F is for Forestry

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

F is for Forestry and Forests, something the Pac Northwest has in abundance. All apologies to Davy Crockett, the Evergreen State is "the greenest State in the land of the free;" fight me!

Ha! Actually, when one compares forest cover to square mileage, Washington ranks only 25th at 52..74%, behind Tennessee (52.83% and 23rd) and well behind Maine's #1 position (89.46%!). Blame Eastern Washington with its vast stretches of farmland (or "vast stretches of nothing" as I used to call it). But we do have thick, dense forests from the Pacific coast to the eastern foothills of the Cascades, all (or mostly) evergreen. You can see why a native Seattleite like myself would operate under the illusion that we're all lumber jacks 'round these here parts. 

Just my side of the mountains (at least till you get out to Okanogan and the northeast part of the State). 

Still, it's a D&D campaign and forested wilderness is a necessity...after all, I need some place to stash all the rangers and druids. And for me, these guys are squarely over on my side of the state's political border (i.e. the Cascades), though you'll find them poking around the Inland Empire on occasion.

I've described my rangers before, and I haven't stopped loving them since I made the mental transition from floofy Aragorn to Jeremiah Johnson. These guys are rough, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that PC rangers use charisma as a "dump stat:" it doesn't affect their ability to gain (animal) followers at high level and it's reflective of long periods of time spent living in the woods and not talking to folks. Or only talking to them with an axe. 

If you know what I mean.

; )

Taciturn. Yep, that's the word of the day for rangers. These guys prowl the forested slopes of the Cascades and Olympics making the land safer for the settlements of human woodsmen living on the edge of the wilds. Any half-elf ranger grew up on the peninsula, more likely than not, and their human parent was probably a ranger, too. They are the avenging protectors of humankind (whether they get along with and are appreciated by their fellow humans or not). Gosh, they're a great archetype.

Then we have the druids.

We do have druids on the east side of the Cascades, but they're still in the shadow of the mountains where there's still plenty of forest. I set N2: The Forest Oracle in Thorp, and the Village of Hommlet (with its "Old Religion" druid cult) is set in Twisp. But that latter town is about the farthest east you'll find druids...the wood elves of Colville hold no great love for druid types and do not encourage their sect in the northeastern forests. As with rangers, if your half-elf is a druid, you probably grew up on the Olympic Peninsula (almost certainly the west side of the Cascades) and your human parent was probably a druid, too.

Druids are an interesting bunch. I've mentioned the inspiration my campaign has taken from Bob Pepper's artwork, specifically his DragonMasters card game. Well, one of the "suits" of those cards are the Druids, and one might well wonder if my druids bear any resemblance to Pepper's. The short answer is: no, but there is a little more to it than that. See, Pepper's druids DO make an appearance in my setting...as the (human) Atlantean refugee types that were part of the campaign when originally conceived as South American. Those guys? The shipwrecked Numenoreans that every fantasy campaign needs? They're the folks populating the greater Seattle area.

Yeah, Atlanteans as the Denny Party. Welcome to Hollywood, people.

So the druid religion is tied to the forests of western Washington (i.e. west of the Cascades) and thus tied to the Sea Kings (as I call them...though I'm pretty sure I swiped that term from an MZB novel) who have settled the City of Seven Hills, thus uniting form with function to close the circle. We'll talk about the Sea Kings later, but suffice is to say they're a pretty godless bunch (unlike the actual Denny party, who were devout...if pretty conservative...Christians) with a lot of their own magical woo-woo stuff going on. 

We'll leave Tacoma for a later post, too. There's a reason why there's no "Emerald Empire." Not yet.

