followed by things like Fly: 8 and the like. So you could say that for a creature with Speed 5, that its base speed is 25 feet.

B/X was completely different. It usually gave two speeds, both listed in feet. One was the "turn" movement, basically how far a PC could be expected to get in an underground area in ten minutes, provided they were moving cautiously, etc. Then, one-third of this number was like your "encounter" speed. This was the distance you could typically move and still be able to attack in combat. So you would see 120' (40'). I actually like this, and think it is a good houserule for 1e to just go back to this.

Finally, in 1e, things got a little bizarre. The speed was listed in inches, like 9". But this could mean more than one thing. It was tens of feet underground, tens of yards in the "wilderness". We won't get into segments versus rounds versus turns right now, it is too early in the morning.

So, as you know, my fanzine incorporates a lot of my ideas on bringing old-school flavor into 4e. I am not just looking for ways to tweak the way 4e plays; I'm also looking for simple ways to bring an old-school look into 4e. So some changes are more cosmetic than anything. Like what I am doing with movement in the stat block.

It is one of those great coincidences that even though movement was not handled the same way in 1e that it is in 4e, the rates of movement in 1e were still noted in terms of inches, even if inches weren't always actually being represented. 4e literally DOES use inches. At the same time, I really like to change terms where possible, if it means adding a little old-school flavor to the mix.

So, putting it all together, instead of the stats saying Speed 6, like in 4e, my 4e Forever version will say Move: 6". This will look like 1e, but will not really mean the same thing. Move: 6" in 4e of course still means your speed is 30 feet/6 squares/6 inches. If a creature has a fly speed or what have you, it might read Move: 4", Fly: 10".

I know to many people this might look like an almost pointless change. It really does not change the mechanics of 4e at all. But to me, it is significant in that the look and feel of the statistic reflects older editions. Taken together with all of the other little changes I am making, it really helps reinforce the vibe that I am going for.

So what do you think about it? I'd love to hear your opinion, so leave a post!

The Hybrid Stat Block: Intelligence

Recently I have been sharing some of my ideas for a new 4e stat block that I am working on to use in my upcoming free fanzine.  It will mix the way that the old OD&D/1e stats were presented with that of 4e. We looked at simplifying monster creation in general with easy, smooth ways to determine and present skill and initiative mods. We followed that with a look at the classic No. Appearing statistic, and how old-school random encounters can work in 4e. We have looked at Morale in the past, and you will certainly see Morale scores in the stats. Today, we look at Intelligence.

I've mentioned before what a complete bore I find determining monster ability scores, so when I say "Intelligence" I do not mean to suggest I will be giving an Intelligence score. Instead it is used somewhat like it was in 1e. If you look at the picture of our friend, the Brain Mole, you see that for Intelligence, a numerical value is not given, just a term; in this case, "Animal".

In the explanatory notes in the beginning of the 1e Monster Manual, it provides Intelligence scores and corresponding terms, such as "Genius". Now for me, looking at bringing this back into the game, I immediately know that I do not want as many different terms as 1e has. There are 11 possible Intelligence ratings. That is way too many (but not quite "Mythus" territory). Still, I have a definite want to use the Intelligence stat, for a couple of reasons.

One, I like it for nostalgic reasons. I love how some of the old stats will just say, "Intelligence: Very". I just like that kind of thing. Two, it can actually serve a purpose, and do it better than a numerical value ever did. It is an easy, clean way to give a rough idea of a monster's wits, much clearer in my opinion than just listing a score.

Still we need to get rid of some of those 11 different categories. I personally want to go as simple as possible, while keeping what I consider the essential terms that provide old-school flavor. So here are the different possible Intelligence ratings that I came up with: Animal, Low, Average, Very (gotta have my "Very"), and Supra-Genius. Those tell you all you need to know. Note that Morale will not necessarily be related to Intelligence.

I'm liking it. What do you think? If you have any thoughts, leave a post!

