H is for House Rules

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

H is for House Rules...a subject that is likely to meet with more consternation than some of these other essays.

I'd imagine that most D&D players, when asked about their "house rules," will consider all the ways they (or their group) have altered the rules of their game to better meet their expectations of play. All sorts of modifications have been proposed and used by folks over the years, in every edition of the game...far too many to make any kind of comprehensive list. Some groups have decided they don't like level restrictions, or race/class restrictions. Some groups have decided to use a "silver standard" instead of gold for their economy. Others have decided to axe various rules and systems from the game...everything from languages and training, to alignment, to whole races or classes (several folks, for example have decided they dislike the inclusion of clerics in the game, feeling it diminished the "sword & sorcery" feel of the game), while ADDING new procedures that subvert or undermine the existing system...things like "luck points" or a shields will be splintered rule.

In many cases, the DMs making these changes to their game do so with the claim that D&D's authors meant the game to be changed and adjusted at any time; that, rather than actual rules, the instructional text serves only as "guidelines" that a Dungeon Master should feel free to rewrite to their liking, at any time, broadly interpreting the final afterword of OD&D's initial rule set as carte blanche for wholesale changes. 

I am of a different opinion on the matter.

Leaving aside OD&D (not the subject of this series anyway), I find little in the AD&D books to indicate Gygax wanted anyone to modify or change the rules of the game at all. Quite the opposite, in fact:

Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless. 

...The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign...Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with many thousands of others....

[from the DMG, page 7]

No, the game does not cover the entirety of possible (fantasy) experiences, but it does have functional rules, and the areas where creativity is not only allowed but encouraged are those places where the rules are "vague and amorphous." In other words, only the areas of play where there are no systems or procedures to cover the subject in question...those places (and there are many) are where DMs should be adding specificity and using their own creativity. As needed.

Conversely, where there are already rules, they are there for a reason. And maintaining uniformity (by adhering to those rules) is an explicit objective of the game designer as pointed out MANY times in the text (see the PHB preface and the DMG afterword, in addition to the quotes above).

Now, please allow me to stem the tide of readers jumping down my throat about how they love their dwarven clerics and how unlimited demihuman advancement "saved" their campaign.  I am not so obtuse as to believe that the majority (or ANY) of the DMs running the game are doing it entirely "by the book."  Neither do I want to be hypocritical in professing to be a completely RAW ("rules as written") Dungeon Master when it comes to running AD&D. As a youth, we strove to abide by the rules as much as humanly possible, but there were things we missed and things we got wrong, and for the sake of expedience there was definitely a time when we adopted the rather lenient Moldvay version of encumbrance for our otherwise granular AD&D campaign.

But then, we didn't have the tools (laptops and spreadsheets) that we do today.

Still, even today, my own game deviates in multiple ways from AD&D as written. While mostly done to shore up some inconsistencies and problems found in certain magical (spell) effects, other changes...like the wholesale removal of alignment or the magic-user's need to read magic...are far more significant in scope, if not impact.

All that being confessed, I strive to run MOST of the game in a manner that "hews the line with respect to conformity with major systems and uniformity of play in general" (as Gygax stipulates in the afterword of the DMG). Because these days I run games for all sorts of players, not just my own "regulars." And I want to make sure that anyone who sit down at my table to play AD&D...whether at a "demo," a game shop, or a convention...and has an INKLING (or more) of the game are going to be able to dive in with little or no trouble. Yes, they can even 'choose an alignment' (if they must)...they simply won't find it mattering much (or at all) in play. But everything else? The actual nuts-and-bolts of game play? That they should find more-or-less 'as Gary intended.'

That uniformity that the author hammers on about is quite useful. AD&D is not a particularly 'hard' game to play, but it is not a simple game...certainly not in comparison to, say, the Basic editions written to introduce new players to D&D concepts. But because of that uniformity I can (and have) run AD&D games without issue for players from many different countries. It has allowed me to write adventures that have been run in German and French and Hungarian (to be clear. NOT my native language). It has allowed me to correspond with folks all over the world (via the wonderful technology of today), explaining the rules and how they work (based on my personal interpretations of the text) and citing where they can find the same information themselves. 

The important thing, however, is that it provides a shared understanding and a shared lexicon for communication. When I play chess with my (Mexican) father-in-law, we use different terms for the pieces, but the pieces still move in the same fashion. By playing as close to 'standard' AD&D procedures as I do, I stave off a lot of questions and...I believe...a lot of possible frustrations and resentment. Just being able to say, "yeah, that half-orc paladin (or whatever) ain't allowed in the rules," cuts off a lot of potential issues that might otherwise arise at the table. Yes, some folks will find it galling that their elven fighter can't advance past a certain level...but at least they know what they're signing up for when they join an AD&D game. And my game world doesn't end up looking all that much different from someone else's campaign (assuming they play with the same rules in place).

So, if you were to ask MY players what my most important house rules are (and I have), THESE are the ones they've most often cited:

• No cell phones or electronic devices allowed at the table (this includes the DM...I use my laptop between sessions for calculating and tracking various numbers, but in play, I only use printed documents and hardcopy manuals).
• All dice are rolled "in the box" (all my dice are rolled in the open and in a flat-lying box top; dice that bounce out of the box do not count and are re-rolled in the box).
• No PVP ("player versus player") conflict allowed (players are on the same team; the DM is the adversary)

My fifteen year old son (one of my players) adheres to these house rules in his game, too, although he insists on running everything else "by the book" (including the use of alignment, etc.). Which is his prerogative, of course. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I already know how to play AD&D by the book.

G is for Gygaxian

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

G is for Gygaxian...a particular style of setting design often described as "Gygaxian Naturalism," this latter term first coined by James Maliszewski in 2008.

[James also wrote a follow-up post entitled Gygaxian UNnaturalism that's also worth reading as part of the same discussion]

While each Dungeon Master's campaign is their own to design, there are certain assumptions of the setting that are baked into AD&D play. Maliszewski's discussion stems from the style proliferated in Gygax's later works (his published adventure modules, his World of Greyhawk, and his AD&D books) which were a far cry from the open-ended, Gonzo-possibility that proves so seductively enticing to aficionados of the OD&D (original) edition of Dungeons & Dragons.  These setting assumptions "color" the AD&D game, which for those who dislike "limits on their imagination," can feel both constricting and off-putting.

We'll get to that in a moment.

LOTs of setting assumptions are baked into the "setting-less" AD&D system. For example, there are assumptions of an inter-species, interactive society. There is an assumption of cosmic forces of good and evil. These cosmic forces have actual physical impact on mere (human) mortals...doing "evil" loses a paladin or ranger their professional skills and abilities, for example.  Certain creatures (undead) are subject to the divine powers of clerics (both good and evil). Gold is the coin of the realm and is coveted by ALL intelligent creatures...not just as evidenced by the random treasure hoards in monster lairs, but in the fact that intelligent monsters can be distracted from pursuit by dropping treasure (unlike unintelligent animals, who are onlydistracted by dropping food).

