charlesatan’s blog

Technically, I've relocated to my main blog at http://charles-tan.blogspot.com but here's a more recent idea I've come up with:

If you've ever tried playing a spellcaster in D&D, it's a lot of bookkeeping. It really tempts you to computerize everything and stick with MMORPGs, at least when it comes to spellcasting (when you're a Fighter, nothing beats rolling that d20!). So, how do we solve that problem?

Well, honestly, short of creating a computer program for yourself (and somehow lug around your laptop with you to your games), there is no "perfect" solution. But there are some not-so-perfect options available to you. Some I remember reading from various message boards and some I came up with myself (although I wouldn't be surprised if some people came up with the same solution). So here they are, ready to be pirated for your game.

Psionics:

Psionic magic is perhaps the easiest of the magic systems since it uses numbers to keep track of your power points. For a high level game, just keep a piece of paper ready and you can jot down how many power points you've expended: 3 pp the first round, 5 pp the second, another 5 the third, etc. Unfortunately, you'll also have to do some mental math adding up all those power points. Another less bookkeeping method is to give yourself counters or chips or tokens. At the start of the day, give yourself an amount of counters equal to your power points. And then when you spend them, discard them into a pool. When you rest, get your tokens back again from the pool. This works for low-level games but not so good at high level ones, especially when your power points rise to three digits (alternatively, at that point, you can probably use Monopoly play money).

Vancian Magic:

Paladins and Rangers don't have much spells to keep track of but that's not the case with Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. So how do you keep track of your spells? Well, one solution is to write them on cards, index cards, or use your spare CCG cards as proxy cards for them. Then your spells memorized per day is easily the cards in your hand and then discard them when you've spent them (as suggested from Book of Nine Swords: Tome of Battle for Maneuvers). This is good for low- to mid-level games but can be problematic at high levels. I mean at level 20, without accounting for bonus spells, a Wizard has 40 spells per day! 40 cards in your hand isn't a hand, it's a deck!

Spontaneous Spellcasters:

Bards and Sorcerers are easier to take care of compared to to Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. Personally, I just list their spells known and write down a number beside the appropriate spell-level. If you want to shy away from the pencil, one method you can use is to gather different colored counters or chips or tokens (or even spare change). Red chips could represent your 0-level spells, green chips your 1st-level spells, etc. Just keep stock of your chips and throw them into a pool once you've expended them. The only problem here is that you need to remember which color goes with which spell level and at high level games, you need ten different-colored chips. Well, for the latter, you can mix and match your chips with tokens. For example, a red chip might represent 0-level spells while a red token represent 5th-level spells. If you're not so color-coordinated, spare change might be your best answer: the lower the denomination, the lower the spell level. Or Monopoly play money again is a good solution but poker chips and game tokens has always had better appeal than paper.

My initial thoughts on the end of Dragon and Dungeon's print run can be found here. It's only now however that I've extensively thought about Wizards of the Coast's (WotC) Digital Initiative and what could possibly be done with it (pretty much like any disclaimer you've seen in most blogs, this is a musing rather than a "things-that-will-be" or "insider information"). And if WotC has been silent about the matter and appear to be uncertain at what their final product will be, I think that's a good thing as they can still make some changes (and hopefully read this blog) -- that's one of the benefits of going digital: I work for a magazine and I know how much lead time it takes to work on printed material. (And in a way, that's the same problem D&D Miniatures faces -- it adjusts to the metagame two expansions in advance rather than in the succeeding set.)

Interface

A big chunk of the complaints and rants stems down to interface. A lot of fans want a printed product. The Digital Initiative simply isn't that, at least not at first glance. Personally, I think it boils down to people's ability to adapt. eBooks for example haven't caught on but that's not to say the medium is completely hopeless. And a lot of RPG products out there are being distributed as PDFs including one of my favorites, Malhavoc Press. As I previously stated, it boils down to whether you're wiling to adapt or not. iPod screens aren't optimum for watching videos but hey, people do so. I'm not comfortable reading eBooks on the computer but I find reading it on a PDA not much of a problem (unfortunately I don't own a PDA).

