WANTED: 4e Tome of Horrors

The one thing keeping me from running pre-4e modules with 4e rules is a severe lack of updated monsters. Every time I think I want to plan a game with an old module, I'm always blocked by this obstacle. Bullshitting the rest of any given module is no problem. But if I want to use specific monsters, I need to have them prepared ahead of time. And 4e does a really good job with its new method of handling monsters. But I can't run Castle Zagyg in 4e without many of the old monsters from the 1e MM.

I don't pretend to understand the liscensing controversies surrounding third-party 4e products. I don't care. Wizards of the Coast, whatever the problem is, fix it.

Oh, and gimme my DDi stuff. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

/rant

4e Morale Check: A DM utility power

A Dungeon Master utility power? Why not?

Even though I've decided to use 4e from now on, I'm keenly interested in applying 1e concepts and traditions to the modern rule set. To that end, I've been composing my own 4e house rules.

One set of rules that I feel are neglected by 3.5e and 4e are the ones pertaining to morale checks. The morale check was an important part of D&D before 3e. In 3e, this fight-or-flight rule is essentially eliminated. Instead it is incorporated into 3e's system of attack bonuses. In 3.5e and 4e, whether or not monsters or NPCs flee while in the midst of battle is entirely up to the DM.

At first, I thought that adding morale checks to a set of 4e house rules might be a simple matter of just using the rules provided in the 1e DMG. But upon closer examination, I realized that these rules seemed archaic in the context of 4e. For example, it uses a percentage dice roll. Well, why not simply use a d20 and divide the bonuses by 20? Then I got to thinking that rules pertaining to morale could be somehow created for 4e D&D in manner that is consistent with the rest of the rules.

How can combat morale rules be created that are consistent with 4e? As detractors have observed, all of 4e D&D seems to revolve entirely around the axis of combat. Everything is defined in terms of character powers and abilities. But morale rules, something that has everything to do with combat, is strangely absent. The 4e DMG is mostly fluff and advice with scant rules pertaining to rigid conduct of the game. This was done with the purpose of simplification. Perhaps this is good because it has produced a much more unified system of rules. Perhaps this is bad because the game seems to only focus on combat.

In 4e terms, what is a morale check? In 1e and 2e, it was a roll made by the DM during combat at appropriate predefined occasions. It is never a roll made by the players. Well, I thought, perhaps a morale check could be something akin to cause fear, the 1st level cleric attack power? Fear is certainly a factor. But a morale check is not something that is rolled by a player so it can't be a character power. If it's a roll made by the DM, what does he roll against? A "moral score?" In 2e, all monsters had a moral score included with each monster description. Adding a new statistic to every single monster in 4e seemed to be counter to the spirit of the streamlined rules of 4e. Furthermore, modifying the combat system with a subset of rules handling morale checks seemed counter-productive. There has to be some way of safely inserting an optional morale check rule without "breaking" the game.

Then it hit me. Why not define morale checks in 4e as a "DM utility power?" Powers are, by definition, optional. The DM would not have to use it at all. And if the ability used in the "attack" is simply a placeholder, then the only concern would be bonuses.

So this morning I whipped up some 4e Morale Check rules:


MORALE

The morale check is a utility power used by the DM against monsters or NPCs. It is never used against PCs. It can be used to check the morale of individuals or groups of individuals. In the case of groups, use the average Will score of that group.

The morale check DM utility power does not use a character ability for its "attack." Instead, the DM's Morale "ability" has a "score" of 10 and therefore has no "ability modifier." The DM merely rolls a d20, adds any relevant bonuses, and compares the result with the target's Will.

