News

Going to combine two different concepts in this one. One is a combination of mechanics and flavor; the other is pure flavor/story.

Starting with magic items, I want to see the math of the system less dependent on them. That is, I want it to be possible to play a low- or even no-item campaign with minimal, if any, tweaks. The addition of magic items should raise a character/party above the baseline, rather than the absence of them lowering the character/party below the baseline.

Now, to an extent, they’ve already said that’s part of the design philosophy. But I’d like to see it taken a step further. And I acknowledge in advance that this is practically apostasy where D&D is concerned, but here it is…

I want to see +X items stripped from the game.

No +1 longsword. No +3 chainmail. No gloves of Dexterity +4.

A magic item should do something. A sword that bursts into flame on command? Chainmail that lets you turn into an elemental once per day? Gloves that let you throw webs like the spell? Yes! Great! Fine! More of those.

And if some of those also impact the math–such as the flaming sword adding to damage, and perhaps giving a bonus to hit against fire-vulnerable creatures specifically–that’s cool. In fact, that’s more than cool; it’s thematically appropriate.

But items that do nothing but give bonuses? No. Items that give bonuses in all situations? (Such as a +4 sword vs. a sword of gnome-hating which gives a +4 bonus only against creatures half your size or smaller.) No; give me the latter, not the former.

Actually, don’t even give me the latter. Bonuses to hit, even conditionally, should–except in the absolute rarest or most specific of cases–max at +1 or +2. (Damage can be more flexible without breaking the math, but not the actual attack.) If that doesn’t sound like enough to make cool items, well… Make them cooler based on what else they do.

So, enough of that. Alien creatures.

What do I mean by that? Primarily, I mean creatures that are not only grossly inhuman, but whose very concepts revolve partly around their inhumanity. Mind flayers. Aboleths. That sort of thing.

Modules and novels–even those written by good writers, who I really like and really respect–have a bad habit of treating them just like other NPCs. You have aboleth who want to rule. You have mind flayers wandering around the markets of Skullport, or plotting to take over portions of a drow city.

No. No, no, no. I realize it’s hard to write creatures with inhuman motivations–I’ve tried it myself–but if you can’t, don’t use them! There are plenty of other monsters to choose from. One should never fully understand the motivations or thought processes of a mind flayer. The entry of one into Skullport should be momentous, with even the other denizens of the Underdark recoiling in fear and horror–not necessarily because the thing’s more powerful than them, but because they can’t damn well understand it. The notion of a mind flayer merchant is an oxymoron. The notion of a mind flayer "adviser" to a drow noble should fill everyone–including the drow–with dread, because you never, ever know to what ends the thing is actually driving you.

These things are Lovecraft-inspired, so let them be Lovecraftian. I’d rather never see a mind flayer in D&D fiction or adventures again than to see one used in such a way that a psionically-empowered human would have done the job just as well.

In the midst of an utterly unrelated search, I came across a post of mine from back in the early days of D&D 4E, wherein I foolishly predicted that Paizo would move to 4E after a few years of Pathfinder.

And it occurs to me that this post may be the origin of the (mistaken) idea that I dislike Pathfinder. It was, in fact, merely an utter misread of the market, not a comment on the quality of anyone’s game, and certainly not the expression of any sort of wish. But I can see how it might have seemed that way.

Thus, I would like to apologize…

A) To Paizo, for not giving them near enough credit for their coming success;

B) To WotC, for throwing more fuel on the fire of those who were angry about the edition switch;

C) And to any/all gamers who felt that I was in any way denigrating their choice of system. That was absolutely not my intent, but obviously I’m as capable of getting swept up in the moment as anyone else.

So… I love D&D. I love Pathfinder. I love the creative folks at both Paizo and WotC. I’m happy to be part of, and contribute whatever I can to, both sets of fans. And I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has ever given the impression otherwise.

Here’s an odd observation for fantasy fans.

Think about all the most popular/famous fantasy characters (fiction, not mythology) through the years. Now think about how many of them wore heavy armor.

Yeah. Weird, huh? For some reason, heavy armor types–who were, historically, among the elite of their time–make up a tiny minority of really popular characters. For some reason, the readership in general tends to prefer to lightly-or-no-armored variety. (Not that there are zero knightly popular fantasy characters; but really very few of them, comparably.)

And yep, this remains true even if you remove the traditional "wizard" types, and focus only on fighters and that ilk.