Yes, the Digital Initiative ain't Paizo's Dragon or Dungeon any more than Pathfinder is an exact equivalent: they're new products in different mediums, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Of course it's starting to be a pet peeve when people complain on an online message board that they have difficulty reading something online. I mean you're posting on a message board! Doesn't that necessitate the use of a computer and a monitor? If you've adapted to posting on message boards, you'll adapt to online delivery (in whatever form it may be). And if you're somehow handicapped (nearly blind, color blind, etc.), there's a better chance that you'll find a solution thanks to the fact that the document is online. I mean I don't see Paizo releasing a Dragon Magazine: Braille Edition anytime soon, but programs that reads out text out loud or magnify text size isn't unreasonable.

Lastly, unless there's some nifty electronic protection involved, you can print it (even if it involves using the Print Screen button for PC users or Command + Shift + 3 for Mac users). Better yet, you don't need to print everything. I mean if people hate ads or what they consider "unnecessary material" in magazines, this is the perfect solution: you get to print only what you need.

Format

There's several ways to go with online delivery, each with its pros and cons. Right now what springs to mind is either they go web-based (using html, dhtml, xml--whatever as long as it can be viewed with a regular web browser) or PDF-based. Irregardless of what method they'll use, however, it'll have the benefit of coming out on time. Irregardless if I'm residing in the US, in Australia, in Germany, or in the Philippines, the publication will come out on time, simultaneously. I'll never need to worry about shipping, whether that means waiting for the package to be delivered to my door step or going through the hassle of picking it up at the post office.

1) Some people complain that they can't "collect" something that's not in print. Not true--if the Digital Initiative is released as a PDF, they're just as collectible. It's simply a different medium: they're called files. I mean I collect the web enhancements that's currently availble now. I save it in my hard drive and in my flash drive. I can port it over to another computer. It still counts as collecting. If it goes web-based, however, the complaint is understandable. I'll need online access and it'll appear as "one huge package" instead of the "monthlies" we're used to. That's not to say collecting "issues" will be impossible, it's just more difficult. I can only click "save us" so many times. If you want "collectability" PDF is the way to go and it's easily transportable to other machines/devices. If you want to print the product, PDF also seems like the likely answer. Lastly, if you want something that you can use once your subscription expires, again, PDF is a good answer. But PDF is not by any means the perfect solution as you'll see in my next points.

2) By going web-based, I don't have the restrictions of a paper medium. What I mean by constraints is that an article only needs to be long as it needs to be (or as short as it needs to be). There's less need for unnecessary material just to make it appear that the page is "filled up". Normally in a magazine, this takes the form of ads, additional illustrations, or simply statements in the article that is repeated and has a bigger size for emphasis. The problem with going PDF is you're essentially still reproducing a printed product without the printing costs. Eventually you'll need to layout the product as if it were a printed magazine which again means empty spaces and/or fillers. And because it's web-based, there's little need to cut out "necessary" material because of page limitations. Of course going web-based isn't without its disadvantages. Anyone who's done web design and layout knows how mutable the format is. What might look good on my computer might look horrible on someone else's computer. A lot of variables are involved, everything from web browser to resolution size to the OS you're using. If you're using a computer that's old enough, the web page might not even load at all. But this mutability could be a good thing as well -- one could easily design a product so that depending on which country I'm from, I could get a product that's in Japanese if I'm a Japanese-speaker, in English if I'm an English-speaker (or braille if I'm blind).

3) I think the biggest valaue for the format is instant errata. Will there be mistakes in the product? We're only human. But the good thing about going web-based is that corrections can be made once it's spotted or mentioned. As a web-based product, this is an optimal advantage. As a PDF, it's trickier. If this is to be implemented, we'll be having issues like Digital Initiative #100 version 1.0, followed with a release the next day with Digital Initiative #100 version 1.1 and so forth.

