D&D 5e: Playing a Character (1st Tier)

Having played in a campaign for the last eight months or so, we're closing in on the end of the 1st Tier of adventuring (levels 1-4). As such, it's time to update my thoughts on making and playing a 5e character as someone who usually DMs.

Backgrounds:
Before, I posited that Backgrounds Matter, and I'm inclined to think that they still do--perhaps even more than before.

In our campaign, my Bard is a (not immediate) relative of the local dwarven ruling family. Our Ranger is a champion of his tribe. Our Cleric has a vendetta against a goblin, and our Monk is searching for some kind of cosmic balance.

My Bard and the Ranger both have definitive, vested interests in how things play out for our locales. When the local dwarven ruler is being overthrown by a popular rebellion, my character had to choose to support his family or join the dissenters (an easy choice for a loyal dwarf, but one that made for some difficult encounters and fun roleplaying). When the local tribes are threatened by a powerful magic-user, the Ranger used the party as both allies in the fight and a tool to try to convince other settlements to help his own. Both of us had a great time adventuring over the last few levels and had concrete reasons to do so.

On the other hand, our Cleric's ties are less solid. While still having some distant tie to the dwarven rulers (the same as any subject of the dominion), his greatest loyalty is theoretically to his deity and cause. I suspect that with most players this would be sufficient, though our Cleric is being played as a somewhat less religious sort, with the search for adventure and gold, combined with a fealty to the dwarven settlement and a citizenship in the human world, driving the character.

It's our Monk (whose player has played a Rogue for the last several campaigns she's been in) who is the least vested. Unlike the other three characters in the party, she hails from a monastery further south along the Sword Coast and set out for Icewind Dale (where the rest are from) in order to "restore balance." This vague directive came directly from her deity Silvanus--very cool!--but she has yet to "hear" anything else from him, and has not yet sussed out how best to "restore balance." In fact, almost everything the party does could, in some way, be construed to further that goal. As such, she's been feeling a bit adrift. (This listlessness is further fueled by her lack of personal attachment to anyone or anything in the region--why exactly should she stay with the party, anyway?).

I recognize the Monk's deity problem because I experience the same issue in the campaign I'm running as DM; there the Wizard is an acolyte of Oghma and started the campaign off with a divine vision...that just kind of petered out. There was very little fanfare even when she did complete her divinely inspired mission, and since then I've been at a loss as to how much Oghma should interfere. I was somewhat able to solve the issue by encouraging the party to hire a group of Oghmans to set up shop in their favorite town by building a Mage Guildhall. While not ideal, at least it gets the player's background back in the mix!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how our DM will solve this issue for the Monk; she's not likely to encounter fellow monastics in the tundras of Icewind Dale!

Conclusion: 
Backgrounds do matter--more than ever. Integrating a background to the campaign is a joint effort of the DM and the player and it is crucial for the player's enjoyment that he/she put some energy into it and give the DM an idea of what he/she'd enjoy. Similarly, DMs need to periodically offer ways for characters' backgrounds to have bearing on the story being told--preferably in the way of a choice (as when my Bard had to choose between loyalty and popularity, or when the Ranger had to choose between doing what he thought was right, and doing what he was told.) The choices can be foregone conclusions but should at least appear to offer real choice.

"Apprentice" Levels:
The first few levels in 5e are supposed to go by quickly: characters have few resources, few hit points, and a very low experience threshold to reach. In short, it is my opinion that these levels should be surmounted quickly, with perhaps one or two key encounters per level. It's not that I don't think these levels are important, but rather that the party is so quickly out of resources at these levels that it's key to offer opportunities that are carefully tailored to resolve in a single encounter (rather than drag out over several related but draining encounters). Ideally, these encounters provide opportunities for the characters to try out their identities--to develop a personality, to orient toward a goal, to discern a sub-class, etc.

For example, in the campaign I've been running, back in the early parts of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the Paladin had to stand up to an enemy champion who was most assuredly stronger than he was in mortal combat. The decision to do so gave the character direction, nobility, and an in-game goal to revenge himself on the enemy champion (since rather than kill the Paladin, he left him bleeding/dying and "shamed"). As a side note, Hoard does offer a few of these opportunities for early character development, but as an overall module I don't think it gets characters high enough fast enough for the exploits it requires of its characters.

In the campaign I'm a player in--so far--I feel like we've side-stepped a lot of these encounters. As apprentice level adventurers, given a sandbox of choices, we tended to choose the routes to success that were least deadly or most safe. While this did keep all of us alive, I think it also prolonged our initial level progression: rather than facing true danger and thereby earning true experience, we kept circumventing it and avoiding it. As a result, it took (I feel) more sessions to level up to 3 and 4 than it otherwise would have.

Mysteries, "Railroading," and Unveiling the Plot:
The idea of adventure as mystery, as puzzle, or as secret can be pretty compelling. I think some of the best campaigns I've run have revolved around the party trying to put a bunch of disparate clues together to figure out what's really going on.

Having said that, some of the least exciting campaigns I ran were the ones where so much information is hidden, so much is going on behind-the-scenes, or so much is left un-said, that the players have no reason to invest their characters in the adventure, the world, or the quest, and the characters themselves have no clear path to advance the story.

The more sandbox-y an adventure, the more prone it is to this kind of directionlessness. Some players, I know, love this kind of open world adventuring--it's why open-world RPG video games have become so popular--but I think this is deceptive: even in open-world RPGs, there are clearly delineated quests, and the better the game, the more clearly those missions are introduced or spelled out. The player(s) may not have to pursue the quest/mission, but it must be clear what the mission is (even if it's not clear what the mission "does" or who it is for).

One lesson I've learned from being a lowbie in this new campaign is that being left out of the loop sucks. It is important to make the PCs--even at low levels--simultaneously feel knowledgeable and curious. It's a tough balance, but a worthy one.

Conclusion:
When possible, design the first few levels with short, roleplaying-heavy, non-deadly encounters in order to give PCs a quick way to introduce their characters. These should be punctuated by a few nearly unavoidable encounters which allow for player choice within the encounters in order to reveal their characters' goals, personalities, and directions.

Given the constraints of our particular sandbox, I'm quite happy with how our DM handled it, and I look forward to attempting to improve on these lower level experiences the next time I'm in the hotseat of DMing for a low level party.

D&D 5e: Skill Checks, Success, and Statistics

As someone who has run D&D games (of the latest three editions) on and off for the last fifteen years or so, I have gotten into a pretty standard rhythm and take a lot for granted. As I discussed elsewhere, I have finally gotten the chance to play a character in a "normal" campaign (not a one-off, not a total homebrew) and I am very grateful to my new DM for letting me sit on "the other side of the table."

As a result of my new perspective, I've realized that one thing I always took for granted is skill check timing. The pace of a game's skill checks is critical to how certain skills, abilities, and even role-playing strategies are understood, utilized, and effected.

For example, consider how often you (as a DM) or your DM asks for:

• Stealth checks
• Perception checks
• Persuasion checks
• Deception checks

 Let's take Stealth as our exemplar.