Gygax's adventures exhibit a fantasy ecosystem, in which some monsters prey on other monsters, while other creatures (humanoids especially) exhibit societies, doing construction work both above and below ground, having caravans (often with slaves taken in war/raids), and being ruled by hierarchies of kings, chieftains, sub-chiefs, and lesser lieutenants. It is very much a "human-centric" world view...not only because humans are the focus protagonists, but because every society and custom observed is given in terms of comprehensible human norms. Nothing here is very "alien" in the Gygaxian milieu, even if the fantasy creatures themselves are VERY alien.

Take the mind flayer for example.  Nothing could be more alien than a brain-sucking, tentacle-faced, mind-monster. And yet they have cities. They wear clothes. They keep treasure. They flee when things go against them. They keep slaves. They fight wars with other species (the githyanki). They trade, bargain, make alliances (see the D1-D3 series of modules). In some ways it is very much "rubber mask" fantasy of the Star Trek or Star Wars variety. Creatures seek slaves, treasure, interbreed with humans, have all the normal human range of social behaviors from hatred to great friendship...even creatures that are so long-lived (elves) that their perception of time itself should lead to a completely different method of relating to the concept.

This human-centric, fantasy "naturalism" is important to AD&D play for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it provides a modicum of verisimilitude. Once upon a time I read that part of the impetus for the Hickman's "story first" approach to adventure design came with their frustration out of plyaing D&D in a dungeon that featured random disparate monsters being discovered, side-by-side, in adjoining rooms for no rhyme or reason...something like a a bunch of goblins, a slime/ooze, and a vampire. Such random design is nothing like the type of ecology Gygax describes in the DMG under Monster Populations and Placement (pages 90-91); clearly the Hickmans were "gifted" with an inferior Dungeon Master. 

Lack of verisimilitude, like "gonzo" settings devoid of consistency or sensibility, can quickly derail player engagement. The less players can trust the setting to abide by any particular, understandable rules, the less the players can trust the Dungeon Master running the game. Why is that? Because, in a game that invests one player (the DM) with all the power of the (imaginary) universe, the players has to trust and believe that the DM will be fair and impartial, abiding by the same rules that govern the players. When the world seems unreasonably odd, strange, or "whackadoo," how can the players trust the DM to NOT be whimsical and arbitrary in their adjudication?

Having a sensible ecology...even a fantastical one...sets parameters and limits; yes, limits that some DMs of a more imaginative bent might find chafing. But for the players, these limits serve as boundaries and guideposts...they indicate the territory in which they (and the DM) can operate. This provides the players with tremendous freedom, as they know that which is not prohibited is allowable. It is a safety net of sorts...one that prevents the DM (who, again it must be emphasized, is all powerful in the game) from over-stepping their prerogatives. Certainly (at least) it can reign in their more power-mad proclivities.

But that is just the verisimilitude aspect of the Gygaxian setting style. The "human-centric" nature of the Gygax's "naturalism," ensures that the game, no matter how fantastical it seems, is still readily accessible by the players at the table.  Yes, mind flayers are completely, horrifically, alien...and, yet, even the most inexperienced player can grasp their (all too human) motivations, understand how to bargain with them (if such becomes possible...or a necessity), and grasp that they might have valuable stashed around that can be taken (if the opportunity presents itself) or be used in trade/negotiation. Dragons, too, are more than just fire-breathing reptiles; bugbears are more than sasquatches...they are peoples, peoples with ambitions and desires, fears and motives.  Not necessarily stories, mind you...the vast majority of NPCs (monstrous or not) in the AD&D game require zero backstory or background. But they have ecology...we know they have to do something to eat. We know they had some type of parent that birthed/hatched them, and may well be seeking to raise a brood of their own. That is naturalism...even if it is fantastical "Gygaxian" naturalism.

AD&D abounds with this...just read through the Monster Manual(s).  Perytons need human hearts to reproduce. Griffons and bulettes natural prey are horses (although the latter find halflings a special treat and dig them from their burrows every chance they get). Dwarves and goblins have longstanding feuds, as do elves and orcs and gnomes and kobolds. Dragons can be subdued instead of slain. Hill giants keep cave bears for pets like a human keeps dogs. Otyughs eat waste from other monsters in the dungeon.  Mimics are the venus flytraps of the underground.  There is ecological setting considerations scattered throughout the AD&D game.

Verisimilitude. Accessibility. Both in aid of having active player engagement, rather than alienation. It wasn't just Gygax's penchant for a particular 'brand' of fantasy that led these things to be a part of the AD&D game. Whether or not he thought about it at the time he was writing, they ended up in the books that form the instructional text of the game...and as a result, an AD&D campaign, run well, is exceptionally good at holding the attention of its participants. Players and DMs alike.

B is for Books

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for the month is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

B is for Books...specifically the books you need to run the game.

AD&D is a game and, as with any game, it has instructions that explain how to play. Yes, I'm sure that seems elementary, but you'd be amazed to see how many people post on Reddit the question "how do I learn to play Dungeons & Dragons?"

How indeed.

If you've played D&D before...any version of it...you can probably jump right in to the core instruction manuals (we'll get to those in a moment). If you know nothing (or next to nothing) about the game, I strongly suggest picking up a copy of the D&D Basic Set Rulebook (a 64-page manual penned by Tom Moldvay, available in PDF form for $4.99) and read that first. It is a quick read and excellent overview of the basic principles of the D&D game with entertaining (and fairly spot on) examples of game play. Reading this first will give you a basic lexicon for understanding the Advanced version of the game.

Okay...you have the basics under your belt? Let's get to it.

To play AD&D you need a total of THREE books, although I use (and generally recommend) five. The core instruction manuals are:

The Players Handbook

The Dungeon Masters Guide

The Monster Manual

Armed with these three books, you can play AD&D for literal YEARS. Possibly decades. All the instructions you need are included in these books.  Each is available in both print and PDF form, and while the PDFs will only cost you $9.99 each, I'd save up for the hardcovers...you'll want them for use at the table. Electronic devices can be terribly distracting.

The other (optional) two books I suggest purchasing are:

The Fiend Folio

The Monster Manual II

These additional tomes are bestiaries, like the Monster Manual, providing additional monsters for your campaign, many of which are strange, horrific, or extra-planar in nature. The MMII, especially, contains many monsters first presented in "classic" TSR adventure modules, as well as a number of "normal sized" critters (when you want stats for a rattlesnake instead of a GIANT rattlesnake). Both of these books provide expanded random encounter tables that include the new inventory, and the MMII has several additional tables (including expanded ability scores) which render the need for books like Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore obsolete.

[the procedure given for the dracolisk's gaze attack in MMII can also be useful for other gaze attack monsters, like the medusa and basilisk of the original Monster Manual]

There are many other books published for AD&D, including the aforementioned DDG/LL (the same book, just published twice under different titles), the Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, the Manual of the Planes, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and the Wilderness Survival Guide. None of these are necessary to play AD&D, most have few new rules or procedures, and many of these new rules/procedures are decidedly detrimental/harmful to the game if adopted. When preparing to run your AD&D game, I would steer well clear of these, only picking them up later as curiosities to (occasionally) mine for idea.