The Hybrid Stat Block: No. Appearing

As I continue experimenting with ideas for a 0e/1e/4e "hybrid" stat block for my upcoming zine, 4e Forever, I thought I would share some of my thought process on its design in a series of blog posts. Today I want to give you a look at how I am bringing the classic statistic "No. Appearing" to 4e.

Before I get too in-depth, I will just say I have no real qualms with the post-MM3 stat block. It works great. It is brilliant design. This isn't a condemnation of it by any stretch, I'm just trying to provide an alternate version that is more in line with the early editions. The overall goals of the new stat block are to inject old-school feel into the presentation, streamline the information for DMs, and to help reinforce "fixes" to some 4e issues, such as encounter speed, level of difficulty, creature action recovery, etc.

Many aspects of 4e design are things of beauty. I love the logic of encounter balance and difficulty. 5 Standard monsters of the same level as a 5 PC party is an encounter of the PCs level. You can, to a closer degree than any other edition I have played, judge encounter difficulty in 4e. Even in the Epic Tier, with all its imbalances, the 4e method is still "closer" than using Hit Dice or Monstermarks (from old White Dwarf mags) ever were. But what if you crave greater randomness in the number of creatures encountered? You can always use Minions for very large monster groups, but Minions are not always the best solution. The problem is compounded by other factors. Many 4e PCs are not "trained" to flee; it just isn't in their vocabulary. Fights turn into slogs. Who even wants to use a random encounter when it is going to take up most of the session? And how can you use a variable amount of monsters and maintain a semblance of balance in the first place?

Well, the most important thing to do is to use Morale. I will not go back over the details here, but I will note that it is a crucial and effective tool to use to control encounter length. By having this variable built in to the game, you can afford to be looser with the number of creatures encountered, as encounters are typically shorter.

The second thing to do is determine monster levels and "No. Appearing". This sort of ties into another point about the monster design in 4e Forever: I am not using roles. Well, I am using Minions, Standards, Elites, Savages, and Solos, but not "Skirmishers", etc. I am trying to simplify encounter groups. Most encounters will be with creatures of the same exact type, i.e. 1d6+1 Giant Vultures. Though there will be some occasional variations, such as more than one type of Giant Ant, by and large you will be looking at the same creature. I hope you give it a chance when you see it. It allows you to really emphasize the flavor of monsters, and it is a lot easier for DMs to run; there aren't a lot of minor, irritating-to-track differences between say, a bunch of Orcs. Since the magazine deals with high Paragon and Epic, which is already taxing due to so many player options, it is a practical fix with old-school flavor, which is exactly what I am going for.

So that is enough philosophy, let's look at some examples of how to integrate variable encounter groups into your 4e game. Start by determining what you would like the average difficulty level of the possible encounters to be. For these examples, I am aiming for an average encounter level of the party's level +1. That is, if I roll and get the average number of possible creatures, it will result in an encounter of the party's level +1. You can easily adjust up or down to different encounter levels. Anyways, in these examples, I will assume a party of level 20 PCs, and I will be looking for an average encounter level of 21. There are two angles I can take to get there. I can start with a possible numerical range of creatures encountered, i.e. "No. Appearing", or I can start with creature level and go from there. Let's look at both ways.

For the first example, we will start from a numerical range of creatures, i.e. "No. Appearing". I decide I want a fairly large number of Standard creatures, 7-12 (1d6+6). The average there is 9.5 creatures, but always round the fractions of the "No. Appearing" average down; so, in this case I round down to 9. Assuming 5 PCs, I am looking at an XP target of 16,000 for a Level 21 encounter. So, I divide the XP amount by the average number of possible creatures (9). I get 1777 XP per monster, or Level 17 monsters. So the average encounter is about "9.5" Level 17 monsters. The potential encounter levels vary from Level 18 (with 7 Level 17 creatures) to close to Level 22 (with 12 Level 17 creatures). It should be clear by looking at this that the larger the static modifier in the "No. Appearing" roll, the more "stable" the range of possible encounter levels. If we instead take 2d8 creatures (9 creatures average), we still end up working with the same level of creature (17), but the encounter level range is from 11 (if they encounter only 2 Level 17 creatures) to 23 (if they encounter all 16 creatures).

