Complex fighter pitfalls

[Vikingkingq]

But the 1e (post UA, only post UA of course) experience is *very* different than the 3e/Pathfinder. It also mostly worked. That means that we aren't faced with an existential crisis, but only a balancing act, and there is prior work that gets it reasonably close. Focus on the stuff that worked, paying attention to the stuff that didn't only to learn what went wrong.

Ok, but how does that square with the uniting all editions?

There are some possibly difficult to accept conclusions. Fighting- (not Fighter-) Clerics can't exist. If you want spell-casting, you can't also have Melee. So sorry. Play a Paladin instead. So weak/no self-buffing.

The Cleric of Moradin suggests they're not quite going in that direction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Game balance can be achieved any number of ways. I propose limitations, but there are a number of other solutions. If the only solution you can see is the starved balance of AEDU then we clearly need to stop this conversation because I can't reason with YOU.

AEDU is not the only way I could imagine to balance D&D. As a matter of fact, it's not exactly what I'd prefer. It's just the only way that's succeeded to date. Now, if you could come up with another of these "any number of other ways" that hasn't already been tried and already failed, I'd be happy to entertain it.

I'd rather not see dailies, at all, since they mess with encounter balance. But, with Vancian 'in,' 5e is stuck with dailies, and the only way to balance those dailies is something like AEDU, where everyone gets a comparable number of daily resources of comparable power.

There are disadvantages to a common structure too. With the AEDU system it doesn't allow any specific class to excel at any time.

False. Giving each class the limitted-availabilty peak power of dailies /does/ allow any class to excel at any time - if the player thinks it's a good use of his character's resources.

Classes also excel situationally. 4e clearly tried to make powers less situation-dependent, but many of them still are. A Cleric will excel against undead, especially those relatively uncommon undead that are vulnerable to readiant damage. An archer-ranger will excel in a combat in which it is hard to come to grips with the enemy. There are also areas where class balance in 4e just isn't that good and AEDU doesn't really apply. A Rogue will be a better infiltrator than the fighter, every time, because the same effort to balance the classes wasn't made outside of combat. FWTWTY.

There are different tricks that can be performed but these are in line with different positions on the baseball diamond. If you don't want to play any of the standard positions in baseball and instead want to kick the ball, or use a tennis racket or tackle people then AEDU isn't the system for you.

I'm not following the metaphor. You're saying that AEDU isn't good for people who want to cheat. That's true. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

I am unfamiliar with TTFRPG, so you'll have to excuse me on that part.

Table Top Fantasy Role Playing Game.

As far as mythological examples then I can perfectly understand the niche situations where something else happens, those are rare and mythological. I was talking about more standard FICTIONAL accounts of how magic should work.

There is not standard fictional account of how magic should work. Magic is magical, it varies quite a lot.

If you look at the origins of magic, you find sociological or psychological phenomena like 'magical thinking' (a human tendency to see causation where there is none). Magic is never irrational, but it is far from scientific.

Think about the highlander series, they are immortal and have a number of restrictions. If you start having them violate those restrictions without cause or explanation then you are going to encounter problems. As, surprisingly I know , the highlander series DID.

Heck, the first sequel started changing the rules. Yet it was a successful enough franchise. Really, too, the worst one was when they decided to sci-fi-ize it and make the mystical immortals aliens.

Um... my position, which you should have fully quoted, what that BOTH fighters and wizards should have limits. Not that the wizard should have unlimited power, nor that they should only be limited in risk and resources.

Risk and resource limits were the only ones you specified. You represented the fighter as having a few little tricks, like disarming, that would be useless against many foes for reasons of realism, while the wizard would face some risk/resource limitations for his 'greater magics.' You implied a fighter with few options, little power, and what options he did have being frequently obviated by factors outside his player's control; and a wizard with a great range and scope of power, limited only by resource- and risk- management issues under the control of the player.

As you have throughout this thread, you preface your demands with the sincere assurance that you want balance, then demand radical imbalance.

Reducing the wizard, similarly, to be in line with the fighter doesn't address this problem either.

