Sorry for the thread necromancy but I had to tell someone: Last session. I pulled it off with an infiltrator.
At some point before Elaxan, everyone has had some alone time so that anybody could be the doppelganger.
The party slew Elaxan and now knew that doppelgangers were about. One of the player's aunt (a noblewoman in Wavewatcher's Bay [using Christopher West's Lands of Mystery map from Dungeon #150]) warns the players, "Anyone can be a doppelganger. Trust no one; not even the DM." I felt that a little fourth wall break was important for reasons which will become apparent.
So the party gets to the Hall of Reflections and everyone sees their double. The players are my wife, our eight-year old son, a married couple, and an engaged couple. At this point, I pause to explain the situation to our son. We've tried to instill in him the importance of honesty. And I wanted him to understand that one of the players was just pretending and not really lying; that it was part of the game. He listened attentively and seemed to take it seriously. The rest of the group began to try to ferret out the doppelganger.
Between the players they could all recall that everyone had been alone at one point so it really could've been anybody. They finally made their selection and they chose . . . poorly.
Because it was my son all along (not even my wife knew). He pulled it off swimmingly! They never suspected him. The engaged guy was bent because he felt I had tricked him as opposed to the villains. I reminded him that he'd been warned not to trust the DM. The married guy doesn't enjoy that sort of shenanigans, but admitted that it was well done. His wife loved it, thought it was amazing and that the guys were being petty.
We have the next session in a few hours. The doppelgangers get sneak attacks in the surprise round. And they'll change into different players every round giving them a kind of blur effect except that instead of a 20% miss chance, it's a 20% chance to hit the real person instead of the doppelganger. But it's the Week of Feebleness where everyone does minimum damage, so it should be okay.
#17 only works if these PC's promptly escape from a maximum security stockade to the Waterdeep underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire . . . the Ao Team.
thwip thwip thwip thwip
( 1 ) It Isn't Really a Red Dragon:
Disguise Self: . . . You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype). Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person or gender . . .
And the duration is 10 minutes/level. Your adult red dragon could very well, as SOP, cast this spell when it leaves its lair as a precaution against just this sort of thing. Your group prepares its defenses against a red dragon and, whoops, its actually a crystal dragon.
( 2 ) Minions:
A usual red dragon lair has lava. Give this one lava . . . and iron golems. The dragon swims around under the lava while the group fights the golems. Whenever the golems are seriously wounded, have the dragon surface and breathe its fiery hot breath . . . on the golems (recall that fire heals iron golems). Repeat until dead, thus preserving all that juicy, juicy cheddar to add to the dragon's horde instead of melting into slag.
( 3 ) General Tips; A Well-Played Dragon . . .
ALWAYS looks out for number one and
NEVER loses a game of chess.
ALWAYS uses the home field advantage and
NEVER knowingly shows weakness.
ALWAYS acts like royalty and
NEVER wastes its breath weapon.
ALWAYS has an ace up its sleeve and
NEVER makes stupid decisions.
ALWAYS speaks many languages and
NEVER trusts anyone.
ALWAYS uses its wings and
NEVER forgets a slight.
ALWAYS looks for the hidden meaning and
NEVER acts predictably.
ALWAYS overestimates itself and
NEVER fears a human threat.
ALWAYS has an escape route and
NEVER takes meaningless tasks.
ALWAYS is awesome to behold and
NEVER acts on a whim.
I took two d10's and used them to count up the rounds during the fight. That way they knew something was going to happen, but not when. It wracked their nerves.
As for destroying the statue, I'd say that it is immovable as long as Aushanna lives. But if she's slain, then the statue becomes unstable and can be toppled.
Love this... I'm stealing it if that's alright with you :)
Its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission; but, sure, by all means, purloin away!
( 66 ) Damage Reduction: Magical bonuses do not meet the requirements for non-magical DR. For example, a werewolf must be hit by actual silver to bypass its DR; a +5 sword doesn't cut it.
( 58 ) A giant throwing a rock makes a ranged touch attack instead of a ranged attack.
( 59 ) All iterative attacks (2nd, 3rd, haste, speed wpns, etc.) are made at a static -5 instead of a cumulative -5.
( 60 ) A nat 20 on initiative grants a standard action in a surprise round. If one already had surprise, then a full round of action is allowed in the surprise round.
( 61 ) True Sight does not make one immune to Phantasmal Killer
( 62 ) A character with precision-based damage that wins Perception vs. Stealth three times in a row (Vicinity, Approach, Poised) may make a coup de grâce. This house rule allows rogues to "take out the guards."
The original, Shackled City! Just make Lord Vhlantru the patron of the group.
Life's Bazaar: Kill the slavers and retrieve the child because I need him for a ritual.
Flood Season: Triel and Tongueater are upsetting my plans for the city, kill them and retrieve the wands of control water.
Zenith Trajectory: I need Zenith Splintershield for the same ritual I needed the boy for; butcher the kuo-toa (to placate our allies the yuan-ti), but bring back Splintershield unharmed . . . well, alive, at least.
Demonskar Legacy: Maavu Arlintal has organized a protest. Insure it turns into a riot instead. Also, Alek Tercival has become a nuisance, eliminate him.
Test of the Smoking Eye: The potential to become the ruler of a plane of the Abyss? This one needs the least adjustment!
Secrets of the Soul Pillars: Fetor Abradius has outlived his usefulness and is no longer answering my hails. Bring him back to the fold, or bring him back to the dust, whichever is easiest.
Lords of Oblivion: The PC's having outlived their usefulness are targeted for assassination. Understandably peeved, the group seeks retribution.
Foundation of Flame: This one deals a lot with a "good" group saving people from the dangers of an almost erupting volcano. An evil group is going to ignore most of that to get right to the source of the problem, because, hey, it's our home, too and we don't want it turned into boiling hot lava.
Thirteen Cages: Whoa, whoa, whoa, yeah, sure, we're evil, but it is really more of a "look out for Numero Uno" Neutral Evil kind of evil, ya know? It isn't a "let's open up a permanent portal to Carceri so demodands can, literally, rain down from the sky kind of chaotic evil. So, um, yeah, we're gonna have to nope right outta that whole activation of the Tree of Shackled Souls.
Strike on Shatterhorn: I know how I'd feel if my half-a- millenia-in-the-planning operation just got torpedoed along with my master and key to ultimate power being sent down for the big Dirt Nap: I'd be wantin' some revenge. So let's hunt down those apprentices and wipe them out, all of them.
Asylum: Ya know what? We do want to rule a plane of the Abyss. We gotta kill Adimarchus to do it? Sure, we can do that.
In my homebrew (set in Christopher West's Lands of Mystery from Dungeon #150), since demons and devils can teleport at will, the investigation of such magics is considered diabolism and infernalism, respectively because, so far, it is. The offending wizard is usually executed in a very public and rather unpleasant way.
Elves maintain a secret network of tree stride, but they're not sharing.
Until Zim. Zim was the first PC in the game world to research teleportation magic. His first work in the area was Zim's Door. He later refined it into Zimportation. Zim is currently the headmaster of the Blue Crater Academy in Cauldron (transplanted from the first AP, Shackled City).
Just because they're in the CRB, doesn't mean they've been developed yet. Simply say that they haven't been invented. And if a PC wants to create them? No problem. They'll just have to, literally, make a deal with a devil to do it. And I cannot see any unfortunate entanglements arising from such communication [/sarcasm].
I've run SCAP a few times, learned my lesson on Davked the first time. Being a doppelganger, he still has to roll Bluff checks. Even with his bonuses and situational modifiers, a 1 is a 1 on the die. And the PC rolled high. Then the players were, well, players. They picked and picked and picked until they finally uncovered that it wasn't a dwarf at all.
That's when the battle broke out . . . right in the middle of the Cusp of Sunrise. Being guests and not nobles earned then some harsh first degree charges.
After the fines and prison time they were released and banished from Cauldron. So they ended up in Redgorge getting recruited by the High Handcrafters. The entire AP morphed into a political intrigue about the corruption in Cauldron. They never went to Occipitus, instead not really getting back onto the AP until discovering the church if Wee Jas's involvement in smuggling (parts of the soul cages).
While it didn't end the campaign, discovering Davked to not be Davked caused some serious off-roading.
In future runs, I just made it the real Davked. He never comes up again, so there's no reason for it not to just be him.
When I first started reading this thread I was honestly very confused by all this talk about 1E and 2E. I said to myself, "Self, I think that some sort of Renaissance is occurring." I provide the following key to eliminate any further misunderstandings:
BECMI = Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal
1E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, first edition
2E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, second edition
3E = Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, third edition
3.5E = AD&D, third edition revised
4E = AD&D, fourth edition
5E = AD&D, fifth Edition
PF1 = Pathfinder, first edition
PF2 = Pathfinder, second edition
And, if you're like me and too invested in PF1 and the home brew globe you've created, I can keep playing PF1, right? I won't be compelled to by the new system?
We are talking about an artifact and the 2 of Diamonds says, “Defeat the next monster you meet to gain one level.” I do not see how the second card is rendered impotent by the first.
I curb-stomp a kobold.
First card effect goes off: I have defeated the next monster, so I gain one level.
I have defeated the next monster, so the second card effect also goes off and I gain one level.
That's a total of two levels.
If the card said, “Defeat the next monster you meet to advance to the next level,” then I would say that the second card has no effect. However, it doesn't, it says you gain one level and there's nothing preventing both cards from working, so you should gain two levels.
A green dragon can attack by a claw/claw/bite routine or by breathing a cloud of poisonous chlorine gas.