Of the "core books," you should begin with the PHB. It describes the basics of character creation and provides all the information a player might need to know. I mean that quite literally. You will not find (for example) combat tables or saving throw matrices in the PHB, but in actual play these target numbers are generally given by the Dungeon Master. On the other hand, players need to be aware of their own skill percentages (for thieves) or casting times (for spell users) in order to make informed choices regarding actions...these you WILL find in the PHB, along with descriptions of each class and race's capabilities.

Read the PHB up to the beginning of the magic section (page 43), and then read the introduction to each of the four spell casting types (cleric, druid, magic-user, and illusionist). Glance through the various spells, but do not bother reading them in total at this point...instead skip to the section SPELL CASTING (on page 100) and continue from there, all the way to the appendices. Pay especial note to the SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES section (pages 107-109) which is essential reading for all perspective players and which negates the need for any so-called "Session Zero."

There are five appendices in the PHB, only three of which are very useful: these would be Appendix I (Psionics), Appendix II (Bards), and Appendix IV (Known Planes of Existence). While these are technically "optional" (it is an individual DM's purview whether or not they are acceptable to the game), the AD&D game assumes their presence...many iconic monsters will be lesser threats without Psionics, and if your game lacks interplanar excursions, you might as well be playing Basic D&D. As for bards, I find the class in this form to be a quite entertaining and useful addition to the classes already presented. That being said, all three of these things are best incorporated AFTER your game has been up-and-running for a few months.

Individual spells will be read and studied as needed.

Having absorbed the information in the PHB, you can now begin your study of the DMG, perhaps pausing first to browse the various creatures of the Monster Manual (it doesn't help to read about the challenges of employing a lizard man or the structural damage inflicted by a stone giant if you are unfamiliar with these creatures). You should immediate note several important things about the DMG:

1. The DMG is structured so that its sections parallel the PHB...they are meant to be read side-by-side, in tandem, with the DMG elaborating on the information already presented.
2. The DMG contains an extensive index that is applicable to both the PHB and the DMG (DMG references are always listed first, in boldface). This index will be a lifesaver when it comes to learning the system...and in actual play...until you've become familiar with where all the various bits and bobs are located in the books.
3. The DMG contains a detailed glossary that provides definitions of many of the author's obscure references and abbreviations, not to mention specific game terms. This, too, is an invaluable aid in learning the system.

Much of what you will find in the DMG should feel very similar to the systems you're already familiar with (either from reading the Basic D&D rulebook, or from delving into other editions of the game). Much of the information within the DMG will only become truly useful as your game develops over time: you will not need information on hiring armies, building castles, and traveling to other planes when you first start your AD&D game...and God help your players if you feel the need to break out the disease and parasitic infection charts right from the get-go!

What you WILL need to run your AD&D game are the following:

• a comprehensive view of character creation (pages 11-13). Pick ONE method of generating ability scores (I've found Method I is simplest and yields the best results), and pay attention to height & weight (tables actually given on page 102) and age. You might also want to read Gygax's essay on page 21 to forestall players wanting "odd" characters of the kind found in later editions of D&D
• a full understanding of armor as it relates to encumbrance, movement, and combat (pages 27-28)
• an understanding of TIME in the game (pages 37-38)
• acquisition, recovery, and casting of spells (pages 38-40); as with the PHB, spell explanations (elaborations on certain PHB spells) will be reviewed as needed
• certain dungeon procedures related to sight and hearing (pages 59-60)
• comprehensive understanding of COMBAT procedures (pages 61-82); skip the insanity parts
• comprehensive understanding of EXPERIENCE procedures (pages 84-86); while not explicit in the DMG, I STRONGLY recommend dividing treasure x.p. evenly between surviving party members, as outlined in Moldvay.
• you should read with serious attention Gygax's notes on the CAMPAIGN (pages 86-100). Of special note are his essays on monster placement (pages 90-91), treasure placement (91-93), first dungeon adventure (96), dungeon procedures with regard to traps and doors (97), and the example of play (pages 97-100). 
• a good understanding of how to run NPCs, including monsters, as given in pages 102-105. Pay attention to prices given for NPC spell-casters (103-104), as this will be your guideline for players who want to pay for healing or curse removal.
• a solid understanding of the USE OF MAGIC ITEMS (page 115); please note that this section also contains very important information on energy (level) draining monsters.
• a 100% understanding of how to read the magic item tables that begin on page 121, especially the difference between experience point value and GP sale value (please also review the notes that follow the scroll table, and the asterisked note that follows the rods, staves, and wands table). Each specific section of the magic items gives an overview of its particular category (potions, rings, armor, etc.) and these overviews should be studied and understood. Individual magic item descriptions can be reviewed as needed.

Following this we come to the various appendices of the DMG which, as with the PHB, should be considered mostly optional. Yes, even the wandering monster charts are only guidelines...DMs can (and probably should) create their own random encounter charts based on their personal setting and design; however, these are good places to start.  There are a total of 16 appendices in the DMG (depending on the printing you have...the first printing only included 14, excluding Appendix O and Appendix P). Of these, the ones you will find most immediately useful include:

• Appendix C (random monster encounter charts)...for wandering monster procedures
• Appendix E (alphabetical monster listing)...for experience point value of Monster Manual creatures
• Appendix O (encumbrance of standard items)...the text herein is extremely useful, in addition to the table itself

Everything else is only incidentally helpful and/or useful, with much of it being simply inspirational.  The oft cited Appendix N, for example, provides stories and books that allow one to see the genesis of the various ideas and concepts found in AD&D, but will tell you nothing about how to run the game. For a far better insight into the author's vision (and, in my experience, how the game can look in play) I'd suggest reading Gygax's own novels Greyhawk: Saga of Old City and (more importantly) Greyhawk: Artifact of Evil. Neither fall into the category of "quality literature," but...as stated in the previous post...Dungeons & Dragons is not a 'storytelling' game.

High Level Adventuring

[apologies...this was supposed to post on Thursday. Then I got distracted by other stuff]

So, once again someone was asking questions about running "high level" adventures because they were planning a convention event for PCs of around 8th level...

Stop. That's not "high level."

I know, I know 8th feels IMPOSSIBLY huge...if you're used to playing Basic-system games where you encounter (and sometimes fight) godlings at levels 3-5. 8th must be super-duper stupendous, right? Your character might have an armor class of -3 and 60+ hit points, yeah?

Oh, boy.

No. 8th level is NOT high level. It is still "mid." Adventures geared for PCs of this level are "mid." Oh, what? You're going to come at me with Against the Giants and its listed level range of 8th-12th? Ever checked out the pre-gens for that one?

12th level magic-user, 13th level thief, 12th level cleric, 14th level fighter, 5th/8th level fighter/magic-user (equivalent of 9th level), 9th level cleric, 9th level fighter, 9th level magic-user, and 9th level ranger

Against the Giants IS a high level adventure and suggests NINE characters with an average level of 9th. Any 8th level you're bringing to the module is probably just a henchman.