Now let's look at starting with the monster level as opposed to "No. Appearing". I still want to hit my Level 21 target, but this time I decide on using Level 20 monsters. I take 16,000 (XP budget for a level 21) and divide it by the XP for a single Standard of 20th Level (2800). I get something like 5.7 creatures as our target number for the average number of creatures encountered. Unlike above, where we used the average of the possible "No. Appearing", the number of creatures here is rounded up to the nearest whole number, i.e. 6. So now, knowing what we want the average number of creatures encountered to be (6), we can decide on a "No. Appearing" expression. Let's try a "No. Appearing" of 1d10+1. Yes, this is actually a 6.5 creature average, but just as we did in the first example, we again round fractions of the "No. Appearing" average down; so, this expression gives us our target of 6 creatures. So, putting it all together, the mean (average) encounter is around Level 21 (6 Level 20 creatures, times 2800 XP apiece, divided by 5 PCs=3360, or a Level 21 encounter), while the low end (2 Level 20 creatures) is a Level 14 encounter, and the high end (11 Level 20 creatures) is a tough Level 24 encounter. That is a pretty big swing. I like it!

So that is my system, at least up to this point. I can anticipate providing another statistic that notes the possible encounter level range of a "No. Appearing" roll for monsters for a group of 5 PCs. Something like "Enc Lvl: 9-12; 11 avg". We'll see; I am open to ideas!

If you end up rolling a low number of creatures, hey it was a quick combat. If you roll up a lot, there is still a good chance the encounter will end quickly thanks to Morale (although the PCs may get severely roughed up). Now, if you are wanting to deal with a huge amount of monsters, say 20+, you will likely want to look at using Minions, or combinations of Minions and other monsters. There is a level-imposed limit to the accuracy of PCs and monsters, and if you go too far in either direction then it will become too easy or too hard to hit each other. Anyway, if it all works as planned (and playtesting has been positive), encounter length won't be a waking nightmare anymore. You can also help PCs mitigate some of the swingier difficulty with henchmen, which the magazine assumes are being used.

And that's how I am using "No. Appearing" on the stat block. This is made possible by Morale, adjusting monster levels, and using henchmen. When you put it all together, it is an attempt to use "No. Appearing" to bring old-school flavor to 4e stat block, loosen the balance a bit, and shorten encounter time. I hope I did a good job explaining it! I have tried to rephrase it several times for clarity.

I am interested in thoughts and opinions so please leave a post! I will be back soon with Part 2. I also want to say thanks to Dndblogs for including my site! It is a very cool group of 4e blogs to follow. I check it out daily, so take a look if you have never seen it before.

Frothsof 4e Errata!

So I thought I would point out a couple of bits of "Errata". I have edited some posts based on ongoing playtesting. These are mostly minor changes but I wanted to point it out to anyone using or getting ready to use the rules.

-Henchmen are now attracted to PCs starting at level 8 (as opposed to 6), and never total in number to more than a quarter of the PC's level. This used to be 1/3.

-I have edited the Reaction Tables. The chance of a monster being initially unfriendly or hostile has increased slightly.

-The biggest changes have been to the Giant Crab preview. The grab still does not allow for escape attempts, but it now automatically ends at the end of the Crab's next turn. Of course, this means it has a chance to continually "refresh" the grab, but for some PCs, particularly those with high Reflex scores, the possibility of escape is there. I have also lowered the damage expressions slightly based on the number of these it will be possible to encounter. The AC was lowered to the standard number for its level, and its attack bonus verses grabbed creatures was lowered. It is still very nasty, but it did get "nerfed".

-I have added some extra information to the No. Appearing post, providing information on the formulas being used to balance the random numbers of creatures encountered.

The Hybrid Stat Block: A New Way to Determine a Monster's Skill and Initiative Modifiers

So I thought I would make a post to elaborate on something I mentioned in a previous blog regarding a new technique for determining monster skill and initiative modifiers. This came about as I was working on some monsters for my upcoming zine, 4e Forever. I am doing some work on a new stat block; it combines some pieces of 4e's stat block with the old monster listings of 1e and before.

