Delvers and Denizens: Fighters

Go to the Delvers and Denizens Index

My version of the fighter is essentially the same as that presented in B/X or BECMI. Though I have made a few minor changes. 

I use a modified version of Weapon Mastery, which I've rolled into level training, so there is no longer a need to train for weapons separate from leveling up. Along with this, I've beefed up the fighters weapon training so that they get 1 new weapon mastery level at each level. though I have limited them to a skill cap based on level to stop them from just being grandmaster at early levels.

The other changes I've made are to the fighter combat options:

Cleave - available at 4th level this replaces the old 'smash' maneuver, lose initiative and must wield 2 handed weapon, apply -5 to hit in exchange for adding Strength score to damage, if kill foe then can attack another foe

Parry - the only change I made was to make this available at 4th level

Disarm - kept this at 9th level and just changed the save. Instead of making a DEX check, the victim of the disarm simply makes a Save vs Wands. so the fighter rolls to hit, the foe makes a saving throw vs wands adjusted by the DEX mod of the fighter(the save should already be adjusted by the victim's dex)

Multiple Attacks - made this available at 9th level, lets the fighter attack up to 2 opponents(and eventually 3 at 12th or maybe 15th level) at once, but not 2 attacks on the same opponent. I make this distinction to represent how I envision the abstraction of combat, the 2 sides are making multiple moves each round, and the to hit roll represents if any damage was caused from any of those multiple strikes; the attack roll doesn't represent a single sword swing, it represents whether a significant wound was caused. 

Dual Wielding - available at 4th level, I've changed how this works a number of times, because I couldn't come up with something I was satisfied with while adhering to the design principles of Classic D&D. I wasn't quite happy with my most recent iteration, so decided to look The Riddle of Steel RPG, which gave me the inspiration to tweak it to something that I'm finally happy with. 

So first the fighter must be weilding medium sized or shorter weapons; unarmed attacks with the fists or feet and shields can also be used as offhand weapons. Then the fighter must make a choice of how they want to use the offhand weapon. There are 3 basic maneuvers. 1) is the double attack where they simply attack with both weapons, this calls for separate attack rolls and damage rolls, but each roll to hit is done with Disadvantage. 2) is the Bind where the offhand weapon is used to control the weapon of the Foe. A normal attack roll is made with the offhand weapon, and if a hit is made any damage rolled is applied as a penalty to the Foe's AC for 1 round. 3) the last option is to use the offhand purely defensively to simply Deflect(or block if a shield) an incoming attack using the standard weapon mastery maneuver. 4) the fighter could use the weapon to perform a special maneuver if they have weapon mastery in the offhand weapon

On Adventures vs Campaigns

So kinda inspired by certain posts I've seen around the blogosphere recently and what's been going on in my own recent campaign. 

This kinda goes back to an earlier post I wrote about why I dont like to run adventure modules. I've been running B4 the lost city for one of my groups for a bit now, but I had to take a lot of time to prep for it. Basically I had to rewrite the entire module just so I could run it, I made a few changes to fit with my world, but its mostly unchanged. It went from a 32 page module to 5 pages of notes and redrawn maps(with more detail). I had to do this partly because the module is overly wordy, but mostly because "running a module" just doesn't fit with how I run my world. I had to turn the module into a setting(which ultimately resulted into some really unexpected outcomes)

I've got this one player who keeps asking me to run this or that old module for him, and I keep saying that they exist as locations and he would have to get his pc to make the effort to discover and go to that place(which he finally did for the lost city). Because I use my version of mystara that means that most of the basic line of modules are present in my world, I just don't run them as "adventurers" that I take the party on. 

I run a setting not an adventure. I don't separate between the two. The current actions of the PCs are the adventure, they don't go from one adventure to another, going through a cycle of Dungeons and plots and whatnot. The only real thing separating "adventures" is each individual session we get to play; it's all one continous adventure. The adventure is the players(not the pcs, but the actual players) discovering my world and interacting with it. Without their direct interaction, there is no game. As much effort as I put into the campaign setting it is nothing without someone else playing in it and finding their own adventure. 