Of course while this is all possible, it only matters if the guys and gals at WotC makes use of it. Just because a DVD can have this and that feature doesn't mean all DVDs have additional features in them. Having said that, what I mentioned is merely the top of the iceberg. Here's some suggestions for maximizing the medium:

Things I'd Like to See in Digital Initiative:

1) An online product and not simply a printed product placed on the web -- there's a lot of things that can be done with online products and we've barely scratched the surface. It's not just about interactive programs such as a tile mapper or a character generator, there's simply more that can be done with an online magazine than with a printed one. For example, interviews don't need to be simply read (although a transcript is always helpful): it could be presented via mp3 (a Podcast) or video. I mean there'll be nuances and body language that can never be captured in a transcript. There could even be some animation going on in the "ecology" articles. Or simply an image gallery where it was limited to one or two pictures of each NPC/monster/magic item.

2) Maps -- I loved Dungeon magazine and if it's going online, I think a point for improvement are the maps. WotC can give me maps in various resolutions (hi-res and lo-res, the former if I'm printing them, the second if I'm viewing/projecting them from the computer) and in various sizes (either to fit the screen/printed paper or on a 1:1 scale). I can also get maps with various information on them: in player friendly format (without revealing where the secret doors, traps, and monsters are) and in DM-only format (where all the details are included). They can even do something creative and give it to me from a different angle, such as a first-person perspective. And since they don't have to print it, they can give it to me in a lot of formats that would have otherwise taken up valuable page space. I mean that's my complaint about Expedition to Castle Ravenloft: the maps are great for the GM, but it's not as good when running an actual game for the players. I can't use the maps as visuals because a) they're too small and b) they give too much away. With this online format, I get the best of both worlds, especially if the Digital Initiative is going to give me adventures and adventure paths.

3) Updates on Monsters -- I'm currently playing 3.5 and a lot of 3.0 monsters (or even AD&D ones) haven't been converted. This is the perfect place to update them. And even if they were already updated to 3.5, it's a good place to use the new stat block (which I find to be easier to utilize) and include the results for their respective Knowledge checks. I mean some people were complaining about rehashing old monsters in Monster Manual IV and slapping class levels on them -- this is the perfect place to feature them. Better yet, it's the perfect partner to the "Ecology of..." articles Dragon was publishing. Throw in NPCs as well for that matter.

So far, those are the "general" things I want. I mean fans will most likely want to include their favorite campaign setting into the mix, etc. The great thing about online content is that it's actually viable now without having to worry about page count (although WotC still needs to worry about paying freelancers).

But like all things, it's a wait-and-see. Just because "it can be done" doesn't mean "it will be done".

During the 80's, one of the sources for D&D books in the Philippines was Nova Fontanna, a hybrid toy store and gaming store. Unfortunately, it shut down  years ago (it never got to import D&D 3.0 and the last item I bought there was a paperback of Dragonlance Legends in 2000).

Anyway, they haven't managed to get rid of all their stock and so they're having the equivalent of a garage sale at Shoppesville. The modules and boxed sets are going for P100.00 ($2.00) while you can get three TSR paperbacks for the same price.

It seems like the biggest announcement since D&D 3.5 just broke out: Paizo Publishing ceases publication of Dragon and Dungeon and magazine.

Now both Dragon and Dungeon have been staples in D&D's long history. Both magazines weren't there from the beginning but ever since they popped up, they've been part of the gaming culture.

When D&D 3.0 came out and fell into the hands of Wizards of the Coast, both magazines were supported by the company. Some time later, there was a shift and the people behind the magazine splintered into Paizo Publishing. Now I love Paizo. It's not just that they've made two remarkable publications (in addition to their other products), it's that I've seen two remarkable products that have actually improved. Dragon didn't always have a "Class Acts" section but in retrospect seems intuitive to the nature of the magazine. Dungeon's "Adventure Path" series was equally successful and monumental, especially the likes of the epic Savage Tide and Age of Worms adventures.