I really like how the old 1e stats do not typically provide ability scores for monsters. You get Special Defenses, etc, but not Charisma scores for every critter the PCs stumble on. As I was jotting down the Charisma and Constitution scores of Giant Aardvarks, it really became clear that the 4e standard of providing ability scores, half-level bonuses, and listed skills was not only tedious to generate, but also fairly pointless. Very little of that information would ever actually be used in a given encounter. That is when I thought of a different method of generating the numbers you need. It is simple, intuitive, and I write this in hopes you will try it and enjoy it as much as I have.

Basically, you take the updated Skill DCs of the monster's level. Specifically, the Moderate and Hard DCs. Take those numbers and subtract 10. Those are the numbers you will now use the rest of the way. If a monster is of standard speed, intuition, etc, then its initiative modifier is the Mod DC-10. If it is a very quick or perceptive-"feeling" monster, use the Hard DC-10. For skills, a Hard DC-10 is the modifier for a trained skill. For untrained, use the Mod DC-10. Do not add half their level or anything to these; you are good to go. Both of these numbers are just listed on a stat block like so:

Trained Skill Mod-
Untrained Skill Mod-

The DM has the freedom to rule on the fly regarding monster skills; you do not have to write out their skills ahead of time. This prevents the DM from having to do a lot of extra work on monsters that may never even come up in the game. Instead you can use common sense to adjudicate on the fly. For example, the Giant Eagle likely is quite perceptive, so let it use the Trained Skill Mod if its Perception is needed. The Giant Spider is a sneaky creature, so let it use a Trained Mod for Stealth. A DM can decide that a creature is so inept at a skill that it cannot even attempt a check.

I have really enjoyed using this method. The stat block (I will preview when it is done) is cleaner, there are no superfluous numbers and stats I will never use, and it is a lot easier and more fun to generate creatures without having to contemplate a Giant Worm's Dexterity.

I hope you like it! As always leave a post with any comments or thoughts!

Treasure in 4e Forever

Ah, treasure. A contentious topic in 4e if there ever was one. I thought today I would preview the way magic items appear in my upcoming zine, 4e Forever. If you are curious about the status of the mag, all I can tell you is WOW did I ever underestimate the amount of work involved getting this done, especially when you are trying to work full time, raise a 1 year old, run your regular campaigns, and on and on. Still, I continue to make progress and I have some surprises about the contents that I will be showing off in the coming weeks.

Anyhoo, back to treasure. Well, as you are aware the zine deals exclusively with high Paragon and Epic tier play. This basically has helped me with being able to "get away with" the design. In short, the items presented do not have levels. If they are weapons, armor, or neck slot items, they are +5 or +6, but they are not assigned a level. There is no item rarity, at all. There are no limits on how many different magic item daily powers you can use in a single encounter. There are usually no prices given for items.

If you want to mosey down to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe and buy some magic items, you are kind of screwed. That is, magic items for sale exist, but they tend towards random consumables, a low level +1 generic sword, and the occasional ritual. That sort of thing. Only rarely will you find a store carrying these items, and they will probably be an overpriced hassle to procure.

No two campaigns are exactly alike, so DMs are encouraged to use whatever method they want to assign items. You don't have to use my ideas. If you do not like where treasure is placed in my adventure, place some yourself, use the parcel method, roll randomly, use wish lists, do whatever you like. If you want magic shoppes, go for it, it won't break anything. If you want to use inherent bonuses, go for it. The only thing the DM really needs to do is make sure PCs get to those +5s and +6s at a reasonable rate. My method simply puts all of the control back in the DM's hands; that is the default that will be presented, but if you want to change it feel free.

Magic items are not "statted out" in the same way that 4e traditionally presents them. Magic items will be described without stat blocks, in a more conversational tone, just like the old days. Often there will be some leeway in how the item will preform; this is deliberate, to give the DM something to improvise off of. Here are two examples, just off the top of my head.