I've discussed this in prior posts, but they may be hard to find; you can check them out:

Tiers of Play

What High Level D&D Looks Like

Here's the TL;DR version: 9th level is the MINIMUM level needed to be considered a "high level" character, and honestly those L9ers are just the babies of high level play. In my book, you need double-digit levels to really be considered a lofty, high level character...most demi-humans need not apply.

• For fighters types of 10th level you should have a barony and the money to pay for a force of men (or bunch of followers). You are a beast in combat with magical equipment and multiple attacks EVEN IF YOU GET LEVEL DRAINED a couple times. You should be able to finish/survive most fights unless you get magically held or poisoned.
• For thief types of 10th level, your skills work more often than not, and you have no hesitancy in using them. Your backstab damage is at least quadruple and, coupled with a magic weapon, means you can inflict DEVASTATING blows from stealth. You have ability to read magic scrolls (both magical and clerical) and can act as an emergency caster of either variety.
• For magic-users, by 10th level you have access to multiple 5th level spells. You are NOT a high level magic-user if you cannot cast 5th level spells, including such fantastic numbers as contact other plane, passwall, teleport, and wall of force. These are GAME-CHANGING spells...if ice storm is your best spell, sorry: you're still "mid."
• For clerics, by 10th level you have access to multiple 5th level spells, most of which are fantastic, including commune, dispel evil, plane shift, and raise dead. If your best spell is still the 4th level cure serious wounds then, sorry, you're still "mid." A 10th level cleric has a chance to turn any undead on the board (55% chance against vampires!), and can fall back on dispel evil for those pesky demons and devils.

None of which, by the way, is "game breaking" stuff...at least not with the AD&D game. Attrition is a thing. Resource expenditure is a thing. None of these abilities are going to allow a party to "pwn" hordes of giants and dragons and beholders and mind flayers. None of these are going to be an "auto-win button" when it comes to creatures from the nether planes: demons, devils, daemons, slaadi, night hags, etc.

What these powers DO give the players are a fighting chance against the most powerful forces of badness in the game. What it means to the DM is that you're able to access MORE CONTENT when creating adventures for the players. Do you think its an accident that mind flayers can be encountered in groups of four? Or that fire/frost giants might number eight in a meeting? Or that magic resistance is based on casters of 11th level?

Characters aren't being awarded intelligent dancing swords just to fight orcs.

If you've been running a campaign for over a year, you should have PCs that are in the 9th - 11th range, assuming weekly games; if bi-weekly it might take two years depending on how long your sessions are. Gygax (in The Strategic Review) estimated 50-75 game sessions to reach these levels, which doesn't sound unreasonable...I often see big "jumps" in x.p. when a party, acquiring a treasure designed for seven, only make it back alive with three or four members of the group. These "jumps" offset x.p. lost for energy drain, keeping a nice ascending trajectory of advancement...assuming the players are learning and growing and not getting over their skis too often. If you run D&D in long form, campaign style play it is INEVITABLE that you'll see high level characters.

Best be ready.

; )

Queen Of The Demonweb Pits

I've spent...mm..."many" hours, days over the last week or two examining the old TSR module Q1: Queen of the Demonweb Pits. It's been a bit of an...obsession.

Or a distraction...that's probably the better word. Things have been busy...real busy...'round these parts. I'm keeping my head above water with stuff, but SOME things I should be working on (like getting my crap together for Cauldron) has just been...

*sigh* Shunted aside, I guess. 

The PROBLEM is (and this is my problem, and I realize that) I've got a couple days a week to myself, days that I should be putting together my pre-gens, putting the finishing touches on adventures, figuring out what the hell I'm going to pack, etc., etc. And I keep having to do goshdarn legal BS. Driving to and from Kent. Driving to and from downtown. Spending HOURS, literal hours out of my day in commuting and standing in lines to talk to court clerks and bond companies and legal clinics and whatnot. Just exhausting. And frustrating. And if I'm NOT doing that on my "day off" (as I was today...five hours I spent dealing with this crap, FIVE) then I'm catching up on all the other stuff I should have been doing other days of the week. Just dealing with gross incompetence on the part of other people. Just...a pain in the ass.

SO...I don't get the time I need to do the stuff I want to do. And I'm mentally fatigued and easily distracted. "Highly suggestible"...that's the state my mind is in these days. 

Enter everyone's favorite TSR punching bag, Q1.

I've mentioned the Queen a time or two on this blog, but I've never really delved into it. As a kid, I didn't own it, though my friend Matt did and he loaned it to me for an extended period. Personally, I found it fantastic, probably the most interesting and imaginative adventure (in my opinion) of the TSR era. These days, I own my own copy, and I have my own criticism of it...but I still think it's a pretty good adventure. Certainly it needs less "sprucing up" than the various DL modules. Q1 is a module that I could run...somewhat disappointingly...as is, without much trouble. The main "problem" with it is that it isn't as cool as it could be...a failure of underachievement. But it's not a big pile of crap.

However, it IS odd. Not in that it ignores the Elder Elemental God "plot" as some (notably Greyhawk Gronard) have complained. That is a big red herring as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what Gygax wrote in an ENWorld comment in his later years. No, the odd thing is that Q1 was planned as any type of "capstone" module to the G-D series AT ALL. Reading the text of D3, it seems fairly clear that Q1 occupies the same adventure space as a "side quest" or "bonus level"...except that, in this particular case, it's more of a penalty box than a bonus.

Reading the old, monochrome version of D3: Vault of the Drow (published a couple years before Q1), you see that the main way players can end up in the titular Demonwebs is by poking their noses where they really don't belong (i.e. the lowest levels of the Drow cathedral) and humiliating the avatar of the dark elves' goddess:

If Lolth flees, or is slain in her current form, a silvery (platinum) egg will be revealed. A remove curse will enable it to be opened, and whomever does so is geased to enter the astral gate on Level #1 (14) and confront Lolth if he or she is able or die trying. In the egg are an iron pyramid, a silver sphere, a bronze star of eight points, and a cube of pale blue crystal. (These items have value and use only if the party continues the adventure in the next Module (Q1, QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS).)

Note that in the description of the astral gate (area 14 of Level 1) it's made clear that this is not a particularly "good" thing:

If any individual is bold enough to walk through the projection of Lolth at 11) and then touch the "mural" he or she will be instantly drawn into the tunnel vortex and brought to the plane of the Abyss where Lolth actually dwells. (If you plan to continue the campaign, this will be handled in MODULE Q1, QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS; OTHERWISE, SUCH INDIVIDUAL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS SLAIN.)

So, instant kill for anyone who beats Lolth, gets her "prize" (the platinum egg), and figures out how to open it...unless your DM has a copy of Q1 to run. But even then: this is not a reward for beating up Lolth; there's no gold piece value assigned to this treasure. If anything, it is a cursed artifact designed to bring the goddess's tormentors to her own plane, presumably to be destroyed in some fiendish, vengeful manner. 

Probably devoured, ultimately. She is a spider, after all. 