Anyhoo...foresters. The sea and the woods have long been the lifeblood of the western Washington economy, but my setting doesn't have the maritime economy of the real world (because there isn't anything beyond the west coast...just endless ocean). As such, it is the forests that are of prime importance, and much of the shipping that does occur (along the coast, down to the mouth of the Columbia) includes a substantial amount of timber.  In a D&D world full of monsters, deep dark forests would be especially perilous to "puny humans," if it wasn't for the work of the rangers and druids. Not that they aren't dangerous individuals themselves, but they act as a balancing 'check' against hostile forces that would quickly overwhelm small communities of ship-building woodsmen. The unicorns of my world aren't very nice.

A is for Alignment

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

A is for Alignment. A funny place to start when it comes to talking about one's campaign but, I think, a necessary precursor to understanding how my world runs.

As with most DMs, I have "modified" the AD&D game rules in a number of ways. Unlike most DMs, these modifications are few in number and generally quite small in the grand scheme of the game; most are designed (in part) to ease speed of play. 

Removing alignment, however, is no small thing.

Still, I've done it, and am quite satisfied with the result. Humans (and human-like elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.) are capable of doing good and evil, acting lawfully and chaotically and are not so simplistic to model as stock characters from a morality play. Actions have consequences; it is important for the Dungeon Master to keep this in mind because (when he/she does so) issues related to "bad behavior" tend to take care of themselves.

But the game...

Well, the D&D game created alignment originally to distinguish the two sides of the (war gaming) table. There were the forces of LAW (i.e. "good") and the forces of CHAOS (i.e. "evil") and then there were "neutrals" who might fight for either side, depending on their whim (this was long before the advent of "True Neutrals" who refused to fight for any side...). 

Over time, these assignations grew muddled in complexity, as LAW ceased to mean "good" but rather "order and organization" while CHAOS ceased to mean "evil" but rather "freedom and wildness." Having multiple factions certainly makes for more interesting gaming (and more asymmetrical war gaming) than just "Side A" versus "Side B," but it hardly models the complexity of life, where actions are determined by degrees of ambition and pride and fear and self-interest and love and joy and...well, all the things. All the stuff; "the usual" (or, just, "the ush") as they say.

But then, how does that work with the cosmology of D&D? How do paladins and assassins get along? Why do we kill orcs and goblins? How the heck are we supposed to know if clerics are being granted their spells?  And what about all those alignment-based spells and magic items?

Here's how I approach these things in my campaign:

With Regard To Monsters (and Character Classes): 

Think of "alignment" as a short-hand for the general attitude/perspective of a class/species from the point of view of a human; D&D is human-centric, after all.  Any creature with a "good" alignment is generally "pro-human" or (rather) "pro-human values;" any creature with an "evil" alignment is "anti-human."  SO, "good" dwarves and elves and halflings like and value humans and treat them in as friendly a manner as humans treat each other. Admittedly, humans have a long history of robbing, raping, and killing each other so this might translate to "not-so-friendly," but it's a good enough starting point and things being equal they're generally willing to work with humans so long as it suits their interest.

"Evil" creatures, on the other hand, have a history of conflict and antagonism with humans and their allies (i.e. creatures that get along with humans or that humans would view as "good"...like dwarves and elves). It doesn't mean they're inherently evil or bad or spawned of Satan (at least, with regard to non-planar creatures) just that...historically...they've been on opposite sides of the battlefield more often than not.

Paladins and rangers (traditionally "good" aligned classes) are characters that champion HUMANS and their allies. As fighters, they are warriors, killers, and destroyers of things that would harm or threaten humans. That is what they are trained to do; although they have different training from each other.

Assassins (traditionally "evil") place no particular value on human life...being trained as professional murderers, a human is only "valuable" insomuch as it affects the fee they charge to end it. Meanwhile, thieves' traditional "non-good" designation aptly describes their cavalier attitude towards other humans' property (being trained in the larcenous arts). 

"Lawful-ness," then, is simply an estimate of whether or not a particular species operates in an ordered and civilized fashion..."civilized" again being from the perspective of humanity. Do they have hierarchy? Bureaucracy? Laws? Most of the humanoid monsters found in the Monster Manual (and, thus, in my campaign world) fall into this category...they are as organized with regard to trade, agriculture, and warfare as any human society.