What's the implication of the news? Honestly, I'm neutral about it. Not exactly bad news but it does smell of one thing for certain: change.

Paizo has done a stellar job. I think there is (much) life for them after Dragon and Dungeon. In fact, this might be a good thing as they get to explore new options. Their Pathfinder series isn't necessarily a sure thing but again, it's more of a different product rather than stemming from the corpses of the two defunct magazines.

Where Wizards of the Coast is taking the two publications, only time will tell. In the message boards, people aren't too keen on the electronic content format. For me it's a wait and see. The company can make an even bigger success with the two publications. Or they might not. I'm not automatically ruling them out of the picture and claiming this decision as the worst mistake ever... at least not yet. At the very least however, the product is going to be different. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Neither Dragon, Dungeon, or Paizo Publishing are dead. They're just changing--evolving. Don't count them out of the picture yet. As with most things, it's a wait-and-see before I make a final decision.

Character sheets I think are important in terms of game design. Sure, it's nor your priority when designing the system from scratch, but it's something you'll need to tackle eventually. What's vital is to treat it as a legitimate concern and not simply a half-hearted endeavor which you need to finish. It can spell the difference between gathering new players or intimidating them to try something else.

The problem with the current (or default) character sheet in most mainstream RPGs is that they're not optimized for comprehension efficiency. Rather, they're designed to be filled out, for boxes to be ticked off by the player and for blanks to be filled out. It's a great design to help players learn the rules. In actual play, however, it's not necessarily the best method. Take the D&D character sheet for example: in terms of character creation, it's great design. When I'm actually playing D&D, however, it can be confusing when looking for my bonuses to attack, to AC, and the like. It simply doesn't occur as seamlessly as I'd like it to be. Worse, I need to turn the character sheet around to know certain details, such as what my items are, what spells I've prepared, etc.

This problem, I think, is more visible when you're the GM. A GM for example doesn't use character sheets to create his NPCs. Usually he uses the NPC stat block. In 3.0, the stat block was horrible. Sure, it occupies a small chunk of space but finding which is which can be confusing. But it was still a step ahead of the PHB character sheets in the sense that all the relevant information was on one page. The new NPC stat block (which can be viewed here, at the end of the entry) post DMG 2, is clearly much more efficient. Sure, it took up more space than the old stat block but it was far more easy to use and better organized.

Of course I'm not proposing the new NPC stat block to players--at least not initially. Veteran players will have no problems converting their character sheets to the stat block format; it's more prep-work but the rewards in actual game play is worth it. No, the problem is getting new players to use the new NPC stat block. To a new player, filling out those blanks won't be simple: they won't know the answer. That's the advantage of the clunky PHB character sheet; it helps them get off their feet.

The design dilemma I think is reconciling the two or at the very least if there's a way to better streamline the existing character sheet.

Of course that's not to say that actual game design is independent from designing the character sheet. For example Ability Scores having two values (you know, having an 18 really means you have a +4 modifier) seems like a redundant value (when you could simply state it as a +4) and could actually make designing the character sheet easier. (Of course I understand why Ability Scores have two values, everything from it being a hold-over from the previous edition to it aiding in the generation of random stats.)

At the end of the day, the fact that there are several variants of character sheets, both by independent gamers and third party companies, just goes to show that there's room for improvement in this arena.

Currently, the trend at Wizards of the Coast is to develop more GM-oriented products instead of the deluge of character options products that marked the first few years. That's why this year and the previous, you're seeing more large-scale adventures, the new encounter format, the improved monster stat blocks (I mean who else will use this but the GM?), and the environment series (most notable is Cityscape and Dungeonscape).