• If the check is asked for once per "stealth session," a good roll allows a skilled Rogue to go through an entire castle worth of bad guys undetected.
• If the check is asked for a few times per "stealth session," a good roll allows a skilled Rogue to get in the door--but doesn't quite guarantee success. [As I'll discuss below, theoretically, a bad roll could be mitigated by a second or third check, given the right circumstance.]
• If the check is asked for multiple times per round, a good roll means little--the chance of failure goes up as the number of rolls increases.

This model, I feel, bears out in all of the above skills.

• The key is,  the more rolls a PC has to make in a (certain kind of) skill, the greater the chance for failure in the endeavor.  
• Similarly, and just as important, if only one opportunity for success is offered, the chance for failure feels greater.  
• And lastly, a limited/low number of rolls where a failure can be mitigated by a few successes provides (statistically and, I hope, satisfyingly) the greatest chance of success for PCs. 

My point is, I believe there's a sweet spot between a single skill check and an ever-increasing number of skill checks that ultimately provides the greatest chance at general skill success. (Note: that doesn't mean the DM should always be searching for that sweet spot; it is possible that the chance for success should only be offered in a single check, or that multiple checks should be required. It depends upon the situation.)

For the skeptics, let's try some math to back up my assertions. Using our above example, assume a low-level Rogue has a +4 in Stealth and a +2 proficiency bonus for a total of +6. She wants to sneak into a fort, at night, past two guards who are reasonably alert. There are plenty of places for cover, but it's a fifty-foot trip past the guards and through the doorway at a distance behind them. Seventy-five feet if you want to really take a wide arc.

The DM calls for one stealth check to go the whole way, though it will take about three rounds for the Rogue to traverse the distance (depending on how speedy she is and how slowly she's going). The guards roll (or the DC is) a 15. With a +6, she needs a 9 or better, meaning a 55% success chance. Not great, but not terrible either considering how low a level she is and the difficulty of the DC.

Now, what if the DM calls for a check twice a round for all three rounds? That's a total of six checks, and any one failure among them alerts the guards. The probability of making the check successfully all six times drops to 2.7%! That's unreal. Even if the DM only calls for three checks, assuming one failure fails the batch, the chance for success falls to 30%.

But, what if we add in a safety net?

What if we make it so that a failure can be mitigated by other successes, but keep the three checks? In this case, the math is easier if we look at the odds of two failures happening over three checks and then reverse it. In fact, we can look at our old 30% from our last experiment; it's the same as the failure rate in this one. That means we increase the odds of success from 30% (when you must succeed at all three) to 70% (when you must succeed at only 2 of the 3).

Such a simple change, but it makes a huge difference.

 In other words, a DM can actually increase the success rate of a player's skill checks by adding additional checks provided those additions are offset by a simple one-failure-is-mitigated safety net.

I had stumbled onto this idea intuitively, but only when I saw how another DM was pacing his checks did I realize that I could math my way to a better understanding. Again, I don't endorse using this mechanic all of the time, but the DMs out there can use this information to be mindful of the effects of asking for multiple skill checks. The DCs/opposing-checks are designed (in most cases) to be one-offs, and the more checks you throw the worse the odds are for the PCs. On the other hand, building in the possibility of an "acceptable failure" is a way to increase the odds.

In either case, the key to successfully using this methodology is to generally not let the PCs know what the DC is (when possible) so that you can decide in media res if this particular skill check sequence should have a fail-safe.

Hope this idea is somewhat enlightening! Happy gaming.

D&D 5e: The Hoard of the Dragon Queen

After a lengthy hiatus, I'm back! This time, I'd like to discuss my thoughts on the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure path. For the uninitiated, this is the first "module" for the 5e game. Developed as the first half of the Tyrrany of Dragons campaign, Wizards of the Coast partnered with Kobold Press (and two veteran designers) to produce this book and its companion, Rise of Tiamat.

Spoilers Definitely Ahead.

The group I DM for has finally finished all eight episodes after (roughly) a year of playing between once and twice a month. It took us roughly ten "sessions" of play time to go through the book's contents. The sessions ran from small 2 hour evenings (very rare) to marathon 10 hour die-hards (only once), but on average each session was between three and four hours.

We continued the story of the Lost Mine of Phandelver when starting Hoard of the Dragon Queen. That is, my players' PCs were roughly level 4, had already completed the sandbox-y Lost Mine of Phandelver module and were transitioned into this campaign. I used a transition that involved placing a connection between an encounter the PCs had (innocuous enough) in one of the towns in the Phandelver module and the first episode in the new book. The connection provoked a journey that required a few roleplaying encounters and one combat. For my notes on this transition, see my discussion on the EN World forums.

I will say that this method absolutely worked, and I would recommend it to anyone--particularly new DMs. Indeed, I'm willing to recommend the entire Hoard of the Dragon Queen, provided such a DM is willing to look at the many well-done blogs out there that have homebrew errata to "fix" or avoid some of the issues.

Overall thoughts:

• Structure: The jump from sandbox-y to narrative track was a bit jarring, but for my party (who like a mix of both) it seemed to work well. The key for my group was making sure to continually revisit the goals of the party as we started each session: why are you traveling here? Who are you looking for? What is the end-game here?
• Factions: Having already set the PCs up with faction contacts in LMoP, they enjoyed seeing their factions at work in HotDQ. It also made it easier for me to explain what was happening in many instances by recourse to their knowledge of the factions.
• Objectives: One of the narrative issues for HotDQ is how long it takes the PCs to find out why the Cult is gathering so much treasure. By the end of the first episode it's clear that that's what the Cult is doing, but it can take until the end of the adventure to discern why, and it does take until the end of the adventure to meaningfully stop the treasure train that starts in the first battle. From the DM side, this seems like a lot of excellent foreshadowing. From the PC side, it's a fairly long and convoluted scheme that is somewhat unsatisfying to plod through. ("There's another place this treasure is going? How far are they hauling it?!")
• Realistic Villains: Again, one narrative issue in any campaign is the realism of villains. The villains that were most effective for my group were the straightforward ones: Cyanwrath (the half-dragon champion in Greenest) and Glazhael (the white dragon at the end). The least effective were the ones that (see above) had seemingly inscrutable motives for too long: the Red Wizards, Blogothkus, Rezmir, etc. Indeed, the "helpful" NPCs were much more interesting: the gnome they met on the road and Snapjaw the Lizardman, for example.

 

•  Epic Locales: One thing HotDQ does right is give a (however brief) survey of the Sword Coast and provide some truly amazing locations for the PCs. 
• Pro: A flying castle? That will be talked about for years!
• Pro: A swampy castle with a teleportation circle and a magical telescope wins some points.
• Pro: A dragon hatchery for low level adventurers was a great way to get the dragon-heavy setting early on without a fight with a wyrmling.
• Pro: Even the much maligned "road trip" earns some favor: the encounter with the Golden Hind/Stag is still being talked about months later.
• Con: A roadside fort? Boring.
• Con: Walking through two of the setting's biggest and coolest cities...and doing nothing cool in them? What the heck is the point? Why not just use back-roads?