"Chaotic-ness" on the other hand, is not just the absence of law and order, but an abhorrence of it, and a a wanting to smash the social norms and niceties of (what humans would call) 'polite society.' Bugbears are something OUTSIDE the hierarchy of other goblinoids...a throwback species (like a neanderthal or sasquatch), insane individuals too large to kill that have been driven into exile, or perhaps some ogrish-hybrid...who knows? Ogres are just too big and un-refined to have ever developed anything like a "society;" they are at the top of the food chain and they enjoy being there. Gnolls are something like the beastman marauders found in the Warhammer world...they are as close to a demon-worshipping barbarian horde as anything you'll find in my world. And elves...well, let's just say most humans tend to stay the hell out of elven cities (there's only one), as they're something akin to Moorcock's Melniboneans; they'll get their own post in this series.

As far as classes go only the monk and paladin have a requirement for "Lawful-ness" and this simply indicates that they must follow a strict hierarchy and discipline with regard to their profession. Monks are beholden to their monastic order and must follow its dictates; paladins are the same with regard to their church. Here, the alignment restriction (again...not used in my game!) indicates character classes that are not altogether free from obligation.

And the Neutrals? Well, all the creatures and classes of my campaign are effectively "neutral" when it comes to their actions, self-determination, and self-interest. But with regard to the True Neutral druid, we simply see a sect that is neither concerned with promoting human interest, nor overtly antagonistic to it. For the neutral-leaning bard, the alignment merely describes the free spirit of these drifters.

By the way: any character class can adventure with any other character class in my game.

With Regard To Alignment-Based Magic:

There are only a handful of magic spells in the PHB, mostly clerical in nature, that require alignment to be addressed. Know alignment does not exist as a spell (un-needed). Detect evil detects the presence of unnatural or supernatural presences: the undead, creatures from other planes, and (as noted in the spell description) "evilly cursed magic items" (i.e. magically cursed items specifically designed to do harm). Similarly, dispel evil banishes enchanted and summoned creatures regardless of alignment. Protection from evil is now just circle of protection, a spell that wards out unnatural and supernatural creatures and provides the listed bonus against creatures trying to do harm to the warded character(s).

I should probably note that I long ago stopped using denotations like "protection from good" or "unholy word." To a devil-worshipping cleric, "unholiness" is "holy" and "evil" is "good." While these spells still exist, they do not merit having a reversible version (holy word is always "holy" to the person using it). 

As for magic items of an alignment nature, they generally fall into three categories: items designed to screw with a PC's alignment, items meant to restrict access (benefitting or cursing depending on alignment), and items meant to exert control over its user (like an intelligent sword). In the case of the former (a helm of opposite alignment, for example), they're simply out of the game...it was rare that I would stock such items anyway, even back when I used alignment, as all they ended up doing was giving a player an excuse to engage in unproductive shenanigans OR unfairly stripped the abilities of a PC (paladins, rangers) through no fault of their own.

For magic-swords and other such items (like the Gauntlet in module UK3), I determine what the item's motivations are, and have it exert control in order to obtain those motivations REGARDLESS of alignment. No damage is received from using such an item, unless it's made for a particular type of wielder (a dwarf or a paladin, for example) as is picked up by someone else.

As for magic items that bestow benefits based on alignment...eh, anyone can use it. You want your magic-user to read a libram of ineffable damnation? Have at it...all magic-users gain the benefit (and can likewise benefit from a libram of gainful conjuration, etc.). I want my wizards seeking out forbidden tomes of knowledge, good or evil; that's the stuff of the adventure fiction I grew up reading.

With Regard To Clerics:

Clerics in my campaign still pray for (and receive) magical spells from their deities. They have access to the same spell list, regardless of deity; this list is different from the other spell lists. My long-standing house rule is that they pray for their spells as needed, not in some morning ritual...I've explained this all before. 

