As in my previous entry about the 3.t system, I'm trying to make D&D 3.5 play faster.  Today's rule revision has to do with critical hits.  Right now in 3.5, each weapon has a "threat range" such as 19-20, which means that if you roll a 19 or 20 on a 20-sided die, you are maybe going to do critical damage.  To determine if you actually do get critical damage, you roll again.  That's a bit convoluted.

The problem?  To fix this, we cannot just drop the confirmation roll and say "all critical threats are automatically confirmed."  If we do that, then crits will happen much more often and low-level characters will die more often.  But if we reduce the damage of the weapons, then we can keep all those crits.  That should speed up gameplay without changing the numbers (much), because there is no more rolling to confirm crits.  They just happen.  It should be more enjoyable for the players, too -- their weapons might do a tiny bit less damage each hit, but they will do critical hits often.  So what we're about to do will keep damage roughly the same, but remove an extra dice roll.  Ready?

Critical hits

Read more...

For a while now, I've been mulling over what I would do to make D&D 3.5 play faster, like 4th edition promised.  Of course, the joke is that 4th edition can be even slower than 3.5, due to all the new movement rules.  But I don't have to worry about that.  I just want to take the best elements, and graft them onto the 3.5 rules with a minimum of fuss.

I'm calling my revisions 3.t, as in 3.tony, because I'm the one to blame if the revisions suck or work well.  The criteria for "sucks" would be if a rule change requires large rewrites, or breaks lots of other rules.  The criteria for "works well" would be if a rule change speeds up gameplay but has little effect otherwise.  So if a typical combat takes 90 minutes to resolve normally, with my rules I hope that you can resolve combat in an hour or less.

Turning

First up for revision is the cleric system for turning undead.  We merely drop the turn check roll, and replace it with cleric level + charisma bonus + knowledge religion synergy (if the character has it).  The turn damage roll would remain.  So the steps are as follows:

Let's consider the example of a 2nd level cleric with 14 charisma and no points in the knowledge religion skill.  If the cleric rolled a 4, he'd have an 8 for step 1 (4 + 2 for level, +2 for charisma).  Then for step 2 the cap would be set at 2 + 2 + 0 (no synergy bonus), or 4 total.  Therefore, the cleric could turn two 4 HD undead (8 total, capped at 4 HD).  But he/she could not turn one 8 HD undead, due to the per-monster cap.

This is almost exactly the same as turn undead following RAW, but removes one roll and replaces it with a reasonably fair, typically unchanging number.  Should be easier for players to follow and execute quickly.

I'll group all my articles about rules revision under the 3.t tag, should you wish to see what else I have for it.

There's a discussion happening over at the RPG Codex about the Nintendo Wii and the terrible, terrible showing that Reggie Fils-Aimé (Nintendo's president) gave at this year's E3 gaming conference.  Reggie has gone from revolutionary to nanny in just four years.

I've owned a Wii since day one.  I've put probably a thousand dollars into the console, games, and controllers.  But I'm thinking hard about things, and so I want to share with you what I posted over at the RPG Codex.

Read more...

I just finished watching Pan's Labyrinth, by director Guillermo del Toro.  I understand now why he received a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival.

I decided to watch the movie because I had heard that Guillermo del Toro will be directing the new Lord of the Rings movies (The Hobbit, and an in-between movie to bridge the 50 year gap between The Hobbit & The Fellowship of the Ring).  The only other movie I had seen from this director was the movie Hellboy, which I hated.  So to be honest, I've been nervous that my favorite movie trilogy was about to be ruined with cheesy add-ons.

Having seen Pan's Labyrinth, I'm no longer worried.  I may do a full review of the movie later, or I may not.  But I know this is a man who can tell a story, and do a spellbinding job of it.  I wish him all the luck in the world.

Below is a quote from a post at Slashdot.  The discussion had veered into a debate about terrorism and the responsibility of Congress & the President versus the voting public.  What do you think?  Is he right?  Is he wrong?  Have we come to the point in our politics where placing blame on voters, even if difficult, is necessary?