 With the overall done, I just want to briefly examine the eight episodes and give my strongest thoughts on each. It should be noted that my thoughts below are most useful to DMs looking to run the adventure; players may feel more bored than usual!

Episode 1: Greenest in Flames

Having read a lot to the contrary, I do think that having a giant flying killing machine (blue dragon) and a bunch of raiders attacking Greenest is a great set piece. It was incredibly memorable, and made for a great evening of playing. The major issue was that the encounters simply weren't balanced; they couldn't be because of the flux the rules were in when it was written. Having the party already be level 4 helped a lot, but there were still some modifications that had to be made. Still, saving the keep from the dragon, saving innocents from the temple, and getting refugees off the street were deeply satisfying heroic deeds for my players.

Episode 2: The Raiders' Camp

For some parties, this episode might have been the most fun of all. For mine, it was anxiety causing. This was, once again, an issue of clear objectives: how can we find out what's going on without getting ourselves killed? It's a tough question to answer when no one in the group wants to get everyone else killed by being a ham or asking the wrong question or sticking his/her nose into the wrong tent! Because my players were so reserved, they weren't having the fun of an infiltration but rather the stress of being hunted. There was one hilarious moment however when the party's Rogue (Assassin) had killed a sentry and the sentry's buddy had started meandering over (having heard a noise). With nowhere to hide, she started making out with the corpse; the ruse worked and the guard left her alone. The most puzzling thing for my group (it seemed) was what to do with Leosin; take him at his word, or actually rescue him? The lack of a clear choice bugged them greatly, adding to their stress levels.

Episode 3: The Dragon Hatchery

Again, a lot of modifications would be necessary to run this with lower level characters. Even the fifth level party that was fighting through it in my case found some of the encounters challenging. Weirdly, my PCs didn't find any of the "interesting" reveals until after encountering the dragon hatchery. As a result, finding the maps/intel was anti-climactic. The highlight for them was probably the fight with Cyanwrath. Fully prepared, and fighting with allies, the Paladin who fought him first soundly trashed him this time.

Episode 4: On the Road

Amid the controversy of HotDQ, this episode seems the crux of it all. Some groups loved it and their DMs lovingly and longingly built a more involved framework for the route, stopping with side quests as appropriate. Others (me included) saw running it as a kind of DM purgatory; I pre-rolled all of the random charts/encounters and simply cut out anything that I didn't think the party would enjoy. As much as possible, we breezed through the long, long days of travel with few--if any--encounters. Even the roleplaying encounters were largely brushed aside or "recapped." Rather than try to work in the cultists as spies, I would just say (many days later) that they'd felt like they were being watched. As said earlier, the highlight was the weirdness of some of the encounters: the fungus, the stag, the merchants. Those were fun.

Episode 5: The Carnath Roadhouse

I'm not entirely sure I can convey my dislike for this part of the story, but here it goes: for several sessions, the PCs have been acting like spies. They're imagining themselves as James Bond. Then, they get to the Roadhouse, and the Lizardfolk open the wardrobe to Narnia. Suddenly, instead of being a spy story, it's become a tale of Hogwarts, starting with the station at King's Cross. The problem is that there are no clues left to tell the PCs that the narrative is changing. The result was that the PCs settle in, discover the Lizardfolk are stealing the treasure, and feel like they have to make a choice: follow the Lizardfolk who-knows-where or continue to investigate the Roadhouse. It seems as though the Lizardfolk are some kind of interruption rather than a continuation of the investigation. Thankfully, my group's players were okay to follow the Lizardfolk, but I could very easily see PCs deciding it's the cultists who are far more important to follow than the treasure--after all, the Lizardfolk seem like thieves! There's nothing tying them to the cult except that they've taken the cult's treasure. Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old man, but this lack of motivation bugs me. If done right, this episode should take about five minutes. If done poorly, the PCs waste all kinds of time, earn no xp, find no treasure, and the Lizardfolk get a ridiculous head start. And realistically, I feel like the cunning PCs are more likely to choose the latter; I was probably overwhelming in my support of going after the Lizardfolk to help my party avoid that fate.

Episode 6: Castle Naerytar

Great location. Excellent motivations for the groups/organizations involved. Very difficult to run. I understand that the designers wanted the place to feel like a living and breathing place--one that responds to the actions of the PCs--but it was maddening trying to control all of those moving parts while also running a session. The motivations of individuals were difficult to pin down--and most were written in disparate parts of the book. As a result, I basically had to brainstorm a bunch of different scenarios, keep track of where certain parties would be at certain times, and wing the rest. It worked out, the players had fun, and I think that all the necessary pieces are present (when you include the designers errata), but it's still a pain to run. I think providing one sample path of what might happen and where the individual players might be at a given moment would go far toward helping DMs construct a useful blueprint of their actions. Similarly, having a cheat-sheet (similar to the one in the back of Rise of Tiamat or in the background section of LMoP) would be incredibly helpful.

Episode 7: The Hunting Lodge

Like Episode 5, this felt like the kind of episode that was a side quest which happened to have main quest pieces stuck on it for flavor. If done correctly, the PCs could treat with Talis and be done in minutes. If done poorly, the PCs might be eaten by a troll patrol and never even know where they are. Again, the mission is transitioning; the treasure is so far ahead at this point that it won't be found in the Lodge, but PCs have to pick up on that (or the players do, at least). In the end, roleplaying Talis was fun and (I hope) memorable. It did provide one opportunity to see that the cult's leaders were not slavish pawns, but ambitious men and women.

Episode 8: Skyreach Castle

I loved this episode, but holy cow, so much could go wrong. The PCs could be discovered; any one of the interested parties could betray them; any fight could bring the whole castle down on them; Blogothkus might decide it's easier to squash them than listen to them; Glazhael might eat them; a vampire might eat them; the castle might crash--with them inside it. The list is unending. It's almost past the point of verisimilitude unless the PCs are extremely good at sneaking around and being diplomatic. A party of barbaric fighters and their uncharismatic fire wizard would be dead before they even learned how many enemies they were going to be facing. That aside, the best part of this episode is that the PCs finally start learning what's going on.

Conclusion: In the end, while I do like the storyline being presented, I suspect that Rise of Tiamat will be superior (to run), and I definitely can't wait to do a campaign arc that is entirely contained in one book and which doesn't have the problem of being written while the game rules are still being finished!

D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 3)

In my first look at converting the Artificer into a 5e playable option, I considered how best to make it happen. After settling on Artificer as a 5e class (instead of a sub-class or archetype), I considered how to solve the problem of the Artificer being a permanent magic item craftsman in the Part 2. In this third installment, I'd like to consider the much fussier and probably less easily balanced art of Artificer "spells." In other words, how should infusions work in 5e?