That's not to say Wizards of the Coast has ignored this market--even early on, they already had their entry-level adventures from The Sunless Citadel to Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. (And let us not forget the hints of Ashardalon in various adventures which culminated in The Bastion of Broken Souls.)

The thing with pen-and-paper RPG design is that it doesn't merely revolve around the designer-player interaction. Pen-and-paper RPGs has a designer-game master-player model. It's not like a video game where once the programmer finishes the game, it's up to the player to enjoy it. And while certain board games like War of the Generals has a mediator (a non-player who judges the players), his participation in the actual game is limited. A game master, on the other hand, isn't just a mere referee--he shapes the game, he shapes the story. From a different perspective, it could be said that the game master is a player too--he engages in the same combat encounters that players face, he participates in the same story they're part of. However, his role is different: he's the yang to the player's yin. I mean it  could even be interpreted that the GM is a player and the players are the ones game-mastering for the GM, reacting to him as he is reacting to them.

However, the typical pen-and-paper RPG usually begins with the GM. It's up to the GM to get the ball rolling, to create a story or an adventure, to gather the players around a common time and place to game. Unlike conventional games where players are all that's necessary, in RPGs you need a game master as well. Thankfully, a game doesn't need a lot of GMs: you only need one. Players, on the other hand, can be almost any manageable number, from one to eight (I've even seen games where there's more than a dozen players but that can get unwieldy). Still, at the end of the day, you could be stuck with seven people and all of them are players--no one wants to act as a GM--and thus you have no game. GM's are the backbone of the RPG. There's probably no shortage of players but it can be difficult to find a GM that suits your taste. And perhaps the only way for gaming culture to spread is if the number of GMs increases. It's easier to convince other people to play for example rather than to GM, especially if you're a newbie or simply uninitiated.

The good news is that people aren't divided into GMs and players. There's usually an overlap and a gaming group can have a rotating routine of GMs and players. The other good news is that the transition from player to GM isn't necessarily difficult. Sure, it's a change in perception: you have to prepare the game, plan to cater to your needs as well as your players, etc. But depending on the game, there are lots of tools out there. And perhaps the most important thing for starting GMs is to start with a modest goal--your game doesn't need to be this huge epic or complicated conspiracy: it merely needs to be fun. And when it comes to D&D, this usually entails combat (perhaps the good thing about D&D is that it has no pretensions as to what kind of game it is--it's not The World of Darkness where the focus is role-playing, nor is it GURPS where it could go either way).

The bad news however, is that someone has to actually volunteer. It's easier to be a player rather than a GM, at least in terms of time management. If you want to spread the love of gaming, someone has to pick up the duties of a GM. And when no one is volunteering, perhaps it's time for you to step up.

The classic D&D party assumes that there is a healer in the group, usually a Cleric. Sometimes, however, no one wants to fill this niche -- turns spent healing a companion usually means turns that's not hitting, blasting, or backstabbing monsters. It's rare to find a player  that gets his or her thrills from healing.

There have been some "patches" around this dilemma. Some groups acquire a cohort whose job it is to heal the rest of the group. Others stock up on potions and wands of cure light wounds as well as maxing out their ranks of Use Magic Device. Personally, I even had a previous blog entry that dealt with maximizing the party's healing efficiency.

Of course another solution is to tweak the rules itself. Without creating too much confusion and house rules muck, Reserve Points are an excellent way to give players access to healing without relying on healing spells. As much as I like Reserve Points, it isn't perfect. It only effectively gives you twice as much hit points per day. It also limits the number of encounters your party can face. What happens when you've depleted all your Reserve Points and most of your hit points? You're still stuck staying at the inn, spending several days recovering both your hit points and your Reserve Points. Mike Mearls's Iron Heroes has a partial solution to this by extending the uses of the Heal skill. But what if you have a high-action game, one that has at least four encounters in a day and your party doesn't have access to healing magic?

