Search Results for : 

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.

Well. I am about to make a statement that I’m fairly positive none of you have ever been in the position to make.

I just wrenched my bad knee. (Not seriously, just somewhat painfully.) From slipping on a DVD.

In the shower.  😳

I admit I’m tempted to leave it without context, but I imagine most of you are wondering what the hell sort of narrative led to this even being possible. Well, my cat Leloo had a few vomiting episodes a few days ago. We later discovered that she’d yakked on a small stack of DVDs beside the TV. We figured the easiest way to clean them would be to let them soak for a while, and then rinse/scrub them off next time one of us was in the shower anyway.

And it was the easiest way. It worked beautifully. Up until the version of Death from the Final Destination movies took a test run at me. 😯

Seriously, if I wrote this into a book, nobody would buy it…

So, I said I’d be doing a series of these. I figured I’d start small. 😉

(Again, just to reiterate: These are not hints or clues as to what’s coming up in the next edition. I know no more than you do about it. I’m not involved in it. This is purely what I want to see, as a fan.)

One of the things I both loved and hated about 4E was the new cosmology. Taken by itself, I really like it. I think it’s a great planar structure for a D&D setting, and I had a lot of fun using it.

On the other hand, I hated the idea that every single setting had to be part of it.

Greyhawk? Forgotten Realms? Planescape? I want my Great Wheel (which I love just as much as I do the new cosmology, albeit for different reasons). Eberron? The unique Eberron cosmology in 3E was one of the coolest things about that setting; give it back!

I understand the marketing advantage of a single unified cosmology, in terms of keeping the audience for planar adventures/supplements as wide as possible. But I really feel like it does a disservice to the settings on a thematic and creative level–and since I’m just talking about I want, I get to throw out marketing considerations I don’t like. 😉

So, what do I want to see, cosmology-wise, in the next edition? I want to see the core rules present the Great Wheel and the 4E cosmology. I want it to present them both as equally valid options (with emphasis on the fact that any other setup is also equally valid). If the goal of the next edition, as has been stated, is to be a toolbox, then that needs to include aspects of the example/default/implied setting. Don’t say "This is what the cosmology is." Say "Here’s a couple of examples of what it could be."

And then give Eberron back its own, separate cosmology, too. 😛

Yes, this takes up extra word count. But it can also be used to serve another purpose: to illustrate the different ways of using alignment in D&D.

In 1E to 3E, alignment wasn’t just about how a character behaved. It was an actual universal force. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos–these were more than abstractions. There were planes and gods devoted to them. They could empower certain types of magic or damage. You could detect them with spells.

In 4E, with a very few exceptions, alignment has zero mechanical impact. You can’t detect if someone’s evil. A spell doesn’t do more damage against someone who’s good.

And once again, I want to see both options presented as equally valid. Sometimes I want to play in a setting where Good and Evil represent actually forces, clashing for the fate of the multiverse. In such settings, the Great Wheel–with its alignment-based planes–is a perfect fit. In other settings, I want to see alignment as purely a general indicator of behavior, with all sorts of shades of gray and no magic "Is he evil?" button. For those settings, something like the 4E cosmology might be a better fit.

The game needs to include and allow for both. Some people love alignment; some people hate it. It’s not so hardwired into the game that the choice must be binary, but it is important enough that people need advice and guidelines on both ways of running it.

It should be easy enough. Adventures and the like simply include a creature’s alignment, and how much that impacts the game is largely up to the DM. Maybe you need a few sentences of advice. "This adventure was written under the assumption that alignment is not detectable. If your campaign does allow the detection of alignments, we suggest you do X or Y to keep the plot from unraveling." Again, a few extra words here and there–but extra words that would be worth it, I think, if the different ways of looking at alignment were both presented as equally valid, rather than one or the other being the assumed default.