Clerics have tenets of faith and worship that they are expected to practice. Do I bother detailing these? No.

Would it be possible for a cleric to lose their spell powers for failing to follow the dictates of their church/religion/deity? Maybe. I haven't (so far as I can recall) ever ruled as such in any D&D game I've ever run.

Are clerics expected to fight for "good" (or "evil") against their opposite number? Clerics are expected to champion and protect their own faith and that faith's worshippers against those who'd harm or threaten that faith or those worshippers. Sometimes that might mean fighting against a (previous) ally. Sometimes that might mean fighting with a (previous) enemy. Sometimes "protecting the faith" involves rooting out corruption within their own church (i.e. fighting/killing their own clergy or congregation members).

God (and gods) move in mysterious ways.

I don't use the DDG all that much these days. If I were to use it, it would be mostly as a "monster manual" for other planar entities. Yes, I have no issue with high level characters fighting (and possibly slaying) gods...good luck to 'em if they want to try it. I know from experience that it's not all that easy...in fact, I've never seen it done in an ACTUAL game of AD&D. Nope, not even Llolth (and I've run Q1). If a god were slain, I'd expect its worshippers to shift allegiance to whatever god would have them (and that suited their fancy), and would retain all their prior levels/spells/abilities.

Just about the only way I really see a cleric losing their spells would be through some crisis of faith: either a literal "crisis" (our deity has been slain!) or through some curse/geas or vow breaking crisis, of the kind that might require an atonement spell. In the latter case...well, that's the kind of thing that has to be worked out on a case-by-case basis generally through (*shudder*) role-playing. Which isn't BAD, folks, but just isn't something I can pencil down with a hard-and-fast answer. That the AD&D game provides for this potentiality of such a spell being needed speaks to the robustness of the system...you won't find atonement in 5E, just by the way.

[which maybe says something about the unforgivable blasphemy that is 5E]

ALL RIGHTY...that's enough of a foundation in the basic cosmology of my campaign. We'll get to the actual geography of the world (physical and political) in tomorrow's post.

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.

My Magic (Part 3)

Not much time to blog today (plus, I'd like to get to some other subjects...like the new Dungeons & Dragons film). But, for the sake of completeness, I wanted to add one more installment to this series. I'll keep it short.

Druids. Illusionists. Bards.

The last time a player ran an illusionist in one of my campaigns, I was (maybe) 14 years old. Maybe. I can't even recall any gnome multi-class types. Just a single illusionist...a pre-gen created specifically to try running D1: Descent into the Depths of the Earth.

I have never had a player character druid in any campaign I've run. Ever.

I have an (adult) friend, who really wants to join my game, and wants to play a druid. Unfortunately, he resides on Camano Island and isn't exactly mobile, which means the only way we'd be able to play is via the Zoom or something...which I am loathe to do for a number of reasons. Still, there remains the possibility that I'll see a 1st level druid in my campaign at some point in the near future.

But I have had time to think about it, and my gut reaction is to simply leave druids exactly as written in the PHB. Yes, they must memorize (or "pray for") spells at the beginning of the day, unlike my clerics; however, this "memorization" represents the druid preparing their mistletoe and whatnot (via shamanic/ritual magic) in anticipation of the coming day's events. 

Besides which: I've never seen a druid in my game (didn't I just say that?). So why should I go about "fixing" something that may work perfectly fine?

Illusionists are a...slightly...different matter. I've written extensively about my love for the illusionist class as both a concept AND as originally imagined/designed for the OD&D game by Peter Aronson. As reworked by Gygax for the AD&D system, the spell list for the class is...poor (see prior blog posts here and here, and specific discussions on color spray and phantasmal force). The class, unfortunately, needs a lot of "clean-up."

But how can I say that, when I haven't actually seen a player run and develop an illusionist character over a long-term campaign? How do I know that the class...as printed in the PHB...wasn't reworked specifically due to extensive play-testing and is, in fact, the perfect representation of the class?

How indeed.

