Today Dungeon’s Master celebrates its third birthday. Three years ago Ameron and I launched the blog with the intention of talking about 4e Dungeons & Dragons. Our goal was to share our experiences of the game and to provide a resource for both DMs and players. Although 4e was still relatively new at the time, we both felt (and still feel) that there was an opportunity for input from the community about this great game.

Since February 1, 2009, we have published new articles every day (excluding weekend and holidays). This State of the Dungeons is our 846 post here at Dungeon’s Master. The best part is that we’ve had a great time with Dungeon’s Master and enjoy being a part of the D&D blogging community.

Of course there have been some changes both here at Dungeon’s Master and in the D&D blogging community. At-Will, a great D&D blog that launched just before we did called it a day. I also made the decision to step back from Dungeon’s Master due to a return to school and the heavy work (reading) load that came with it. You should start reading more from me towards the summer. Of course this has allowed us to reach out to other individuals who have a passion for the game and ask if they are looking for a forum to share their opinions about D&D.

This past year we have maintained our series on D&D Encounters. A piece that connects the community of players. Though I am unable to attend the sessions myself I enjoy reading not just the articles, but the comments that follow that share the experience. This coloumn granted an unexpected gift as Ameron was invited, along with a few others in the community, to Seattle to meet with the folks at Wizards of the Coast and discuss the public play program.

Of course Wizards of the Coast has also announced the next iteration of D&D. The Dungeon’s Master home game will be experimenting with the new rule set, and as we are able to, we will share what we can about the game. In all it has been an exciting year here at Dungeon’s Master and the future looks good. A lot is going on regarding the game that we all enjoy playing and we will continue publishing new articles about this great game that we all love so much. If you have not subscribed yet, make sure that you do. Fresh 4e D&D content delivered daily. It doesn’t get much better.

Now onto the stats, here are some numbers from the past year.

• Subscribers: 1155
• Visits: 321,124
• Absolute Unique Visits: 190,384
• Total Pageviews: 665,793
• Total Pageviews Since Launch (Feb 1, 2009): 1,300,524
• Comments: 3,113
• Spam Comments: 56,296
• Best Day: Tuesday November 12, 2011
• Top Browser: Firefox 38.47%
• Top Referring Sites: Reddit.com & Wizards of the Coast
• Top Posts:
  • My Love Affair With Minions
  • D&D Encounters: March of the Phantom Brigade – Characters
  • A Beginner’s Guide To D&D – Part 1
  • The Shardmind
  • The Art of D&D – Part 2
  • Five Must Read Zombie Books
  • Dwarves Are The Best Race
  • Two-Hit Minions
  • Ameron’s Game Room
  • Class and Race Combinations That Break The Mold

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Have you ever played a character in 4e D&D without optimized stats? A Fighter with a Strength score below 14 or a Wizard with an Intelligence under 14? I think it’s safe to say that none of us have done it. Why would you? The game assumes that you’re going to have a decent score (16+) in your primary ability from the outset and to ensure this we use the point buy system to assign the numbers as we deem appropriate. Add to that racial bonuses and there’s really no reason you’d even have to play a character with a low score in their primarily ability.

As long as players use point buy to assign scores we’re always going to see fully optimized stats. All Fighters will have exceptional Strength. All Wizards will have exceptional Intelligence. The base foundation on which characters are built (the six ability scores) will be similar, if not identical, when comparing characters of similar classes. The mechanics of 4e almost demand that this be the case. It’s not to your advantage to play a PC with sub-optimized ability scores. If you want to be on par with the game’s power baseline you have to optimize the numbers. A character with a 14 in his main ability will be less powerful than his allies. But is this really a bad thing.

Some of the most memorable characters I’ve ever played have not had exceptional ability scores. All of these characters were created using older D&D mechanics. We didn’t assign ability scores, we rolled them. When I first began playing D&D everyone made characters using the old 3d6 method. You rolled 3d6, added them up, and that was your ability score. There were a few variations but in the end the ability scores were determined by random rolls and the luck of the dice. It was extremely rare to have an 18 in any ability score at level 1. Even two scores of 16 or more was practically unheard of.

Rolling your abilities randomly really added something to the character creation process that has disappeared with 4e. Today if I’m making a character I do it on a laptop, in the comfort and privacy of my game room. The social atmosphere that used to accompany character creation has long since disappeared, assuming it was ever present in 4e.

When I make a character in 4e I don’t need to consult with the other players in my group about what everyone’s playing. There is such balance in 4e that a party can get by with almost any group of characters as long as their all optimized. It’s certainly easier if the four roles are represented, but an experienced group can be just as effective with an unbalanced party. Because of this there is no need to make the character creation process social.

Rolling for ability scores changes how you make a character. It doesn’t just add a new step that requires you to rolls the dice a few times, it encourages community. Before 4e I never made characters by myself. It was a shared experience. You’d invite the gaming group over and often you’d spend an entire session making PCs. One of the reasons for this was to keep everyone honest. If I was lucky enough to actually roll and 18 or two I wanted witnesses. I didn’t want anyone doubting that my ability scores were indeed what the dice gods provided me with.

Even the way I made decisions during character creation was different when I rolled my scores. Today I usually choose class first. Then I find a race that has suitable racial modifiers in the abilities I think I’ll need most. Then, using point buy, I assign the points to the abilities that I need for my class. The result is usually one score that starts at 18+ and one that starts at 16+. Of course there are times when I simply want to play a race/class combo that doesn’t mesh perfectly, but I again make up for the shortfall when I’m assigning my ability scores.