This trip to the Abyss is a punishment for the players' hubris and greed. Why else would they possibly be invading the Great Fane of Lolth? Leave out all criticism of Sutherland and the Blumes and how "Gary's Grand Idea" was suppressed. Just look at D3 and what it contains. Look at the context, in terms of the on-going adventure scenarios: PCs are tasked with stopping the giant threat. Over time, they learn that those responsible for the giants are the Drow. They follow the Drow down into the depths of the earth and track them to their capital where they find that this is simply one rogue band of HERETICS looking to extend their power and influence in the Drow world by conquering lands in the surface world. This has NOTHING to do with the Elder Elemental God...this is just about the political ambitions of the Eilservs clan (Eclavdra and her brood):

The Eilservs have long seen a need for an absolute monarch to rule the Vault, and as the noble house of first precedence, they have reasoned that their mistress should be Queen of All Drow. When this was proposed, the priestesses of Lolth supported the other noble families aligned against the Eilservs, fearing that such a change would abolish their position as the final authority over all disputes and actions of the Dark Elves. Thereafter, the Eilservs and their followers turned away from the demoness and proclaimed their deity to be an Elder Elemental God (see MODULE G1-2-3). Although there is no open warfare, there is much hatred, and both factions seek to destroy each other. An attempt to move worship of their deity into the upper world, establish a puppet kingdom there, and grow so powerful from this success that their demands for absolute rulership no longer be thwarted, was ruined of late, and the family is now retrenching.

There it is, in black-and-white: the whole "Drow plan." Not the machinations of Lolth or the Elder Elemental God...just Eclavdra's bid for power over the people of Erelhei-Cinlu. Eclavdra's clan has turned to worship of the EEG out of sheer spite for the clergy of the fane siding with the other noble houses against Eilservs and its quest for power.  So if the party is actually "following the story" or trying to solve the "mystery" that led to the "Giant War" their trail ends with Eilservs clan (complete with yet another G3-style temple dedicated to the mysterious tentacled eye god).  Why O why wouldn't the players just want to finish up what they'd started and then retreat back to the surface, loot in hand?

Greed, of course.

At the end of the day, we ARE still playing AD&D here, and the players are insatiable treasure hunters. And where are the biggest stashes of treasure to be found in the Vault? Why, in the Drow's grand cathedral, duh. And so...once they're finished knocking over the Eilservs estate, they might as well go loot the temple, right? It's what they (adventurers) do. 

Of course, it's always possible they were pointed that direction earlier. Not only by the Eilservs clan (looking to make common cause or buy their way out of a beat-down) but by the town malcontents...the young males that roam the streets like packs of wolves. See the RAKE encounter on the Erelhei-Cinlu wandering monster table:

...roaming the streets of Erelhei-Cinlu are bands of bitter youths, often outcasts...the bands with elven-Drow members will be hostile to all they perceive as part of the system which prevails in their world, and the Dark Elves with them are of the few who are neither totally degenerate nor wholly evil -- they are haters of the society around them and see no good in it....

If the party manages a friendly meeting with a group of Drow/Drow-elves/half-Drow rakes the youths will tell them about the worship of the Demoness Lolth and the way to her "Egg." The rakes will accompany the party to the area in question if a plan which seems reasonable to them is put forth. They will also leave the Vault-Egg areas in the course of adventuring.

These RAKE encounters show up one time in 20 on the "main thoroughfares" of he city but FOUR times in 20 (20%!) when traversing the "back streets and alleyways," making this the most common encounters in the city. The longer the party spends wandering the Drow capitol, the more likely they are to run into these disaffected toughs who will steer them towards the Fane. Clearly, this was Gygax's intent based on his design.

And the players' greed will be rewarded: the monetary value alone adds up to nearly half a million gold pieces worth, even without counting all the platinum and gemstones that each member of the clergy carries on their person. Add in magical items and the 50 room dungeon can net a pretty rich haul for a half dozen high level adventurers...probably enough to gain an entire level, with combat experience added in (no mean feat for a 14th level character!). Gygax WANTS the players to sack the Fane...and likewise wants the players to confront and (presumably) to BEST Lolth in battle. It's the main ticket to the next module in the series which would otherwise...not attract players' notice?

As with everything, it's all about the Benjamins, NOT the "grand evil scheme" of a goddess (or an Evil Elemental Cthulhu-like 'thing'). The only "scheme" Lolth possesses is her plan to bring the thieving PCs over to where she resides so that she can whup up on 'em (snot-nosed brats). But the adventures in the Demonweb Pits should be considered in the light of pulp S&S fantasy...this is the stuff of Leiber. 

"Hey, Fafhrd...what say we knock over the temple while we're down here anyway?" 

"Sounds good to me Mouser!" 

[later, wandering lost in the Demonweb] "How the hell did we end up here?"

Hilarity ensues. 

This IS "old school" D&D in its purest form: players getting up to hijinx (and into trouble) because it's a darn game, not an epic story of fantasy adventure. Just because you're on module number seven of a seven part series doesn't mean you're completing some grand story arc a la The Lord of the Rings...it just means Gygax and Co. has gifted you with an incredibly extensive scenario for occupying months (or more!) of campaign time. Just as you can spend EXTRA time exploring the side caverns of the UnderDark trek, the enterprising DM can create WORLDS of adventure from the 4th level "portals" of module Q1. This is the potential of I1's Forbidden City on a much larger scale.  Which is great. And which explains (in part) why there's no Q2 or Q3...there's no need. This is not another singular adventure site (like the Hill Giants' Steading) but an open-ended situation for exploration and (probable) exploitation.

So then, what's with the polyhedrals in the platinum egg?

Ah, the sticking point in my ruminations. If Lolth just wants to summon her opponents to her Abyssal lair with the intention of devouring them, why make them jump through extra hoops to end up in her gullet? If the ultimate result will be their deaths, why the grand charade, the multi-level challenge/test? Why not just drop them wholesale into the whatever that serves as her "nest" at the heart of the Demonweb?

Well, it IS a D&D game (duh) so, of course, we can't just make it a one-way ticket to death. And, sure, you can say that Chaotic Evil divinities have minds that function beyond the ken of mere mortals like ourselves (and are insane to boot). But I think there's a fairly easy, in-world/setting answer here. 

Not everyone is worthy of being being food for the goddess.

As a demon queen, an Abyssal goddess, and a giant spider, I keep coming back to the theme of HUNGER. The Abyss is pure chaos and destruction (evil)...the source of all entropy, eroding and disintegrating everything over time. Demons, as beings, are intelligent manifestations of that entropy...to us humans, they appear as ever-hungry, eternal devourers. Eat, eat, eat...bodies and souls, they consume all. This is one of the reasons I like Huso's "demon rules" (from Dream House of the Nether Prince): in addition to his mixing of of AD&D with Christian theology and myth (something I also dig on), he "gets" the hunger inherent in such beings and has cheerfully codified a whole, fat-based economy for the creatures (nice). And SPIDERS...man, they eat, with some consuming 10% of their body weight daily. If I ate 16 pounds of food per day...um...that would be a LOT. It's brings to mind reminisces of Tolkien's Shelob and her un-satiable hunger. 