And while chlorine gas is acidic, I always focused on the poisonous part. I even required players to make a Paralyzation/Poison/Death Ray save instead of a Breath Weapon save.
But as I look in the Bestiary, I see that it is now an explicitly acid breath weapon for the greens. Huh, old habits die hard.
I suppose one could go with an arctic swamp and make it a white dragon instead.
Give the dragon levels of rogue. With its burrow speed, sandstorm, and control weather, it shouldn't be too hard for the dragon to get a sneak attack on the first party member. If you go with the feats in the Bestiary and have Improved Vital Strike, you might easily kill that first player.
Snatch the second, take to the air and munch away.
Also, give the dragon four iron golem guards. Every d4 rounds, have the dragon surface from burrowing in the sand to breath fire . . . on the golems. Remember: any fire damage cancels a slow effect on an iron golem and heals it for 1 hp per 3 points of fire damage. Stay hidden under the sand and whittle away the group's resources.
I would avoid most of the dragon's illusion spells (mirage arcana, displacement, alter self) as a group as powerful as you've described will almost certainly have true seeing to by-pass those. But it doesn't defeat mundane Stealth, hence rogue levels and staying burrowed.
And I can't stress the burrowing enough. Most parties expect to fight a dragon with flight or on the ground. They'll probably not be prepared to burrow after the dragon, meaning you have the advantage of deciding when and where the dragon engages the party. And as soon as it burrows, it is out of sight, meaning it gets to Stealth again for another sneak attack.
Why do social skills get rewarded for being good at them IRL but not other types of skills?
Because we are playing a roleplaying game.
If you would like a bonus for your real physical abilities, try LARP'ing. However, I do grant a small bonus if players describe their skill check with vibrant detail. In your Sleight of Hand example, if you were to describe how you misdirect your mark's attention from what you're pick pocketing, I'd give a +1 or +2 bonus.
Conversely, this isn't Night at the Improv, either. I have DM'd shy players who've had social characters and just let their Diplomacy roll be their check. I didn't penalize them for not acting it out.
Wait, what, you're splitting treasure equally and then asking players to go halvsies on scrolls that benefit them?!? Okay, that's a totally different animal than asking for extra. I completely revoke my first post.
You aren't being selfish. In fact, since your DM limits your scroll carrying capacity (which seems like a d!ck move, to me), I'd only scribe scrolls that benefit you, unless your character has a very altruistic reason to sacrifice the coin & space for his traveling companions.
No, I'm just a Dungeon Master; evil comes with the territory.
But I see your point, a Mirror of Life Trapping with a WIL DC 23 could be a tpk . . . better up the DC to 35 to guarantee it ! ! !
I didn't know what the EL was going to be, so shot for the moon with my suggestions. Of course tone it down if you like.
On the other hand, if you felt that the sphere of annihilation in the mouth of Tomb of Horrors was a fantastic idea (even though you walked right into it), then ramp up the fine pink mist factor!
Give it all of the powers of the other magical mirrors:
Mirror of Mental Prowess
Mirror of Life Trapping
Give it all mirror spells & feats. Here are a few examples:
Mirror Strike: target = its clones
Mirror Image: target = its clones
Mirror Hideaway Mirror Sight: the mirror of mental prowess pretty much handles this, but flavor-wise, it could be interesting to use the party's hand-held mirror against them.
Mirror of Guarding Reflections: all clones are equipped with one.
Mirror Transport: again, the mirror of mental prowess handles this for most things. But the spell also functions as a hideaway and if you're in a mirrored room (like Conan vs. Thoth Amon in Conan the Destroyer, or Bruce Li in Enter the Dragon, or John Wick in the museum in John Wick 2), the ability of the clones to dimension door around the place could be extremely useful.
Mirror Move(Combat Feat): all clones have this feat.
I suggest you leave that group before it's too late. You'd only get more and more frustrated session by session. You'll find another one . . . I don't recall saying that you cannot have fun with that type of game. Lemme check...yep, no mention whatsoever.
Why should he leave before it's too late? Because he might have too much fun?
Why will he get more and more frustrated session by session? Because he's enjoying himself?
Yes, technically, you didn't explicitly state that fun could not be had. However, you heavily implied it.
Gray Warden wrote:
anything that undermines game balance is bad.
In your opinion. Take Legolas in LotR. When the Fellowship is slogging their way up Caradhras, every human is hip deep in snow, Gimli and the hobbits more so. Even Mithrandir is trudging along. And Legolas? He's light-stepping across the top of the snow. And why? Because he picked that feat? No, because he's an elf and elves are inherently better. And this, to me, in my opinion, has been the crux of the problem with D&D since it's beginning: Fluff doesn't equal crunch.
The flavor text of elves describes them as a superior race, but because everything has to be balanced, this incredibly long-lived race that measures its lifespan in millenia has a penalty to Constitution. What now?
Gray Warden wrote:
Rolled stats.. . .And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
Again, this is your opinion, not a fact. You state it as an absolute. All that is required to prove an absolute wrong it to have one counter-example. I have played for over 30 years. I have never used an array or a point-buy. I have played characters with underwhelming abilities. I was challenged. I had fun. I was not frustrated. Your argument is now nullified.
Gray Warden wrote:
OP races. For characters to start equal, all races involved must be on the same power level. If not, some characters will be inherently stronger than others, undermining party balance and bringing up frustration at the table. ALL players deserve to play a hero, not only the one interpreting the Noble Drow.
Sam Gamgee is the hero of LotR and he isn't a superior race, hobbits are inferior to maiar, elves and dwarves and yet Sam saves the world. Not because his stats were better, or even perfectly equal to everyone else's and not because his starting CR was equal to everyone else's racial choice, but because of the choice he made. And that's what makes rpg's fun for me, the shared story we're all telling. And I don't need all of the characters at the table to be exactly level with each other in order to tell a good story.
Gray Warden wrote:
3rd party material.
I agree with you here. I do not allow TPM at my table (only CRB, ACG, APG, Unchained, UM, UC, EQ).
Gray Warden wrote:
House-rules. House-rules are even less reliable than 3rd party material, so their use is bound to break the game system. Of course I'm not talking about minor rules to cover holes in the RAW or to make the game more fluent, but about major alterations to the game that have no reason to exist in the first place, and that are there just because of the GM's delusions of grandeur.
I generally agree with this, even though I have a lot of house rules (fifteen, which I think is a lot). However, at the start of each campaign, on character creation day, I project them all on the screen, we discuss them and then we vote on which ones will be used. My players are happy; I'm happy and the game isn't broken as far as we're concerned.
Gray Warden wrote:
Patches. Patches are a consequence of all the previous factors. What's the point of rolling stats if then the GM has to patch them manually because characters end up being unplayable?
Unplayable? What makes a character unplayable? In RotJ, Yoda appears to have a penalty to strength, but who wouldn't want to play him? The point is that a low stat doesn't make a character unplayable, but a player's perception of that score that makes it so; they choose to not play it, it isn't inherently unplayable.
And so what if your stats are 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 7? How many stories are about the average person thrust into extraordinary circumstances? Of course, I'm not saying I don't ever want to play a Perseus, someone born with advantages over the common man. But to say that the common person is unplayable is untrue.
Gray Warden wrote:
Fumbles. Players are supposed to kill the enemy and win the fight. Thinking otherwise is quite disingenuous.
*splutter* Whuuuuut?!? This isn't a video game where you've entered the God-mode cheat code. Players aren't supposed to do anything. If you were first level and ended up picking the owlbear cave in Keep on the Borderlands, you were toast! The DM wasn't supposed to make the owlbear old and sickly. The DM wasn't supposed to switch the goblin cave with the owlbear one. You had chosen . . . poorly. Your character died, you made a new one and you tried again. I was gobbled up more times than I can count on The Isle of Dread. Scourge of the Slave Lords you started off in a loin-cloth on a slave galley. The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth claimed more lives than Carter has pills. And don't even get me started on the Temple of Elemental Evil!
Maybe my age is showing. Maybe some of today's newer players have a sense of entitlement where they think that the DM should always adjust every encounter to insure the players' success. That sounds very sad to me. I can handle it when I roll three doubles in a row in Monopoly and go to jail. I can handle it when someone draws a Sorry! card. I can handle it when someone lays down a Wild Draw 4 on me. And I can handle it when my character dies. That's part of the game. That's a great deal of the fun: the risk. And as Captain James T. Kirk said, “Risk is our business.”
Gray Warden wrote:
For this reason, when they roll 20, they sometimes are awarded with extra damage. Why however should they be punished when they roll 1? It's already an automatic miss, even if the total attack roll would be higher than the opponent's AC (rolling 20 usually is already enough to hit enemies, being an auto-hit is almost never relevant), so why also adding detrimental effects such as hitting oneself or other teammates? Sure, this applies also to enemies, but enemies are SUPPOSED to die. And they are supposed to die because the heroes kill them, not because of rolling 1 ("why are you hitting yourself?"). . . Fumbles are just frustrating.
Han Solo steps on the twig (fumbling his stealth check). Mrs. Tasker drops the MAC 10 in True Lies. There are many times when our heroes fumble. It shows them to be fallible humans, which makes it easier for us to identify with them. Similarly, when a character fumbles and we pull it out anyway (like Han still blowing up the shield generator) we feel a greater sense of accomplishment. And are you saying you've never seen a movie where Mook #1 accidentally stabs/shoots Mook #2? Where are you getting this SUPPOSED to stuff from, anyway? I've read the CRB cover to cover and I don't recall reading where bad guys are only supposed to be offed by the good guys.