Harley's Fantastic Social Lubricant

Invented by Jum Jum Harley, famed Half-Elf mystic, this liquid is sealed in a glass vial that has a large "H" inscribed on it. The contents can be broken up into three doses. Each dose causes the imbiber to lose his or her inhibitions within one turn (ten minutes). This may manifest itself in multiple ways: the imbiber could fall in love with someone or some thing out of the blue, could lose the ability to lie, or could simply disrobe in public. It is unclear what happens if you give a creature all three doses at once but it is not recommended. Each dose lasts about an hour. For whatever reason, this stuff doesn't work on Satyrs.You can occasionally find a vial or two of this at curio shoppes in central Serd (10% chance).

Tome of Insatiable Bloodlust

This large tome is bound in the stretched skin of an unknown animal (goat? maybe?). The cover is dyed a rich crimson. It is a +6 implement that is drawn like a magnet to blood and gore. Against bloodied targets, this implement scores critical hits on a roll of 17-20. Against a non-bloodied target, the tome does not provide extra crit dice, but against a bloodied target the crit dice are 6d10. There are some drawbacks to the tome. When the wielder scores critical hits, whether the target is bloodied or not, the wielder takes 3d12 paper cut damage. Also, anyone left alone with the tome for more than a turn will hear the tome whispering "Feed me" in their heads. Owner must make a save vs Charm at a -2 penalty or be compelled to feed it with his or her own blood once a day, taking 5d12 damage in the process. Blood dripped onto the tome's pages is quickly absorbed and appears to evaporate as soon as it hits a page.

There are said to be 6 such tomes in existence, all created at the same time, but the only known copy is in the hands of the Nethermancer Archibald of Bridgepuddle, Serd.


To be honest, I do not expect there to be a ton of items appearing in the magazine. That is one part of the game that is bloated enough already to not need any more support. But, should a few items appear here and there to reinforce fluff, or should readers submit items, this is the way they generally will appear.

Seem radical? Wait til you see what I am doing with monster stat blocks!

Please share any thoughts by leaving a post!

Fane of the Heresiarch!

I had to make a quick post to note the release of the new 4thcore adventure. Its really, really impressive. I look forward to running it once I absorb it. Check it out!

Claw/Claw/Bite!

Today we look at adding one of my favorite old-school mechanics, the Claw/Claw/Bite, into 4e. In 4e, monsters flat out need multi-attacks to be able to threaten PCs, especially at high levels. Using a Claw/Claw/Bite attack is a perfect way to inject old-school flavor into your game while simultaneously helping to fix 4e game balance.

I am working with the Claw/Claw/Bite 'attack routine' in my fanzine and 4e campaigns. I thought I would share some ideas on how I have been using it. As mentioned above, the Claw/Claw/Bite helps solve some 4e issues. If a monster is dazed, using Claw/Claw/Bite as a single standard action helps a monster with action recovery. It also helps monsters do more damage since they end up with a better chance to hit. Both good things.

Claw/Claw/Bite attacks allow lots of room for DM creativity. I have used multiple variations. For example, the bite could be contingent on at least one claw having hit. So if you don't hit with a claw, there is no bite. OR if you hit with at least one claw, the bite always hits and does automatic damage. Maybe if you hit with a claw, the bite does extra damage if it hits. Or if all three attacks hit, the target is stunned. You can have both claws target one defense, with the bite attack targeting another for flavor. Maybe it isn't even Claw/Claw/Bite...maybe it is Punch/Punch/Headbutt! There is a lot of variety within the 'simple' Claw/Claw/Bite sequence that might not be immediately apparent, but if you work with it for a bit, you find that it opens up a lot of room for flavorful design.




A Claw/Claw/Bite goes GREAT with "Savage" monsters. Like butter. It is very easy to DM a monster that uses a Claw/Claw/Bite as its primary attack; this in turn helps the game play faster, helping address another 4e issue, namely combat speed.

Anybody else utilizing the Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine in 4e? Leave a post!