On the contrary, taking the wizard down to the level of the 3.5 fighter - having a small selection of unlimited-use abilities chosen slowly as he levels and subject to change only slowly via some sort of re-training mechanism - would give you a simple-to-design, complex-and-interesting-to-build, highly customizeable wizard that could be used to produce many balanced, unique individual characters. Rather than every wizard and his apprentice being able to learn every decent spell in the book, prep the best of them, and keep others in wands for systematic use, or scrolls for occasional use, you'd have each wizard being a unique individual, defined by the spells he's mastered. Magic would still be able to 'do anything,' just not each individual wizard.

I said that all classes should have avenues to get great power. I suppose it is my fault because I gave examples of how they could do this. I also said that my examples should only be one of several ways they can get there and that they can mix and match.

I can't evaluate these 'other ways' you keep hypothetically alluding to, only the things you actually come out and say.

What you IGNORED is that wizards shouldn't have godly powers unless this happens. What you also ignored is that NO ONE should have godly powers unless they get there. Anyone and everyone should get them if they work towards it, it shouldn't be tied only to one [category] class, but it also shouldn't be automatic. The automation is where I think 4e really really dropped the ball.

So overpowered characters shouldn't just be a matter of class and build choices, but also the result of an in-game competition among the characters to get to their 'godly power' mcguffin first? I think I'd rather have the "automation" (level advancement), but then I prefer D&D in the cooperative mode. 5e probably /should/ have modules to help re-tune the game for PvP or other competitive modes of play, as well.

This is my favourite part. "When it needs to happen" is in no way the same as "daily power". That is the problem.

"When it needs to happen" is a very narrativist idea, and one I'm OK with, as long as players have some say in when that is. Dailies work in that respect, though they're clearly far from perfect. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing dailies go from the game, entirely - but, again, Vancian casting has already been grandfathered in, so all those various 'other ways' you might balance D&D without dailies (so much easier and more elegant though they could well be) are out.

Sidenote: Tony all your posts and replies do is frustrate me. For that reason I'm going to set you to ignore so I don't have a heart attack in the next year just from reading your comments. Have fun.

That's your call. If anyone quotes me, though, you'll still see the bits they quote - and they're likely to be the 'worst' parts...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry this didn't happen for you. Sorry you were stuck in story-free dungeon crawls (from the sounds of it). It's not universal.

Oh, I was far from stuck in story-free dungeon crawls. One of the good things about playing classic D&D back in the day was that every DM took the rules out back and beat them into the shape he wanted. Some of those DMs could be quite story-oriented, and come up with stuff that got out of the way of your hero acting like a hero in a fantasy story, or gave players more options to get their character where they wanted it to be and where they wanted it to go.

So, it happened, a lot - once the rules were dealt with.

I have disadvantages you can take at character creation (blind is one of the examples). Keep in mind, too, that some of my examples are in 3.5, and others are in my RPG.

I din't realize these examples were leaving D&D behind, as well as modifying it. I'm glad you have some variants - and a whole game - that work well for you, but they aren't the D&D I characterized as delivering the "greed vs paranoia" story.

Also keep in mind, that you said "fantasy story" and not "heroic fantasy story" in the quote I replied to. I don't always want "heroic fantasy" when I want a "fantasy story" to emerge from play.

Lotta typing, may easily have left out a word...

I agree about 4e being closer to a more narrative game than past editions, but I really don't think that is has a ton of player control of the narrative unless it's player-given (which isn't inherent to the system). You can have powers be described by the GM, or simply used as gamist constructs for some tactical fun.

Certainly you can ignore flavor text, or the DM can take control of it, but the PH actually puts the 'power' to change flavor text in the hands of the player. It may not have much effect on the game, which is why I said it's just a bit in that direction, but it's there. The parity in resource management that 4e introduced also put a lot more 'power to the player' when it came to archetypes and concepts that were formerly choice-poor and lacked plot power.

 

[pemerton]

I think it's a (post?-)modern impulse to /want/ to set in stone how magic works and to value continuity that highly. Or maybe a nerd impulse. Anyway, it's an impulse I certainly share. But, I'm willing to set it aside if it lets me have a ripping good heroic-fantasy adventure in my TTFRPG.

I've found letting go of the urge to mechanical and causal consistency in magic resolution has vastly enhanced the quality of my GMing of fantasy RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

unless 4e has some sort of mechanic that literally writes the story for you, then the DM in 4e also needs to make it interesting, and set up events (or, as is my case, let my "interesting" setting evolve).