Gray Warden wrote:
Useless roleplay. Do you roleplay +1 skill rank on Perception on level up? Do you roleplay getting Power Attack? Does roleplay influence how many spells the Sorcerer learns? No. So why should I roleplay selling stuff, with income being dependent on how good I am at marketing? I want to play a hero, not a salesman. Equipment is part of the character's build, like feats, skill ranks, spells and whatnot, and should be treated as such.
Yes, in my games, non-combat oriented skills (knowledges, performs, professions, crafts) require time spent doing them to gain the rank. One is stealthing, bluffing, diplomacizing, etc. during the adventure and so the rank up makes sense. But if one has Profession (Cobbler) and has been Steading the Frost Giant Jarl, one hasn't been making any shoes! One has to spend as many weeks as they have ranks studying/practicing non-combat skills to go up. However, I usually have generous amounts of down-time in my games, so it isn't a problem.
And I disagree with you about equipment. Equipment is treasure (those braces, that +1 sword, etc.), it isn't something a character gains as a part of experience (feats, skills, spells, etc.). I don't get a Cloak of Resistance +2 because I'm 6th level, I get it because I killed the dude wearing it, regardless of his level or my level.
Gray Warden wrote:
But to me, the GM is just another player at the table, but with a different role in the game, and I prefer playing a game where every character is a hero, and every player at the table, GM included, is equal.
CRB, page 396 wrote:
It's one thing to play a character on an adventure. It's quite another to run the adventure as a Game Master. It's a lot more work . . .
Storyteller: The Game Master must be able to craft stories and to translate them into a verbal medium.
Entertainer: A Game Master is on stage, and his players are his audience.
Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game . . . his word is law.
Inventor: The Game Master's job does not end when the game session does. He must be an inventor as well.
Player: Just because he's playing dozens of characters during the course of a session doesn't make him any less a player than the others who sit at the table.
I think that makes the case that the DM is actually quite a bit more. One example: if everyone at the table is equal then the DM, as Judge, has no authority to arbitrate rules.
There's an overpowered player? That's the DM's problem. There are no consequences for him rushing headlong into everything? That's definitely the DM's problem.
However, it sounds like you are more into the story (role-player): "I am interested in the adventure module we're playing, and I don't want to abandon it." And he's more into hack 'n' slash (roll-player): "busting every wall he could, and rushing into everything . . ." Both are fine ways to play, if every player at the table agrees to one or the other. They do not play well together.
Unfortunately, that's a discussion that should have taken place before the campaign began. I'm very doubtful of Mr. Powered, Over Powered, changing his play style. I've never seen a roll-player switch gears mid-campagin and start role-playing. I'm using these terms descriptively, not pejoratively.
There's an underpowered player? That's the DM's problem, too, if the player expresses a desire to change. If I were you, I'd do no more than plant the bug in his ear, "You know, [OVERPOWERED PLAYER] and I both changed characters. If you wanted to change as well, I'm sure [ DM ] would allow it."
But you are not the DM.
You are a player.
We already know that you're having fun in this campaing DESPITE Over Powered, not BECAUSE of him, so all you have to do is weigh the fun you're having on one side and the amount of disgruntlement he causes on the other and see which is greater.
(1) Back in 1E, I actually witnessed a party member try to put on the Head of Vecna. Darn near bit my tongue off trying not to laugh as the player was practically salivating at the chance.
(3) This was a slip of the tongue. Listing treasure the group had just acquired, instead of the Rod of Lordly Might, I accidentally said the Lord of Rodly Might. And then just moved on, not catching myself. Rachael piped up, "Ummm, and just what does the Lord of Rodly Might do?"
He became a functional golem. A fully functional golem, programmed in a variety of techniques.
. . . The fact that plotlines and locations need to be "caster-proofed" at all is an indication of how the GM needs to account for spellcasting in a way that they don't necessarily need to for other things . . .
Magic requires you to think a little more carefully about how they're getting into the fortress. Is the fortress protected against aerial assaults, if the mage can cast fly? Is there something in place to stop one from using burrowing spells to get in from underneath? Can they scry on things inside the castle to learn more about what they're up against? God forbid, can they teleport past the outer defenses, and what happens if they do? Can they open holes in the walls with magic? Can they supplement the aforementioned plans to fight, sneak, or talk their way inside with things that make these plans much, much more likely to succeed?
Magic can do a lot of things, and it's hard to account for them all.
This is not the first argument of this type that I've seen in this thread, or in others. It implies that the over-powered wizard "just showed up, <*POOF*>, from, like, nowhere, man." That the castle was all prepped for a frontal assault or sneaky-creepy thieves, but had absolutely not one iota of an inkling that such a thing as arcane magic was in existence.
And if that were true, I'd agree that it's a good reason to consider a wizard to be overpowered. HOWEVER, it isn't true.
The castle exists in a magical world and is aware of that fact. The castle that readies defenses against magical assault makes the castle prepared, not the wizard overpowered.
A goldsmith or silversmith who protects his shop with simple locks and then gets robbed doesn't have the right to moan, "Oh, thieves, with their masterwork thieves' tools are just so overpowered!" Passersby would, quite justly, chide the smith, "Dude, you're the one who deals in precious metal and used only simple locks! You know there are thieves and that they have pretty good tools and are pretty good at what they do: You should have known to use better locks and hired night guards or bribed the watch to patrol your shop's street."
Magic is part of the realm, built into its foundations since before Time began. To suggest that wizards are OP because <INSERT REASON> is to, essentially, say that wizards are OP because they are.
My complex might catch fire. So I have to teach my five-year-old son fire safety, how to escape a burning building, and where is our rendevous point. FIRE IS SO OP! No, it isn't. It's part of our existence and we take that knowledge into account and plan accordingly.
Magic requiring me, as a DM, to think more carefully doesn't make the wizard over-powered. I create pantheons! If I can't deal with some upstart flim-flam man, I should sit down, re-read some Dungeocraft articles by Monte Cook and let someone else have a turn behind the screen!
I had a 1st ed half orc cleric assassin called Nightshade!
How unoriginal was I?
Chainmail: Originality galore.
BECMI: Almost original
1E: Token unoriginality. Not even worth mentioning.
2E: Minor unoriginality. Should have tweaked the name: Knightdrape, Evening Blinds, or something of that ilk.
3E: Moderately unoriginal. Consider a full orc, hobgoblin, or human and dropping the cleric bit. Name needs help: Darkstalker the Relentless, but by this stage you should be moving out of the nocturnal cycle entirely. Consider Iceknife the Cold, Prowler, or the like.
3.5E: Heavily unoriginal. At this point you should switch over to half-dragon instead of half-orc, drop the assassin, but be a cleric of Bhaal (or whatever murder deity is appropriate to your campaign).
PATHFINDER: Extremely unoriginal. There's no help, none whatsoever. Just find some of your name and chow down on it. However, if you're committed, then you need to be taking Mixed Blood as often as possible and your name has to be as innocuous as possible: Lou the Dungsweeper, Melvin the Cobbler, etc.
High level spells like Teleport, Plane Shift, Gate, . . . These spells fundamentally change the nature of campaigns. The fact that a GM has to take steps to rein in casters is proof in itself that casters are overpowered—something in need of reining in.
In my world, because demons and devils teleport at will, research of such spells was considered diabolism/infernalism. Tree Stride and a monk's Leap of a 1000 Steps still existed. But wizards didn't have teleport until a PC (Zim) researched them. Incidentally, they're called Zim's Door and Zimportation because Zim invented the spells.
Zim also went on to become the Terramancer (the wizard/ambassador for the Elemental Plane of Earth), joining the Cryomancer, Hydromancer, Electromancer, and Necromancer of the globe. Now that each of the four elemental planes are represented, they can choose a new Neomancer to balance out the Necromancer.
Zim runs the Bluecrater Academy in Cauldron, one of half a dozen magic schools that teach the arcane arts. A graduating wizard's "diploma" is their arcane mark, a spell that a renegade wizard who teaches an unsanctioned apprentice cannot give (arcane mark is only obtainable through the graduating ceremony).
These schools exist because, while there are tens of thousands of people on the globe with the raw intellect to cast Wish, there are precious few who also have the wisdom to not cast it. Can you imagine a globe where there are thousands of wizards casting contradictory wishes on a daily basis? It would rip the very fabric of reality to shreds, casting the globe into the Abyss.
These schools are rare, hard to reach, and difficult to pass to weed out all those who lack the wisdom and humility to wield their magic responsibly.
Now, is the fact that I have taken steps to rein in casters proof in itself that casters are overpowered? Or has the globe reacted in a natural way to limit the proliferation of dangerous power (like the U.S. tries to limit the increase in the number of nuclear states [yes, which is also self-serving, but also altruistic {but, please, I'm not trying to start a political debate, I'm just using it as an example}]).
William Werminster wrote:
Also I'd like to point out my good sir, that I've enjoyed reading all your posts in this never ending controversial issue about "wizards".
[snark]You mean, of course, Magic-Users, don't you?[/snark]
One of the maiar from Tolkein's Middle Earth to be exact.
There was Sauron the Black, Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown, the two Blue wizards (Alatar and Pallando or Morinehtar and Rómestámo, depending on which version of Tolkein's notes one is reading) and, of course, Gandalf the Grey. However, J.R.R. Tolkein was very frank about not being sure what really happened to the Blue wizards, “I really do not know anything clearly about the other two [wizards].” Therefore, I think it is very plausible that there might be a wizard of color that even the author himself was unaware: Santa the Red.
