Blogging Crossroads

     It has been some time since I've made a post. I don't have much of an excuse for that, and I apologize. Life has been getting in the way I guess, what with the never-ending parade of housework on top of the holidays on top of my wife's impending childbirth. Still, I'm sure there is still time in which I could stop watching TV long enough to write a post or two. That is, if I could get my brain to function beyond the minimal level required to go to work, eat, and sleep (which is about all I seem to have the energy for anymore).
     I am at a crossroads for the blog, as it is. I don't see myself maintaining a regular schedule of article-like posts as I have done. I don't have the inspiration for it, and quite frankly, it's not exactly setting the internet on fire with its popularity. I have been debating changing format some, and have already taken the step of arranging the posts somewhat with tags that you can see along the top of the page. I did this in anticipation that I may start adding different kinds of content to the blog. Like my Lovecraft Country comics, I thought it might do me some good to start putting some fiction on here. Give people something to read that has a plot and characters and is more interesting than my boring old observations on gaming and whining about what I don't like in movies anymore.
     Of course, as a writer, this opens up a much larger dilemma. Were I to do this, I would be providing free content for the world. As an artist, I've no problem with this. On the other hand, there's the part of me that would like to someday make some money off my writing. So  is giving it away a good idea? Would it serve as a free sample for the admittedly small audience I have here, or merely be another example of my continuing hubris in thinking that anybody cares what I have to say? Should I just admit that the dozen-or-so people who bought Reign of Rezal are the same dozen-or-so people who actually read this blog, and therefore I'd just be advertising to the choir (to mix a metaphor)? Or should I continue to hold out hope that somehow, magically, I might have a readership that breaks out from my immediate circle of friends to the internet masses beyond?

Not Just Zombies Anymore

     I may have to detract my earlier complaints about the zombie genre. Rather, I may have to add to them. Maybe it's not the "zombie" part, but the "apocalypse" part that is getting tired.

Plus, nobody ever dresses appropriately anymore.

     After having a discussion about such things over Thanksgiving (because that's the kind of family I have), I started watching Survivors, which is a British post-apocalypse show featuring a plague as the cause of the end of the world. I'm only on episode 2 of 12, but already I can see the themes and realize that my interest will wane fast.
     The problem is that I don't tune into these kinds of shows to watch a soap opera that just happens to take place with the backdrop of apocalypse. It's the same reason I'm struggling through The Walking Dead. It's just a big mass of high school-esque drama with the occasional zombie. I might as well watch Glee; it's the same thing, just replace "zombie" with "musical number."
     Yes, yes, as a writer I understand that part of the importance of the genre is to show how normal people react when civilization as we know breaks down. But really, we've seen it before. It's all the same. There's a Lawful Stupid protagonist who refuses to acknowledge that the old rules don't apply anymore, and there's the guy who goes way over to the Dark Side just to provide juxtaposition. Is there a child and/or pregnant lady to provide unwarranted optimism and remind us to hope for the future? You bet. Tough guy survivalist who is just waiting for an otherwise useless female character to bring out his heroic side? Check and check. And wait, what's that over there? The suicidal character who has to learn that all is not bleak and that life is worth living, no matter what terrible fate inevitably awaits you? Why yes, yes it is.
     However, I realize now that plague as a start leads to even less options for excitement. There aren't even monsters to pop in every once in a while. All you get is bandits or guys shooting each other over canned foods. While I accept that these would be realistic and logical dangers, you can only watch so many tense standoffs between middle-aged unwashed office workers before it starts to lose its appeal. Most plague apocalypse stories understand this and start going off on other tangents, which is often worse. Like the conspiracy angle (where it seems Survivors is going) or the magical/religious nonsense that takes up the last two-thirds of The Stand. Either are just as groan-worthy, and smack of the author shrugging and saying "I know there isn't enough plot in a plague, so I just started winging it."
     Of the apocalypse genres, I think of the big four: zombies, plague, aliens, or nuclear. The first two have been done to death. I haven't had a chance to watch any Falling Skies, so we'll see how alien holocaust does. I have some hope, because at least then we have monstrous bad guys to fall back on (like zombies, but who's superior technology actually poses some logical threat to our heavily-armed society). If not, then I guess we're back to thinking other ways to create an apocalypse. My vote is for more plant-related madness, like Day of the Triffids or The Happening. But I'm pretty sure I'm alone on that one...