But, as said, Lolth is a goddess. And while an eternally hungry demon spider by nature, she still has the pride of a queen. And not everything is a fit meal for a queen's consumption...not even the interlopers who murdered her clergy and ransacked her temple before smiting her (material) form. Besides, she has time...plenty of time (if the players succeeded in destroying her material form she is confined to the Abyss for a century, after all). Time enough to "play with" her food...for her own amusement.

Thus the polyhedrals...thus the testing. Make the players jump through her hoops, waste their resources, feel the grinding power of fear and entropic forces as they struggle through her demonweb. Struggle provides seasoning to the meal. And they humiliated her (on their own plane of existence), and now that the shoe's on the other foot, payback is a bitch, baby. To me, it makes perfect sense. Plus, what does she care if the gnolls (envoys from Yeenoghu) or trolls (Vaprak) get destroyed in the process...even her driders (failures of their own "tests")? The demonweb is a demi-plane construct that is but a small part of her Abyssal realm...who knows how many "demonwebs" she has spun over the millennia? How many webs do the spiders around your home spin? 

[September and October in Seattle is "spider season;" I knock down webs all the time...though I usually leave the spiders alive (they eat the flies). And they put them right back up again within hours]

The whole of Q1...at least the first three levels...are, thus, a proving ground of sorts for the player characters, designed to lure them in, deeper and deeper into her web. As flies will struggle, becoming more hopelessly entangled, they are drawn in by dribbles of treasure, slowly losing their resources to attrition, before finding their way to the 4th level with its extra-planar dimensional gates. I will say that I don't have (and never had) much issue with the steam-powered "spider-ship" that acts as Lolth's palace (keep in mind that there was no such thing as "steam-punk" in 1980)...it is assumed to be one of many "palaces" the Queen has stashed around the multiverse (just as the "Dream House" of Orcus is something of a demonic "Summer Villa")...this one just happens to be some sort of mobile war machine, used for conquest on other planets.

Of course, the spider ship is not on a Prime Plane planet at the moment: it is currently anchored in the Abyss (as inferred from the text describing the plane, the text explaining how the ship sometimes makes appearances on the Prime, and the fact that Lolth is herein, confined to the ship after having had her material form destroyed). Which means, of course that ALL the penalties and magical issues (reduced magic item potency, inability of clerics to regain spells, etc.) should apply as parties explore Lolth's palace. This might be quite the rude wake-up call, if PCs just spent an inordinate amount of time celebrating their visits to other worlds on Level 4...they may have been lulled into thinking "oh, good, everything's back to normal"...when, in fact, it isn't. The laissez-faire attitude of Lolth's palace minions might also contribute to this false sense of confidence.

Not that it matters terribly...I'd imagine most groups are going to end up in a TPK. I've run Q1 exactly one time: it did not end well for anyone other than Lolth. Which is probably about right...the BEST players should probably hope to achieve is escaping with their tails between their legs and as much treasure as they could stuff in their bags of holding, portable holes, etc. Actually defeating the Demon Queen of Spiders on her own plane?  Nah. My over-powered, psionic-heavy bard (dual-wielding a hammer of thunderbolts and a vorpal short sword) didn't make it out alive. You think your group could?

Mm.

All right, that's enough for today. I started this post last night (LATE at night) but had to finish it up this morning. I've got two weeks before I'm on a plane to Germany...time to buckle down.

*sigh* Cavaliers

This post is going to address several "bad ideas" found in the UA;  I mean, might as well get them all out of the way at once, right?

Weapon specialization is a VERY bad idea...it falls under the category of "how much have you been drinking, Gary?" Len Lakofka first introduced the idea of an archery specialist (character class) along with a lot of really crunch missile fire rules in Dragon #45; it's not terrible (we had an archer PC back in the campaign of my youth), but most of the crunch only serves to slow down the game (worrying about whether actions occur at the beginning, middle, or end of a segment? Come on, dude...we don't need to micromanage more than we already do). And it introduced the idea of "point blank range" (*sigh*), to Gygax and got him thinking about OTHER possible types of specialists. Hence, weapon specialization.

One can see the appeal in an existing (long run) campaign: high level fighters are watching all the other character classes get fancy spells and abilities for achieving those 'teen' levels and, yet, they're doing the same-old-same-old since they picked up that frost brand sword back at 6th level; 'where's the love?' they cry. Unfortunately, implementing weapon specialization wrecks the combat economy from the very beginning. A normal party generally has a potential damage output of 4.5 damage per PC (roughly) with the high strength fighter types making up for low damage wizard types. But this goes off the rails with weapon specialization and (especially) double specialization (both available at 1st level). A fighter with an 18+ STR (up to 18/50...achievable for most fighter types) and double specialization in longsword strikes with a +4 to hit and +6 to damage, as well as getting two attacks every other round...a potential average damage output of 21 points in round one (25 against a large sized creature). Average hit points for an ogre are 19...for a bugbear 15. First level fighters should not be able to chop down gnolls and hobgoblins with impunity, and if the DM ups the challenge of monsters thrown at 1st level groups, the other party members (who have the same combat abilities as ever) are far more likely to suffer. Plus PBR rules means that same fighter, even without double specialization had a potential average damage output 34 damage per round, due to double damage and adding STR bonuses (all part of the PBR rules) for shots fired within 30'. Back when we used the UA rules in my youth, we saw a LOT of bow specialists. 

Bad Len. Bad, bad, bad. 

Next terrible idea to discuss is the Method V version of generating ability scores. Ostensibly restricted for human characters, this method of ability generation all but assures you of achieving the scores you need to take whatever particular class you desire to play. Having also used this a bit when the UA first came out, I can tell you the PCs end up having a LOT of high scores, not just in the ones they need...far more so than any of the other methods found in the DMG. Rolling 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 dice (and taking the best three) for the five most important abilities of a particular class are going to give you much better scores than the DMG's Method I which has you roll 4d6 across the board...and who cares if MV makes you roll 3d6 for one (ONE!) ability score when that ability is, more often-than-not, Comeliness?

Method V appears to have originated in Dragon #63 with the introduction of the barbarian class. Originally, the barbarian had NO minimum ability qualifiers (probably a good thing, considering it's supposed to replace normal man types like the nomad, caveman, tribesman, etc. in the MM), but instead determined its abilities through a new method: 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON, 7d6 for DEX, 3d6 for INT and CHA, and 4d4 for WIS. The sea change here, however, is the choosing of the class before rolling the dice (i.e. before seeing if the player has achieved the dice rolls needing to qualify for the class). Gygax discusses this decision in Dragon #67:

A few wondered why a decision to be a barbarian character had to be made prior to rolling dice for attribute scores. The answer is simple: The game is based on role-playing principles, and it is easier to do so with a course determined in the first place. Method I of Generation of Ability Scores encourages the player to choose a character profession from a predisposition rather than dice determined statistics. It is but a step removed from there to deciding on play as a barbarian subclass fighter and rolling dice accordingly. Frank Mentzer suggests that the 4d6 system could be employed with minimum score requirements of 16 strength and constitution, 15 dexterity, and a maximum wisdom of 15. That will work, but it seems to beg the question. Playing as a barbarian is a determined choice, not as one of several possibilities -- or a mere afterthought. This is a part of the whole concept...