Let us now undertake to address the various issues of magic concerning Santa the Red:
( 1 ) How does he fit all of the toys of every child in the world in that one sack? It is an epic Bag of Holding. If you are unfamiliar with the vocabulary of Dungeons & Dragons, I hope that you are either a Potterhead who can think of Santa's sack like Hermione's purse in Deathly Hallows, or a Whovian and can content yourself, instead, with this truth of Santa Claus' sack: It is bigger on the inside.
( 2 ) How can he fit down chimneys? And what about people who don't even have a chimney? A first level reduce person spell gets him down chimneys. However, considering the power wielded by maiar, dimension door and passwall spells are far more likely. Yet, let us not discount the very real possibility that the simplest answer may be correct: He uses the Floo Network.
( 3 ) How do the reindeer fly? Flight is such a basic spell in so many fantasy worlds that this point doesn't really require explanation. Yet, in the interest of being thorough, I shall say that transfigured hippogriffs very much fit the bill. Though, to be fair, any magical beast capable of flight could be polymorphed into reindeer. Why change them? Hippogriffs, griffins, and dragons are terrifying creatures to behold and Santa the Red is visiting children; he needn't traumatize them unnecessarily.
As an aside, I find it conspicuous that there are nine reindeer (Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet Cupid, Donner, Blitzen and, of course, Rudolph) and nine wraith kings (“nine for mortal men doomed to die”). Perhaps they are forced to do penance by being the beasts of burden for the last of the maiar in Middle Earth, literally bringing joy to children around the world. This theory is the author's own and completely unsubstantiated.
( 4 ) How can he visit every house in the world in one night? A Time Turner would allow this quite easily. But I must say that Santa's Sleigh bears a remarkable resemblance to the original Time Machine; it certainly doesn't look like a DeLorean, blue police box, or telephone booth!
But the true answer to question #4 is that he doesn't visit every house in one night (only few select people are in such need as to require a personal visit from Santa Claus [like the children in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe]). Santa Claus' true magic is in the global enchantment he casts upon the world.
Santa the Red charms the world into believing that they are him. Men dress as Santa Claus (more on appearances later) and claim to be him. They do not break character. If a group of Santas meet, or even just two, there isn't a single angry allegation of frauds or impostors. Indeed, all of the Santas gathered together get along amicably, all the while continuing to insist that they are the one, true Santa. And nary a one finds anything illogical about this. These men are so obviously mesmerized by Santa the Red's enchantment one wonders it hasn't been noticed before now.
Additionally, parents don't don the garb. They just spend their hard-earned money on nice, expensive presents, but write that they are from “Santa Claus” in their own hand-writing and give them to children who are old enough to know their parents' penmanship. Yet neither giver nor recipient bat an eyelash nor let on that the gift might not be from Santa Claus. Obviously, these people are ensorceled.
Furthermore, parents consume milk and cookies and purport that they were, in fact, consumed by Santa Claus. This error is more proof of Santa's global charm spell.
Now, let us consider the physical appearance of Santa the Red and compare him to that of other well-recognized wizards, namely Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Merlin, and Gandalf the Grey.
Merlin has a lengthy, white beard.
Dumbledore has a lengthy, white beard.
Gandalf has a lengthy, white beard.
Mitch Miller knew this back in 1960 when he sang:
“Who's got a beard that's long and white?
Santa's got a beard that's long and white.”
Merlin carries a staff.
Gandalf carries a staff.
True, Dumbledore favors the wand over the conventional staff. However, Dumbledore must hide among Muggles; his “staff” are the teachers at Hogwarts.
A google image search of “traditional Santa Claus” will yield many results showing Santa the Red with a staff.
So, finally, why is Santa the Red the only maiar still here on Middle Earth. Rather simple, he accepted the advent of the Age of Men when Ea (God) sent His only begotten Son to die for us. This, too, is reflected in song; specifically, in Gene Autry's 'Here Comes Santa Claus,' “Santa knows we're all God's children. That makes everything right.”
“Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night” – Santa the Red
And that is the general conceit of playing one. That IF you could have a spell that could counter something, OF COURSE YOU have it memorized.
Unfortunately, I've had a few players guilty of this exact thing.
Which is why I have a table rule that players of all prepared casters (like the wizard) will provide the DM with a default spell list.
This is the character's generic, "I'm going out to buy some milk" spells that they prepare on any given day. If they want to prepare different spells, the player has to inform me.
If they don't, they've got their default list. I've had to be a hard-oss a couple of times about it, but the players have learned and it has completely eliminated this problem.
I've yet to see anyone create an Abjurationist adventurer outside of an NPC.
Glad to meet you! I've been playing an Abjurer, Zilv shalee of House Medri, in a Drow campaign. He's 11th level now. Zilv buffs. Zilv cleanses. Zilv counters. Zilv has yet to do a single point of damage.
The secret of his success is his tagline, "No one fears the abjurer."
This includes all classes from 1E (andreww omitted the Illusionist, Assassin, and Monk [which actually makes his case stronger]).
My counterpoint to this (as an aside, this is ludicrous in a great way that we're discussing FIRST EDITION) is that while the Magic-User does speed up in the mid-level game, the slow-going low-levels, coupled with its squishiness (d4 HD, +2 CON cap) and few spells (no bonus INT spells, no cantrips, no scrolls) made for many dead wizards at low levels.
Also, when XP becomes linear for all classes at high levels, the Magic-User has the largest requirement, even, finally, outstripping the Paladin in XP needs.
Finally, I posit that the leveling of the XP playing field is but one reason why the Wizard is considered overpowered (see previous posts for other reasons).
There is so much more going on here than just a game and I really hope that you value your brother more than this game.
Put aside what he's done to your homebrew for now. You can come back to it later, or not.
Please talk to your brother. He must have known you'd worked hard on this continent of yours. He worked diligently to destroy it. Consider the premeditation: He didn't set about wrecking it from the get-go. No, first he adventured the ranger to hero status, giving you the taste and feel of an enjoyable homebrewed campaign world. And then he tore it down.
Why? Just to see it burn? I don't know you and I don't know him and I don't know all of your history together. But you do and I just have this feeling that there is more to it than that.
Did you wrong him in some serious way? I don't mean you took the drumstick at Thanksgiving when you know he likes dark meat: that's just normal sibling rivalry.
I mean like you slept with his wife type wronging. I don't expect an explanation, but I just have a feeling that there is something terribly broken in your relationship with your brother and I hope you love him enough to want to fix that before anything else.
3E and following editions beefed up Wizards more than any other class over previous editions, but that was so long ago that people have either forgotten or are new to the game and never knew any different.
Magic-Users used to have a d4 HD and their max CON bonus to HP was +2; now Wizards have a d6 HD and there's no cap on their CON bonus to HP.
Magic-Users used to require more XP to level than every other class (except the paladin [but that's a different thread]); now Wizards need just as much as everyone else (if you're even still using XP [which many aren't]).
Magic-Users used to start with one spell (no cantrips) at first level and no bonus spells for INT; now Wizards start with 3 unlimited cantrips + 1 first level spell and bonus spells for INT.
Magic-Users used to have to be a minimum of 9th level before they could scribe a scroll and the process was arduous, expensive, time-consuming and required rare components; now Wizards start the game with the ability to scribe dirt-cheap scrolls.
In BECMI, 1E and 2E I didn't get attached to my Magic-Users until 5th level because death was so probable earlier than that that it wasn't worth the emotional investment.
There was an altruism to evil back then. Bad guys didn't target the Magic-User because they were afraid of Melf's Acid Arrow, but because they knew that if they didn't kill the Magic-User NOW, she'd become nigh unstoppable for someone else in the future.
Dragon #284, 25th Anniversary Special, p. 36 wrote:
CLASS LEVELS
Barbarian: A raging dragon is not a pretty sight. While the dragon might sacrifice so me of its more sophisticated tactics, it smashes things even faster when enraged. Any class that offers uncanny dodge helps.
Bard: A good dragon with bard levels would make an interesting NPC, but the last thing serious-minded heroes want in an epic fight is for the dragon to start singing.
Cleric: Perhaps the best class for dragons, cleric levels offer a dragon the one thing its innate abilities can't give it: healing.
Druid: Druid levels are a good way for green or black dragons to exert more control over their habitats, but they don't fit many other species.
Fighter: A dragon with more feats and a better attack bonus is just mean. A proper selection of feats could make a dragon with a few fighter levels nearly unstoppable.
Monk: The unarmed damage and unarmed attack bonus of a monk don't stack with a monster's natural attacks, so monk levels aren't really a good choice -- the fact that dragons can already fly reduces the utility of many of the monk's special abilities.
Paladin: A good dragon wth paladin levels and the celestial template could crush entire armies of evil, or work as a powerful behind-the-scenes force for good.
Ranger: Like monk, the ranger's special abilities mesh poorly with a dragon's innate powers.
Rogue: Sneak attack. Move Silently. Hide. A dragon with levels in rogue will almost always kill the first PC it attacks -- be very careful with this one.
Sorcerer: Dragons are already powerful spellcasters, but it isn't hard to imagine them taking sorcerer levels to increase their spellcasting ability.
Wizard: Dragons have a hard time manipulating most spellbooks, but one might take levels of the wizard class to learn from spellbooks it has collected or to get item creation feats.
Obviously, this article is for 3.0 or 3.5, so some features might be adjusted slightly for Pathfinder, but I think the basic advice holds true. As does the following:
Dragon #284, 25th Anniversary Special, p. 41 wrote:
A WELL-PLAYED DRAGON
Always . . . looks out for number on. Never . . . loses a game of chess.
Always . . . uses the home field advantage Never . . . knowingly shows weakness.
Always . . . acts like royalty. Never . . . wastes its breath weapon.
Always . . . has an ace up its sleeve. Never . . . makes stupid decisions.