I would love to play an illusionist character...if I were playing in the campaign of a DM that I respect and trust. Say, someone like me. I have played illusionists before...on two occasions with different DMs. Both times they were using the Advanced Labyrinth Lord rules (which just means B/X with some AD&D adaptations). Neither game lasted more than a single session, and the character had little opportunity to "stretch its legs." But, then, neither of those games was what I'd call "open worlds;" just dungeons that we were stuck in. You know...typical Basic level play.

[I'm so tired of basic play]

SO...illusionists. Don't really know HOW I'd run them now, because no one wants to play them in my campaign. I do have extensive spell list revisions stored somewhere on my laptop...I'd be tempted to break those out. But probably, I'd just start with the standard rules (if someone wanted to play an illusionist). Probably tack on the same house rules I use for magic-users. Probably. There's a part of me that likes the idea of an illusionist creating more than one phantasmal image in a day...so long as it's not the same image. 

The testing is all in the playing.

And as for bards: welp, since I started my new campaign I haven't seen any of those yet, either...although Diego keeps saying he'd like to play one; he just keeps missing on the ability scores needed. 

Oh, right, forgot to mention: I scrapped the whole single-class bard idea, I posted a while back. The fact is, I've played and run MANY 1st edition bards over the years (eight that I can think of off the top of my head, and not counting pre-gens like Olaf Peacock in Dwellers of the Forbidden City) and, in my experience, the class works fine as written. Would I prefer their magic is a little more "bardic" in nature, rather than druidic? Sure. And perhaps I'll do something about that one day. Like, the next time a PC actually acquires a 1st level bard in my campaign (after first progressing through fighter and thief classes). Until then, I'm not terribly worried about it.

Which, by the by, is also my attitude towards high level rangers and paladins (both of whom receive some spell-casting ability). I've seen a lot of high level fighters over the years; I can't recall ever seeing a ranger over 7th level or a paladin over 3rd. SO...unless and until I do, I'll just run these characters By The Book. 

That's all folks.

: )

Holmes Rules: The Druid (Part 2)

[the write-up for the druid subclass can be found here...go and read that first, if you haven't already done so. This is "spell section" for the character]

Druid Magic

The magic of the druid subclass differs very little from magic of the cleric besides the actual spell effects. There are no "reverse" spells for druids; all druids have the exact same selection to choose from. Druidic magic is neutral in nature, and its effects will detect as neither good nor evil. Druids do not make, nor make use of spell scrolls.

The following spells are available to druids:

FIRST LEVEL DRUID SPELLS
1. Animal Charm - This spell is the same as the 2nd level cleric spell snake charm, save that it applies to all normal animals.
2. Detect Pits and Snares - The spell is the same as the 2nd level cleric spell find traps, save that it may only be employed in natural environments (outdoors or subterranean caverns, for example).
3. Divination - By studying her surroundings and "reading the signs" the druid is able to gain some insight into the wisdom of a particular course of action. The player may ask the DM a single question, and the DM should provide a suitable answer (yes, no, or maybe).
4. Entangle - Range 60 feet; Duration 1 turn. Causes the vegetation in an area 40' x 40' to ensnare and trap any creature that passes through the area, holding them fast; creatures are allowed a saving throw to escape being caught, though their movement will be slowed.
5. Obscurement - Duration 1 turn per level. Creates an opaque cloud of misty vapor measuring 10' x 10' x 10' centered on the caster.
6. Predict Weather - Allows the druid to predict the weather up to 12 hours in advance and to know if the current weather has been modified by magic.
7. Resist Cold - This spell is the same as the 1st level cleric spell.
8. Speak with Animals - This spell is the same as the 2nd level cleric spell.