In 3e, infusions (as cast by Artificers) had a few key characteristics that are worth remembering:

• Infusions are not spells, though they often mimic spell effects
• Infusions only go up to 6th level/circle; the Artificer was a hybrid class with a similar progression to a 3e Bard, where 6th tier spells are the cap.
• Infusions often have a casting time of one minute.
• Infusions often have costly material components or even experience point costs.

When we think about what "pitfalls" we might encounter when converting to 5e, a few things spring to mind:

• There are no more "6-circle" spellcasters. There are full casters (9 tiers/circles/levels), hybrid casters (5 tiers/circles/levels), and "faux" casters (4 tiers/circles/levels).
• Many of the original infusions were mimicking a system in which wizards/clerics buffed the party before combat with a variety of overlapping spells; this was a system without 5e's concentration rules.
• Many of the Artificer's spells reference Use Magic Device; a skill that no longer exists.
• At least in the playtest documents, warforged (usually the primary recipient/target of the Artificer's construct-related abilities) are now considered fully alive; healing spells cast on them are no longer halved in value, making Artificers less necessary in a warforged-heavy party. In fact, I'm not even sure that the "repair" line of spells/infusions is necessary in this environment.

So to reconcile these disparate pieces:

1. Should an Artificer be a full caster (9 levels of infusions) or a hybrid caster (5 levels)? (I'm assuming that an Artificer's infusions are more important to the class than an Arcane Trickster's few wizard spells, or an Eldritch Knight's offensive repertoire.)
2. Should infusions still be "separate" from spellcasting, or are infusions to be treated as spells that happen to only target items?
3. Should infusions continue to hold fast to the cost/experience model?
4. What replaces Use Magic Device, if anything?

Finally, since we're still dealing with just a base class (and not any archetypes yet) we can afford to allow the Artificer to be a tad underpowered compared with other classes; the gap can allow for some flexibility in the archetypes.

My first instinct tells me to try Artificers as hybrid casters, and to give them more infusions per day to compensate for them note being "full casters". After all, the Bard has been upgraded, why not the Artificer? Unfortunately, I think that ruins a very elegant system by adding another variable. Similarly, the original infusion progression is quite light; I think we either need to commit to Artificers being "full" spellcasters and assign them a full spell list (for example, give them access to Cleric spells or  Wizard spells) or commit to them using the hybrid progression. For now, let's consider the hybrid progression, but we'll assign them a single 1st level infusion slot at first level (hybrid casters don't start casting until second level).

If we stick to that idea, Artificers (under the current class model) will have light armor, simple weapons, no offensive spells, no cantrips, and only a scant few infusions per level even at the upper echelons of play.

All right, clearly that won't work.

On the other hand, if we assign a full spell list (say, the Cleric list), we're assigning a huge role (healing) that didn't exist in the 3e Artificer.  Of course, this did exist in 4e, so it's not entirely out of reach. If we make Artificers spellcasters, and give them the clerical spellcasting type (cleric spell list, cantrips, progression, and preparation procedure and number of spells), we're basically back to the Artificer as an archetype of the Cleric class. Not ideal!

Back to the drawing board.

This may be where the Warlock's unorthodox spellcasting can come in handy.  If we assume that Artificers are spellcasters, but that unlike Wizards (whose studies are formal, and whose manipulation of the Weave is based on training in an artful science) or Sorcerers (whose studies are of the self, and whose manipulation of the Weave is natural and based on the science of art), the Artificer is a muddled, idiosyncratic mimicry of other spellcasters--some science, some art, all based on research and observation (rather than tradition or talent).

Perhaps as a Wizard has a spellbook, a Cleric has a holy symbol, and a Warlock has a pact item, an Artificer could have an implement/weapon that is the focus of all spellcasting. For example, an Artificer doesn't "cast" Ray of Frost, but would rather be imbuing his staff, wand, or other implement with the power to cast it--and cast it. Cantrips become (for the Artificer) spells that are stored in the implement until needed by the Artificer, which can only be called forth by the Artificer.

An Artificer could have an implement (reminiscent of 4e) which could be the focus of most Artificer spellcasting. This particular object could be mundane or magical, but it is in some way bound to the Artificer (like attunement? short rest required to change implements?). In this way, the Artificer would not (for example) be casting  the spell straight out, but would actually be funneling magic through the implement.

Another piece of Warlock spellcasting that would probably make sense for the Artificer is the reset of spell slots each short rest rather than long rest. A smaller number of slots combined with the quick recovery of those slots means that Artificers are less likely to be able to break the new concentration rules because they won't have the means to do so (all at once, anyway).

Since this discussion is already well into deep water, let's finish out this theory and see where it takes us. For 5e:

• Artificers are spellcasters. They "cast" their infusions. For our purposes, Artificers casting spells is identical to casting infusions. (With the following restriction...)
• Artificers still may not cast spells directly, but rather must infuse an object with the spell. This can either be in the form of a "buff" (spell stays in the object) or in the form of a temporary magic item creation (as in the case of making a one-charge wand to cast magic missile).
• This will need some clarification down the line. Do Artificers both infuse and cast the spell from the focus item at the same time? Is there a delay?
• Artificers use the Wizard spell list to learn spells from.
• Artificers "know" certain spells from the Wizard list.
• Artificers use the Warlock progression for spells, with a few key differences.
• Artificers know their "Cantrips Known" from the Wizard list.
• Artificers know their "Spells Known" from the Wizard list.
• Artificers use the "Invocations Known" list to choose spells from any spell list. This functions like the Bard's "Magical Secrets" ability, but comes much sooner. 
• Similar to what is stated in the Warlock entry, one spell per Artificer level gained may be swapped out as the Artificer gains experience points/levels.
•  Spells learned must be of a spell level the Artificer is capable of casting.
• Artificers may choose to learn an additional cantrip, however only this cantrip may be changed out later. (Artificers cannot use this ability to learn a new cantrip then get rid of one they learned as a first level Artificer.)
• Artificers' "Spell Slots" and "Slot Level" mechanics function as a Warlock.
• Artificers may only cast spells if they have a spell slot remaining (except cantrips)
• Spell slots recharge after a short rest 
• One small change: beginning at 13th level, the Artificers spell slots become 6th level.
• Artificers use their implement as a focus for spellcasting.
• The implement may be a weapon, shield, or other handheld object.
• It may be magical or mundane.
• For the Artificer to cast spells, he/she must be attuned (as with a magic item, although this attunement doesn't count against the limit of three magic items. If, however, the chosen item must already be attuned in order to be used, that attunement must be done separately--and in that case counts against the total of 3).

Just a few more items to consider--the ones that break the bank, so to speak.

• Artificers ignore concentration. Because the Artificer is infusing an item with magic, once a spell is cast, it remains in the item and doesn't need to be concentrated on for the duration.
• After a short or long rest, any spells cast expire, even if their duration would normally be longer than that short/long rest.