Always . . . speaks many languages. Never . . . trusts anyone.
Always . . . uses its wings. Never . . . forgets a slight.
Always . . . looks for the hidden meaning. Never . . . acts predictably.
Always . . . overestimates itself. Never . . . fears a human threat.
Always . . . has an escape route. Never . . . takes meaningless risks.
Always . . . is awesome to behold. Never . . . acts on a whim.
The power of the wizard is inherent to the game and was understood by the designers:
1E AD&D PHB, by Gary Gygax, c. 1978, p.25 wrote:
There are many powerful items of magic which only this (Magic-User) class of character can employ. Most magic scrolls, wands, staves, and many of the miscellaneous items of magic are usable only by this class. Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic users are quite weak.
Examples of this:
HIT POINTS
Magic-Users had only d4 HD, only gained 1 hp/level starting at twelfth, and could only gain a maximum of +2 hp/lvl for high CON (so, yes, even at 18 CON, a magic-user still only gained +2 hp {one had to be exclusively a fighter to get higher than +2}).
As this scale changes and some classes move around, the Magic-User always has the second highest XP requirements to advance at low, mid, and high levels.
ryric wrote:
Scribing scrolls in the 80s was less about money/downtime and more about figuring out how you were going to get 3 drops of blood from a species that had been erased from time, or other such esoteric ingredient craziness.
Well, for those of you who are interested in a trip down memory lane, here you go:
1E AD&D PHB, by Gary Gygax, c. 1978, p.25:
When a magic-user attains 11th level (Wizard) or higher, he or she may enchant items or scribe magic scrolls. This process requires the undivided attention of the magic-user for quite long periods of time -- weeks to months -- and it is also costly. As the Dungeon Master is carefully instructed to keep exact record of game time spent in such activity, the magic-user will effectively remove himself or herself from a number of adventures while enchanting items or inscribing scrolls of magic spells. As this relative inactivity means that the character will not get experience points and treasure (monetary or magical) gained from adventures which take place during the inactive period, it is not usual for a Wizard to manufacture many items or scrolls. However, as occasional enchantment of items or penning of magic scrolls will take place, your referee has complete information on the process, including probabilities, time required, materials needed, and costs.
1E AD&D DMG, by Gary Gygax, c. 1978, p.117:
A scroll of spells may be inscribed only upon pure and unblemished papyrus, parchment, or vellue -- the latter being the most desireable. Any mistake will doom the effort to failure. A fresh, virgin quill must be used for each spell transcribed. The quill must be from a creature of strange or magical nature, i.e. a griffon, harpy, hippogriff, pegasus, roc, sphinx of any sort, and similar monsters you elect to include (demons, devils, lammasu, etc.)
The material upon which the scroll of spells is to be written can be purchased at the following cost guidlines:
papyrus, per sheet: 2 g.p. and up +5% chance of failure
parchment, per sheet: 4 g.p. and up +0% chance of failure
vellum, per sheet: 8 g.p. and up -5% chance of failure
The type of material used will affect the likelihood of successful transcription, as listed above. Special quills cannot normally be purchased, for only common goose or similar feather instruments are available in shops. The would-be inscriber must arrange for the special writing tools as he or she can.
Ink is a very special requirement. Scroll spell ink, just as the ink for detailing spells in spell books, is compounded only by the inscriber from secret and strange ingredients. The basic medium should be sepia from a giant squid or ink from a giant octopus. To this liquid must be added blood, powdered gems, herbal and spice infusions, draughts concocted from parts of monsters, and so on. An example of a formula for the ink required to scribe a protection from petrification spell is shown below:
1 oz. giant squid sepia
1 basilisk eye
3 cockatrice feathers
1 scruple of venom from a medusa's snakes
1 large peridot, powdered
1 medium topaz, powdered
2 drams holy water
6 pumpkin seeds
Harvest the pumpkin in the dark of the moon and dry
the seeds over a slow fire of sandalwood and horse
dung. Select three perfect ones and grind them into
a coarse meal, husks and all. Boil the basilisk eye
and cockatrice feathers for exactly 5 minutes in a
saline solution, drain, and place in a jar. Add the
medusa's snake venom and gem powders. Allow to stand
for 24 hours, stirring occasionally. Pour off liquid
into bottle, add sepia and holy water, mixing con-
tents with a silver rod, stirring widdershins. Makes
ink sufficient for one scroll.
Other ink formulas will be devised similarly according to the dictates of the DM. Ingredients should suit the overall purpose of the ink. It is recommended that each different spell to be transcribed require a different ink compound -- clerical spells requiring more venerated and holy materials, druid spells being basically rare roots and herbs in infusions, and so on. Garments, wrappings, dust, sweat, tears, teeth, fangs, organs, blood, and so forth are all ideal components.
Once material, quill, and ink are ready, the spell scriber must actually write the magical runes, glyphs, symbols, characters, pictograms, and words upon the surface of the scroll. Transcription must be from his or her scroll books or upon an altar (for clerics and druids). Special candles and incense must be burning while the inscription is in progress. Clerics must have prayed and specially sacrificed to their deity, while magic-users must have drawn a magic circle and remain uninterrupted. PREPARATION REQUIRES ON FULL DAY FOR EACH LEVEL OF THE SPELL BEING SCRIBED ON THE SCROLL. A 1st level spell takes one day, a 2nd level spell two, etc. Time so spent must be continuous with interruptions only for rest, food, sleep, and the like. If the inscriber leaves the scroll to do anything else, the magic is broken, and the whole effort is for naught.
Failure: There is a basic 20% chance that a mistake, smudge, or flaw in the scroll will make the spell useless. To this base chance is added 1% per level of the spell being inscribed, so that total failure chances is from 21% to 29%, minus the level of teh character attempting to write the spell. Thus, if a 14th level cleric is attempting to write a 7th level spell on a parchment scroll, the failure chance is 20% + 7% - 14% = a 13% chance. After the requisite materials and preparations have been taken care of, the player character must then spend the full time necessary to inscribe the scroll spell. Thereafter, a percentile dice roll greater than the percentage chance of failure equals success.
And that's just for SCROLLS; imagine what it is for permanent items!
So, yeah, item creation was basically for NPC casters to explain how stuff got on the shelves at YOMS, not for players to craft for themselves.
My original statement that wizards should have carpal tunnel from scribing scrolls was assuming the Pathfinder Scribe Scroll feat and not this kind of arcane thaumaturgy.
Sounds like your GM is giving you too much downtime.
Really? At only 3rd level, a wizard should have 3,000 gp (using WBL). He'll only have 2 second level spells and let's say a dozen first level (three to start + INT mod + 2 at 2nd level + a couple random from adventuring).
First (25 gp) and second (150 gp) level scrolls will only take two hours to scribe. If I devote 2,000 to gear and 1,000 to scrolls, I can scribe 5 second level scrolls and 10 first level scrolls in 30 hours, or about four 8-hour work days.
Half a week doesn't sound like too much downtime to me.
I would like to thank Andrew Callbeck for pointing out my error and for having the decency to do it politely & discreetly in a private message:
CRB, p. 549, "Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day."
My 15 scrolls would take 15 days.
So, yeah, if you're playing in a game like ryric describes where it's go-go-go ALL the time, then maybe don't play the one class that gets a class skill effectively eliminated from the game (scribe scroll).
However, in 30+ years, those type of campaigns make up a small percentage of my experience. Even back in the early 80s when it was mapping and no dungeon ecology, there was still enough downtime to scribe scrolls.
Sounds like your GM is giving you too much downtime.
Really? At only 3rd level, a wizard should have 3,000 gp (using WBL). He'll only have 2 second level spells and let's say a dozen first level (three to start + INT mod + 2 at 2nd level + a couple random from adventuring).
First (25 gp) and second (150 gp) level scrolls will only take two hours to scribe. If I devote 2,000 to gear and 1,000 to scrolls, I can scribe 5 second level scrolls and 10 first level scrolls in 30 hours, or about four 8-hour work days.
Half a week doesn't sound like too much downtime to me.
In the United States, which, compared to many other parts of the world, is far more diverse and accepting for sexual orientations, has ~ 17% Latinos, 12% Black, 5% Asian, 0.7% Native American, 2% Other, and 2-6% LGBT.
Having a large town 62% Human, 17% Halfling, 12% Dwarf, 5% Elf, 0.7% Gnome, 2% Other and 2-6% LGBT would be completely acceptable.
Suppose the Elves congregate together in Elftown (akin to Chinatown). In a large town of 4,000 inhabitants, only 200 are Elves, so it is entirely feasible, perhaps even likely, that adventurers would never even see one single Elf (unless, of course, they have a specific reason to seek them out).
There are only 28 gnomes, so it is also very unlikely, that unless the group is actively looking for a gnome, that they'd see one.
And there would only be 80 Others. This is a catch-all for any number of obscure minorities. A man-servant acquired by a lord as a gift that never leaves the mansion (read: never seen by the group). A group of five performers at a circus the group doesn't attend. Vagrant refugees fleeing oppression living at the far end of alleys the group doesn't go down. Visiting scholars researching antique pottery in a section of the library the group doesn't go to. An ethnic restaurant that doesn't receive the group's patronage. An exotic glass-blower providing services the group doesn't need. Pilgrims from a far-off land visiting the temple of a god the group doesn't worship.
My point is that there are any number of legitimate, even probable, reasons why the group only sees Humans.