Morale Check DM Utility
You determine whether or not an NPC or monster withdraws from combat.
-------------------------
At-Will * Fear
Immediate Reaction Personal
Trigger: Surprise, facing an obviously superior force, ally is slain by magic, 25% of group has fallen, 50% of group has fallen, companion slain after more that 50% of group has fallen, group leader deserts or is slain, fighting foe that cannot be harmed due to magical protections, ordered to attempt a heroically dangerous task, offered temptation (bribe, chance to steal, etc.), told to act as rear guard, directed to use up an encounter power, directed to use up a daily power, directed to use charge from a personal powerful magic item, given chance to surrender, or completely surrounded.
Prerequisite: You must be the DM.
Requirement: You must be a grognard. ;)
-------------------------
Target: One creature or group of creatures with averaged Will.
Attack: Morale vs Will
-------------------------
Hit: If the attack roll succeeds, the target will fall back but keep fighting (save ends). If the attack roll succeeds by 3, the target will disengage and/or retreat (save ends). If the attack roll succeeds by 6, the target will flee in panic (save ends). If the attack roll succeeds by 10, the target surrenders.

Morale Bonus

Listed below are conditions and situations that can affect morale check bonuses.

Target abandoned by friends: +6
Target bloodied: +6
Target is chaotic: +1
Target is fighting hated enemy: -4
Target is lawful: -1
Target is surprised: +2
Target's group is fighting wizards or magic-using foes: -2
Target is level 5 to 10: -1
Target is level 11 to 15: -2
Target is level 16 or more: -3
Target is defending home: -3
Target has cover: -1
Target's leader is of different alignment: +1
Target's most powerful ally killed: +4
Target is PC ally NPC that has been favored: -2
Target is PC ally NPC that has been poorly treated: +4
None of target's enemies have been slain: +2
Target's group is outnumbered by 3 or more to 1: +4
Target's group outnumbers opponents by 3 or more to 1: -2
Target is unable to affect opponent: +8
Target group has magic-using creature: -2

Perhaps the wording of the trigger entry could be simplified. And perhaps the list of morale bonuses could be simplified, eliminated, or somehow incorporated into the power's description entry. I'm open to suggestions.

One interesting side effect of applying the 4e mold to this 1e concept is the idea of essentially treating the effects of a morale check as a saving throw. I like how 4e simplified saving throws and treats them just like an AC defense score. If a morale check power is applied in this manner, fleeing creatures might make a saving throw and return to battle.

The idea of a DM utility power could be a practical solution to re-introducing old school game concepts to 4e. I haven't tried this in actual game play. But my intuition tells me that it might work just fine. If this concept of a DM utility power is viable, I have a feeling that this might open up tremendous possibilities.

As described at the beginning of the fourth edition Player's Handbook, Dungeons & Dragons is an exception-based set of rules. From my perspective as an amateur programmer, it also appears to be modular in the sense that you start with a core library of functions and then build upon it. Unlike previous editions of D&D, 4e seems to be more conducive to this mindset. DM utility powers could open up an entirely new "library" of "functions" that are waiting to be written.

I never understood ear seekers until now

It's a minor thing, really. But I think it reveals a great deal about my gaps in D&D lore.

Ever since I read the entry for ear seekers in the 1st edition Monster Manual, I had never understood how they were employed in the game of Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax described them as small insects that live in wood and need warm places to lay eggs. That's all.

Well, how does that work? How do they "attack?" Do they wait around in the rafters and then drop on the heads of unwary adventurers? Do they crawl into the ears of sleeping adventurers camped out in the woods?

I never understood why ear seekers were in the D&D rules at all. The presence of dragons in the Monster Manual needed no explanation. Orcs and halflings might require some knowledge of the writings of Tolkien. Perhaps the existence of otyughs needed explanation as a component of self-contained dungeon ecology. But ear seekers? What the heck?

It wasn't until I read something recently that I finally understood. (I think it was in Castle Zagyg: The Upper Works or maybe in the Hackmaster rulebook. Or maybe it was someone's recent blog? I'm not sure.) Ear seekers are meant to be the bane of people who listen at doors. It's as simple as that.