When abilities are determined by the dice, I do all the rolling first. If I’m using the method where the stats are recorded in the order rolled than I need to see where the dice fall before choosing a class. I’m less likely to play a Fighter if my first total is only a 9. Usually I wait to see where the highest number ends up and then choose a class that relies on that ability. A high Wisdom means a Cleric, a High Dexterity is a Rogue or Ranger; you get the idea. If the numbers are relatively flat then this is when race can help make a good score a great score or to shore up a low number in a secondary ability. If we use the method where we roll the six scores and then assign the numbers to the six ability scores as we see fit, then I’ve got a lot more options when it comes to class and I’m less likely to pick a race just because it will bump a low score.

When you rely on the dice to determine ability scores it’s entirely possible that the party won’t have anyone with a high Strength. Does this mean you play without a Fighter or that someone plays a less optimized Fighter? By making character creation a social exercise you can figure these things out as a group.

The social experience that accompanies character creation is certainly a strong argument for using rolling over point buy, but there is an even better reason – character diversity. As I mentioned above, characters with average numbers, or even below average numbers, tend to be more interesting. They’re not perfect. They may be really good at one thing but terrible in most others. And isn’t this a more accurate representation of real life? I realize that many people play fantasy role-playing games to escape reality but I want to have fun when I play. If everyone PC is the very best at what they do it often makes for a less exciting experience.

Look at the characters in Harry Potter as an example. The stories take place in a school full of Wizards. If these characters were all created using the 4e point buy then they’d all have an 18 or higher Intelligence at the outset. However, it’s clear that Hermione has a much higher intelligence than Harry, and Harry probably has a higher Intelligence that Ron. Had all three been equally intelligent the stories would have been pretty boring. The fact that they all have different strengths and weaknesses makes them a more interesting adventuring party, despite the fact that they’re all Wizards.

The greatest disadvantage of rolling dice to determine ability scores is that it’s impossible to ensure equality between characters. While diversity is actually something to be encouraged during a home game, it can be a nightmare during public play. And this is where point buy has a clear advantage over dice rolling methods – point buy levels the playing field. This is vitally important during public play. Any elements left to chance will be abused. You know that you’d constantly see characters with six 18s. “I swear that’s what I rolled. My dice were red hot that night. Ask my mom, she witnessed it!”

With the next iteration of D&D currently being developed and play-tested it will be interesting to see how ability scores are determined. Will players have the choice to use point buy or roll dice? Will the system support both methods equally or will point buy still be the preferred way to determine ability scores? If Wizards of the Coast is truly looking to bring back the best elements of previous editions then I for one hope they do encourage the old 3d6 method for determine ability scores. Looking at the bigger picture I see this as an important element of D&D that was lost with 4e. Point buy works for the game that 4e is today, but with changes on the horizon I think there’s room to bring back this tried and true method of character creation.

What are you thoughts on using the 3d6 method to create ability scores? Do you think bringing it back will help D&D or do you think that point buy is the way to go? Can you see a system that allows players using either method to sit at the same game table and feel like their on level playing field? Do you think there any method that involves dice rolling should have qualifiers like no more than one 18 or reroll any ability score under 8?

Related reading:

• Playing Characters With Low Ability Scores
• Adventuring With A Sub-Optimal Party (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4)

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Remember the old D&D Cartoon from the 80s? Six kids are magically transported into the world of Dungeons & Dragons where they fight the forces of evil while trying to find a way home. (See the cartoon intro below). In the cartoon the Dungeons Master was an actual character. He would appear at the beginning of each episode and provide the heroes with a quest; in much the same way the DM does during an actual game of D&D. The DM served as the guide for the characters in the show and the viewers at home. He’d also step in from time to time and give the characters advice or help them out of a really tight jam.

In 4e D&D the DM is not one NPC, rather the DM takes on the roles of every NPC. But wouldn’t it make things easier if Dungeon Master actually was an NPC in your game?

Using an actual NPC called Dungeon Master may be an easy way to resolve a lot of the issues or problems that sometimes arise in your game. It also gives you a way to have some direct iteration with the characters. Dungeon Master can act as a guide, providing the PCs with motivation for their next quest, much like he did in the cartoon. He can also be a good way to remind the players of details that their characters would know, especially names of people and places.

Dungeon Master can be especially helpful in a situation like D&D Encounters. We have a lot of younger players at my FLGS and they have relatively short attention spans. From week to week they often forget important details. Having Dungeon Master himself show up each week to do the recap can be a great way to get players to pay more attention, especially since they can interact with him directly. During the last season of D&D Encounters a lot of the players struggled to understand why they were taking on some tasks. Having Dungeon Master show up and emphasize their importance or providing details that were forgotten, the PCs can then make better decisions.

Whenever something in your campaign changes, say a new character joins the group or a character is absent, you can simply have Dungeon Master shows up and say “Braddoc is needed elsewhere but I leave you Delian in his stead. Good luck, brave heroes.” In cases where the DM may need to bend the rules for the greater story, he can have Dungeon Master show up and take care of it. For example, if the PCs have burned through their healing surges but it doesn’t make sense for them to rest given where they are in the story, why not have Dungeon Master show up and replenish a few surges for the party?

In extreme cases Dungeon Master can even raise character from the dead if there are no other alternatives. I’d be more inclined to believe that an omniscient Wizard called Dungeon Master showed up in our moment of peril and raised a fallen comrade than some lame excuse like he wasn’t actually dead because the last attack only grazed him.

In a recent game a few of the players were bickering over who got a particular magic item. They ended up fighting in-game and yelling out-of-game. Why not have Dungeon Master show up in-game and settle things. He comes up with a way for the PCs to best determining who gets the magic sword and if they can’t come to terms he’ll simply disenchant the item. After all he’s the Dungeon Master and can do anything.