SECOND LEVEL DRUID SPELLS
1. Circle versus Animals - Duration 3 turns. Creates a zone of protection (5' radius, centered on caster), that no animal can enter or pass through. Includes all normal beasts and birds, as well as giant-sized or enchanted ones, but not fantastical monsters (like basilisks and chimeras).
2. Heat Metal - Range 30 feet; Duration 6 rounds. Causes ferrous metal targeted (as much as that worn by a man-sized target) to become searing hot over the course of the spell's duration. The first two rounds the any metal worn becomes uncomfortably hot; the next two rounds it is hot enough to cause blisters and inflict D4 points of damage per round; the final two rounds the metal becomes searing hot, inflicting 2D4 damage and causing crippling injury to hands holding metal items and unconsciousness (and lasting scars) to individuals wearing helmets. Soft materials (padding, etc.) exposed to the metal will smolder and burn and will not prevent damage. Fire resistance magic will prevent this spell from having any effect.
3. Hold Animal - As the 2nd level cleric spell hold person, save that it only applies to animals.
4. Plant Door - Duration 1 turn per level. The druid may temporarily merge with a tree, like a dryad; the spell ends when the caster leaves the tree. The druid is aware of everything that occurs around the tree; if the tree is destroyed she must exit the tree or be killed as well.
5. Plant Growth - 160 feet. Causes the vegetation in an area 20' x 20' per level of the druid to grow into a thick, dense jungle that blocks sight and which creatures must hack down to force their way through (at a rate of 10 feet per turn for human-sized creatures, double for larger).
6. Resist Fire - This spell is the same as the 2nd level cleric spell.
7. Speak with Plants - As speak with animals, but applies to plants and plantlike beings.
8. Warp Wood - Range 60'. Causes wood targeted (as much as a pole arm shaft or half dozen arrows per level of the druid) to become twisted and useless. Can be used to hole a wooden boat.

THIRD LEVEL DRUID SPELLS
1. Animal Summoning I - Duration 10 turns. Summons one large animal (elephant, rhino, etc.), three medium animals (lions, bears, wild horses, etc.), or six small animals (wolves, lynxes, badgers, etc.). The animals should be native to the local; they will obey the druid for the duration of the spell.
2. Call Lightning - Range 720 feet; Duration 1 turn. This spell only works outdoors, and there must be storm clouds present. The druid calls lightning from the sky to strike any target in range; each bolt does 6D8 damage to a target (or half with a successful saving throw). The druid may call down one bolt per minute (every six rounds), for a total of ten bolts over the course of the spell.
3. Change Shape - Druid may take the shape of an animal, from a small as a bullfrog or bat, to as large as a black bear (no more than double the caster's weight). The transformation heals the caster 50% of damage sustained (if any) prior to assuming the new form; otherwise, the animal shape has the same hit points as the druid. The spell lasts until the druid chooses to regain her original form.
4. Circle versus Plants - As circle versus animals, but prevents of plants and plantlike beings, even magical creatures (golems made of wood, shambling mounds, etc.).
5. Hold Plants - As hold animal, but works on plants and plantlike beings (dryads, treants, etc.).
6. Pass Plant - The druid enters a tree (as with plant door), but may exit another tree of the same type up to a quarter-mile distant. If there is no other tree within range, the druid simply exits the tree entered.
7. Produce Fire - Range 40'. Creates a sudden conflagration in a circle of 12' diameter. Anything in the area takes D8 damage and (if combustible) is set alight.
8. Resist Lightning - As resist cold or resist fire save that it applies to lightning and electrical attacks.