Any thoughts as to why? I’ve my own, but I’m curious what you all think.

Travel with me back to the days of yesteryear. Specifically, to the mid-90s. The 2nd edition of D&D is at its height, and a college student by the name of Ari Marmell is devoting far more of his time and energy to running his campaign than he is to less important things such as homework and studying.

I still remember a lot of that campaign fondly, but one of the particular incidents that sticks in my mind would be the first time I ever saw the feather fall spell used offensively.

The party’s engaged in combat with a flock of gargoyles, in an large underground cavern. It’s toward the end of the battle, the wizard is running low on spells. It just so happens that I’d described one of the gargoyles as hovering only a few feet below the cavern’s ceiling.

And the wizard’s player says something to the effect of, "I want to try to time this right and cast feather fall on that gargoyle just as his wings are at their highest."

*blink*

Now, for those of you who didn’t play, or don’t remember, 2E, here’s that edition’s feather fall:



So, as the player saw it, if timed properly during the flapping of the wings, the sudden decrease in mass would drive the gargoyle hard into the ceiling, doing at least a bit of damage and possibly stunning the creature, if only briefly.

And you know what? I saw no reason not to allow it.

(The same player later used feather fall, in conjunction with the existing wind and a ship-board catapult to transport the party behind the lines of an enemy nation; and used a fireball to extinguish a fire, in much the same way modern oil well firefighters use explosions.)

But the point is, this would be absolutely impossible in either 3E or 4E. The 3E version explicitly effects only free-falling creatures/objects, and also doesn’t address mass; it just makes them fall more slowly. Same is true of the 4E version, which in fact can only be triggered–that is, cast–when a creature falls.

And you know what? I want to go back.

The 3E and 4E versions may be more mechanically balanced. They may not require any last-minute DM adjudication (or "DM fiat," as it’s often called). But frankly, to me, these don’t outweigh the loss.

DM fiat is not inherently a bad thing. The fact that there’s a living, breathing human judging the rules, rather than a program, is one of the strengths of tabletop RPGs. I want the game to take advantage of that fact, not try to minimize it.

And I love, love, love seeing spells used in ways for which they were never intended. I love seeing that sort of player creativity–not in an effort to maximize the math, but just to do something cool.

We’ve lost that in the prior two editions. Spells are designed to absolutely minimize the ability to use them outside their one stated, specific purpose. And again, I understand why. But I’m tired of that being the pinnacle of spell design.

I’m not suggesting that spells should be open-ended or infinitely abusable. But there’s a middle ground, and I want to get back to it.

Don’t just say "This spell makes you fall slower." Go ahead and say "It briefly lessens the creature’s mass," and see what ideas that inspires in creative players. Give the DM a bit of advice for how to judge such things. And let creative players play creative spellcasters.

Let magic be magic.

Edit to add: Note that I’m not saying, in any way, that creative spell use is impossible in 3E or 4E. Of course it’s not. Lots of you have done it. I’ve done it.

But said creative use is certainly less viable, less frequent, and certainly less encouraged, by the rules of later editions than it was in the former.

Quick trivia for you. What, other than being fictional deities in Dungeons & Dragons, do Lolth, Tiamat, Vecna, Bahamut, and Asmodeus have in common?

Answer: None of them were deities when they were first introduced.

As D&D has progressed through the various editions, there’s been an ongoing tendency to transform important figures of the mythology/background into gods. And honestly, I think it’s an unfortunate tendency.

There are lots of gods in the various settings already. Many of them are interesting. We don’t need more of them–certainly not at the expense of existing characters. "Vecna, Most Dangerous Lich in History or Legend Who May or May Not Still Exist in Some Form" is, in my mind, far more interesting than "Vecna, Just Another Evil God." Tiamat is far more interesting to me as the most bad-ass pinnacle of evil dragons, an ancient "mother of monsters" type akin to Typhon or Echidna from Greek myth. Lolth is much more interesting as a demon, with the drow a demon-worshiping race, than as a god. Etc.

It’s quite possible to have legendary creatures and villains who have just as much impact as the gods do on game history without insisting that they all be divine. I’d like to see not only new characters created in that vein, but I’d also like to see some or all of the aforementioned reverted. Variety–both in terms of backstory and in terms of the nature of these semi-mythical figures–is far more interesting, and makes for far story and adventure opportunities than Yet Another Evil Deity on the list.