Using such an obvious form of “Deus ex Machina” to resolve problems and convey information may seem a little bit silly or juvenile but I think it’s the kind of thing even the most serious gamers will be up for. After all, if they realize that Dungeon Master is on their side and would never do anything to intentionally harm them, why wouldn’t they welcome his assistance. It also gives DMs a license to be creative. In the cartoon Dungeon Master never actually came out and said do this or go that way; he often spoke in riddles and provided only clues. In my experience players would rather decipher these cryptic messages from Dungeon Master than just listen to a talking head DM who reads pages of text right from an adventure.

If you do decide to use Dungeon Master as an actual entity in your games you should also decide early on if he is well-known. In the cartoon many people are aware of Dungeon Master’s existence. In fact he has enemies of his own who sometimes attack the heroes just to get his attention. Although this isn’t something I’d likely do with any great regularity is does give the DM a way to introduce new and unexpected villains to the game that otherwise would have no reason to engage the PCs.

So the next time you’re unsure how to fix a problem in your campaign or remind the PCs of information vital to the upcoming session, consider having the little guy in the red robes show up and introduce himself as Dungeon Master. It will certainly make for a memorable session.

Have you ever used Dungeon Master as an actual NPC in your campaign? How did the players and PCs react? Was anyone ever dumb enough to try to kill Dungeon Master? How often did you have Dungeon Master appear and did you place any limits on his power? If this isn’t something you’ve ever done is it something you’d consider? How do you think your group would react?

Related reading:

• The DM’s PC – Something Between a PC and an NPC
• Why Are We Doing This?
• Campaign Design: Fleshing Out Your NPCs

D&D Cartoon Intro

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

By now everyone in the D&D gaming community has heard the big news: Wizards is developing the next iteration of D&D, and is looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with them. I don’t think this really came as a surprise to anyone, especially those who follow the weekly Legends & Lore column. I think the big news was the level to which Wizards is asking for player input.

In December Wizard flew me out to Seattle to visit their head office and participate in a D&D conference. One of the things discussed was the development of this new iteration of D&D. However, I have been (and still am) bound by an NDA and sworn to secrecy. There are a few things that I can now comment on because Wizards has made some details public; however, there are a lot of other things I cannot talk about. This makes things tricky when it comes to writing about any changes that might be forthcoming, but here’s what I can say.

• Wizard wants to end edition wars and bring all people who play D&D together again. Their goal is to find a way to keep the best aspects of D&D intact and develop a base or core rule set that can then be expanded depending on which aspects of which edition you like or want to use. In order to make sure they get it right they want input and feedback from the players. So for everyone whose blasted Wizards or criticized any aspect of D&D, this is your chance to weigh in and help them get it right.
• Wizards is looking for people to play-test the new iteration of D&D as it’s being developed. Again this is a way that you can get involved and make sure that your voice is heard. If you like or dislike something about D&D this is the best way to let them know early enough in the process that they can act on that feedback and do something about it. Visit the Wizard of the Coast website today and sign up to participate in the play-testing.
• Based on my existing relationship with Wizard I was pre-selected to participate in the play-testing that begins this spring. In fact I’ve already had an opportunity to try out a very early iteration of what’s in development. I can’t say too much but I will tell you that it was everything I expected from D&D. It was fast paced, it was a lot of fun, and it felt like they were definitely on the right track.

At this point this is pretty much all I can say. I welcome your comments and speculation on what might be forthcoming but it’s unlikely I’ll be able to respond to direct questions because of the NDA.

Related reading:

• Wizards of the Coast, Legends & Lore (January 9, 2012): Charting the Course for D&D: Your Voice, Your Game
• New York Times (January 9, 2012): Players Roll the Dice for Dungeons & Dragons Remake
• Critical Hits: New Edition of “Dungeons & Dragons” Announced
• EN World: Off to see the Wizards: The day that WotC showed me D&D 5th Edition

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

One of the DM’s Most important jobs is to keep the game moving. When we find ourselves in a situation where we don’t know the correct rule, we trust the DM to make the call on the fly based on his experience to ensure the game continues. Afterwards we look up the correct ruling in the usual places: PHB, DMG, Rules Compendium, online compendium and online forums. Yet from time-to-time we just can’t find a satisfactory answer to our rules questions. In these circumstances we’ve decided to turn to you, the people who read our blog and play D&D to help us make the call.

In You Make The Call (Part 1) we asked you to provide you thoughts and insights on strange situations that occur when you’re prone, and the ability to adjust the size and damage of area attacks. In this installment we want you to make the call on being dazed. These situations don’t necessarily come up often, but they can have a significant impact on the encounter so we want to get it right.

Can you spend an action point while dazed?

The summer that 4e was released I sat in on a seminar at GenCon where the Wizards R&D team answered a lot of general questions about the new rules. One of the questions that came up was “Can you spend an action point when you’re dazed?” The answer provided at the time was “No.”

In my home game we’ve stuck to that rule ever since. After all, dazed very clearly says that you can take either a standard, a move, or a minor action. Allowing a creature (PC or monster) to spend an action point while dazed doesn’t seem in keeping with the intent of the condition.

Looking at the rules as written there is nothing that explicitly states you cannot use an action point while dazed. After all, spending an action point is a free action and dazed says that you can still take free actions.

So the question remains, can you use an action point when dazed? My group has said no, but we seem to be the only who interpret dazed in this way. During public-play (LRF, D&D Encounters, GenCon) other players and the DMs are always using their action points when dazed. I continue to play that if I’m dazed I can’t (and won’t) spend an action point.

If you’ve already taken at least one action on your turn and then become dazed does your turn end or do you get one more action?

Believe it or not, this happens a lot in my games. Our Wizard has Thunderstaff, a level 5 (daily) Immediate Interrupt. The trigger is an enemy moves to within 2 squares of you. The interrupt lets the Wizard attack and if he hits, the target is deafened and dazed until the end of your next turn. So with some regularity a monster is dazed during his turn. Where we run into some debate is what happens when the daze kicks in?