Reaction Tables and 4e

Today I offer you some Reaction Tables for DMs to improvise with. You have seen something like this before if you are familiar with older versions of the game.

Now, many monsters will automatically attack, and many NPCs in your campaign might always be friendly. That's expected. But on occasion when using wandering monsters, or if the PCs take that right turn at Albuquerque, you might want to inject some randomness to the proceedings and flex your improv muscles.

Basically, if you have any creature or NPC that does not already automatically feel one way or the other about the PCs, if their reaction is in question, or if you are making it up as you go along, try the tables below. Keep in mind these are initial reactions. That bar wench with a heart of gold could turn nasty if she is treated rudely, and the vicious monster is just one morale check away from fleeing into the wilderness. Look for opportune moments to use these. For example, if the PCs approach a hireling they have never met before, you might check their reaction.

4e Reaction Table for NPCs
Roll 2d6 once for NPCs and check the table below
2 Unusually friendly
3-5 Friendly
6-8 Neutral; indifferent
9-10 Prickly; rude
11-12 Openly hostile; instigates conflict

4e Reaction Table for Wandering Monsters
Roll 2d6 once for monsters and check the table below

2-3 Friendly
4-5 Neutral; indifferent
6-8 Unfriendly; will attack if approached or if their environment has been entered
9-12 Hostile; immediately attack

You can modify these based on the situation, if a PC has an extremely high Charisma, or however else you desire. I think you will find it adds a layer of unpredictability that makes it fun to DM; it also helps prevent every single encounter from turning into combat.

Anybody using something like this? Leave a post!

A Megadungeon? For 4e?!!

When someone mentions a megadungeon and 4e in the same sentence, I think that the first things to come to mind are oil and water. After all, a megadungeon is a massive structure, and in 4e to get through one room sometimes takes an entire session. 4e published 'delves' are usually three rooms, three fights, ta-da magic item bc that is about all you can get to in a sitting. 4e published adventures, especially the early ones, add a thick coating of terrible railroady melodrama to the mix, and you suddenly find yourself far, faaaar away from the way D&D adventures used to feel.

Paradoxically, one of the best things about 4e is how fun combat is as a player. All of the myriad tricks and toys to torment and flat out embarrass a monster. That great feeling when the board lines up to your will and you roll dice for like 20 minutes. Although some schools of thought suggest taking away player options in order to increase game speed, I would argue that those are things to make sure to leave in. I prefer to look at fixes from the DMs side, to see what I can do to increase encounter speed while still keeping it threatening.

My 4e Forever project involves a megadungeon. In preparation for writing it, I have gone back to the classics, near constantly reading some old adventure or another. In the case of my Saturday Gloomwraught campaign, I am running an old classic adventure, Judges Guild's Tegel Manor. This puppy PREDATES AD&D. Not precisely a megadungeon, but 240 rooms strong in the main level nonetheless.

So far, running it has been a tremendous pleasure, and the pace and varying threat level of the encounters is allowing the exploration to flow more naturally from room to room. At 12th level with optimized PCs, we got three combats in, plus at least a solid hour of exploration, in 3 hours. That to me is about perfect pace, and while I can't promise you that a combat will take such and such long, I can give you tips on how to get close to it. I think tinkering with this stuff might help give yourself more versatility in encounter/adventure design. So if you ever want to create a 4e megadungeon or update an old classic, try these tips:

Use Savages
I again want to encourage DMs to try using variations of these in your games. I used two of these in the session. The old adventure has a lot of rooms that are just like 'This room has an old broken sword in it. There is a Black Mold on the bed'. You could spend the rest of your playing days trying to run 4e Solos for all of the random monsters in this thing. Savages allow for the PCs to be threatened without taking all night. By giving the monsters a combination of multi-attacks (including action points), action recovery, automatic damage (auras and otherwise), and other tweaks, they run very clean, and pack a wallop. I thought it was awesome to see that the Middle-Aged DM posted a killer Savage. thats a bad boy; very cool. If you want another example and you never checked out Sorin 'Stinky' Yeate, check it out. You've got to try these, they are like 4e DM crack.