 I am hopeful that the limited spell slots granted to an Artificer make this (concentration) less of an issue. Can an Artificer make four people invisible simultaneously? Sure, but only if they're 17th level or above, and even then they have no other magical powers until they've taken a rest (except cantrips). Can an Artificer heal? Sure, but only if they use one of their (total of) eight out-of-list spells on learning a healing spell. Can an Artificer cast fireball? Sure, but it'll use up one of the Artificer's scant few spell slots!


So let's return to our questions:

1. Should an Artificer be a full caster (9 levels of infusions) or a hybrid caster (5 levels)?
   An Artificer should be based on the Warlock model, ending with six tiers of spells, at drastically reduced spell slots.
2. Should infusions still be "separate" from spellcasting, or are infusions to be treated as spells that happen to only target items?
   Both. Infusions are spells, but Artificers still focus their castings through a particular implement item.
3. Should infusions continue to hold fast to the cost/experience model?
   Not for the moment. If we bring in some of the old infusions from the 3e class, it may be prudent to do so.
4. What replaces Use Magic Device, if anything?
   For now, since we're not using any of the old infusions, we don't need this skill. If (as in an archetype) we discover a need for this, it's possible that an Arcana skill will be functional.

To round things out, I think all we'll need are some archetypes. I'll try to consider one (or more) of those in a future post. For now, I think we need one that makes the Artificer more of an implement user (think of the old wand specialists), one that makes the Artificer more of a skill user (closer to a bard/rogue with a variety of skills and/or languages), and one that makes the Artificer more of a constructer (i.e. the old-school Artificer who used homunculi and build machines).

The last thing to be ironed out before we delve into archetypes (and therefore likely the topic of the next post) will be starting proficiencies and basic class features. Until then, please feel free to comment below with any suggestions for tweaking this "alpha draft" Artificer build!

D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 2)

In the last post, I examined the problems with casting the Artificer as a subclass of one of the existing classes, eventually proposing that while that may be the most pleasing solution in terms of limiting game bloat, that it is not the best solution for the Artificer. Indeed, (I proposed) the best solution appears to be the exceptional one: the Artificer should be its own class.

After examining the first level abilities of the Artificer in the last post, we can continue to examine its other abilities. I'm going to set aside the much bigger question of infusions for now; we'll come back to it later.

Technically, I had left out the "Scribe Scroll" portion of the Artificer's first level abilities, but I'd like to address that alongside the general "Item Creation" extraordinary ability at second level.

 The basic outline is this: as Artificers level up, they gain the ability to craft magic items of each tier with greater and greater ease. The qualities to be considered are: the type (scroll, armor, weapon, wondrous, etc.) and the rarity (common, uncommon, rare, ultra rare). A third category may be the permanence of an item (one-use versus persistent), but that's often taken care of in the other two categories. 

• Item Creation: Starting at second level, an Artificer gains insight into the creation of permanent (both one-use and persistent) magical items. As the Artificer gains experience and  power, these insights become more numerous and more valuable. As with all magical item creation, it is up to the DM to outline the necessary parts/features required to create magic items.
• At 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th, Artificers gain access to new rarities of item creation.
• At 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th, Artificers gain the ability to ignore one ingredient to the magic item recipe at the various levels of rarity.
• At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, Artificers' item creation costs are discounted by 25% at the various levels of rarity.
• At 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th, Artificers gain the ability to ignore a second ingredient in the magic item recipes at the various levels of rarity. (Legendary-tier items cannot have more than one ingredient ignored.)
• These item creation bonuses apply only to item types for which the Artificer can craft.

Using the third edition progression as a baseline, the new item creation round-up might look something like this:

• Scribe Scroll: Starting at second level, an Artificer's close association with magical and pseudo-magical scripts gives him the ability to create magical scrolls. These scrolls may only be of levels for which the Artificer can cast infusions. [This will need tweaking as we deal with the infusions mechanics]. An Artificer may scribe a scroll for a spell which he has an existing copy or demonstration of only. For example, an Artificer may duplicate a scroll in his possession, may mimic a spell from a wizard's spellbook, or may scribe a scroll from a spell known by a cooperating and ever-present spellcaster who is assisting in the preparation and crafting of the scroll.
• Brew Potion: Starting at fourth level, an Artificer is capable of brewing magical potions and elixirs. 
• Craft Wondrous Item: At fifth level, an Artificer gains the ability to craft wondrous items.
• Craft Magic Arms and Armor: At sixth level, an Artificer gains the ability to craft magical arms and armor.
•  Craft Wand: At eighth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic wands.
• Craft Rod: At tenth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic rods.
• Craft Staff: At thirteenth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic staffs.
• Forge Ring: At fifteenth level, an Artificer may begin forging magic rings.

We can abridge our earlier chart and add the new information to it:

With all of this in mind, there are a few things that still need to be discussed (or at least mentioned).

First, I've left out a few items on this original list: craft homunculus seemed somewhat unnecessary, as did the ability to take ten on a skill that doesn't really exist anymore. Retaining essences is an interesting idea, but I think it doesn't have a place in a magic item creation system that doesn't run on experience points. I also left out all discussion of metamagic feats and magical items. It seems to me that metamagic has been made the exclusive domain of the Sorcerer--one of the few things that has been given to a class that (at this point anyway) seems to be shunned in favor of the other primary spellcasting classes. Taking metamagic creation and giving it to the Artificer would just be mean.

Second, I removed all of the bonus feats. Those bonus feats are (in 5e lingo) the kind of specialization that should be left to archetypes. I'll have to develop a basic archetype for the Artificer, but until I do, I'm going to leave him without the bonus feats (or the "craft reserve").

Third, as you may have noticed, I bumped all of the item creation "feats" by exactly one level. 
I thought about bumping the earlier ones by two levels in honor of the first few levels of 5e being "apprentice" levels, but decided against it in order to preserve the elegance of the original design. The single-level bump still makes it so Artificers are not necessary for item creation, but rather strongly encouraged.

Fourth, while there are definite guidelines for magical item creation in the Dungeon Master's Guide, I'm giving DMs a lot of latitude with these rules. Nowhere does it spell out exactly what is needed to create a given magic item. For now, that's up to the DM--though I could see a system easily falling into place. (For example, maybe the costs in the DMG represent only the gold costs for magical powders and inks used in the creation of all magical items, but different rarities of magic item also call for different numbers of additional ingredients. A common potion of cure wounds might need only the base cost and two additional items; an uncommon potion of cure wounds might need three.) These requirements could easily be scaled by the DM to fit whatever level of magic is required for the campaign. (In this respect, I could even see Artificers in non-Eberron settings--just jack up the requirements per magic item. Having said that, I think it may be so punishing that it's not worth it for players to pursue it. More on that later.) A high-magic Eberron campaign might lower the number of ingredients required, while a "standard" campaign might find the numbers I propose to be functional. Each DM can calibrate by adding or subtracting ingredients across the board.