<snip>

with either method you use, you need a GM who sets up an interesting story (or lets an interesting setting evolve).

My own view - grounded in both theoretical analysis (especially on The Forge) and play experience - is that mechanics can make a huge difference to how hard or easy it is for story to emerge from play.

By "mechanics" here I mean at least (i) PC build and advancement rules, (ii) action resolution rules, and (iii) encounter-building guidelines.

Both mechanics, and the mechanical design and presentation of story elements, can make is significantly easier or harder to make encounters more interesting. For example, in Oriental Adventures (the mid-80s original), PC building includes giving your PC a family (with a history) and honour. This history and honour mirrors a default cosmology and mythos, which in turn is embodied in many of the monsters in the game. It is much easier to pick up OA and design an encounter that will engage your players (via their PCs) than it is to do so with the core AD&D books.

Action resolution mechanics can also matter here. For example, the more the action resolution mechanics draw attention and effort at the table away from stakes and theme, and onto accounting and measuring and bickering over the details of exploration, the harder they make it for the GM to adjudicate encounters in a way that encourages the emergence of a story.

I agree about 4e being closer to a more narrative game than past editions, but I really don't think that is has a ton of player control of the narrative unless it's player-given (which isn't inherent to the system).

4e isn't HeroWars/Quest or Burning Wheel, but it's not B/X D&d either. It's like the original OA, but richer.

But players, by choosing race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, powers and feats get to put elements of the backstory into play, and shape it in various ways, that is noticeable and (in my experience) significant. And these player choices all shape and interact with GM choices, because the story elements are mostly integrated into the same mythos, history and associated themes and stakes.

A more 'narrative' or story-modeling game - and 4e is just a bit in that direction from classic D&D, not dedicatedly-narrativist - has the advantage that both the players and the DMs have some control of the narrative. It's not just the DM running a simulation of a world and the players reacting to it in-character, everyone has some of the plot-power an author of the story. 'Cooperative storytelling' they started calling it in the 90's. 4e didn't go very far in that direction, it lets players describe their powers, so they can interpret a use of a daily or encounter power as having some meaning beyond the character deciding to do something, then succeeding or failing.

For me, the more important contribution it makes to narrative than player control over colour, is player control over resolution. The whole game is premised - mechanically premised - on the players going full-bore with the action resolution mechanics (both combat and non-combat) to see what happens - and with a set up that helps to ensure that whatever it is that does happen will be interesting and worthwhile.

In that respect it borrows very heavily, in my view, from what I've elsewhere seen called the standard narrativistic model.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Oh, I was far from stuck in story-free dungeon crawls.

So, it happened, a lot - once the rules were dealt with.

My main point is that "interesting stories" (things like NPC relationships, plot, etc.) is basically GM fiat in every edition of the game -a strength of RPGs, no doubt.

Lotta typing, may easily have left out a word...

I think that may have cleared a bit up, actually.

Certainly you can ignore flavor text, or the DM can take control of it, but the PH actually puts the 'power' to change flavor text in the hands of the player. It may not have much effect on the game, which is why I said it's just a bit in that direction, but it's there. The parity in resource management that 4e introduced also put a lot more 'power to the player' when it came to archetypes and concepts that were formerly choice-poor and lacked plot power.

Yep, it sounds more narratively focused, but not strongly narratively focused without deliberately attempting to use the system that way. That is, you still don't put player control over the "interesting heroic fantasy story" (plot, NPC interactions, etc.) by just letting them use powers. You need to go further; for example, pemerton lets PCs declare their story intentions -provoke this NPC into a fight- and then achieve those story goals (via a skill challenge, for example).

Otherwise, you just have more narrative control in combat. And, while a huge part of D&D, it's really not the "interesting heroic fantasy story" part of it. Combat is an important aspect of that story, of course, but without the rest (NPC interactions, plot, setting dynamics, etc.), it's just a combat engine, and not part of the story. The "interesting story", like all editions of D&D, is still produced by the GM, largely independent of mechanics in the game. Unless, again, you start granting additional narrative control to players (via skill challenges, or whatever) that aren't inherent to the game (but the game doesn't necessarily fight against it).