The players believe that if the monster has already taken an action (which he obviously has in order to trigger the interrupt in the first place) that his turn ends as soon as he becomes dazed. The rationale is that a dazed creature can take either a standard, a move, or a minor action. Since he’s already taken an action his turn is now over.

The DM believes that any actions the monster took before the dazed condition affected him shouldn’t count towards his limit of either a standard, a move, or a minor action. Once he’s dazed he can then do one of these, assuming he has actions left.

Since we play that dazed creatures can’t use action points, the player’s interpretation becomes really powerful against solo monsters that often get multiple attacks and have multiple action points.

If you’re dazed at the beginning of your turn and you manage to remove the dazed with your one action, do you get the remaining compliment of actions?

This is sort of the flip side of getting dazed on your turn. What happens when you get rid of the dazed condition with your one action? We’ve always played that if you can grant yourself a save or use an item to snap out of the dazed condition that you then get the rest of your actions as usual.

I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of debate over how we’ve ruled this one. I think we’ve made the right call here. However, in light of the other questions above there may be some discussion required.

If we rule that getting dazed on your turn ends your turn (assuming you’ve already taken at least one action) then freeing yourself should give you back your full turn when it goes away. However, if we rule that you still get to take one action when you become dazed on your turn, should we revisit what happens when the dazed condition ends on your turn?

As mentioned in You Make The Call (Part 1) it’s important that any ruling be applied constantly to all PCs and monsters. This is a big reason why we’ve had so much debate in our gaming group about dazed. If the PCs can’t use an action point while dazed then this will affect the monsters in the same way. It makes powers that daze more appealing and arguably more powerful, especially against solo monsters. The same holds true for getting dazed during your turn. It doesn’t happen often, but it came up in a recent game when a monster (a Mind Flayer, I believe) dazed a PC on his turn. Should the PC’s turn end or should he get one more action? This PCs had an item that would negate the daze but it required an action to activate so it made a big difference. It brought the whole debate back to the forefront for our gaming group and we are still debating the correct way to rule on this one.

We want you to make the call. Where do you stand on the dazed debate? Have you experienced any of these issues with your gaming group? How did you handle them? For those who had never given these issues much thought before today, how would you rule on these situations at your gaming table?

Related reading:

• Adjudicating and House Rules
• Speeding Up Your Game
• More Tips for Speeding Up Your Game

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

While the Dungeon’s Master team enjoys some well-deserved vacation time, we’re breaking out the greatest hits and shining a spotlight on a few of our favourite articles from 2011. We’ve searched for hidden gems that our newer readers might have missed and our long-time readers will enjoy reading again. Enjoy a second look at these greatest hits from Dungeon’s Master.

The most important thing to remember when you provoke an opportunity attack is that it’s not a guaranteed hit. Your opponent still needs to make a successful attack roll against you. Yet most players think that an opportunity attack means automatic damage, and it’s this fear that keeps players stationary during combat. The misconception that they’ll take damage if they move or if they make a ranged attack when next to an enemy will sometimes lead players to use less than their best attacks.

Never forget that dice hate everyone equally, and not just your PC. You can’t assume that the dice will always give the DM a successful hit. In most cases the monster’s likelihood of scoring a hit is in the 50/50 ballpark. So the next time you have to decide if you should provoke an opportunity attack, think about what’s to be gained by doing so and then remember that the odds are probably in your favour.

From June 29, 2011, Dungeon’s Master once again presents: Are You Willing to Provoke an Opportunity Attack?

One of the more difficult things that new players have trouble remembering is that moving away from an opponent will draw an opportunity attack. As soon as players hear that moving their character more than one square away from an adjacent creature will result in that creature getting a free attack, all tactics that involve moving are thrown out the window. It’s almost as if they believe that drawing an attack and possibly taking the hit is the absolute worst thing that they can do on their turn.

As an experienced DM I’m going to tell you that you need to be willing to take an opportunity attack once and a while. From a mechanics point of view all opponents know as well as you do under what circumstances they’ll get to make a free attack on you. If you move away they’ll attack you as soon as your back is turned. If you try to use a ranged attack while standing next to them, they’ll see the hole in your defenses and attack you. And if you try to crawl away while prone you bet that you enemy will kick you as you scurry away.

But so what if they do? In most cases a monster’s basic attack is just that – basic. It usually is a straight up weapon attack, be it a sword or claw. Yes, it has the potential to hurt you but you need to weigh that against the value of taking the action that draws the attack in the first place.

For example, in a recent game the PCs faced off against opponents that could entangle them and then pull them in opposite directions. The party’s Rogue used his move action to easily escape the grab. His initial tactic was to charge a different opponent which would put him in a flanking position and allow him to use his sneak dice with that attack. However, when I reminded the player that moving away from an adjacent monster would provoke an opportunity attack the player decided to stay put and go toe-to-toe with the adjacent foe despite not having combat advantage. By not moving away after freeing himself he severely limited his ability to be an effective striker.

Now in some circumstances I totally understand why you’d not want to provoke the attack. If you’re really low on hit points and the attack could drop you, then stay put. If the monster’s basic attack has some other kind of condition attached, like causing you to become dazed or knocked prone, then again I think you’re better off staying where you are. But if it’s early in the fight then tactically speaking you should seriously consider provoking that attack. In this specific example the monster did not inflict any additional condition on a hit and the Rogue was the Artful Dodger build so his defenses against the attack were incredibly high. Had it been me, I’d have risked it. But this action doesn’t seem to be commonplace.

