Combat Roles #1 - Melee Damage

This is perhaps one of the two most basic roles in combat: that of being able to hit something consistently. At low levels, this is a critical role, as the spellcasters don't have enough spells to output enough damage to end combat quickly. In later levels, you turn into a consistent and constant source of damage.

There are two subset roles of this: infrequent swings for huge damage or frequent swings for less damage. Either tactic is completely viable, but they do require specific builds to do well. Both provide a different sort of drama to the combat. The flurry of strikes, bleeding away hit points over time, each one adding up over time, yet each attack possibly missing or the giant swing, cleaving through enemies but lacking in number.

Your feat selections will go a long way towards making the character. If you swing frequently, you want to to focus on being sure you hit every time. If you swing infrequently, you want to make each swing count so you want to improve your damage or effects.

The iconic classes that fit this role are the barbarian and the fighter; each providing different options for flavor. The basic requirements for this role are to have a good BAB, preferably full but 3/4 is certainly workable. The class needs to have a decent Strength score synergy.

If the class you are picking doesn't have the above, you can still function as the Melee Damage; however, it takes work. You need to focus on being able to hit reliable, either with spells or weapons and your damage needs to be decent.

Dirty Words in Gaming #2 - Optimization

Scheduling snafus have made this post a day late. My bad.

Last time we talked about Min-Maxing and how I think it is an ok practice since it does mimic life to an extent. But what happens when you take it too far? You cross the line into Character Optimization.

By name alone, Character Optimization doesn't sound all that bad. You are simply optimizing your character to excel in a few areas. That may be what the words mean, but that does not adequately describe the practice. Character Optimization is truly described as "what-if" thought experiments.

The practice results in character builds of ridiculous power. Characters such as Pun-Pun, The Terminator, and The Omniscificer. If you look over those characters, most likely you won't understand the way they work beyond a surface level. That's because Optimizing Characters requires a ridiculous knowledge of rules and bizarre interactions.

These characters are clearly not meant to be played as they win. However, the same techniques used to build them can be used on playable characters. This results in builds that generate near infinite attacks per round, do near infinite damage on one attack per round, cast spells with insurmountable DCs. These builds are far more subtle than the linked ones which makes them dangerous, since DMs may not be able to catch them before the game starts.

These builds are also designed to "win" at D&D. If you can do an infinite amount of damage on one attack er round, then the game isn't fun since combat will last for N rounds where N= number of monsters. Infinite attacks are just as unfun since each round you will kill one monster. This might make the game fun for the player playing the Optimized Build, but makes it incredibly boring for everyone else.

Never allow a truly optimized build in your games. You will regret it. Never play a truly optimized build in a game. You will regret it. It won't be fun, people will get bored, and feelings may get hurt.

Aligning Misconceptions #4 - Neutral Good

So we walked the line of neutrality, from chaotic to lawful and now we go into Good.

Neutral Good is the baseline for the good alignments. You are halfway between Law and Chaos, but what does that mean?

D&D calls this alignment the "Benefactor" alignment. You are interested in the "Greater Good." Laws are ok, but sometimes you need to step outside of them to accomplish aforementioned "Greater God." Freedom is important to you, but only as long as that freedom is not used to cause suffering or harm to others. There can be a touch of idealism in Neutral Good; however, this is the case with any Good alignment, since they all believe in the "Greater Good" to one extent or the other. If you can help someone, you probably will; however, that's not to say that you'll help a farmer till a field while on a quest to slay a dragon.

A great iconic example of Neutral Good is Luke Skywalker. He fights against a lawful government, goes out of his way to help others, yet disobeys orders and discards advice from his mentors/superiors.

New Schedule

As of today, I'm setting up a new schedule for posting. I have been doing one post a day per workday since I began. I'm switching to a Monday, Wednesday, Friday schedule. This will give me more time to develop the various ideas I have and help me structure what I post.

For the near future, I will be finishing my series on Alignments, The Metagame, and Combat Roles. After that, we'll see what ideas spring up.


Until tomorrow!

Combat Roles - Overview

So orcs ambush your party. Do you know what to do?

In general the answer will be "Kill the orcs." The true question behind that is how do you do that? How does your party do that? How do you help the party do that?

D&D throughout the ages has been based on the "well rounded party" of one rogue, one fighter, one wizard, and one cleric. In 4th edition, they've broadened the concept to Strikers, Defenders, Controllers, etc. These terms are derived from MMO terms, such as tank, healer and support.

3.5 exists between old D&D and 4th edition. The CRs and challenges are based off of the idea that you have a team of 4, each fulfilling their roles. But I believe that the roles in 3.5 are much more abstracted. For a party to be successful you need more than just generic roles. You need to have defined combat roles, not just class labels. Some of the roles are Battlefield Control, Ranged Damage, Arcane focus, Melee Damage, Melee Soak, Stealth/Recon, Support, and Healing to name just a few.

Some classes are clearly based off of fulfilling some of these roles. You'd be hard pressed to present a strong case that bards can act as Melee Soak. However, with the variety of feats, magical gear, and class combinations, you can fulfill any role with nearly any character.

These roles are purely abstract and completely open for debate. I'll be going over each role and as well as the theory as to why it is necessary.

Dirty Words in Gaming #1 - Min-Max

So the first topic to go over in the metagame series is about min-maxing.

But what is min-maxing? Strictly speaking it is minimizing your weaknesses while maximizing your strengths. People view this as a very negative practice in gaming. However, I don't think it is. I think that the practice can be taken too far (at which point you cross into optimization, which is a bad thing)

I think there is a fine line between min-maxing and optimization (and your definitions may be reversed than mine, so if it is, just switch the words and it'll work). The reason I don't think min-maxing is bad is because that is what we do in our lives. Very few people (relatively speaking) try to be good at everything. For any given person they will be good at some things and bad at others. In the realm of things they are good at, there are some things that they will excel at.

Knowing this, any rational person would attempt to use the skills they are good at or bring their good abilities to bear. If you are a physicist, why would you try to fix your own car? You excel at physics, not automotive repair. Even if automotive repair is a hobby, it will at best be something you are good at, not something you excel at.

And it is the same for characters. Your feat, skill, and gear selection will all tend towards what you've chosen to specialize in. As heroic characters you should excel. You should be the greatest swordsman, spell-slinger, or thief in whatever realm you are. If you aren't you wouldn't be a hero.

Aligning Misconceptions #3 - Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral has historically been a difficult alignment to play and to define. Agents of chaos, as likely to pay for a beer as they are to steal it and kick a baby in the process.

In all actuality, chaotic neutral characters are predictable in their unpredictability. In a list of ten life goals, personal freedom ranks 1-9. As long as they are free to do what they like they are happy. As soon as someone begins tightening the noose of restrictions, they will likely switch sides if offered more freedom.

They are not necessarily evil, they are self interested. They are not necessarily beneficent, they are selfish. They may work towards lofty or depraved ideals, but will always do so because it is convenient to them; and that is what separates them from chaotic good or chaotic evil. All three are rebellious but they can be distinguished by motivations. Fairness motivates good, malevolence motivates evil, and apathy motivates neutral.

An excellent example of chaotic neutral played to the hilt is Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. He plays loose and easy with his loyalties, he does what seems most beneficial to him at any given moment, yet he manages to work within a group for a higher goal (as long as the goal doesn't impinge upon his freedom).