In essence, 4e rules can be used to achieve this sort of dynamic, but they are not inherently designed to be used this way. You can use rules from other editions to give narrative control to players (if you make your Diplomacy check, you achieve Story Goal X), but they aren't inherently designed that way either. While 4e may be more narratively compatible than past editions, I don't think it inherently gives meaningful story control to players outside of combat. Which, again, is an important piece of interacting with an "interesting heroic fantasy story", but does not make for one by itself. As always, play what you like

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, it sounds more narratively focused, but not strongly narratively focused

Exactly. More narrative than D&D had been in the past, still no where near as focused on the narrative as other games out there. Not really a 'narrativist game,' but 'narrativist for D&D.' And, a big part of that is what it models - it doesn't model, say "what a character might be able to realistically do in a universe where magic exists" but "what characters actually do in heroic (almost left that out again) fantasy stories, no matter how crazy those things may seem."

In essence, 4e rules can be used to achieve this sort of dynamic, but they are not inherently designed to be used this way. You can use rules from other editions to give narrative control to players, but they aren't inherently designed that way either.

It's just a matter of degree. 4e is more in the narrative direction than prior eds. I think there were some design decisions that could only have been made the way they were if that was a conscious choice (the new way classes were handled, and the return to monsters being handled differently than PCs, for instance). And there are quite a few places where the rules will talk about 'moving the story along' or 'moving the game along,' particularly in resolution systems like skill challenges and p42 'say yes' improvisation. I don't think narrativism is the full thrust of 4e, but 'realism' is definitely out as a major design consideration.

It's also , by dint of being balanced, whether it was intentional or not, a lot more even-handed about which PCs have the potential for some player narrative influence. That does, I think, make it better for the 'shared storytelling' aspect. But, then, the balance, alone, helps there. :shrug:

 

[JamesonCourage]

My own view - grounded in both theoretical analysis (especially on The Forge) and play experience - is that mechanics can make a huge difference to how hard or easy it is for story to emerge from play.

Of course.

By "mechanics" here I mean at least (i) PC build and advancement rules, (ii) action resolution rules, and (iii) encounter-building guidelines.

Both mechanics, and the mechanical design and presentation of story elements, can make is significantly easier or harder to make encounters more interesting. For example, in Oriental Adventures (the mid-80s original), PC building includes giving your PC a family (with a history) and honour. This history and honour mirrors a default cosmology and mythos, which in turn is embodied in many of the monsters in the game. It is much easier to pick up OA and design an encounter that will engage your players (via their PCs) than it is to do so with the core AD&D books.

Action resolution mechanics can also matter here. For example, the more the action resolution mechanics draw attention and effort at the table away from stakes and theme, and onto accounting and measuring and bickering over the details of exploration, the harder they make it for the GM to adjudicate encounters in a way that encourages the emergence of a story.

It really depends on how you're trying to achieve a story. "Bickering over the details of exploration" can lead to situations in the game where an "interesting" story emerges from play. This may not suit your wants, but this sort of emergent story play is essential for the majority of my enjoyment when I run a game. I want to see how the mechanics of the game cause the story to emerge and evolve. Passing or failing each obstacle has an effect on the story, and I like seeing the results.

Is it the same type of "interesting story" that you can achieve by focusing on stakes and theme? Probably not. I think my preference is clear, but it's just a preference.

Also, I should note that while 4e doesn't fight the "stakes and theme" approach to producing an "interesting story", I don't know of many mechanics which push it wildly ahead in this area compared to games with more focused mechanics (I'll comment more on this below).

4e isn't HeroWars/Quest or Burning Wheel, but it's not B/X D&d either. It's like the original OA, but richer.

But players, by choosing race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, powers and feats get to put elements of the backstory into play, and shape it in various ways, that is noticeable and (in my experience) significant. And these player choices all shape and interact with GM choices, because the story elements are mostly integrated into the same mythos, history and associated themes and stakes.

With a little twisting, I think that most people would be about as satisfied with 4e and with previous editions when it comes to this approach. That is, I think that 4e is a better vehicle for this style of play, but it's not inherently pushing for it. And others, who aren't so intellectually aware of this sort of play, may be quite satisfied in past editions picking "elf" and being involved in elf-things and elf-relationships.