...In all truth, the sub-class is not too powerful. It is, in fact, under-powered unless some very good rolls are gained in the areas of strength, dexterity, and constitution. To have real prospects for long-range play, the character must have 18, 16, and 17 respectively. That, Gentle Readers, is why they are given 9d6, 7d7, and 8d6 for those categories. A low-level barbarian has a better than average chance of survival without such high rolls, but at higher level, he or she is not going to do well unless strength, dexterity, and constitution combine to give high hit points, low armor class, and superior punishment potential.

Indeed. So the lesson, Gary, is "don't play a barbarian if you can't roll the high stats," NOT 'give the players the ability to play whatever they want.' Sorry. After 40+ years of game play (more than Gygax had at the time he was writing), I've seen what coddling does to one's game. That ain't the way to go.

So, now we turn our attention to the cavalier...a class that may have had an interesting kernel of an idea, but then worked hard to make it work with these other concepts (like weapon specialization) to its overall detriment.

I mean, that's sugar-coating things. The class is a travesty.

Here's what you get with the cavalier in its FINAL presentation (i.e. as it appears in the UA):

• It is not a subclass of fighter, but its own class...and it puts the paladin subclass beneath its banner (more on this later).
• STR, DEX, CON of 15+, INT and WIS of 10+ to enter; however, Method V in the UA makes these quite easy requirements (with 8d6, 7d6, and 9d6 dice rolls).
• Open to humans, high elves, gray elves, dark elves, and half-elves with NO LEVEL LIMITS. That's right...you don't like being limited to 6th or 8th level fighter? Be a cavalier (who still fights and saves as a fighter), and achieve whatever level you like.
• Hit points start at 1d10+3 at 1st level with D10s up through 10th (note: fighters only go through 9th) with +3 hit points thereafter (same as a fighter).
• Progressive "to hit bonuses" in lance plus two other weapons of choice (one a sword, the other a horseman weapon like a flail or military pick). This bonus starts at +1 and increases by +1 every six levels with no end. This bonus can be used defensively as part of a parry (and can also "parry" with a shield at the same time). Cavaliers may make multiple attacks as a fighter 5 levels higher than their actual level with these weapons of choice. High elves would be advised to select longsword.
• A bunch of horse/riding related skills that no one cares about in a dungeon.
• Each of STR, DEX, and CON are assigned a % number (similar to exceptional strength) and every level the cavalier rolls 2d10 and adds the number to the current percentage; when the number exceeds 00, they move up to the next number, eventually topping out at 18/00 in all three abilities (the percentage doesn't mean anything for DEX and CON, but an 18 is still an 18). How this interacts with the CON reduction from a raise dead/resurrection spell isn't stated, nor if these numbers can exceed racial maximums.
• Immunity to fear, +2 bonus to save versus illusions, a bunch of 90% chances to resist mind-effecting magic, etc.
• Ability to continue functioning at negative hit points (though cannot continue to fight).

All pretty swell, right? Like a fighter except more powerful (and potentially a LOT more powerful). You'd probably be thinking, man, that cavalier cat must need a ton of experience points to level up (as the barbarian does). HA! That's the kicker, son...the cavalier needs LESS x.p. to level up than the 'lowly' fighter...at least into the teens:

9th level --    fighter: 250,001       cavalier: 220,001

10th level --  fighter: 500,001       cavalier: 300,001

11th level --  fighter: 750,001       cavalier: 600,001

12th level --  fighter: 1,000,001    cavalier: 900,001

13th level --  fighter: 1,250,001    cavalier: 1,200,001

14th level --  fighter: 1,500,001    cavalier: 1,500,001

So, sure...after reaching 14th level, the cavalier will need more x.p. per level than the fighter to level up (an extra 50K per). But his 300K per level is still a damn sight faster than the ranger (325K), paladin (350K), or barbarian (500K). And to out-pace the fighter? With all those additional benefits? I mean, just what the hell was Gygax thinking? 

Elf? Probably.

This cavalier class makes the fighter all but meaningless in an AD&D campaign. It wrenches humans from their proper place at the center of the universe and allows elves to be ascendant (what is the incentive to play a human cavalier over a high elf?). Of course, it also radically changes the paladin class (now open to half-elves) giving the pally ALL the abilities of the cavalier PLUS all the abilities of the paladin (listed in the PHB), plus the ability to raise the character's CHA every level in the exact same manner as their STR, DEX, and CON.

This is not a complaint about "power creep;" this is simply stabbing the character economy in the heart with a red-hot (lance) point.

SO, NO. There will be no cavalier in my games, sir...not in the way they are detailed in the UA. Neither will there be any weapon specialization or "point blank range" for missile fire. Nor, will I be using Method V for the generation of ability scores (I remember axing that waaay back in high school...and having fierce arguments with my brother over the subject). No sir!  Method I will (continue to) do us just fine.

However, I might very well include the barbarian class...I'll just remove all minimum ability requirements for entry. You want to be a sickly member of your tribe/village, that's okay by me.

; )

Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.

The Ugliness Of Comeliness

From Dragon Magazine, issue #67:

Frank Mentzer and Francois Marcela-Froideval are already hard at work, and I am being flooded with suggestions and ideas from these Good Gentlemen. Francois uses a "Beauty" attribute for his characters, and I have come to the conclusion that you might also like to use such a rating. Here are my thoughts...

E. Gary Gygax, November 1982

Oh, man...my urge to say something snarky regarding "the French" is nearly overwhelming.  However, Monsieur Marcela-Froideval was an important figure in introducing Dungeons & Dragons...and the general role-playing hobby...to French speakers through the Casus Belli magazine (reviews and translations of which can be found over on Prince of Nothing's blog), and that alone is worthy of my respect.  But, yeah, trust a Frenchman to come to the conclusion that a "beauty" attribute was needed in his fantasy game.

Gygax, though, should've known better.

Instead, his "thoughts" on the a beauty attribute led to the creation of a new, seventh ability score called comeliness, made official with the advent of the Unearthed Arcana. Comeliness appeared in the UA pretty much exactly as presented in Dragon, save that the effect of high level magical scores provided an effect similar to the new 2nd level illusionist spell fascinate (in the original Dragon article, Gygax lists the effect as similar to charm person). For those who've never heard of this new ability score, I'll note that it never appears in any other edition of D&D...the shelf life of this 'wonderful addition' lasted all of  four years in "officialdom."

To understand why I am so sour on comeliness, I need to first explain why I rather LOVE the charisma ability score. Charisma, while an abstract attribute, is still an excellent way to measure an very real trait possessed by real life humans.  We see examples of people with (and without) "charisma" all the time: it is that "likeability" factor, that je ne sais quoi, that "star power" that some people possess...and that others don't. It is one of those "intangibles" that coaches of pro-sports teams talk about particular players having...or lacking. It is not dependent on good looks...it is not dependent on talent. It is something else that some people have in greater measure than others...though it is impossible to measure.