My solution isn't original. I honestly got some of it from one of the message boards at EnWorld and extrapolated the rest from the basic gist. Basically, characters begin each encounter with temporary hit points equal to his current hit points. When he runs out of temporary hit points, the excess damage goes to his hit points but that character remains unconscious for the rest of of the encounter unless he somehow manages to acquire temporary hit points again (via a spell or some other rules tweak).

For example: Rob is a 1st-level Fighter and he has 12 hp. At the start of the encounter, he has 12 temporary hit points. The group encounters some orcs and over the course of the battle he is hit three times. The first deals 5 damage, bring down his temporary hit points to 7. The second deals 6 damage, bringing his temporary hit points to 1. At this point, he is still functioning perfectly. The third time he is struck he is inflicted with 3 points of damage. His temporary hit points is now 0 and he reduces his hit points by 2, bringing it down to 10 hp. At this point, he falls unconscious. At the end of the encounter, he is woken up by his companions and is still at 10 hp. Later on, they meet a pack of goblins and a new combat encounter begins. This time, Rob starts out with 10 temporary hit points, reflecting his current hit points which is at 10.

A character is staggered when his nonlethal damage is equal to his current temporary hit points. In all other respects, the rules for nonlethal damage remains the same. Hit points are recovered at the normal rate while temporary hit points are "refreshed" at the start of each encounter. If your players have access to magical healing, whether as a spell or supernatural ability (i.e. Paladin's Lay on Hands), you may want to limit it to heal temporary hit points rather than a character's actual hit points.

Applying such rule tweaks has several advantages at low levels:

1. Players can have more combat encounters without necessarily having access to healing magic, more so than using the Reserve Points rules. It is not without cost however. The more encounters the party encounters, the less likely they'll withstand the next. A character might begin the encounter with 12 hit points but face the next with 10, and then the one after that with 4.
2. As a GM, you don't need to hold back on the dice with the fear that you'll kill characters. They might go down in a fight but that doesn't mean they'll die. They effectively have twice as much hit points and the rule that they go down when they exhaust their temporary hit points means that there's little chance that they'll abuse the temporary hit points rule (i.e. continuing the fight because they still have hit points even if they're out of temporary hit points).
3. Characters can fall unconscious without being useless for the rest of the day. When characters do go down in a fight, that doesn't necessarily mean that'll be their last fight for the day (unless they are incredibly reckless).

Of course this rules tweak is not without its disadvantages:

1. Disparity at high levels. The advantages gained from Temporary Hit Points are lost at high levels. Combat are reduced to one of two encounters: encounters that aren't lethal enough that they never penetrate a character's actual hit points (a possibility when your hit points reach three digits) or encounters so lethal that it's actually capable of bringing down your hit points to single digits (you're down to 1 virtual hit point and the next attack deals 50+ damage in one blow) that leaves you virtually useless for the next few days.
2. Much like Reserve Points, it doesn't solve the problem of recovering hit points during combat without access to magic. What happens when a character goes down? He may be up for the next combat encounter but that character is certainly out of commission for the current one, even if it was due to simple misfortune on dice rolls (i.e. a critical hit, a failed save).
3. At higher levels, this system still doesn't address a support which only a Cleric can provide: recovering ability damage/drain, "curing" paralysis and diseases, recovering negative levels, reviving a dead character, etc.

Of course this is just a starting ground. Experienced GMs might tweak these rules a bit. You might allow healing magic to actually heal hit points, giving them a bigger bang for your buck. If you find the current Temporary Hit Points rules too generous, you might just award players with temporary hit points equal to half their current hit points, and don't let them go unconscious once they've exhausted their temporary hit points. If you have the time, you might even work on existing game mechanics, such as Feats that might give you extra temporary hit points, Skills and Skill Tricks that let you recover hit points during and outside of combat, or even allow Action Points to bestow additional temporary hit points.

Feats:

Virtual Toughness [General]

When it comes to combat, you are tougher than usual.

Benefit: At the beginning of each encounter, you gain an additional number of temporary hit points equal to half your level, rounded down (minimum 1).