Again, I don't think 4e works against this sort of play, and probably allows it easier than previous editions of D&D. However, I also don't think that it is inherently supported by the mechanics (something we probably disagree on). To me, producing an "interesting story" has much more to do with GM fiat than with any rules in any edition of the game. The GM still needs to deal with what is being interacted with (your "framing interesting encounters" or the like, and my "exploring the evolving setting"), or else we're just dealing with mechanics in a void.

Now, obviously, 4e can use its mechanics to give narrative control to its players. You even extend that to skill challenges and not solely powers, for example. However, the skill challenge mechanics themselves don't support this style of play, even if they don't fight against it. They weren't designed, in my opinion, with the goal of player narrative control. They were designed to keep everyone involved and useful during (mostly) non-combat events, and to give a solid framework for adjudicating success or failure in those events (with complications arising and the fiction moving forward as a result).

And, while that's a useful tool, it's not like Neonchameleon's disguise power from Spirit of the Century: your PC disappears, and you can later declare "nope, that guy was actually me all along!" That, in my opinion, is a mechanic that is designed to give players more narrative control over the game. In my opinion, 4e doesn't fight against the style of play you describe (and enjoy), it just wasn't designed to support it. That is, in Spirit of the Century, you have to utilize player narrative control to use the ability; there's no way around it. In 4e, there's no such focused mechanic when it comes to resolving skill challenges. That is, skill challenges can be framed as either "here's our story goal, and if we succeed we cause the story to happen a certain way" (on a success I cause the story to be shaped this way), or they can be "here's my goal in-game, let's see if I can achieve it" (on a success I'm closer to achieving my goal in-game; what's the story look like now, GM?).

You can't escape the forced use of narrative control in Spirit of the Century, but you can in 4e, because the mechanics don't dictate that style of play. That opens up more play styles when using the system, but definitely moves you further from strong, deliberate player narrative control over the game's "interesting story" section. My take on it, at least. As always, play what you like

Exactly. More narrative than D&D had been in the past, still no where near as focused on the narrative as other games out there. Not really a 'narrativist game,' but 'narrativist for D&D.' And, a big part of that is what it models - it doesn't model, say "what a character might be able to realistically do in a universe where magic exists" but "what characters actually do in heroic (almost left that out again) fantasy stories, no matter how crazy those things may seem."

I don't know if that is actually a player narrative control thing. It's still an attempt to tell an "interesting fantasy story", it just a different method from "what a character might be able to realistically do in a universe where magic exists." Giving the players (not PCs) the ability to exercise an ability at will (not meaning all the time, but when they choose) is more a type of granting player narrative control, I think.

It's just a matter of degree. 4e is more in the narrative direction than prior eds. I think there were some design decisions that could only have been made the way they were if that was a conscious choice (the new way classes were handled, and the return to monsters being handled differently than PCs, for instance). And there are quite a few places where the rules will talk about 'moving the story along' or 'moving the game along,' particularly in resolution systems like skill challenges and p42 'say yes' improvisation. I don't think narrativism is the full thrust of 4e, but 'realism' is definitely out as a major design consideration.

Certainly, things like minions and solos are an attempt to model the genre, and not in-world physics. No disagreement from me there. The "say yes" is purely advice, to my knowledge, and not baked into the mechanics themselves. If we're talking granting strong, deliberate player narrative control, see my comment to pemerton in this post about the disguise ability Neonchameleon posted.

It's also , by dint of being balanced, whether it was intentional or not, a lot more even-handed about which PCs have the potential for some player narrative influence. That does, I think, make it better for the 'shared storytelling' aspect. But, then, the balance, alone, helps there. :shrug:

Balance does indeed help in this regard, but everyone contributing all areas has its drawbacks, too. It makes it harder to shine in a "only I can do this" kind of way. People like both, and it's just preference, obviously. I personally quite like balance, though. As always, play what you like

 

[Neonchameleon]

Um, please. Yes, wizards did scale nicely. No, they did not outstrip Hercules by 9th level.

Teleport. Polymorph. There was a reason AD&D gave certain spells drawbacks. Phantasmal Forces.

If they wanted to, say, reroute a river, they'd have to dig a new channel. At that point, a Mattock of the Titans would do just as well if not better (make em fighter only again, if I'm right, and they were class-resisticted in 1e).

First find your Mattock of the Titans...

Dismissal? Why? Let the fighter kill it.
Teleport *is* good, but it eats up a high level spell slot...
Lesser Planar Binding? Enh? Just kill whatever he brought over.