As far as gender preference, there are, statistically at most 240 people in the town who are LGBT. The group is going to encounter how many NPC's in town? A dozen? Broken up along racial lines:
7.44 of them are Human (8)
2.04 are Halfling (2)
1.44 are Dwarf (1)
0.6 are Elf (1)
0.0084 are Gnome (0)
0.24 are Other (0)
and 0.72 are, at most (using 6%) are LGBT. Let's round that up to a whole person. So, only one person the party meets will be LGBT. And how often does one's sexual preference come up in casual conversation with some you just met?
That's what Scribe Scroll is for. Forget other item creation feats, those are for NPC's, a mechanic to explain why YOMS is a Sears/Robuck (erm, I mean, Amazon [sorry, my age is showing]) catalog of everything you could want; to get away from the oft-abused DM fiat of 1E & 2E. I never really saw them as PC feats.
A wizard should have callused fingers from scribing so many scrolls.
A wizard should have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from scribing so many scrolls.
An unprepared wizard, caught with her robes down in an unforeseen, unpredictable situation should calmly reach for her handy haversack which will conveniently place exactly what she's looking for right on top and say, "I have a scroll for that."
In my world, different things happen to different races when they die. When a character dies, I tell them nothing. If they are resurrected, I take the player aside and tell them what happens to their soul. They then have the choice to accept the resurrection or not. If they accept it, I then tell the player that their character cannot remember what happens in the afterlife and I ask them not to discuss it with the other players.
Most of my players are into the story, so they keep their mouths shut. Some talk, whatever, it's a game, so I try not to get too bent about it.
Except Elves; elves are immortal, only being killed by injury or illness. But that immortality comes with a price: Elves cannot be raised from the dead; they have but one life to live.
Having created my own world, I'll let the reader judge.
(1) Halflings are not roley-poley dumplings. They can be, but they're more industrious than laconic (being ruled by a dragon with an agenda tends to do that). They breed sexually, but do not marry. The community raises the child as it is rare for anyone to really know who their parents are.
(2) Male dwarves are the typical hirsute dwarf. Female dwarves are completely hairless (shamelessly ripped off from Deltans in Star Trek: TMP). They breed sexually, but it is, while not forbidden, definitely odd and frowned upon for a dwarf to marry OUTSIDE of the family. Cousins are good. Siblings are better. Dwarves do not suffer any genetic defects from these couplings.
(3) Elves. This is a Young World and Elves haven't split into their sub-races yet (actually, none of the races have). They breed asexually (shamelessly lifted from the Drak from the movie Enemy Mine). Every five hundred years or so, an elf simply becomes pregnant and produces a child. They may be feminine, masculine, or androgynous, but this is an aspect of psychology, not biology. As such, there are no Half-Elves.
(4) Gnomes. They are tiny, not small. There are your Garden Variety Gnomes, Tinker Gnomes, Thinker Gnomes and a few other variants. There are a set number of gnomes alive at any one time. When a gnome dies, spores are left behind, and, back in the Great Grove, a mushroom transforms into a gnome. If the spores are returned to the Great Grove, that gnome continues in the circle of life. First In, Last Out. So, when a gnome dies, the oldest (or earliest) gnome in the Great Grove is born. Each new gnome is unique, with their own personality. But as a gnome ages (every century or so) they begin to acquire memories and skills from previous lives. This explains gnomes' tendency to be a bit flighty.
(5) Orcs. Created by Dromar (AKA Orcus) Demon Prince of the Undead and sworn nemesis of the Elves. The Elves embarked upon a quest to the Abyss to eradicate Dromar and were successful. The last vestige, the idea of Dromar, could take root in his creation, an orc. Any orc. So the Elves had to exterminate the orcs. And they did. There are no more orcs or half-orcs. The player who played the elf that called the banners to march to the Abyss ended up in a different campaign, ten years later, playing the very last orc in existence that was slain by his old, now-NPC, Elf.
(6) Humans. It is a Globe of Lights world with city-states separated by thousands of miles. Using the settlement rules, there are a variety of types. Some have no city watch. Some have slavery for a set period of time, for some slavery is in perpetuity, some have none at all. There are monarchies, oligarchies, plutocracies, theocracies, and one magocracy.
Some are matriarchies, some are patriarchies, some are equal. One is divided. In Kembridge, "A boy is his father's son, of the woman there is no part. A girl is her mother's daughter, of the man there is no part."
Like the Magdalena Alpine butterfly of the Rocky Mountains is black to better absorb the sunlight and keep warm, so too are the humans of the Snowcrown Mountains dark black. Conversely, the not-Polynesian Olmen of the Isle of Dread are a pale white, to better reflect the punishing rays of the blue star, Cerulean. It probably isn't very scientific, but it's a magical globe and I wanted to turn something on its head. Residents of the other city-states also have unique skin tones.
Some, like the not-Asians of Jaquarta, have a rigid caste system. Others, none at all. All have unique taboos. In Wavewatcher's Bay, for instance, they take the saying, "The eyes are the window to the soul" very seriously and everyone wears mirrored glasses (which impose a -2 equipment penalty to Sense Motive checks).
In game, I hate how there are hundreds of races. Every group now has, maybe, one human. The rest are exotic rare races that players think are neat and unusual with really cool special abilities. I understand the draw to them. I really do, but I play message board games exclusively now due to time constraints and every game I'm in has several exotics running around with no good campaign reason to be there. We're in a city. "Hey. Here's a new player. They're playing a Nymph urban druid". WHAT??? How about a sverfneblin when we're all good and meet for the first time to root out evil. Okay... I'll trust the goblin to not cause a ruckus or get us ostracized in a human city.
Since I run my own world, I get around this with the Freak of Nature. I've created the list of standard, playable races. Any race that falls outside of that list is playable, at my discretion, but will be a Freak of Nature.
EXAMPLE: Want to be a kitsune? Fine. A natural werewolf in wolf form mated with a fox and, presto, your character is born. There is no race of kitsunes, you're a one-off. You have the traits of the race, without me having to go through the trouble of establishing their homeland and how they relate with the other races/city-states in the area.
A wizard's experiment gone horribly wrong is an easy way to shoe-horn in almost any exotic race.
This can have a profound impact on my world. For instance, a guy was playing the first Ironborn (AKA: warforged) to exist on my world. At the end of the campaign he was critically hit (confirmed) and then a 100 was rolled on the Critical Hit Chart: "Fine pink mist. Unloved by the gods. Cannot be resurrected by any means, not even a wish, true ressurrection, nor miracle will bring this being back to life." And now no one else can play an Ironborn.
On the other hand, during Shackled City AP, in Bhal-Hamatugn, the players wiped out every last kuo-toan (AKA: ulat-kini), but didn't lay a finger on Dhorlot's fingerlings. So, now ulat-kini are extinct, but Dhorlot's half-dragon ulat-kini are thriving.
Twists and Turns: Designing the Campaign Around the Characters (Part 3) by Monte Cook from Dungeon #123, June 2003, pages 92 – 94:
Twists and Turns:
If you assume that in the movie Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is the Player Character, you see that the “campaign” really isn't centered around him. He's at the center of the story, of course, and some of it even ties into his backstory, but truthfully, he was just a guy in the right place at the right time. In The Empire Strikes Back, however, we see things change. Now the “campaign” is based specifically around him, with Darth Vader being his father and specifically looking to turn him to the dark side.
Both are fine films and either approach would make for a wonderful roleplaying campaign. In this Dungeoncraft installment, however, I thought I'd address The Empire Strikes Back style of campaign design. In other words, a campaign designed (at least in part), around the PCs.
A CAMPAIGN-CENTRIC CAMPAIGN
There's nothing wrong with having a campaign where the characters don't matter. Now, that may sound cold and heartless, but it's true. You can design a campaign where the PCs might be a dwarf fighter, an elf wizard and three human rogues, but it would be essentially no different than if the PCs were a half-orc fighter, a human wizard, a human cleric, and a halfling rogue. The encounters might go differently, but the plot-lines you set up, the opponents you create, and the environments you design all remain the same. And that's fine.
However, you can also design a campaign fundamentally altered by who the PCs are, or even one that only works with very specific characters involved. For example, you could create a campaign centered around the drow as villains where the PCs are drow-hating elves or those of other races who have been personally harmed by the drow in the past. Or, the PCs might represent the fulfillment of some ancient prophecy. One PC might be the long-lost heir to the throne. The PCs could even all be the results of a magical experiment gone awry. The village threatened by the oncoming hobgoblin army might be the very place one or more PC hails from. The PCs might all be wizards at a magical school at the heart of all the campaign's actions.
The advantage of a character-centric campaign is that the players feel special, and frankly, it's fun to be special. The challenges they face are more immediate, and the dangers are heightened because they relate directly to the PCs. The characters aren't just outsiders seeking glory or gold, they're involved. If they fail, the consequences directly affect them. The campaign won't feel like every other run-of-the-mill game that the players have been in before – it will be its own, unique experience.
And while I refer to this as a character-centric campaign, the truth is that it's only some of the adventures that are centered around the characters, usually, and the adventures have different hooks involving different characters or different aspects of the same character. A wizard character might seek to enter a special magical organization, but in order to do so, the secret headquarters must be found and tests must be passed. Later, another character in the same group learns that her adventurer father is missing and the PCs must track him down and rescue him from the trouble he's got himself into. Still later, the wizard character's old master contacts him to warn of a demon that secretly inhabits the staff he gave him when he was but an apprentice. After that, yet another character in the group falls in love but his impending nuptials might be ruined when an old foe shows up to enact revenge. Sprinkle in a few more straightforward adventures, and you've got a character-centric campaign.
The drawbacks to this approach, of course, are both serious and obvious. If one of the PCs is the secret heir to the throne, what happens if that PC dies? Or, taken a step further, with that PC being at the heart of the campaign's plot-line, are the players ever going to really believe that he (or they) are even in any real danger? Will their importance to the story take away any belief that they might fail? Special characters are too important to lose, right?