Use Morale
It is hard to fully embrace random wandering monsters in 4e if each encounter is going to take forever. The story has to go somewhere, and one slog after another is not really a great story. But yet, I want to use random tables. I love random tables. I think they add tons of flavor to an area and you are going to see a slew of them in 4e Forever. But I am not just talking about random encounters. I'm talking about rolling random numbers of creatures as well.

How can you get away with this in 4e where everything is balanced to a specific threat level? You can't use monsters to high or too low or nobody will be able to hit, and if you did use a lot of monsters, it would just be hit point city and take all year. That's where Morale comes in. Morale gives the DM a flavorful way to control combat length and difficulty. And since a low Morale monster will likely flee after just one of their allies is killed, this allows you to use way more of the monsters to begin with, so you can be more 'swingy' with the number of creatures. And if it does get out of hand, the PCs might...and you might have to brace yourself for this...they might actually have to run, for once in their careers. This also really encourages the DM to use many of the same creatures for random encounters, both for ease of running them, but also bc the fact that they may flee so early, discourages you from spending a lot of time on stuff you might not use.

So, in 4e Forever, you will see things like '3d4 Giant Wasps". A wasp gets really pissed and stings like hell, but ultimately it only wants to protect its area. It does not reason or try to follow a party or hold grudges. If seriously injured, it will likely stop fighting. A wasp's morale score might vary between 5-3, so even though 12 seems like a ton of Standard creatures to possibly throw at a party, the odds are really good that the fight will be over quickly. Personally, I love the flexibility it gives me in encounter design. I can have set-piece encounters that are really planned, or I can run more random old-school encounters with large numbers of monsters.

Speaking of fighting large numbers of monsters, give your players some henchmen!
This is going great so far in my group. My henchmen rules are here. Basically, once you hit 8th level you start attracting your own henchmen each level; they are kind of like super-minions. They help allow for a little swinginess in encounter difficulty, add a ton of flavor, and are just fun basically. It was actually a little sad when the first one died-died. Megadungeons are somehow more fun with a huge party.

Use unusual encounter areas
You could talk about this all day, but using both large and small encounter areas can add a lot of old-school goodness to your megadungeon. A lot of the rooms in Tegel Manor are very, very small. The whole party and a monster can not all fit into some of them. While using small-sized rooms exclusively would be a bad thing, it sure is awesome to do from time to time. You can also use several connected rooms to be sort of a 'sector' of the megadungeon.The PCs can enter any of them and attract creatures from all of those rooms. This is a good way to combine monster types as well as stagger how you add monsters into the combat, which is something I love. That 'should've saved the Daily' look on a player's face when the zombies walk in at the end of the second round.



Anybody running any 4e megadungeons out there? Leave a post if so! 

A Look at 4e Forever's Epic Tier Monster Design

I am going to give yall another peek at my 4e Forever project and show you how one of the new monsters is built. The magazine deals exclusively with high Paragon and Epic Tiers. One of things you will be seeing that is a little different than traditional 4e Epic tier fare is that some typically mundane creatures are being elevated to Epic status. I am really trying to get down to the pure old-school essence of these creatures, and trying to find a balance of simplicity and difficulty. And I must say I am having fun doing it.

I think that most high level creatures need at least one go-to power that has built-in ways to mitigate conditions, such as being able to make multiple attacks and move as part of the attack. I also really do not want a lot of little attacks, utilities, and things to remember. The Epic PCs will be giving the DM plenty of that as it is! So lets look at what I am doing with my own take on a Giant Crab.

Part of the old-school vibe that translates well to Epic Tier is the multi-attack. Claw/Claw/Bite, and the like. So for the Crab I want a double attack, each claw. And of course I want it to grab the target, as it is the natural thing it would do. I want to make sure I am doing a lot of damage to balance out weak Epic Tier damage rolls. So on top of the two attacks, I added an auto-damaging mechanism. I find auto-damage a crucial component of Epic Tier games.