Thanksgiving Special

     My wife and I used to have a tradition of watching the Thanksgiving episode of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer every year on said holiday. With that time of year rolling around again, I thought I'd compile a list of geeky-related Thanksgiving shows to watch, just to help give a little variety. I was horribly disappointed to find that it was such a short, sad list:

     Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "Pangs"
     Chuck: "Chuck Versus the Nemesis"
     Heroes: "Thanksgiving" 
     Quantum Leap: "The Leap Home" (Parts 1 and 2)
     Roswell: "Max In The City"
     Charmed: "The Truth Is Out There... And It Hurts" and "There's Something About Leo"
     Smallville: "Rage" and "Ambush"

And they were all crushed by the house-sized cornucopia

     Now, admittedly, I am unfamiliar with all but the first three of these, because I've yet to sit down and watch Quantum Leap, Roswell, Charmed, or Smallville (and I only ever intend to watch one of those; the prize goes to who can guess which one!). So I can't vouch for how "Thanksgiving-y" any of them are. Also, I'm only considering what I think of as "geeky" shows, which wouldn't include mainstream sitcoms or dramas, even if they are generally popular among geeks.
     Thanksgiving always seems to get the short end of the stick in our society. I'm not going to go onto a long rant about how Christmas decorations in our town go up the day after Halloween, because every time I do I only get fervent agreement from everyone. It makes me wonder: if everybody agrees that Christmas should hold off until December like the decent, respectful holiday it should be, than what vandal is sneaking into stores and onto the city streets to decorations a month early?
     Of course, geek shows can often get a free pass when it comes to holiday episodes, depending on their setting. If the show doesn't take place in modern America, then Thanksgiving isn't a thing and therefore it would just be weird to try to shoehorn it in (case in point: the Star Wars Christmas Special). But just off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of series that dropped the ball and totally should have had (or should have, if the show is still in production) Thanksgiving specials.

     Eureka: Turkeyzilla, a genetically engineered bird created by one of the town's scientists in an attempt to feed everyone at once, rampages through the town.
     Stargate SG-1: The team accidentally stumbles across a world where they recreate their own version of the first Thanksgiving. And guess who else is invited to dinner? Goa'uld!
     Warehouse 13: The artifact: the gravy boat used at the first Thanksgiving. The mayhem: gravy flood!
     The X-Files: Mulder and Scully investigate a small town where the ghosts of all the slain turkeys of the past roam the streets in a demonic procession.

     That's just a primer, folks. Feel free to add more ideas in the comments.

Plumbing Perils

     This is one of those times when it sucks to be a grown-up.
     We had a sewage backup that took out our downstairs bathroom and part of the surrounding hall. In the future, we will probably be able to look back at this as a minor disaster. It, of course, does not feel like it now. Pipes and flooring are needing replaced, and no matter how much the guys doing the work assure us that it could have been much worse and that insurance will (probably) cover it, it is still painful to watch. My wife and I were literally wincing as we could hear them sawing out chunks of drywall and prying up baseboards. As I type, my wife is going outside to dig out some Easter lily bulbs that will otherwise be destroyed by people fixing our pipe (to get it up to code: another joy of buying an old "fixer-upper").
     I mentioned in an earlier post how important it was that our house felt like home, and things like this make me realize how true that really is. The house itself almost gets anthropomorphized. We've put so much work into it, and watching something outside our control ruin some of it just seems like a cruel trick of fate. My wife kept talking about how much time she spent painting those damn baseboards. Yes, the repairmen will replace them and repaint them exactly the same, and in theory it won't cost us any more than our deductible (which is quite enough, thank you very much). But it doesn't make the destruction any easier to bear.
     I could see it in the repairmen's faces that they just didn't understand our reactions (i.e. that we were upset about all that they were tearing apart). In their mind, it was going to be covered and put back just as it was, so who cares? I wonder if they feel this way about their own homes; I wonder if it's normal to just shrug and repair something that's broken without a second thought. Similarly, I wonder about the people who move from house to house a lot*, or the idea of having a "starter home." This is where you live, how can you not care about it enough to toss it away after a handful of years?
     I'm sure I'm being overly sentimental, and we'll all just have to put up with it until everything gets put back to normal. Hopefully this will happen before Thanksgiving when my family is coming into town. As for now, I'm just going to have to pace nervously while my house is sick, until the experts tell me it's all better.

*I referring, of course, to people who have enough money that they are constantly "upgrading." I understand that a lot of people have to move a lot, and not of their own volition. Obviously real estate and property shuffling is not a game to them.

Dispensable (?): Divine Casters

At least he hit you so hard you left the battlefield...