The D&D game provides the mechanics needed to measure it with the charisma attribute. Mechanically, it impacts reaction rolls, loyalty, and morale of one's followers...all things that you want and need to measure in a fantasy adventure game. Remember that D&D did not come out of the tradition of the lone, cinematic hero-guy/gal, taking on the army of baddies single-handedly.  It was a game created by and for war gamers who had grown up reading adventure fiction that dealt with leaders of men and methods of outfitting and leading others into unknown dangers. Bob Howard's stories are filled with these forceful personalities (Conan is always at the head of some group of pirates or barbarians or mercenaries...and neither Belit nor Sonya of Rogatino are shown as slouches in the leadership department), and the Lord of the Rings books...an obvious inspiration for fantasy war-gaming...have plenty of "charisma" examples from Aragorn who is portrayed as "fair though appearing foul."

The charisma ability is plenty efficient in providing for the mechanical needs of the game, i.e. how one interacts with (potentially) friendly NPCs, and how one attracts (and retains) followers and henchmen. A character can have whatever appearance the player wants them to have...the handsome assassin with the charisma of 7 is still going to be off-putting and nasty, while the grizzled paladin has that "air about him" that puts folks at ease and makes them want to fight by his side.

*sigh* I could (and someday should) wax on about charisma, and how it impacts the game by the character classes that have high charismas...whether due to minimum requirements (druids, paladins, and bards) or for those choosing NOT to use the ability as a "dump stat" (say, fighters, magic-users, and thieves).  But enough digression...this post is about lambasting comeliness, not lauding comeliness.

In the campaigns of my youth, we of course used comeliness. My long-run PC had a comeliness stat even before I'd laid eyes on the Unearthed Arcana. I'll relate the anecdote from my personal history for the sake of posterity:  my best friend and co-DM, Jocelyn, called me up one afternoon in the summer of 1985; I was in my kitchen, my parents (probably) both at work.  She told me (excitedly): hey, I need you to roll a D20. What for? I said. I'll tell you afterwards, said she. So I ran to my room (because my telephone was on a cord, naturally...this was '85), and returned to the kitchen, diligently rolling the D20 on the kitchen counter, with zero idea the reason.

The die roll came up a "1." Since this was possibly some sort of saving throw, I re-rolled rather than tell my DM the result (sue me...I was 12 years old at the time), and the die came up a 20. "20," I said (figuring this was a great number). No, that won't work, she said...you have to re-roll. Now I was wondering if I should have gone with the "1."  But I rolled again, as instructed, and the die roll came up an 18. "18," I said. Okay, you have a comeliness score of 18, she told me. "What the heck is that?"

You see, Jocelyn was often the first one of our group to pick up the new book or adventure module...she had a lot of ready spending cash (care of her family), and easy access to a nearby (large) bookstore. So she had picked up the new Unearthed Arcana (before any of the other members of our group had even heard it existed) and was making sure all our regular characters had the new comeliness score duly recorded. Rather than clue us in to what we were rolling (by having us roll 3d6) she was having us roll D20s and only taking numbers that fell between 3 and 18 (us kids having little concept of "bell curves" at the time, having skipped over that boring section of the DMG).

So, for most of my 1E career in my youth, I was playing a half-elf bard with an 18 charisma and a 21 comeliness, a character who could easily fascinate any female character he met unless they possessed a wisdom score of 15+. One can imagine how that went. 

[we had far more "urban" adventures than dungeon]

But without going into the sordid details (which, one could argue, detracted from the overall gameplay), I will point out that plenty of other PCs in the game had outrageously high scores, and not just from "mystery D20 rolls." It wasn't long before ALL of us regular players (Jocelyn, Scott, Matt, and I) had our own copies of the UA, and we all incorporated comeliness as part of our standard chargen process. And being adolescents, comeliness scores became very important. 

To the point that we stopped seeing certain types of characters. Gone were dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs. Halflings only appeared as NPC henchfolk (or the occasional thief-acrobat) and were generally considered "comic relief." Most characters were in the high teens for their COM score...a lot of elves and half-elves. My character didn't even have the highest score...one PC had a 22 comeliness. And these weren't even results from fudging dice rolls (though I would not be surprised if some were...); rather, characters with low comeliness scores would be deemed as unplayable.  No teenage kid wanted to play a character that was "plain to average" in looks...let alone "homely" or "simply ugly." Regardless of the player's own self-esteem, the teasing was merciless.

And consider that we were playing D&D as it was originally meant to be played. That is, we were not doing the "new school" thing of portraying some "character" with their tragic backstory of needing to overcome being the Ugly Duckling or whatever. For us, we were exploring the D&D game world and the character was only our vehicle...so if the character was ugly then WE were ugly.  Why would anyone want to embody that?  We were playing escapist fantasy not because we wanted to pretend to be something we were not...we were playing escapist fantasy because we wanted to do things we couldn't do in real life: Cast spells. Fight monsters with swords. Climb sheer cliffs. Etc.  No one wanted to be judged (negatively) on their looks. Shit...we could get that in our normal, daily life!

Using comeliness in-play...and especially high comeliness with its mechanical effects...led to the game becoming different. No longer was Charisma a wonderful stat for modeling "leaders of men" and "commanding presence." Instead, when interacting with NPCs (and with other PCs!) we were more concerned with that O So Important first impression...and just how much mileage one could get out of manipulating someone before the comeliness effect wore off.  It became, in fact, a method of PVP for the players at the table, a weapon to be wielded both directly and indirectly (through the ability to influence NPCs)...a method of 'one-upping' other players, promoting rivalries, creating resentments, grudges, and hurt feelings.

Comeliness contributed to the decline and eventual death of our campaign.

Yeah, that probably sounds overly dramatic...and probably is (I am writing of events that occurred some 30+ years ago). Definitely it was more than just "comeliness" that led to the breakdown of that first, long-running game of AD&D between me and the friends of my youth. However, let me add one more anecdote from my history:  after my gaming group broke up (shortly after we'd all entered high schools), I got the urge to play D&D again...probably around my sophomore or junior year of high school. And I started a new 1E campaign, running a game for my brother and a couple of his friends.  It lasted a few months...long enough for the PCs to get up to level 12 or thereabouts (we were doing the Giants-series when we all lost interest or got too busy to continue). But we didn't use comeliness in that game at all. In fact, I'm not sure I allowed ANY of the UA rules for that campaign...though I might be misremembering.

Anyway.

Regardless of what I may or may not incorporate from the rest of the Unearthed Arcana, I have long since determined that comeliness is NOT an ability score I want in my game. If I want a handsome prince or beautiful princess in my game, I'll put them in without any such score. If I want a more "fairytale feel" to the campaign, I'll link their outward beauty to their inherent Charisma; if I want something more "true to life," I won't. But I really don't see any benefit to including an objective measurable stat for how pleasant or unpleasant a person appears.

This is a funny illo, though.

Besides...isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Just because Gimli has a thing for ancient elf queens, doesn't mean most dwarves wouldn't prefer dwarvish women, right? Wouldn't a halfling be a bit off-put by the sheer size of a human? Why one stat, one scale, for all species? That's not how the biology of species works...a cat doesn't eye-up a good-looking dog. Jeez.

Comeliness...out.