I am protecting the monster's ability to get the go-to attack off in a couple of ways. First, the attack is all one standard action, so it can happen in full even if dazed. Second, I add some free movement into the power, as well as reach, to allow the crab mobility and a chance to reach most targets even if dazed. I want the grab to hurt, and this is Epic Tier after all, so I am saying the crab's grip is so powerful that it cannot be escaped in the traditional sense. A teleport will break the grab, but just to be memorable and over-the-top I am going to add a little "insult to injury" with more auto-damage in the case the party uses it. Instead of allowing escape attempts, the grab ends at the end of the Crab's next turn, which makes it possible that a PC might be grabbed for quite some time. Net effect: you do not want to get grabbed by this little guy.

Considering movement and senses, I decide to give the crab a rubble walk ability and burrow speed to drive home the flavor. I also decide the Crab is quite in touch with vibrations of the earth so I give it Tremorsense; I like to have at least one creature per encounter have a way around perma-invisible types. If it was a Solo or Elite I would add some immunities and the like, but for a Standard this works nicely.

This guy shows up like a little bad-ass on  rocky beaches, surfacing from underground into the most advantageous spot to get his Claw/Claw off. 

I am also trying something new with monster skills. Instead of breaking out all of the monster attributes and assigning skills, I am simply using the updated Moderate and Hard DCs of the monsters level -10 to derive the initiative and skill mods. I decide whether I want the creature to be very fast quick (+26 initiative) or standard (+17 initiative). I decide on the fly if a monster is 'trained' in a skill or not. If I decide it is, say if the monster is falling and I want it 'trained' in Acrobatics, he gets a +26 mod (i.e. the Hard DC for Level 22 -10). if not trained I use the Moderate DC of the monster's level -10. In some cases you may decide that the monster cannot attempt a skill; for example, I decide my crab cannot roll a Religion check. in this way I can just work off of the skill DC chart and not have to worry about spelling out the rest. I think you will agree that the variation is not as important as the ease of use. It works.

So what does it look like? *note, I am working on a new stat block for my zine. What you see below is just to get the idea across. I am highlighting the design process in a blog series here.

Giant Crab
Level 22 Soldier    Large Natural Creature

Initiative +17       Senses Perception +26
HP 196; Bloodied 98
AC 36; Fortitude 35, Reflex 33, Will 34

Speed 6, Rubble Walk, Burrow 6
Special Senses: Tremorsense 15
Morale 6 ( for my Morale rules, see this blog entry)

Claw/Claw  (basic, standard, At-Will)

The Crab can shift, burrow, or charge up to its speed. After the movement the Crab makes the following attack:

Reach 3, +25 vs Reflex, 2 attacks (one or two creatures)

Hit: 6d4 + 16 damage and the target is grabbed until the end of the Crab's next turn. If the target is already grabbed the Crab gets a +2 bonus to the attack roll. The grabbed target cannot attempt to escape the grab. If either the Crab or the grabbed target are subjected to forced movement, the creatures move together and the grab does not end. Blocking terrain ends the forced movement for all creatures. If a creature is not the original target of forced movement but is moved as a result of a grab, the DM chooses a square adjacent to the original target for that creature after the movement is completed. Teleportation ends a grab as normal. The Crab can have up to two creatures grabbed at one time, but the Crab cannot take a move action other than to stand when it has a creature grabbed.

Special: This attack scores critical hits on an 19-20.

Squeeze (no action, once per round, At-Will)

Target-One or two grabbed creatures

Effect-The target takes 20 damage

Last Pinch (immediate interrupt, At-Will)

Trigger-A grabbed creature teleports or is teleported.

Effect- The target takes 6d12 damage and is slowed until the end of the encounter.

Alignment Neutral       Languages None

Trained Skill Mod (+26), Untrained Skill Mod (+17)

I hope this displays the approach I am taking with the monsters: keep them pure and simple while still keeping the difficulty level high enough to counteract Epic tier imbalance. I would also love some feedback, so even if you hate it let me know what you think!