     The last archetype to look at is the divine caster. In this case, I am referring mainly to clerics, although anybody who is capable of healing magic qualifies (druids, favored souls, etc). Is it possible to have a successful party without a healer of some kind?
     I might have to say "no."
     Here's the thing: you're going to need some way to patch the party up. Unless the entire purpose of the game is to be low-combat or low-magic, you're party is going to get beat up and you're going to need some way faster than natural healing to get back into the fray. Even the most basic of dungeons is likely to require the party to pause and heal between encounters.
     Now, there are ways you could get around having a divine caster, but I think they're all rather impractical. The simplest solution is just to rely on potions, although it is easy to see how this doesn't stack up to the abilities of an actual healer. For starters, you can't drink a potion if you're already in negative hit points and thus bleeding out. Potions also cap off at allowing 3rd level spells, which means you'll never get that cure critical you really need at later levels. You're also going to find that potions are not as effective as spells cast by actual people, because casters get to add their class level to the d8s rolled for the spell. You could spend extra money to have a potion made at a higher caster level, but that leads us to the other problem. All those potions are going to set you back a fair bit (50-750 gp a pop, and that's base price).
     I've also read about the idea of having a paladin using wands. It's not a bad idea, since anybody with a spell on their list can cast out of a wand, even if they are not high enough level to cast the spell themselves. Wands also let you get up to 4th level spells, which is a little better. These spells will still be weaker than those cast by a cleric, though, just like with the potions. The cost is a bit better if you think about it per-spell, but the wand method of course doesn't have the flexibility of potions (anybody can drink a potion, but only divine casters can use wands with divine spells). Also, it depends on what other role your paladin is playing. Paladins are more martial in nature, and in some ways it seems a waste to have a warrior character wasted having to spend all their rounds running around healing. At least casting is what clerics should expect to do every round.
     So I think I'm going to have to say that divine casters (healers) are the only truly indispensable characters in a traditional D&D party. Again, we're assuming a normal game where combat and traps are the norm, and playing strictly by the rules as given. House rules and games where combat is rare may change this, of course, but that's pretty much true of any rpg commentary.
     As always, though, feel free to comment and let me know your thoughts. Otherwise, this is a wrap on this particular series.

Dispensible: Rogues

Seriously, lady, you're just going to snag on everything.

     Here's where it's going to start getting tricky.
     I define "rogues" as anybody who is not combat-based, with a lot of skills (mostly in the spheres of sneaking, disabling devices, and picking locks), and the trapfinding special feature. This is usually a rogue, but it could also be any of the base classes from the Complete Adventurer supplement (like the scout, spellthief, or ninja; although none of them do it as well as a rogue).
     Which leads to an inherent problem with the D&D rule system when it comes to rogues. Trapfinding is defined as the ability to search and disarm any trap with a DC over 20. So it does not matter how many ranks your ranger has in Search; if the trap is too tough, he won't be able to find it without trapfinding. And it is only available as a class feature. There are no feats that grant this ability. 
     Now, my first instinct as to how to make rogues dispensible is to introduce a little house-rule called "Screw Trapfinding." In this variant, trapfinding is either a feat that anybody can get, or isn't necessary at all and anybody can find/disarm a trap with any DC so long as they can make the roll. Of course, as with most house rules, this leads you down a slippery slope of alterations. Because even with Screw Trapfinding in effect, you still only have one class with Disable Device as a class skill (rogues) and two classes with Search (rogues and rangers). So you might find yourself having to allow other classes to take these skills as class skills, or else wind up in the same situation. Would it make sense to let wizards have Disable Device, since they can be rather tinkery if they want? That's up to you and the game you're running, I guess. But the point is, there are other d20 games (like the Star Wars RPG) in which trapfinding doesn't exist. Does that mean traps don't exist in this game? Don't count on it. It just means that there isn't a special class that is defined to deal with them.
     Some people will also talk about the find traps spell, but I'm just going to ignore that entire topic. Remember when we were talking about spells that nobody ever wastes a slot on? That's one of them. For starters, it's a 2nd level spell, which means you don't get it until 3rd level. Also, it's only available to clerics (not even all divine casters; just clerics). Finally, it specifically does not allow you to disarm the trap, just to find it. A handful of gravel tossed down a hallway or poking a door with a stick will let you find half the traps out there, so what the hell good is that?
     When you get around the trapfinding issue, then you start to really that the rogue is utterly dispensible. Yes, they get more skill points than any other class, but that doesn't mean they are the only characters who have skills. It just might mean that the other characters have to pick up some slack. I've played in two campaigns now where there has been a rogue and a ranger and they were both equally stealthy, so you don't need a rogue for the sneaky bits. Also, as far as damage output goes, a good fighter or sorcerer is much more consistent (and doesn't have to go hide whenever there's undead or constructs or something else that isn't susceptible to sneak attacks).
     And, as was commented in my into post to this series, playing without a rogue does not mean that the party is necessarily stymied by every locked door or obviously trapped corridor. It just means that the party has to find other ways around. True, those ways are likely to involve brute force, but hey, if that's the kind of game you're playing, who cares? Some people like to just smash everything; so long as it's fun, have at.
     I like the rogue class, don't get me wrong. But really--and I'm just as upset to realize this--if you take away the trapfinding monopoly they have, they are utterly replaceable as a class.