CHARACTER CAMPAIGNS VERSUS CAMPAIGN CHARACTERS
To make a campaign based around the PCs, the DM doesn't have to put the PCs at the heart of the setting. You can have a character-based campaign without having a campaign based around the characters. In other words, the PCs' “specialness” doesn't have to mean that they are kings, or lords of prophecy, or the saviors of the world. If one of the PCs is the son of a gambler with unpaid debts so that moneylenders and criminals are after the character to pay off his father's debts, the character is “special” in that some of the adventures surround this fact, but he really isn't all that special in terms of the entire setting. While it's fun to have characters that are important to the entire world they live in (so-called “campaign characters”), not every story is about such people, and the character-centric campaign could be designed around these smaller kinds of stories. Either way, the players will feel their characters are in the thick of the action, and that's the important thing.
As a side note, though, DMs should be aware that they can also make the PCs central figures in the campaign through events or actions, rather than heredity or destiny. For example, the DM might create a campaign in which the PCs have been entrusted with an ancient secret by a dying sage that leads them to undertake an important quest. Once the PCs have this secret, much of the campaign revolves directly around them – only they can go on the quest and only they possess the secret knowledge. Before they learned the secret, however, there was nothing intrinsically special about the characters.
SIDEBAR: THE PLAYERS HAVE TO PLAY ALONG
For a character-centric campaign to really work, the players must realize that they need to give the DM material to work with. This isn't a chore, though – it's a freedom. When the players realize that they are free to have their character have a past, to have interests beyond the next dungeon, to have relationships with NPCs other than those out to kill him, it opens up an infinite number of possibilities. Characters can fall in love. They can go into business. They can join organizations. They can get involved in the community – perhaps even in politics. These things are fodder for the character-centric campaign and they lead to well-rounded and interesting characters that go far beyond a set of stats and gear.
Players need to provide the DM with interesting backstories and possible NPCs related to what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan on doing in the future. They need to tell the DM their future goals and what their character would eventually like to strive for. They need to be willing to interact with NPCs and the world around them on a personal level. It's a responsibility, but it's also really fun and very rewarding.
PLAYER GOALS
Past installments of this column have discussed the idea of a player-driven campaign. In such a campaign, the players drive at least some of the action by creating goals for themselves rather than having quests or missions given to them by some outside force. This method of running a campaign meshes nicely with the idea of centering the campaign around the players. In fact, you really can't have a player-driven campaign without centering everything on the PCs.
You don't have to let the players sit in the driver's seat to utilize this idea, however. You can do it on a smaller scale.
Say one PC's goal is to own his own home. That's not enough to drive a campaign, but it is enough to wrap an adventure or two around. Earning the money needed to buy or build the home, discovering the home is haunted, defending the home from thieves – the possibilities are numerous.
The only trick here is to find out what the PCs' goals and desires are, so that as the DM you can give them the proper hooks to play off of. This can be as simple as just asking the players for a list of goals. Or, the goals might develop over the course of the game. After the PCs defend the forested vale against invading orcs and trolls, they decide they want to live there, setting themselves up as the kingdom's officially sanctioned (and hopefully supported) Defenders of the Vale.
Sometimes, player goals come out when a player designs his character's background. Sometimes, they are the very reason a PC is in the campaign. For example, a PC barbarian's background suggests that he has come to the civilized lands to track down the slavers that attacked his tribe and kidnapped some of his people. This is an interesting background, and it's also a potential adventure hook. Now the DM can design entire adventures around tracking down the slavers, rescuing slaves, and returning them to the tribe.
SIDEBAR: Chicken or the Egg?
So, what should occur first: the players create their PCs for the campaign to be based around, or the DM creates his campaign and then requires the players to create characters within specific parameters?
The truth is, either is fine. There's nothing wrong with a DM mandating certain aspects of characters or their background to better fit them into the campaign. The DM could even go so far as to tell a player “your character is the son of a noble,” or “your character's family was wiped out by sahuagin.” Few players will rebel against those kinds of interesting hooks – most players want to fit into the setting and campaign you've developed. And of course, sometimes the players don't even have to know this kind of information beforehand. The fact that a character's mother was secretly an assassin that killed the grand wizard of the land can be a secret that is revealed only well into the campaign.
There's also a third option. The DM creates a basic outline for the campaign, the players create characters, and as the game progresses, the DM slowly wraps the campaign around the PCs.
ALL IN THE FAMILY
A PC's mother is a powerful sorceress with powerful enemies. One character's sister is kidnapped and the PCs are required to perform a quest for her release. A PC's crazy old uncle dies and leaves the character his reputedly haunted manor home in his will. A PC with mysterious parentage turns out to be the child of outsider visitors who left her behind by mistake. These are all just some of the possible adventure hooks a DM can use to create an adventure or series of adventures around the relatives of one or more PCs.
The NPCs involved don't have to be blood relations. Friends, teachers, old military buddies, childhood acquaintances and former business partners all work too, as do any possibly related NPCs. The whole idea is that the adventure in question is made more immediate because there is a direct connection to the PCs. It's not just the local farmers who are plagued by the appearance of ankhegs, it's a friend or relative of the PCs.
The danger of this approach is over-use. You don't want the players to think of their friends and relatives only as potential hostages and victims for their enemies. You don't want every ally tob e only a liability in the end.
CAUSES HAVE EFFECTS
Perhaps the most straightforwardly organic way to tailor the campaign around the PCs uses the “third option” mentioned in the Chicken or the Egg sidebar. The campaign goes fairly normally for a while, but something that the PCs do causes things to suddenly focus on them specifically.
When the PCs defeat the evil cult of the rat god, the surviving cultists hire mercenaries and assassins to slay the characters. When the PCs depose the evil tyrant, the formerly oppressed people of the land turn to them for leadership. When the PCs fail to stop the troll queen from stealing the helm of alacrity, the townsfolk take the characters' belongings and run them out of town.
If the comic book adage is, “with great power comes great responsibility,” then the RPG corollary is, “with great deeds comes great attention.” When the PCs act, whether it's as heroes, villains, or just gold-hungry mercenaries, they're going to become a part of things – part of the plot arc itself. It won't just be NPCs acting upon NPCs, but NPCs acting on PCs. NPCs will spy on them, attempt to outmaneuver or trick them, attempt to ally with them, attempt to bribe them attempt to steal from or betray them, and even attempt to kill them.
EQUAL TIME
It's important to make sure as you plan on how to put the PCs at the center of things that you don't make it so that the campaign favors one PC over the other. While books and movies often have a star or central character and a number of supporting roles, that's not the way RPGs work. Every PC is the star, and the group works as a team. It's not fun for everyone else if one PC is the sole focus of the campaign.
So that means even if you decide that one character is destined to be the new queen (whether she knows about it or not), while the other characters are “just” adventurers, you can still also focus plots and scenarios on them, using different kinds of hooks. The important thing is that all the characters get the same amount of attention, even if it is for different reasons. One of the future queen's friends might have a sister who needs help protecting a caravan from wyvern-riding bandits, while another might need to return to his people in their underground city to find the murderers who slew his mentor.
In a way, think of your game as an episodic television show with an ensemble cast. One week, the episode focuses on one character, but the next, attention is drawn to another, and the week after that the entire cast acts together with equal emphasis.
In short, the whole idea behind the character-centric campaign is to put the spotlight on the PCs as much as possible and make them feel connected to the events of the campaign. Just remember to divide the spotlight time equally and ensure that all players feel equally connected.
I have created my own Deck of Many Things that uses every card in the tarot deck.
It is 2/3 good pulls and 1/3 bad.
It presents itself, almost as a Force of Chaos, to each group around level 7 - 9.
At this middle-game level the players are attached to their characters but not so uber-powerful that they don't need what the Deck has to offer.
There have been good pulls and there have been some heinous pulls. But everyone draws. Even the players who swear they'll never draw from the Deck ever again.
My players love me for putting it in front of them.
In that they hate me for putting it in front of them.
They're very conflicted about it.
I'm not; I'm without a doubt putting it in front of them.
Sub-plots for the other characters is important, but the players need to understand that they are just that, sub-plots. Ultimately, the other players need to be on board with playing the co-stars.
Sure, they'll get some lime-light, but not an equal amount. The sum of all of the individual co-stars' lime-light will equal the main character's. 50% for the lost heir, 50% for everyone else.
Think about A New Hope. Obi, Leia, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and C-3PO have almost no character growth/change/development. Han has the most of the co-stars.
I'm playing in a Drow campaign right now as an Abjurer. "No one fears the abjurer," as Zilv is fond of saying. He was LN until the group ignored his plea for assistance and was killed. Came back as a vampire and was quite irritated with his family for leaving him high and dry.
A few levels later we need to infiltrate. I suggest polymorphing into bats as that's not suspicious. I've polymorphed one or two, but this is the first time that it'll be everyone. They agree. Vampires are necessarily evil and I'm prevented from killing anyone in my family due to a blood pact. But baleful polymorph? That's not killing. Having them in the palm of my hand, I tell the DM that I cast only polymorph and request that I be allowed to return to LN. He agrees.
The abjurer (well, any abjurer, really) is a co-star. In 11 levels I haven't done a single point of damage, let alone kill anyone. Nothing I did in the above story furthered the main plot. However, it was personally very satisfying and my character grew as a result.
If the other players, the co-stars, are interested in that sort of story-telling, this kind of campaign can be a great deal of fun for everyone involved.