For the last 30 years I had no clue. This says a lot about me. For starters, I feel I never got my fair share of dungeon crawling experience and I've always been itching to do much more than the scant amount I got to play in my youth. I also think it says much about the fact that the old school style of playing D&D might become a forgotten art.

I miss the old spells

I'm a fan of 4e D&D but there are many aspects of the older editions that I miss. One of them is the handling of magic spells. There are still some aspects to the new spell rules that strongly resemble the Vancian magic system. These are the daily powers specific to wizards. Although I agree that making certain spells available at-will is useful, the structure of the 4e rules makes the invention of new spells a little difficult. Or does it?

As soon as I heard about the new fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, I declared that I was going to buy it as soon as it was published and use it from then on. I tried to learn as much as possible beforehand. I bought the preview books and listened to the podcasts made by Wizards of the Coast. I understood the wisdom of the drastic restructuring of the rules. There needed to be a balance to all the character classes. They achieved that. But the result is a radically different game. I'm still getting used to it.

The wizard is my favorite player-character class. It has always been my favorite since my early days of gaming. I loved pouring over the vast variety of spells given in the various rule books. Over the years, new spells were invented. However, inventing new spells seemed arbitrary. Much like new monsters, new spells were created by comparing the effects to previously published spells. This philosophy has changed with 4e.

A new aspect to D&D in 4e are ritual spells. This appears to be the catch-all for the spells that can't be rationally incorporated into the structure of character powers. But if you want to create new ritual spells for 4e you have to compare them to the ones given in the ritual spell list.

But what about creating new spell powers? Would that throw the game out of balance?

I'm not sure I like being married to spell powers. To me, it seems that a wizard should be able to switch out at-will, encounter, and daily powers as he or she desires. Perhaps a fair set of house rules could address this?

Time will tell. And I have a feeling that a future splat book may greatly expand upon the handling of 4e spell powers.

You've got to make the time

The number one killer of a gaming group is schedule conflicts. All too often role-playing games are relegated to the bottom of the list of life priorities. But if you really love to play your favorite game, you have to learn to make the time. Or else you will never get to play anymore.

Work is the usual cause of schedule conflict. That is understandable. Work hours always takes precedence. Unless you have a job with flexible hours or a very understanding boss, there is little you can do except try to convince your group to move game sessions to a different time or day.

Family is the second most common cause of scheduling problem. This is sometimes unavoidable. Especially if you have kids. Having no kids myself, I can provide little advice in this regard. If you are a single parent with an infant, I imagine that gaming is almost out of the question unless you are the one hosting the game nights. If you are a parent with a spouse with children who are out of diapers, it seems to me that some sort of arrangement can be worked out. As children become older, it stands to reason that accommodating your favorite hobby might become easier.

Young people sometimes have problems scheduling games because of a boyfriend or girlfriend who is either uninterested in gaming or thinks it's a waste of time. If your significant other has never gamed before, you could try to get them interested and bring them along to a game session. This usually never works out but it's worth a try. It's very rare that a previously uninterested boyfriend or girlfriend will suddenly take an interest in tabletop strategy role-playing games. Even worse, you might have a romantic interest that is actively trying to prevent you from gaming because it's time that's not spent on her. This latter variety should be dumped. Your partner should respect your interests as much as you respect theirs. But this is a subject for Dear Abby.

Very young gamers can sometimes come into conflict with parents about gaming. Sometimes it's just a matter of doing your homework or getting good grades to earn the right to game. Then there are those parents who still believe the myths from the 1980s about D&D being somehow unwholesome. Even worse, there may be parents who are extremely oppressive. The only thing you can do is put up with their rules until you are an adult.

The bottom line is that it's your hobby. It's your passion. Engaging in your favorite pastime makes you happy. You look forward to the sessions every week and you feel satisfied when they conclude. Along with work, family, and romance, gaming is an important part of your life. If you want to play your favorite game, you have to make the time. You have to make it clear to everyone around you that this is an activity that you love and you should not be somehow ashamed of it.