FOURTH LEVEL DRUID SPELLS
1. Animal Summoning II - As animal summoning I, but double the numbers.
2. Commune with Nature - Similar to divination, the druid may gain insight into the answers for three questions posed. Knowledge should be near total and accurate, but must pertain to nature or issues regarding the natural world. This spell may only be used once per adventure.
3. Insect Plague - Range 360 feet; Duration 1 turn. Conjures a vast swarm of stinging vermin that the druid can use to drive off creatures with less than two hit dice. Creatures with less than five hit dice must succeed at a saving throw or will likewise be driven to flee or seek shelter. The swarm cloud has a 180 foot radius and is 60 feet high.
4. Plant Travel - As pass plant, but any large (living) plant may be used and the druid may traverse any amount of intervening space.
5. Speak with Stone - As speak with animals, but applies to rocks, stones, and rocklike beings.
6. Summon Weather - This spell is a minor form of control weather; it functions the same, but weather summoned must be consistent with the climate and season of the druid's locale.
7. Turn Wood - Range 20 feet per level; Duration 3 turns. Creates a wedge of force 120 feet wide that shoots forth from the druid, pushing aside any wooden objects in its path: weapon hafts, shields, arrows, trees, etc. Creatures holding such items will either be pushed back, or find their wooden items splintered and scattered (taking D6 damage in the process). Objects turned may not enter the path created by the spell until the duration expires or is dispelled; the druid herself is unaffected by the spell.
8. Wall of Fire - Range 60 feet. Conjures a curtain of flame with a height and length that cannot exceed 1200 square feet (for example 30' x 40' or 60' x 20'). The flame is opaque and objects beyond the wall are not visible. Creatures of less than four levels/hit dice cannot cross the wall of fire; creatures that do cross the flame take 2D6 damage. The wall lasts as long as the druid concentrates (takes no other action).

FIFTH LEVEL DRUID SPELLS
1. Animal Summoning III - As animal summoning I, but quadruple the numbers.
2. Conjure Elemental - Summons a single elemental force of a chosen type (fire, earth, water, etc.) with hit dice equal to the caster's level. The elemental serves the druid so long as concentration is maintained (i.e. takes no other action); if control is lost, the elemental immediately turns on its master. The druid must remain within 240 feet of the the elemental at all times, and may banish the elemental at any time unless control is lost. The elemental lasts until banished, dispelled, destroyed, or the druid dies.
3. Control Weather - Duration 6 turns. For the duration, the druid may control and freely change the weather within a half mile radius of her location. Typical effects include: summoning clouds, rain, snow, fog, storms (with lightning), tornadoes, or clearing the skies. It takes D6 rounds for any atmospheric change to take effect. This spell may only be cast in the outdoors.
4. Metal to Rust - Range 60 feet. Causes all metal on target creature to instantly rust to pieces, exactly as if struck by a rust monster. Creatures of metal (iron golems and such) receive a saving throw to avoid being destroyed.
5. Nature's Prison - Range 30 feet. Target creature is merged with natural feature (a tree, large boulder, marsh, pond, etc.). The feature must be at least as large as the creature to be imprisoned, and the subject is allowed a saving throw to resist. The creature's captivity lasts until the druid allows its release or until dispel magic is successfully cast on the prison object; destruction of the object does not free the prisoner.
6. Reincarnation - Forces the spirit of a deceased individual into a magically created body. The forces involved are difficult to control and the body may bear no resemblance to the original. Roll D8: 1-2 body is an animal (usually mammalian), 3-5 body is human, 6 body is demihuman (even chance of dwarf, elf, or halfling), 7-8 body is sentient woodland creature (centaur, dryad, etc.). The DM determines ability scores randomly (3D6) for the new body, and there is an even chance of either sex. Reincarnated individuals retain their memories and personality and (if meeting the requirements) may continue to advance in their original class. Non-animal bodies that aren't eligible for a class (for example, a magic-user in a dwarf body), may keep their old class abilities, but may not advance.