It's my job to present the setting, and most assuredly not to give the players an "adventure" to play through; the adventure is created by them.

Mail Call: Avatar RPG

Came home to a beat up package on my doorstep today. Turns out it's the avatar rpg, nothing inside the box was damaged; I was a bit worried because there were some reports of some people receiving damaged books due to mishandling during shipping. I missed the kickstarter,  but got in on the pre-order through backer kit. Without further ado here's some pics

A really nice cloth map

Books of blank paper for play, digest sized

Threshold 30: The City of Alphatia

Threshold # 30 was published a few weeks ago, and includes my article on the city of Alphatia. I take elements from Plato's Dialogues(the original source material on Atlantis), the Stargate franchise, the Eberron campaign setting and the City of Sharn, and the Disney animated Atlantis movie.

It is mostly compatible with the Alphatia as described by Bruce Heard, the biggest differences are the presence of the City of Alphatia, and psionics. Essentially anywhere in the canon description of Alphatia that mention magic users, replace that with "followers of air" who are religious psionicists.

Map of Alphatia

 I've had mapper's/writer's  block the last few weeks, and had almost given upon finishing the article about Alphatia for Threshold. But then today(I guess that would be yesterday as its now 1 am) I had a breakthrough while riding my motorcycle. Below is a simple map of the city; I'm leaving more detailed street level maps for another project. The map is a combination of Stargate's Alantis and Plato's Atlantis. The central hub is a city ship as in Stargate, and the surrounding piers have been built up as add-ons during the centuries that the city has been in place. The city itself is inhabited by the wealthy elites and nobles of the empire, with privilege increasing the closer one gets to the citadel.  The city is floating on a lake at the mouth of Alphas river, and the city of Aasla, inhabited by the common people is on the mainland surrounding the lake.

Maps of Atlantis

 Since most 'maps' of Atlantis that can be found online only focus on the inner inner circles, I drew up a basic sketch of what Plato describes. I plan on using the basic elements for the city of of Alphatia, but it wont be exactly the same, because I also plan to incorporate the design shown in the Stargate tv show.

The Fiction of Atlantis

In preparation for an article and map I will be submitting to Threshold fan magazine, detailing the city of Alphatia modeled on Atlantis, I have been reading Plato's dialogues of Timaeus and Critias. There are many Atlantis proponents who have this notion that Atlantis was a real place and that we can find evidence of it through archeology or other means. They fail to grasp the methods by which Plato wrote and supported his ideas. In the dialogue of Timaeus itself he literally tells us that it is fiction by telling us it is fact:

Critias: And now, Socrates, to make an end my preface, I am ready to tell you the whole tale. I will give you not only the general heads, but the particulars, as they were told to me. The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. Let us divide the subject among us, and all endeavour according to our ability gracefully to execute the task which you have imposed upon us. Consider then, Socrates, if this narrative is suited to the purpose, or whether we should seek for some other instead.

Socrates: And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction? How or where shall we find another if we abandon this? We cannot, and therefore you must tell the tale, and good luck to you; and I in return for my yesterday's discourse will now rest and be a listener.

Here they are referring to an earlier dialogue(The Republic) and stating that the idealized society proposed there actually existed in Athens 9000 years before the days of Solon. using this ancient city of Athens to demonstrate how an ideal republic would function not just as an idea, but in practice. Now did Plato actually think his republic existed in Athens some 9000 in the past? of course not! its a story he created from wholecloth to support his political ideas which he had also created from wholecloth. He most definitely did not base the dialogue in the The Republic on a perfect society that had once actually existed. This entire exercise is a thought experiment and he is attributing the ideal to a past of Athens because he is holding up democratic Athens as a great city, but also criticizing it at the same time saying this is how it should really be.

The story of Atlantis is a complete fiction made up by Plato to prove a point, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to learn to read.