Look at what others people do. They seem to be able to devote large quantities of time to other activities. An unreasonably high percentage of people in my country spend a half a dozen or more hours each week devoted to just watching some sport on television. Some people play football or soccer with their friends once a week. Or maybe they're members of a bowling or softball league. Personally, I find the time, money, and real estate usage dedicated to golf to be a complete mystery to me. All sorts of people engage in a variety of pastimes. You, as a gamer, like to engage in one of those pastimes. It's what you are. It's what you do.

In my humble opinion, one of the problems that face the gaming community is a lack of unified structure or organization. I have never been a member of the RPGA but perhaps I should investigate that further. I am trying to use MeetUp.com to organize some sort of gaming group at my local Civic Center. I know there are RPG tournaments conducted at conventions. Why not outside of conventions?

Anyway, I have found that once you establish gaming as something important in your life and you make a point of devoting a regular time slot to your favorite hobby, the people around you in your life will eventually accomodate it. You might be surprised when your wife says to you one day, "I was going to invite the Smiths over for dinner on Tuesday but then I remembered that Tuesday is your game night."

It can happen. But you have to make the time.

Strongholds

This is one aspect of D&D that I've never fully experienced. I have long dreamed about it ever since I got my 1e DMG back in the early '80s. But none of the campaigns I played endured long enough to warrant the building of a stronghold for my characters. The adventures I played always seemed to have been one-shot affairs. We would prepare characters and dive into a published dungeon.

As I mentioned earlier, I never became involved with an ongoing campaign until around 2005. For the first time, the players I was gaming with were actually developing their own fiefdom. But as I explained, I never had much say in that group and I eventually left it.

I'm wondering if building a stronghold for PCs is a dead art. Is it all about adventure paths? Judging from the resurgent interest in old school sandbox gaming, it might make a comeback.

To this end, I want to draw attention to a relatively recent splat book, Stronghold Builder's Guidebook. I believe that it was published before the advent of 3.5e. However, I think that it can be perfectly useful for any edition, including 4e. It's similar to some of the rules presented in Gygax's 1e DMG but with much more detail.

But then the next question is how do you conduct seige warfare in D&D? What about large-scale battles? I wonder...

Why no hirelings or henchmen?

Even though I played D&D in the early days of its popularity, I never took full advantage of the rules pertaining to hirelings and henchmen. Although I confess ignorance of 2e D&D, the Charisma attribute has no relevance to the recruiting of henchmen in 3.5e or 4e.

James over at Grognardia blogged about an old set of hireling miniatures. In the comments, I confessed that I never used henchmen or hirelings. Most people in the comments also confessed that they never really used them either. Why not?

When I returned to D&D after 2000 and actually started playing again in 2005, I felt that they were sorely missed. Without hirelings, who is going to watch the camp outside the dungeon and help carry your loot? Without henchmen, how else does one start a fiefdom?

I saw Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf last year. It's a great inspiration for D&D adventure. I pictured the hero as a high-level fighter with a large group of henchmen. I lament the fact that such an arrangement is no longer a part of the rule mechanics of D&D. Any henchmen or hirelings are now adjudicated by the DM and do not have anything to do with on Charisma scores. There are no guidelines.

Even though Gary Gygax provided some rules in the DMG for hirelings and henchmen, how they are found by the PCs is left up to the DM. Like much of early D&D rules, knowledge of medieval culture is assumed to be already known by the players. Rules governing such NPCs was largely open-ended.

In my opinion, hirelings and henchmen should be an integral part of old school campaigns. If there were some sort of splat book dedicated to the subject, common usage might increase.

Is there any rules about them Hackmaster? Other game systems? Splat books I don't know about?

How about some tables indicating the chance of finding a particular type of hireling or henchman in a different types of towns and cities? Check once per day, perhaps. Just a thought I'd throw out there.

Jeff posted some nice box art. Take a look!