Fifth (and finally?), it should be mentioned that this entire (series of) post(s) is devoted to how to make a 5e magic-item-crafting Artificer. In a non-Eberron campaign, I am uncertain that such a class has a place. For example, I don't think I'll be allowing my own players to playtest this class in our Forgotten Realms campaign; it's not the right flavor/fit. If we accept that the Artificer is an Eberron-only (or at least, primarily Eberron-exclusive) class, a lot of the balance issues start to fall away in favor of the higher magic environment.

Next time, we'll tackle another piece of the puzzle. In the meantime, let me know what your own thoughts are on the initial magic-item-line of the Artificer's repertoire!

D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 1)

Eberron's beauty lies in many things. To make that beauty accessible, I think we have to articulate two iconic components: the warforged race and the artificer class.

The warforged race is (comparatively) easy to shoe-horn into an existing campaign. Many, many, people have already made excellent--even exceptional--attempts to come up with appropriate ports for the warforged. One of them would likely suit anyone's game! As such, I think we can set the warforged aside and focus on the much more peculiar conundrum of the Artificer class.

At least three solid "hacks" of existing character classes have been put forward to address the void: Cleric, Warlock, and the "official" option--Wizard. Some have bandied about the idea of a Bard hack--promising, but I have yet to see anyone make the attempt.

I'm least partial to the "official" Wizard option.  Using a Wizard Tradition to create super-temporary magical effects just turns the Artificer into a wizard with a few delayed spell effects. This seems neither in keeping with Keith Baker's original vision for the class nor with a hearty sense of fun!

The Warlock option has some interesting merits, but it's still lacking the full flavor and it still seems weaker in many respects.

Baker's playtest-worthy hack is built on the Cleric chassis, using the idea of "Artifice" as a new cleric domain. This seems somewhat reasonable, particularly considering his list of features. According to Baker (as the inventor/creator of the Eberron), the 3.5 Artificer had several key features:

• "Simple weapon proficiency
• Light and Medium armor proficiency, proficient with shields
• The ability to disable traps like a rogue.
• An exceptional talent for creating permanent magic items.
• The ability to create temporary magic items using infusions. This system had some similarities to spellcasting. The basic list of infusion effects was very limited, focusing on effects to enhance the abilities and equipment of the artificer and allies and the ability to disable or repair constructs and objects… and the unique abilities I mentioned before.
• Many of the artificer’s most useful and versatile infusions had a base casting time of 1 minute; this could be reduced to 1 round by burning an action point."

The first three options are easily taken care of whether we "hack" an old class or jump-start a new one.

The last one is also easily remedied. Under the core rules, one might even use inspiration instead of an action point. (Though action points would be easily re-entered if the setting of the campaign is Eberron.)

The second to last one is fussy, but not insurmountable. Because the list is so limited, a dedicated look at the Artificer infusions list (combined with some soul-searching about the new concentration rules and how not to completely break them) may yield some positive results. Maybe we'll come back to this one.

The real humdinger is lodged squarely in the middle: "an exceptional talent for creating permanent magic items." In the 3.X universe where every item had a cost that was easily referenced, the formula used to help Artificers fulfill this function as magic item factories were stable and accessible. In the 5e universe where (at best) items belong to vague categories (common, uncommon, rare, etc.) with loose price ranges attached, this becomes more cumbersome.

I think that while the most elegant solution would be to create a bard sublcass (the jack-of-all-trades feel and utility spell list seem to mesh much better than the flashy, offensive spells of a wizard or the healing-heavy, divine-tempered list of a cleric), the exceptional solution may be the preferred one here: creating (re-creating) the Artificer as a new 5e base class.

If we model the Artificer on its 3e counterpart and simply update to to 5e, we can probably find a clear track to make it happen.

A look at the first level reveals the following:

• Artificer Knowledge was a great way for Artificers to have (what would now be) the Detect Magic ritual: (no spell slots required, but it also couldn't be done in a round). I think we can replace this with something similar:
• Ritual Caster: You have a "ritual tome" which mimics a wizard's spellbook with several key differences. You may only scribe new spells into it that have the ritual tag. These spells must be scribed from scrolls containing the spell (they are not learned from any other means). Even another Artificer's ritual tome cannot be used to gain additional rituals. Artificer ritual tomes use unique codes and cyphers to explain the way to mimic a spell in the idiosyncratic science of artifice, and is therefore uniquely useful only to the Artificer who scribed it. The artificer may scribe spells from any list (provided that they contain the ritual tag). When casting rituals from the ritual tome, the spell takes roughly twice as long as a normal ritual (i.e. initial casting time, plus twenty minutes). This additional time represents the difference between an active spellcaster manipulating arcane/divine energies to cast a spell and the artificers tinkered, ad hoc mimicry of those same energies. At first level, your ritual tome starts with Detect Magic scribed into it.
•  Craft Reserve was absolutely the way that Artificers were able to create any magic items without immediately falling behind the rest of their party in experience points. In a post-formula magic item creation environment, the role of this feature is less clear. More to come on this in later level discussions.
• Weapon and Armor proficiencies are a stickier wicket. Most people want to give Artificers the same proficiencies they had in 3e. That might be possible, but I suspect that they're going to have a lot going for them already. To counteract this, I'm going to start by proposing that Artificers are proficient with light armor and shields (but not medium armor), and all simple weapons. Racial backgrounds or multiclassing can still pick up some slack here for those who desperately desire the slightly heavier armor, but the base class will be that much less overpowered.
• Artisan Bonus is another throwback. Perhaps it can be combined with another former ability?
• Disable Trap would make a fine admixture.
• Tools: Artificers are proficient in thieves tools and one artisan's tool set of their choice.
• Infusions can possibly work the same way they do in 3e, with some adjustments for concentration rules and (of course) the actual porting of the infusions into 5e.

What are your own thoughts on this conundrum? Feel free to toss in a comment if you have something constructive to add! Look forward to Part 2 for how my 5e Artificer class shapes up in levels beyond the 1st.

D&D 5e: Experience and Character Advancement

I touched on this briefly before, in my first entry on how the rules affect the players in fifth edition, but I think this topic bears a brief follow up. This is especially true as more and more DMs consider how best to hand out experience or advance their players' characters in level.

Skyflourish recently considered a very interesting method for Adventure League or casual play where some players may not be able to make each session. This proposal (adjusted or partial milestoning) smooths out some of the bumps in public play and allows perfect attendance to still be suitably rewarding without unduly punishing players who can't always make it.

Even so, this proposal seems to indicate that in the end a DM needs to ultimately fall on one side or the other: either give out experience points for each monster kill or quest completed, or else dole out experience when PCs hit milestones. Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that if you do any actual combination of both that PCs will be hard for the DM to manage and may result in rewards being, frankly, less individually rewarding.

I'd like to offer an alternative. While I'm still running my friends through our first campaign in the 5e ruleset, I'm confident this solution will be useful to the DM and encourage the players to see individual rewards as beneficial, useful, and special.