Special: A Fighter may select Virtual Toughness as a bonus feat.

Surge of Energy [General]

In dire circumstances, you receive a sudden burst of strength.

Benefit: You can spend an action point to gain an additional 10 temporary hit points that lasts until the end of your next turn. Activating this ability is an immediate action.

Skill Trick:

Reviving Hands [Manipulation]

You can revive someone who has fallen in combat.

Prerequisite: Heal 5 ranks.

Benefit: If you succeed on a Heal check against DC 15, you can bestow upon another character whose temporary hit points is equal to 0 (but whose hit points is not less than 0) an additional number of temporary hit points equal to your heal check minus fifteen.

Perhaps one of the sacred cows of the D&D game is rolling for hit points. Now while rolling dice as a game mechanic can be fun, the problem with rolling for hit points is that it has long term consequences. Unlike an attack roll or skill check where the repercussions will only be felt for that particular encounter, rolling for hit points has repercussions that last for the entire campaign. All is well and good when you roll high but what happens when you roll low? And while statistics tell us that it all evens out, sometimes simply bad luck can end us having a 5th-level Fighter who has less than 20 hit points.

3rd Edition gave us a partial remedy to random hit points. First, all characters begin with maximized hit points. So the party wizard begins with at least 4 hit points, instead of rolling a 1d4 at first level. As for the succeeding levels, one could take the average plus one, or even some of the RPGA rules which is a variation of that (8 hit points for d12 classes, 2 for d4 classes). Some players even use the variation of getting three quarters of the maximum hit points per level. The weakness of fixed hit points, however, is that hit points loses its “random” factor. Again, there’s a thrill when you roll the highest number possible in a die but a problem arises when we roll the minimum. Is there a way to have our cake and eat it too?

Mike Mearl’s Iron Heroes has a nice variation when it comes to determining hit points. Everyone rolls a d4 every level but it has a fixed number attached to each class. At the minimum, you’re rolling for d4+2 hit points per level (plus your Constitution modifier). At best, it’s a d4+8. It’s a good system but the focus of Iron Heroes is action/adventure in a world without magic items. Thus characters need all the help they can get. Using the same formula for your regular D&D game might be giving an unnecessary boon to your players (since you’ll almost always be getting better than the average hit points with the exception of those stuck simply rolling d4s). And come on, some people might scoff at rolling d4s for hit points. So what’s a possible solution?

Taking a page from Mike Mearls, one could use this chart when rolling for hit points per level:

d4 = d2+2

d6 = d3+3

d8 = d4+4

d10 = 2d3+4

d12 = d6+6

With this, you’ll be getting at the very least half plus one of your maximum possible hit points. You’ll also be using a variety of die types depending on the classes you take and get the same thrill when you roll the highest possible number. Still, if you want to keep things simple, the formula presented in Iron Heroes seems the neatest although you will have to make some adjustments when it comes to classes with d4 hit points.

I've been stuck with GM duties for the past few months and it's not something I altogether regret as I get to create and explore various class and monster combinations. Still, when running an actual game, I shy away from using classes from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. Don't get me wrong--I love the book. It's just that creating such characters takes more time than usual (damn prerequisites for maneuvers!) and more importantly, it's difficult to run lots of 'em.

The blame can be placed on the maneuvers. First, I'm simply not familiar with them as I am with spells. Perhaps with more time, I'd get to know each and every maneuver by name. The second is that the maneuvers themselves don't have names which are necessarily evocative of what they do. I mean with spells, I pretty much know the difference between fireball, fly, and mage armor. Not so with douse the flames, leading the attack, and leading the charge. Basically I need the book at hand and much referencing to use one martial adept let alone several.

The complaint is more of experience however. Spellcasters in general are difficult to run but because I'm intimately familiar with them, running several spellcasters at once isn't too much trouble for me. Running several martial adepts, however, is.