As the DM running the monsters, I see opportunity attacks as a nuisance, and not a deterrent. Assuming the monsters are intelligent or have a competent leader that can shout commands, I’m happy to provoke opportunity attacks if there is a tactical advantage to doing so. This is especially true if the monster is only going to provoke one opportunity attack and if the PC is a class that does not typically have an exceptional Strength (like a Wizard for example).

Again it comes down to tactics (assuming that the monsters are intelligent enough to understand tactics – and this is the real determining factor). If the gains to “team monster” outweigh one possible hit then I’m provoking that opportunity attack as often as necessary. In a recent encounter all of the monsters gained additional damage dice if they had combat advantage (in this case +2d6 each for a heroic tier adventure). By moving one monster and provoking an opportunity attack in the process, three members of “team monster” were able to combine for an additional +6d6 damage to the party. This was a no brainier. I happily took the opportunity attack (which did hit and inflicted 5 damage) in order to pound the PCs and inflict over 20 extra points of damage that wouldn’t have been possible without that one monster moving to flank with his buddies.

Another tactic that I often employ when my monsters are marked by Fighters is to begin the turn by provoking an opportunity attack and trying to move away (not shift away, an important distinction). The Fighter takes his free attack and gets all the additional bonuses that come with Combat Superiority. Needless to say, my monsters get hit more often than not for taking this action. A hit inflicts damage and stops their movement. Then, as my standard action I charge away from the Fighter and attack someone else. Since the Fighter has already taken an opportunity attack against me I can now get away Scott free. Of course, the attack I make on the other end of my charge still has -2 from the Fighter’s mark, but I do get a +1 for charging so I’m netting out at -1. It frustrates the players running Fighters to no end, but I remind them that they do get a free attack on my monster in the process so it’s not all bad for them.

Of course all arguments for moving in order to gain positioning are completely moot if it will provoke more than one opportunity attack. I’m a lot less likely to take any kind of action that will provoke opportunity attacks if I’m adjacent to more than one opponent. In the end it’s a numbers game. If two opportunity attacks will likely inflict 15-25 damage and all I’m gaining for moving is +1d6 sneak dice then I’m staying put. My statement that players should be willing to provoke opportunity attacks should really be qualified with as long is you’re only provoking from one creature.

Players forget that they’re working together on the battlefield. They forget that the party is a team and not just a bunch of guys travelling the countryside in search of a party. Most players are so concerned with their own well-being that that often forget to look at the entire battle. Every PC fulfils a role. Sometimes it’s necessary to take one for the team so that someone else can fulfill their role.

Provoking an opportunity attack to give the Rogue a flanking bonus lets him do his job better. If your standard action was just going to be a basic attack anyway, why not look at the bigger picture and help the party emerge victorious. By working together in this way the combat ends sooner which helps everyone. You may take an extra hit or two (or at least risk it by provoke an opportunity attack) but if the monsters are defeated more quickly, the party’s leader can focus on healing you first for making such a heroic sacrifice.

As I said at the outset more players need to be willing to provoke an opportunity attack. This fear that every monster will hit when they make the opportunity attack and the fear of taking damage if they actually connect is removing tactical options from the minds of many players. PC are being left in place for fear of one hit and the monsters are gaining huge advantages over the heroes because of it. You need to look at the bigger picture and see that taking a hit now will have large implication for the entire party as the encounter continues to play out.

What are your feelings about provoking opportunity attacks? Are you willing to take a hit and move to a more advantageous position or do you feel that any action that gives your opponents a free attack against you is a bad idea? How many DMs move the monsters as they see fit and are willing to provoke those opportunity attacks in the process?

Related reading:

• Using Undead Intelligently
• Should I Fight Or Should I Heal Now?
• The Challenges Of War: Large Scale Battles

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

The Dungeon’s Master team wishes all of our readers a safe and happy holiday season.

We’re coming up on three years since we launched Dungeon’s Master and we’re still going strong. Thank you to all of our readers and to everyone who’s helped make Dungeon’s Master a success.

If you’re still looking for a great gift to give yourself or someone in your gaming group, we have a suggestion that’s in everyone’s price range. Give the gift of 4e D&D content directly into your inbox weekdays throughout 2011 by subscribing to the Dungeon’s Master RSS feed.

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

While the Dungeon’s Master team enjoys some well-deserved vacation time, we’re breaking out the greatest hits and shining a spotlight on a few of our favourite articles from 2011. We’ve searched for hidden gems that our newer readers might have missed and our long-time readers will enjoy reading again. Enjoy a second look at these greatest hits from Dungeon’s Master.

Without honesty there is chaos. I used this as a heading in the original article and the more I think about that line the more I believe that it’s the absolute truth.

When you play D&D at home it’s usually with a group of very close-knit buddies. This dynamic usually means that there are no problems or issues regarding trust and honesty. There are no strangers at this gaming table and it’s unlikely you’d want to cheat your friends. But when it comes to public play, some gamers (a few bad apples, as it were) will try to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain, possibly at the expense of playing honestly.

I want to be clear that the overwhelming majority of my public-play experiences have been very positive. I’ve only ever had a couple of instances where players were caught, or even suspected of, cheating or intentionally being dishonest. However, I think that in some public-play situations, especially when there are newer players at the table, the desire to push the boundaries of trust are more prevalent.

During some D&D Encounters sessions players will try to gain an advantage by intentionally bending or breaking the rules. Where this is most problematic is among newer players that don’t have character builder and make PCs the old fashioned way. The carelessness with which some players throw together a character infuriates me. They add modifiers across the board because they don’t know or don’t understand when they apply or not. They’ll take more powers than they’re supposed to or use encounter or daily powers even after they’re expended. Even after I’ve politely given them the benefit of the doubt, explained that they’ve made an error somewhere and that they should correct it before the next game, they still use the flawed sheets.