Let's say, hypothetically, that players are fourth level. Their current quest involves investigating the disappearance of a missing elven noble from her woodland court, and the next milestone will occur when they discover (through whatever means) that she was abducted by her illegitimate half-brother, the half-elf who has hitherto been patron to the PCs. The standard path to discover the secret will result in an award of enough experience to take the PCs to fifth level. Alternatively, a DM could award the fifth level as a milestone.

• If the PCs follow the path of least resistance, they might discover the half-brother's involvement in three or fewer encounters (i.e. a hunch from a character, a few great skill checks, and an investigation of the half-brother's mansion). In this scenario, ordinarily milestone experience is a boon to the players because they'd advance in level without a lot of traditional experience gain.
• If they follow the most likely path prepared by the DM, it might take six or even ten encounters (the half-brother could realize he's in danger and send them on a wild goose chase to a neighboring town, kingdom, or dungeon. Random encounters in the forest combined with an assassination attempt would spur the PCs to see that someone they know is in on the plot). In this case, either milestone or traditional experience gain would see PCs suitably rewarded for their efforts.
• If the PCs "go off the rails" entirely and ignore the missing elf noble in favor of whatever errand the half-brother has sent them on, they might explore an entire dungeon complex and recover a magic item for their patron--one that has nothing to do with the milestone originally set out that would advance the campaign. In this method, players would be desperate to have their characters hit the milestone (and a good DM would likely award the magic item's recovery as a milestone in this instance) but the dungeon exploration might include upwards of fifteen encounters before all is said and done--a real windfall for traditional experience groups, but not necessarily for the milestone camp.
• If the PCs just have a rough session--terrible dice rolls, some bad leads/hunches, or just a combat that goes poorly and sets them back--the players may similarly end up slogging through several more encounters than they might otherwise have normally encountered before realizing that it's there is a connection between the elf's kidnapping and her half-brother's patronage of the party. In this scenario, it could go either way (a few rough encounters might take all night, but the characters may still discover what they needed to; alternatively, a night of fighting their way out of an awful situation might have included a dozen encounters).

So how do we allow the party to advance in all four possible ways at a pace that seems appropriate?

Here's how I'd run each option:

• In the first case, the PCs have--through pluck, luck, skill, or all of the above--done an amazing feat. As they adventured, they were awarded encounter experience, but upon hitting the milestone, I'd award the difference to fifth level.
• In the second case, the PCs have followed a relatively predictable track. If they hit fifth level before hitting the milestone, so much the better; they keep whatever "overage" they've collected, and the milestone is acknowledged, but ignored for reward purposes. The PCs start toward the sixth-level milestone with some experience toward sixth level.
• In the third case, the trials and tribulations of the PCs hopefully result in reaching fifth level--and possibly a significant amount toward sixth. No mention is made of the milestone because it wasn't achieved. As the PCs wend their way back toward their supposed mission, they will eventually hit the milestone (where it will be acknowledged, but ignored for reward purposes). Alternatively, the milestone may pass the PCs by--maybe the noble was murdered while the PCs went spelunking in the dungeon, and the half-brother has committed to a coup to overthrow his elven family's court and take his "rightful place." Now the milestone involves discovering a way to stop the madness of their former patron; this new milestone represents a significant change in the campaign's direction based on the PCs actions. It's up to the DM to determine whether this new milestone should be the fifth or sixth level milestone.
• The final case could also go any way. Either it will end up like the first case (milestone awarded) or like the second-or-third case (so much combat/exploration/interaction experience awarded that the milestone is surpassed), or like the alternative third case (the campaign moves in a new direction; milestones are reassessed).

The bottom line is this:
If the PCs will level first from accruing traditional experience, they level up. If they would level up first from hitting a milestone, they level up. Generally, if the PCs level up from the traditional  experience, finishing the encounters that were "balanced" or "prepared" for their previous level will be a tad easier, but not a pushover. Similarly, if the PCs are awarded a milestone sooner than they otherwise would have, they're in appropriate shape for the harder encounters planned in the next stage of the adventure.

For those of you running Hoard of the Dragon Queen with a party that just finished The Lost Mine of Phandelver, you may see this method as particularly helpful. The players enter Hoard a lot more powerful than first level characters, but their experience gains from the encounters are not so vast that the level gap remains; by the time the characters hit the fifth or sixth episode, they're likely to be only fifth level--but they did make it all the way to fifth on the traditional experience gains (since the milestones only activated if they were levels one-through-three).

This also solves the problem of lower-level party members. If a level 3 character is adventuring with level 6 characters, when the level 6 characters hit a milestone that was budgeted as a level 4 milestone, the level three character levels up. The others don't.

I don't necessarily think this "catch-all" will work for everyone, but I think it's a useful model, and more importantly I think it enhances the fun involved for everyone.

Happy leveling!

D&D 5e: A Case for Eberron

There's been a lot of talk on the interweb about what campaign setting (if any) Wizards of the Coast should be looking into publishing next. Or soonest. Or most profitably. Or ever.

You get the idea.

Without going into excruciatingly unique or idiosyncratic detail, I want to offer a brief pitch for one particular setting to be brought up to speed in 5e.

Dungeons and Dragons--and indeed most traditional RPGs--have a particular, familiar, comfortable format. From Tolkien, through Chainmail, and into the "modern" era of gaming: sword-and-sorcery; dwarves, elves, and "hobbits"; mysterious but often predictable magic; Euro-centric medievalism; and heroes who are born to look for power gain, glory, and gold. I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with this; I love playing "standard" D&D, whether it takes place in a homebrew setting, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or what-have-you.

However, there is more to D&D than these (awesome) traditions.

When I was first introduced to the Eberron campaign setting, it changed the way I saw D&D. More than that, it changed the way I realized that stories could be told. I'm sure every "true believer" has their own story of why their precious setting should be the next one that Wizards updates to the new edition, but here are just a few reasons I think Eberron should be it. (Disclaimer: I am no expert on the setting. In fact, the very idea that I'm not an expert in it and I'm advocating for it is one of my minor points in its favor!)

I'll start with the obvious/overt:

• Eberron's "new" items (warforged and artificers, to give just a single example) provide fresh material for those who come to D&D and see only what they've already encountered in traditional fantasy literature--up to and including Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore and countless others.
• The twists on traditional roles (good undead, sentient machines, elves as recovering slaves, etc.) introduce the right mix of familiarity and novelty. 
• Magic-as-technology bridges many play-style gaps and allows Roland and Edward to play right alongside Gandalf, Conan, and Cadderly.
• Steampunk, a movement that seemed like a passing fad in the early 2000s when Eberron came on the scene, persists--even thrives. A return to Eberron touches on all those cosplayers and crafters who think in terms of airships and machines without electronics.
• In terms of game mechanics, 5e's focus on character as mechanic would flourish: ideals, bonds, flaws, and especially backstory are nothing new to players in Eberron. Belonging to a noble house or being a scion of a great nation or being a new-forged mechanical being or, well, not being one of those things means a great deal even if you're only doing a dungeon crawl: dragonmarks, racial abilities, and other game mechanics were already hinging on these now-codified pieces.
• Keith Baker left much of his world undefined. That means there's plenty of room for the loremaster DM who wants to know who lives where, why, for how long, etc. and the fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants zero-prep DM and the homebrew expert who fills in the gaps with his own fanfic that's better than published fantasy.
• Wizards has clearly seen the need for the setting: it commissioned it in the early 2000s and updated it into its fourth edition--an honor only shared by two other settings (and only one from the previous edition).