Dispensible: Warriors

     The next character archetype on the chopping block is the warrior. 
     As far as D&D is concerned, I'm referring mostly to fighters and barbarians; classes that are the typical "tank" in that they are designed specifically to deal and take damage. These are the classes whose job is to stroll out into the front of the battlefield and start swinging. 
     The line here gets a little fuzzy, though. D&D has a lot of classes that are considered "martial" classes. Mostly, these are classes that have the defining characteristic of having the best Base Attack Bonus and the most combat-oriented special abilities. However, many of these do not qualify as tanks, as far as I'm concerned. Rangers and swashbucklers, for instance, might be able to put out a lot of damage, but their limited armor selection and relatively low hit points make them mighty vulnerable in a front-line situation. The paladin suffers similarly, because they have a lot of nifty special abilities that are a nice touch, but that really just get in the way of essential tank-duties.
     The thing to keep in mind is that if a warrior wants to keep from lagging behind in the damage-dealing business, he or she really needs to focus. In my last post, when I was talking about the fighter dishing out as much as the warmage, I was talking about a high level character who had enough feats to really specialize. And the times he was dealing massive amounts of damage involved using Power Attack with a magical two-handed weapon that would cause a critical hit on every third or fourth attack. Weapon combat takes a lot of money and time to make as damaging as even the most basic arcane attack spell. It's really just Strength plus weapon damage, and neither of those increases much without a lot of levels and gold pieces (to buff up your ability points and to add bonuses to your weapon). There are a handful of feats (like Power Attack) that help a lot, but that's it. While I've seen a well-built fighter keep up with the damage-dealing, I've seen just as many fall behind. Using a single-handed weapon without Power Attack, for instance, isn't going to do much more than 10 points of damage on average (and that's even assuming an 18 Strength with a magical weapon). Compare that to the 17.5 average damage done by a single fireball from the lowest possible level wizard (minimum level 5 to cast third-level spells).
     So if you're looking for damage output, it's pretty easy to replace the tank with a combat-focused mage or even a good archer (especially with feats like Rapid Shot and Multishot). We've even talked about how a rogue can dish out roughly the same amount of damage in sneak attack dice. I can personally attest to this, since I just had a game session where my 5th level rogue did roughly 60 points of damage in three rounds. Built for melee, with a keen rapier (15-20 crit threat range) and the Telling Blow feat (which allows you to add your sneak attack dice to any crit), a rogue can fairly consistently crit and deal massive amounts of damage. Or, instead of relying on crits, a melee rogue can go the Bluff-Feint route, and still get their sneak attack dice more often than not. Not to mention that much of the time a rogue gets to attack a flat-footed opponent and a mage gets to make touch attacks (if they have to make any rolls at all), which helps make up for their lower BABs (as compared with a warrior). Either way, we see a lot of damage can be done by a non-martial classes.

Well, they normally wear good armor...

     Which leaves the tank's real purpose to be in attack-absorption. In all fairness, this is one place where no other character type can really compare. Warriors can wear the best armor and have the most hit points. They also are great at drawing a lot of attention to themselves. The horde of baddies are going to pay more attention to the full-plated fighter who is a whirlwind of blades or the frothing, raging, axe-wielding barbarian than they are those hanging back and doing things that are ostensibly less threatening. That is a drawback in a party that has no tank; the damage is likely going to be more distributed among the squishier classes. 
     This is not an insurmountable challenge. The key with a party without a tank is just that it needs a number of other front-line characters to help absorb the damage. Split up even among "weaker" classes, usually you won't get total party kills (provided that the GM is giving you appropriately-leveled encounters, no single encounter should be enough to drop you all).  So long as there is enough healing to go around, and as long as the party is smart about it (and not afraid to retreat if necessary), they should survive with no problem. 
     As far as parties that are missing key archetypes go, the tank-less party lends itself to a game that could be far more interesting in the long run. The non-fighter characters are apt to have the lion's share of the party's skills, anyway, so non-combat scenarios won't be affected. This type of party might even lead to a subtler, less combat-oriented campaign, which can be just as fun. So go ahead, give it a try!