I’ve finally had to crack down on bad character creation. I implemented a new rule that if you make your character without character builder you have to leave it with me between sessions so I can review it. In most cases I just recreate the PC in character builder to validate the numbers are right. At first I found lots of problems on every character sheet, but now that the group knows I’m checking they’ve become more diligent about accuracy.

What bothers me most is that some players (again, a very select few) didn’t feel that honesty was required until they realized they were less likely to get away with it. You always want to believe that people will do the right thing. In a gaming situation, especially with new players, you hope that they’re honest and will follow the rules of the game and of the unwritten social contract. All it takes is one or two bad instances to sully everyone’s view of D&D. So let’s all do our part to play honestly and encourage fair play in our games moving forward; because without honesty there is chaos.

From March 21, 2011, Dungeon’s Master once again presents: The Importance of Trust and Honesty in D&D.

I think that the vast majority of people who play D&D take for granted just how important trust and honesty are to the game. In order for everything to work we have to assume that everyone playing is honest and trustworthy. Of course, we don’t come right out and ask this of the other players; you merely accept it as fact. If players cheat or abuse the trust we’ve given them in good faith, then the system won’t work and the gaming experience will be tarnished.

Just this past weekend I was playing a Living Forgotten Realms (LFR) adventure at my FLGS and something happened that really highlighted the importance of trust in D&D. It was an unusual situation, and the more I thought about it the more I realized that perhaps it’s time to discuss just how vital trust and honesty are in D&D.

The LFR Fiasco

We should have expected that things would be unusual after one of the PCs was killed during the first encounter. Normally, the party would chip in and get this character brought back to life as quickly as possible. This way the player wouldn’t have to suffer because the character died. The cost was only 600 gp and as fortune would have it the deceased PC had more than this on him.

The rest of the players agreed to find a Cleric to perform a Raise Dead ritual and bring him back to life, especially since none of us would incur any expense ourselves. The player with the dead PC refused to pay. He said he’d rather invoke the Death Charity clause. Doing so meant that he forfeited any awards or treasure and could not replay this adventure again using the deceased character after being brought back to life.

The DM then gave the player another option. He let him bring in a new character to complete the rest of the adventure. This was deemed acceptable. So although the party lost one PC during the first encounter, we picked up a new PC before beginning the second.

The rest of the adventure ran smoothly. Everyone who played and survived the entire adventure got full XP and treasure. The player whose character died got pro-rated rewards for the encounters his new character completed successfully (basically everything except rewards from encounter #1 which the PC wasn’t present for anyway).

The DM then reminded the player that even though he invoked the Death Charity rule for his original character, that PC would still suffer the normal penalties associated with a Raise Dead ritual (-1 to all attacks, saves and skill checks until reaching 3 milestones).

The player was outraged. He said he’d do no such thing. As far as he was concerned it was as if the first (deceased) character was never there. The next time he used the original character he had no intention of applying any penalties. And because he invoked the Death Charity rule he wouldn’t suffer any loss of gp either. Basically he wasn’t willing to suffer any consequences for the original character’s death.

Although I actually had very strong feelings about how this was developing, I wisely decided not to insert myself into a situation that I had no business being part of. We’ll see in subsequent weeks how this situation plays out. Since this player only plays LFR at the FLGS with essentially the same people we’ll see if he abides by the actually LFR community rules or if he just does what he wants, what is best for him and his characters, rules be damned.

I stand firmly beside the DM on this one. In-game the character didn’t weigh the consequences of his actions. He chose to rush ahead of the party despite our warning against doing so. As a result all of the monsters in the room attacked him and only him. The result was a character death in the first round of the first encounter.

If the character is allowed to come back into LFR play without consequence then this player essentially got to play his character poorly without penalty. I’m all for playing the character the way you want to, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Those who act cautiously survive. Those who rush in without thinking risk death.

Without Honesty There’s Chaos

What this really highlighted for me was just how much trust is involved when playing D&D (or any RPG). Every time you play you make a lot of assumptions based on trust. You trust that the players at the table have built their PCs honestly and according to the rules. I know as a DM I’ve never once wasted time verifying that a PC is built to spec. I just assume that my friends have followed the rules or the agreed guidelines when creating and maintaining their characters.

Dice are rolled every time there an attack is made or damage is dealt. Both the players and the DM assume a) that the numbers are being called off accurately, and b) any modifiers are being added appropriately. Again, I rarely monitor anyone else’s dice rolls. I have enough to worry about running my own character. When I’m the DM I’m too busy running all of the monsters to check that your roll was actually a 15 and not something else.

Recording damage is another aspect of the game that requires trust. When I used to play D&D 2e back in high school I had a few players who tried to pull one over on the old DM and didn’t record their damage correctly. After a while I just tracked all of the damage myself. It was so cumbersome it ruined the gaming experience. Eventually I said that for the game to work there had to be trust. If they weren’t willing to be honest then I wasn’t interesting in playing. After that the damage was recorded accurately.

So many elements of the game rely on honesty and trust. There’s a social contract, an understanding that everyone will abide by the rules. As soon as one person decides that they don’t have to abide by these rules then things fall apart.

In the case of LFR there is a much greater element of trust required. In all of the time I’ve played LFR I’ve never once been asked to provide any proof confirming my character’s XP, level, treasure, magic items or story rewards. We all know that for the system to work we all have to play by the same rules.

Looking back on how things played out this past weekend I have to admit that I’m disappointed that one player felt he didn’t need to follow the rules. He made a bad decision and paid dearly with a character death. But his decision to cheat and pretend that this adventure didn’t happen for that character (and that his death never happened) sullied the experience for me. As I don’t know the player very well I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to say anything right there and then. However, if I’m the DM moving forward I think I’m going to talk to him and ask that he not play at my table, after politely explaining the reason why.