 Some less standard thoughts:

• Eberron has just had its great cataclysm.
• The Last War is fresh, gritty, and real--but also over. What's left is a world that is ripe for new stories to be told. The "average" setting's earth-shaking events either happened in aeons past or are about to happen. Eberron takes a uniquely different path by offering characters the chance to be a part of something much more difficult than standing at the precipice of a cataclysm: standing up amidst the rubble shortly after.
• There is a relative newness to the "recorded history" of the kingdoms of Eberron. 

• Dragons or aliens or even giants may have once been in charge and held long complicated histories--but they aren't humans (or demihumans). Elves and dwarves aren't the "elder races" anymore (and neither are humans). That means the Last War isn't just a terrible cataclysm, it's the terrible cataclysm as far as 95% of the world the PCs interact with is concerned.
• Everything inhuman is that much more alien.
• Speaking of the 95%, the other 5% becomes rare, strange, and exotic.
• Exploring makes sense. 
• In a new world, with alien creatures and exotic discoveries to be made, exploration is not just a romp through bandit-infested forests or spider-filled caverns. Exploration becomes a way of life; whole sectors of the globe are uncharted--or perhaps even more interestingly, the charts themselves are so out of date as to be dangerously inaccurate. Eberron craves adventurers naturally to solve, search, and explore.
• The playstyle (film noir meets bursts of action meets movie-style scenes meets investigation and problem-solving) encourages fewer "random" encounters and more story-infused encounters. The new Dungeon Master's Guide operates under the assumption that whatever your group's playstyle, you are telling a story. A setting that was designed with storytelling in mind? Perfection.

There are, of course, tremendous arguments for other settings, but my heart still sits with Eberron. In the end, I just hope we do see traditional setting guides and not just "adventure path supplements" with mini-gazetteers. Having a "setting bible" is (for me) an important part of using a setting in an edition (for me). In retrospect, it may be why I didn't continue with Pathfinder after the "Rise of the Runelords": there wasn't (at the time) a Golarion setting guide, and I felt disconnected from the adventure path's purpose (or context).

Here's to all of us getting something we can sink our teeth into for our beloved Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D 5e: Making a Character

For the first time in a long time (almost a decade!), I'm going to be playing as a character in a D&D campaign. For the first time ever, I'll get to play as a character in a 5e campaign.

As one might expect, this definitely gives me a new perspective on the player's side of the table. I thought perhaps sharing the thoughts of a DM-turned-player on the character creation process might be useful to some.

Backgrounds Matter

As a DM, I try to ensure that players' backgrounds fulfill their primary functions: that is, that they are fun to roleplay and that they help build the character into the campaign that I'm running by giving the character some essential, useful connection to the adventure.

As a player, backgrounds seem both overwhelming and weighty. I started by looking into playing a Bard, and thought (perhaps in error!) that the Sage background would be an easy fit. That is, until I started looking at the mechanical benefits awarded based on backgrounds.

All of a sudden, choosing a Sage seemed less useful! If I play a Bard with the Criminal background, I would be proficient with thieves' tools. A Noble's background would give me access to high society. A Hermit's "secret" is supremely tantalizing! And who could pass up being an Entertainer or Charlatan?

Still, I figured I'd press ahead with the Sage and be a Researcher. Now, I'm reconsidering; the Entertainer, while not as useful in terms of game mechanics, sounds a lot more fun to play!

Party Balance

Looking at party balance from a player's perspective, I was happy to see that I didn't feel like I had to play a particular role just because the group didn't have it covered. Part of that might just be because I'm looking to play a Bard who is (at level two, literally) a jack of all trades, but more than that is just that 5e seems to be somewhat forgiving in the realm of "you need X to do Y, and if you don't have X you're done for."

Backgrounds cover a multitude of skill and story deficiencies, allowing even the most combat-oriented fighter to be the party spokesman, or the most uninvolved Rogue to feel connected to the game world. Race attributes and class archetypes contribute their own brand of variety, allowing players to cover a variety of traditional "roles." Even the most straight-forward of classes in our budding party (the Cleric) is going to be played in a less-than-conventional way, taking domains and backgrounds that will individuate the character right from the get go in ways that would simply not have been possible in previous editions.

In the end, my Bard is (loosely) filling the role of party "Wizard," but that doesn't really do it justice. My role in combat will be (primarily) control: I have the best (and maybe only) AoE spells available to our party. However, that doesn't take away from my role as secondary healer. If the Cleric goes down, I'm it! In exploration situations, I plan to take on the role of investigator and trap disarmer, but I am leaving the sneaking and perceiving to our Monk. In social interactions, I hope my character will really shine: a high charisma and loads of proficiencies in various knowledge skills should make my Bard a worthy negotiator, spokesman, and diplomat.

Spells

As expected, choosing spells was the most time consuming aspect of character creation. Clerics (and classes that cast spells like Clerics) can re-choose spells each morning. Wizards, if they choose poorly, can always hope to find spell scrolls with more useful spells. Bards (and those that learn spells like Bards) are bound by their choices. Needing to eke out the greatest possible variety from my few spells-per-day means being very selective about which spells my Bard learns. In the end, as a first level Bard, I chose Sleep (to fulfill my role of "Controller" on the battlefield), Cure Wounds (because I can't justify passing up the strongest healing spell available at first level) Dissonant Whispers (a single target damage spell that is almost exclusive to Bards), and Detect Magic (one utility spell to round out the bunch). Almost as difficult to choose were my two cantrips: Vicious Mockery (again, a Bard-only spell which has the potential to impose disadvantage on an enemy attack roll) and Light (though I'm playing a class with Darkvision, our party has at least one human member).

Race

In days gone by, choosing a race imposed a serious set of benefits and penalties, and you chose a race almost before you chose a class, since the race would determine what classes you'd be suited for. The Player's Handbook still seems to think in these terms: race is chosen before class. I'm not sure that's how most players think; it's certainly not how I think. When I'm thinking of a character, I think about what kind of things I want to be able to do, and then I impose the "who-is-doing-those-things" onto that.

The big difference for me, this time around, was that sub-races seemed to make a much larger difference than I expected they would. I made the decision to play a Dwarf Bard, but choosing between Hill Dwarf and Mountain Dwarf was more difficult than I expected. The benefits offered by both, and the story implications of each, were exciting to consider. I thoroughly enjoy that the new edition uses races to impose benefits rather than penalties. You may miss out on something by choosing one thing over another, but the choice itself is never penalizing. In the end, I chose a Hill Dwarf for my character's race, but I imagine I'll always wonder if I'd have more fun playing a Mountain Dwarf.