Why let the fighter kill it when you can dismiss it before it eats your face? Here is the problem - letting the fighter do things you can't be bothered to.

Something to remember is that the Fighter offense relative to the other classes (and the monsters) was several times that of max-self-buffed Druidzilla.

Post Unearthed Arcana, yes! Pre Unearthed Arcana, the fighter made a 3e fighter look good offensively and weapon specialisation was brought in to fix the fact they were terrible.

In a world where fighters get that, they do ok. Not great, but ok.

Yup. If they are about fighting and don't have a laundry list of options, they need to be murder machines.

There are some possibly difficult to accept conclusions. Fighting- (not Fighter-) Clerics can't exist. If you want spell-casting, you can't also have Melee. So sorry. Play a Paladin instead. So weak/no self-buffing. Spells can't completely dominate combat, which mean that rounds-to-kill have to be low enough that Save-or-Sucks aren't the be-all and end-all.

Agreed. And 5e fails on both these counts so far.

Interesting but not routinely supported by the rules of any edition that I am familiar with.

Fairly routinely supported by 4e monster design post MM3. I gave the first example that came to mind.

How does a simple rule saying "zombies can be decapitated but are otherwise immune to crits and precision damage" not solve that problem?

1: It is extremely imprecise.
2: It breaks simulation - anything with a discernable anatomy has weak spots and is therefore vulnerable to precision damage. This is a very bad immunity. There is no reason the zombie should have it in the first place. (The zombie full of bullets just indicates that there's no weak spot in the centre of the torso. But you can hamstring a zombie or cut its leg off).

And to my knowledge the fire elemental thing with fire has not really occurred either. Though I can be wrong on this count, I am not widely read on all of DnD. Oh fire elemental would have been better for the whole fire immunity thing from above, but not so well on the attacking it as I can find remarkably few good examples of fire elementals from wider fiction - unlike dragons.

I cited what a "Volcanic Dragon" in 4e does (and elemental dragons are half elemental).

Okay, here we moved onto a completely different part of the post. I was talking about the feel of the game and about play-preferences. I think 3e does not do a particularly good job at reproducing LotR but from my actual experiences - 4e is worse.

And from mine 4e is better as long as you work with the system and prune options appropriately (and put in my default house rule of extended rests being only at genuinely safe places like Bombadill's, Rivendell, Lorien, etc.)

Funny, I do not recall saying Batman, Superman or JLA in my post. I was very careful NOT to use any of those terms because they did not represent what I meant.

What you said was:

If all classes do super-human stuff, which class do I play if I want to be bat-human?
​

If I wasn't meant to extrapolate that to Batman, then I misunderstood. But Batman was how I read that.

So you are going to take non-magic fighters away from me... because they are unrealistic? Because they are underpowered (or rather underpowered compared to the over powered wizard)?

Because by demanding that a realistic fighter can hang with everyone, you are restricting other people in what they can play. If you want a tiered game with realistic fighters in Heroic Tier, I am with you. But a lot of people want to tackle Lolth head to head. By demanding your fighters work at all levels you are telling them that they can't.

And to repeat myself I'm not taking non-magic fighters away from you. I'm taking non-magic fighters at high level away. You have what you want if you play tier restricted - a game with realistic fighters and non-OP wizards. Other people get what they want - but at a different tier of play with reality altering wizards and fighters who can cut through stone walls. Why do you want to make your way the only way?

At least here we can get together on something. I certainly want some way for the fighter to be able to survive battling a dragon on the front lines. I think a minor power boost to defense along with a major power boost to attack and damage would probably get me there. What would you need?

The fighter to be as tough as John McClane. Or Indiana Jones at a bare minimum. Waaaay beyond normal human durability.

I am NOT proposing a level cap. I am proposing more sane limits on wizards.

Oh, right. You aren't proposing a level cap. You're proposing a power cap. Which is effectively a level cap with the added downside of never giving the fans of a high powered game what they want.

Haters gunna hate, but my system is working well and you can not tell me otherwise. Nor are you going to convince me I am wrong on this count or what I have seen it not happening. Good luck.

What I can tell you is that your system does not appear to be D&D.

 

[erleni]

First find your Mattock of the Titans...

The wizard can create it for you