I think we can all agree that for things to work there needs to be trust. What kind of negative implications have you experienced first hand when players abuse the trust of the group? How have you resolved these issues? How might you have handled the situation I experienced? Would you act differently if you were the DM than you would as just another player at the gaming table?

Related reading:

• Cheating in Dungeons and Dragons
• Avoiding Death (Part 1 | Part 2)

sss

While the Dungeon’s Master team enjoys some well-deserved vacation time, we’re breaking out the greatest hits and shining a spotlight on a few of our favourite articles from 2011. We’ve searched for hidden gems that our newer readers might have missed and our long-time readers will enjoy reading again. Enjoy a second look at these greatest hits from Dungeon’s Master.

I love minions.

It has been almost a year since the original article was published and my love affair with minions has not decreased. If anything the infatuation has only increased. Since this article on minions was published I’ve taken the DM hat off and returned to the other side of the screen. Yet, even as a player I love minions. 

I take great joy in watching how my DM deploy’s his minions, how he frustrates me and other players with their tactical usage. It’s most obscene, but I take a perverse joy when all the minions gang up on the controller. I attack something else for a round just to see what will happen. 

In my mind minions truly are the best tool in the DM tool box that 4e introduced. The ability to add swarms of easy to kill, easy to use enemies is fantastic. Minions can quickly change the dynamic of any combat. Player’s are often left guessing on which monster is the minion during the initial rounds of an encounter. Where minions really stack up is when their synergies mesh with the other monsters in the encounter. 

As a player I feel truly heroic when I dispatch multiple foes with a burst or blast attack. Sure, they only have 1 hit point, but that isn’t the point. The point is what minions truly represent in the game. The fodder. My characters are supposed to be powerful, there are opponents that I am supposed to be able to vanquish with impunity. Minions fill that role. 

I hope you enjoy another read of this article. Since it was first published it has become one of our most searched articles and whether you are a DM or a player I’m sure you’ll find the value, joy and satisfaction that minions inject into combat. As I’ve said, my love affair with minions stands. I don’t see us breaking up anytime soon.

From February 25, 2011, Dungeon’s Master once again presents: My Love Affair With Minions.

It started innocently enough. At first just one and then another. Before I knew it minions had invaded my encounters. It was so easy to just add one more. I’ve considered counselling to help me deal with my problem. The last encounter I ran my players through had 23 minions in it. I’m afraid I’ve gone too far. I’m not sure I can reconcile my love affair with minions.

I worry my players may hold the excess amount of minions they face against me. That they may grow bored with encounters as they realize that they have less and less cause to roll damage dice. Worse, I fear they all may recreate their characters and come back as controllers.

Perhaps I’ve overstated things, blowing my problem out of perspective. However, I do enjoy including minions in my encounter design. They provide the players with the opportunity to feel heroic and force them to think tactically about combat. As I’ve incorporated minions into my encounters I’ve realized that there is a right way and a wrong way to use minions. This has resulted in the development of ground rules or guidelines in how I use my minions.

Know Thy Minions

The first step in effective minion implementation is knowing their role within the encounter. This will factor into the other decisions you will make about the minion. Minions can take on one of several key roles during a combat encounter:

• Fodder for the Kill – You are providing your players with the opportunity to kill multiple opponents with no real threat to themselves. This encounter is all about your players having fun while expending a minimal amount of resources.
• Tactical Considerations – Your minions are there to provide flanking bonuses to your main combatants, occupy certain squares or force your players to think twice about certain actions.
• Synergy Bonuses – Your minion may grant a certain bonus that another monster can benefit from. As an example in a recent encounter the minions did necrotic damage and granted vulnerable 5 necrotic. The main opponents in the fight also did necrotic damage, making clearing out the minions a higher priority than it might be otherwise.

Knowing what you want your minions to do during an encounter will effect the type of minion you select and how you will place them on the map.

Minion Variety

I am a big fan of minions in almost every combat. Care does need to be taken to mix up the type of minions that you employ. A solid mix of ranged and melee minions is needed. It keeps your players on their toes, constantly guessing as to what foe is a greater threat. Of course the threat of a minion is relative to the situation.

If you are constantly using melee minions you may find that you run out of tactical positions to place your enemies. If your minions are always ranged attackers you may find yourself with some frustrated players. A good mix keeps the players on their toes and allows them to feel superior when they dramatically reduce the amount of minions and therefore enemies that they are facing.

Minion Deployment

If a minion is the first enemy your players see, chances are it will also be the first enemy your players kill. You’ve now handed your players some very easy experience and wasted any benefit the minion might have provided in combat. Your pacing during combat in terms of how your minions are presented will go a long way in determining how effective your minions are.

I am a big fan of introducing minions in waves. As I’ve mentioned I like to use a lot of minions in my encounters, if all of the minions are present during the first round your players may become overwhelmed very easily. They may get the wrong idea about your design intentions for the encounter and decide that flight is the best option when the encounter is actually very winnable. By introducing your minions in waves you give the players the choice of dealing with them in small numbers or becoming overwhelmed by sheer numbers within a few rounds. Of course a capable controller can likely handle any number of minions, parties without a controller could be in for a more difficult time.

Minions were one of my favourite additions to 4e. They allow the players to feel more heroic at times and they provide the DM with more creative options for encounter design.

What are some memorable situations you have had with minions? What dynamic combat encounters have you designed or participated in?

Related reading:

• More Than Just Minions
• Fighting One Monster Is Boring
• The Monster Balancing Act

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

While the Dungeon’s Master team enjoys some well-deserved vacation time, we’re breaking out the greatest hits and shining a spotlight on a few of our favourite articles from 2011. We’ve searched for hidden gems that our newer readers might have missed and our long-time readers will enjoy reading again. Enjoy a second look at these greatest hits from Dungeon’s Master.