The first thing comes to mind with that description is that the inn/tavern is that it is called the Cock & Balls . . . but you did also say that it wasn't a male chicken and spheres, which was perhaps your polite way of saying it wasn't what I was thinking.
No, no, it is what you're thinking. I should have used quotes when I said the names was not "The Male Chicken & Spheres."
Incidentally, if I ever win the lotto, I am opening an Irish pub named the Cock 'n' Balls with that painting out front.
Oh please don't go that way. Fighters and wizards in 1ed and 2ed doesn't compare to fighters and wizards in 3.5 or PF. Trying to make that analogy just make you look bad.
This is in response to Darksol the Painbringer claiming that previous editions of the game are “some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules.” I wasn't actually comparing 1E Fighters to PF Fighters; just making the case that they are, in fact, related games.
DM. wrote:
Your group being stuck in the same gamestyle than in early editions say a lot. If that is what you guys like good for you, but newer editions are really different.
perhaps if you don't throw the "I have 30 years experience and you don't" at every turn you may realize than people complains also comes from gameplay experiences.
Yeah, we gave up mapping dungeons decades ago, along with a host of other things that have fallen by the wayside as the game has changed. But, please, continue to gaze through your crystal ball at our play style: you are so far off the mark it is like watching a car accident: I know its going to be horrible, but I just can't look away.
Except that I didn't say “and you don't.” Not even close. Read closely. I never made a single claim about anyone else's longevity in rpg's. What I did write, however, was only that I have never had a single martial player complain that they had nothing to do outside of combat. They've been engaged in the game, both in and out of combat. But that's because the DM's have created vibrant worlds that have kept all of the players entertained and engaged.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
the GM only cares about the fantasy world and the rules that govern it. The factor that the issue is solely with the PC means that the GM isn't responsible for the player's character choices being as intopimal as they are, and that one can't assume a GM will tailor an adventure path or campaign to suit said character choices.
“The DM only cares about the fantasy world and the rules that govern it” is actually a very outdated method of DMing. That attitude goes back to Basic and 1Ed when DM's were merely arbiters of the world and if you chose to go into a cave that was well beyond your CL, well, tough, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
These days, it is a lot more about DMs and players collaborating about the campaign and the character's they'll play in it.
I never said they were the exactly the same! You claimed that they were “some utterly unrelated game with completely different rules.” I countered that Pathfinder grew out of previous editions, therefore, they are related and some of the rules are unchanged.
For example, here's the spell description of Levitate from the SRD:
Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish. A creature must be willing to be levitated, and an object must be unattended or possessed by a willing creature. You can mentally direct the recipient to move up or down as much as 20 feet each round; doing so is a move action. You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).
A levitating creature that attacks with a melee or ranged weapon finds itself increasingly unstable; the first attack has a -1 penalty on attack rolls, the second -2, and so on, to a maximum penalty of -5. A full round spent stabilizing allows the creature to begin again at -1.
And here's the Red Box basic description of the same spell:
When this spell is cast, the magic-user may move up or down in the air without any support. This spell does not, however, allow the magic-user to move from side to side. For example, a magic-user could levitate to a ceiling, and then could move sideways by pushing and pulling. Motion up or down is at a rate of 20' per round. The spell cannot be cast on another person or object. The magic-user may carry a normal amount of weight while levitating, possible another man-sized creature if not in metal armor. Any creature smaller than man-size can be carried, unless similarly heavily laden.
As you can read from that example, some things are still the same (20' per round, no horizontal movement) and some things have changed (from self only to a target). Hopefully, you can see and admit that the rules are not, in fact, completely different.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just because those subjects have been around since the beginning of D&D doesn't mean that they aren't the same from back then as they are right now. This is like saying the new Star Wars movies are exactly like the old Star Wars movies, because all of the "same elements" (Jedi, Lightsabers, Stormtroopers, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, etc.) from the old movies are in the new movies. They're not the same, nor should they ever be considered the same.
Your claim of completely different and utterly unrelated in this case would be saying that Luke's blue lightsaber in Force Awakens isn't the same blue lightsaber he lost at the end of Empire Strikes Back!
First you were “utterly unrelated” and “completely different.” Now, you're all “Well, they're not EXACTLY the same.” And I never made the claim that they were exactly the same, only that they are related and not totally different (as, clearly, Luke's lightsaber is not different).
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I mean, people are really only complaining about how the C/MD creates the pattern of characters shining at certain level gaps and exposing that it's bad game design when this game is all about sharing an experience. And by your example, this sort of game design creates separation between players due to their character choices. Compared to what I said this game is all about, a mechanic that ends up separating the players' enjoyment of the experience is the exact opposite of what you want to have happen.
If you play, as this paragraph implies, player vs. player where each is trying to “win” at, what, 20th level? A group working together has martials taking the brunt at low levels, shielding skill monkies and casters until they can stand on their own. At middle levels, skill monkies can disarm those truly deadly traps, but could still use some flanking from the martial while the caster helps out with a moderately helpful spell every now and then. And, having been sheltered by her companions for over half the campaign, the caster is finally able to return the favor. But that would be a group of friends working together towards a common goal in a shared experience . . . which is what you wanted, wasn't it?
So, yeah, C/MD exists, but it is part of the game and always has been. Why don't we talk about beefing up caster's martial skills so that they can stand toe-to-toe in fight at low-levels? Do away with % Spell Failure on armor so they're aren't such a pin-cushion. Or how about we make weapon proficiencies skills so that fighters have to take ranks in each individual weapon? No one seems to mind that casters are weak at low-levels compared to other classes; I only hear the complaining at the end of the game: “My fighter isn't as powerful as the wizard!” or “that cleric is too powerful!” Casters accept that they'll be weak at low-levels because they know they'll have a pay-off (if they live) at the end. Martials accept dominating at low-levels because they might not live.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just because you've been playing a certain way for 30 years doesn't mean that something new or better can't come along and revolutionize the way you play to greater heights of enjoyment.
Have you noticed how I have not said, “AND ALWAYS WILL BE!” I wonder why . . .
( 1 ) Two levels below APL.
( 2 ) Invited by the group, not thrust upon them (they'll always be suspicious of NPC's they have to take, suspecting and expecting betrayal).
"Others say that it’s the randomness which creates the realism and sense of danger, and that PCs who believe the GM won’t let them die lose half the fun."
This is me. As James T. Kirk said, "Risk is our business." As a player, if I know that the DM is always going to get me out of trouble, or even just most of the time, then I'm not enjoying myself.
As a DM, I roll all of my dice out on the table, in front of everyone so that they can see that I'm not fudging the rolls. I create campaigns, adventures, and scenarios and then sit back and adjudicate as necessary.
A recent addition to this is to have a former regular player who now lives out of state play the villains when he's in town. Ed goes for the throat and all the players know it. It is up to me to create an encounter that challenges the PCs but for which the odds are still ever in their favor.
( 1 ) FEATS: Dole out more feats to alleviate the feat tax.
Each class gains five additional feats at different levels.
Example:
A monk gets:
Level 1: Dodge
Level 2: Ki Stand
Level 3: Extra Ki
Level 6: Mobility
Level 8: Any style feat for which s/he qualifies.
Also, back in 2E, high ability scores granted automatic abilities (like immunity to illusions for high Wisdom). Grant particular feats for high abilities.
Lastly, racial feats are also free at certain levels. Most racial feats provide nice flavor for a particular race, but, honestly, aren't worth taking as a feat. Now, just give them out:
Gnome:
Breadth of Experience if 100+ years old.
FIRST:
+2 CON & +2 CHA (no STR penalty)
20' land move – Spell Resistance 5 + CL – Darkvision 60' – Hatred – Keen Senses – Obsessive – Gnome Magic – Illusion Resistance – Groundling – Weapon Familiarity – Defensive Training – Tradition Focus: Gnome – Size (Tiny) [homebrew] – Effortless Trickery
SECOND:
Explorer – Houndblooded – Arcane Talent – Arcane School Spirit (REQ: Tinker Gnome) – Great Hatred (REQ: Svirfneblin) – Tantrum (REQ: Garden Variety Gnome)
THIRD:
Gift of Tongues – Innovator – Casual Illusionist – Expanded Resistance
FOURTH:
Bond to the Land – Jewelheart Gnome – Olfactory Alchemy – Extra Gnome Magic – Gnome Weapon Focus
I realize that doing this to the races unbalances them. My players and I are okay with that; we are tired of the fluff not equaling the crunch.
I can provide a list for all abilities and all core races & classes upon request.
( 2 ) CLERICS: Clerics spontaneously cast their domain spells, not heal/harm spells.
( 3 ) COMBAT: A full-attack action is now a standard action instead of a full-round action.
( 4 ) HIT POINTS: Max at first level. On subsequent levels, if the die roll is less than or equal to your Constitution modifier, roll again (unless that's the maximum).
( 5 ) CASTERS: Spell casters now add one-third of their caster level, rounded down, to the DC of their spells. It doesn't make sense to me that a fifth level, 18 INT wizard's fireball is just as hard to dodge as a 20th level, 18 INT wizard's.
Cooperative casting works like aid another and is free of charge.
Focused spell is free.
Casters may use spell slots for high ability scores to cast lower level spells. For example, a first level, 18 WIS Cleric may use the second level spell slots for high Wisdom to cast first level spells even though she can't cast second level spells yet. Since one can do that once the spell level becomes available and since it is a function of a character's ability and not their class, this seems reasonable to me.
As you may infer from #1, I've done a lot of tweaking to a lot of things. I mean, I could go on and on, but I'm supposed to stop at five (and I know I already cheated that number by using very broad category names).