Although charging for services can have devastating consequences for your game – especially if the demand for payment is completely unexpected – I do think there are ways to make it work. An alternative way to tackle this issue it not to charge PCs for services out of the blue, but to make special arrangements where payment will guarantee services or garnish special treatment.

For example, in a lot of the D&D encounters sessions I ran this year there was only one leader for a party of six or more. With only two Healing Words to go around per encounter the competition for who got healed was pretty fierce. When multiple characters were injured the leader knew he needed to heal someone on his turn but wasn’t usually very picky about who it was. If two character were in equal peril (both bloodied or both unconscious) then it became a coin toss or roll of the dice. But what if one of those PCs made an arrangement with the leader ahead of time? He’s not asking for special treatment, just preferential treatment.

In circumstances where this PCs need is equal to that of another PC, the leader will earn extra compensation if he chooses to heal this PC first. The leader isn’t charging but is willing to accept payment for the service in order to help him decide who to help first. Once the other players learn that the leaders service are for sale they can offer him more lavish rewards or a greater cut of the loot. In this case they are less likely to resent the leader since he’s not charging all-of-a-sudden for healing, nor is he withholding it when needed most. He’s merely letting the PCs determine the way to break the ties. It wasn’t his idea to charge, he’s just taking advantage of the situation his allies created.

It could work.

From June 14, 2011, Dungeon’s Master once again presents: Should PCs Charge Other PCs for Services?

What if, during the heat of combat, when you’re down to your last few hit points and in desperate need of healing, the Cleric only agrees to use Healing Word if you promise to pay him 500 gp? What about a Rogue who won’t disarm and open a locked treasure chest unless he gets half of whatever’s inside it? Should characters be able to charge party members for performing unique services?

Normally this kind of behaviour isn’t tolerated at any D&D table. The game is cooperative and everyone’s supposed to get along. It’s assumed that all character brings something useful to the party dynamic. In the end everyone will contribute as necessary to accomplish the greater objective and by doing so everyone is entitled to an equal share of the spoils. But isn’t it reasonable to assume that every once and a while a PC will feel that what they bring to the table far outweighs that of the others? And in these circumstances is it wrong for them to take advantage of the situation for personal gain?

I must admit that this isn’t something that’s happened in one of my games for a long time. We just assume that all members of the adventuring party are friends and that friends don’t exploit their buddies in this way. Charging in this way is almost seen as taboo in D&D. Yet NPCs and other non-party members charge for their services all the time and no one feels that it’s out of place. Why then is it any different for PCs to charge each other?

Unless the PCs are all long-term friends with an interwoven back-story and common goal it’s reasonable for new members to charge for services. In fact, many adventuring companies will set terms at the beginning of an adventure. The Rogue agrees to join the party for an equal cut of any treasure found along the way and in exchange he’ll provide his services with no additional ad hoc charge.

In circumstances where the PCs are brought together randomly, like in an LFR adventure for example, you’re likely to have six complete strangers at the table. Neither the players nor their PCs have ever met before the events that brought them together for this adventure. In these circumstances why wouldn’t the only leader in the party charge for healing? In fact he’d likely charge more depending on the urgency.

I can already anticipate a lot of strong objections to this kind of play. After all, it’s clearly not how D&D is usually played. However, there’s nothing in the rules against it. Taking this approach will make you a lot more enemies that friends, but if the character you’re playing is a greedy, opportunistic bastard, why not charge?

The danger of charging for services is that once one PC decides to charge everyone else will likely follow suit. It may begin by a leader withholds healing, but next it’s a defender refusing to mark opponents, a controller refusing to push targets away from endangered PCs and a striker refusing to use his bug guns without adequate compensation. It is indeed a slippery slope. Before you know it the PCs are demanding payment from each other not to kill party members while they sleep.

This kind of in-game behaviour in public play is likely to cause the player serious hardship once word gets out. But in a home game where the players all know one another and are willing to accept some unique role-playing hurdles, this kind of experiment might actually be good for the game.

I know at my gaming table everyone feels that they are the most important member of the party. If you’re suddenly forced to pay for everyone’s services, it will become really apparent really fast just how important a defender or controller really is.

Before this kind of play-style is undertaken I strongly encourage the DM and all players to discuss it first. Having one player demand payment out of the blue is likely to get that PCs killed. Sure the wounded PC agrees to pay for healing after the monster is defeated; however, once the foe is down the rest of the party, knowing that they’ll likely be charged the next time they need healing, will (at best) expel the PC from the party or (at worst) kill him where he stands. Neither of these alternatives are appealing for the PC (or player) charging for services, and may cause real life friction.

Putting PCs under this kind of ultimatum when they have no choice but to accept can have even more detrimental effects. If the wounded PC calls the leader’s bluff and refuses to pay for healing will the leader actually let a party member die over a few gp? And if he does how will the rest of the party treat him after the fact?

For the most part I don’t think that PCs should charge each other for services. That being said, I do think there is merit in actually having the conversation in-game and outlining exactly what everyone’s responsibilities are before the campaign gets rolling. It could be something as simple as a conversation at the beginning of the campaign. All party members agreeing that they will carry their weight in and out of combat, helping each other as required, without any additional compensation beyond an equal share of the reward. Doing this early on could eliminate any thoughts that some players may have about suddenly charging other PCs for services.

Have you ever played in a game where PCs charge each other for services? Have you ever had a PC spring this on you at the worst possible moment? How did the rest of the party react to the demand for payment? Did they pay? Did they kill the PC charging afterwards? Do you think that PCs have the right to charge other PCs for their services?

Related reading:

• Character Motivation
• The Gaming Jerk
• Screw Morals, Just Keep the Game Moving

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!