[this was a tricky list, in part because I had specific limits in mind for how many spells I wanted at each spell level (for example, there was going to be a re-skinning of creeping doom called "wrath of nature," but I ended up doing nature's prison instead, feeling it was more thematically appropriate). Please note that, as with illusionist spells, some high level cleric/magic-user spells to which these would otherwise refer are unavailable in Holmes (that's why, for example, control weather doesn't say "see the 6th level M-U spell"). Another difficulty is that some monsters referenced by druid spells (elementals, for example) are not found in the Holmes rulebook...how to handle such a thing when I want a "conjure elemental" spell? On the one hand, the lack of rules provides an opportunity to do things like "lightning elementals" and "plant elementals;" on the other hand, this is just a spell list, not a bestiary. In the end, I punted...I referred to monsters for which there are no Holmes stats. Maybe a different project/post]

[a couple more notes: was pretty pleased at how these turned out. I think the list has a much tighter focus than the standard druid list, really working with the druid's control of animals, plants, and elemental forces. Metal-to-rust makes so much more sense than metal-to-wood (why would a druid be able to transform an inorganic substance into an organic one?) and turn wood ends up be the woodsy equivalent of part water ("Clear me a path through the jungle!"). Folks will note that the druid's magical ability to change shape ("wild shape" in D20 parlance) is now simply a spell...one gained at the same level as they would normally receive the wild shape ability. Again, this makes more sense...it's a magical ability (i.e. a spell); human druids don't just suddenly become therianthropes]

Holmes Rules: The Druid (Part 1)

[just continuing my ongoing series of subclass conversions to the Holmes Basic edition of D&D. You can find the Paladin and Ranger here, the Witch here, and the two part Illusionist posts here and here. As with the illusionist, this is the first post of two, as the druid spell list will be posted separately]

All right, let's give this a shot.

Druids -- some clerics, instead of dedicating themselves to a particular god or pantheon, devote their service to gods greatest creation: the natural world. Shunning the trappings of organized religion, they act as guardians of the land, residing and worshipping in areas of untamed wilderness (forest groves, natural caves, etc.). A cleric must have a minimum wisdom of 13 and minimum constitution of 9 to be a druid.

His name is not "Curley."

Druids are of neutral alignment. They only wear armor they've fashioned themselves from natural materials (skins, plant fiber, bones, etc.) which has the same cost, weight, and armor value as leather. Likewise, their weapons, while the same as other clerics, are made from primitive materials, rather than steel, and suffer a -1 penalty to attack rolls. Their wood and hide shields are no different from standard shields. 

Druids receive a +1 bonus to saving throws versus elemental attacks (fire, lightning, etc.). They may automatically identify plants, animals, and drinkable water, and have the same ability to minister to wounded characters as a witch. Upon reaching 6th level, they become immune to the charming ability of woodland and water creatures (like dryads and nixies). Druids cast spells like clerics, but use their own spell list; they do not "turn" undead. Druids may use any magic item not restricted to a specific class.

Level	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
Aspirant	-	-	-	-	-
1st Circle Initiate	2	-	-	-	-
2nd Circle Initiate	3	-	-	-	-
3rd Circle Initiate	3	2	-	-	-
4th Circle Initiate	3	3	-	-	-
5th Circle Initiate	3	3	2	-	-
6th Circle Initiate	3	3	3	-	-
7th Circle Initiate	4	3	3	1	-
8th Circle Initiate	4	4	3	1	-
9th Circle Initiate	4	4	3	2	1
Druid	4	4	4	3	1
Archdruid	4	4	4	3	2
The Great Druid*	4	4	4	4	3

*There should only be one Great Druid in a campaign. How this individual is chosen (presuming multiple characters reach this lofty level) is left for individual DMs to decide.

[by the way, in case it was unclear before, all subclasses use the same XP table, Hit Dice, etc. as the class to which they belong...are, in fact, the same as the main class unless otherwise noted]

Clerics of Holmes and their Ilk

Over years of writing this blog, I've written a LOT about clerics. I know it's a lot because I just went back and reread every post marked "cleric" just to look at my thoughts and, boy, that took a while!

I did this review, of course, for a specific purpose: in examining and defining the druid, a subclass of cleric, it's important to understand just what exactly is a cleric. In my early days (years ago) I was mainly examining the class from a B/X perspective, and it was B/X in a vacuum...outside the historic perspective of OD&D supplements and Holmes and various Arneson writings, for instance (I hadn't access to those books at the time). And a lot of my conclusions, musings, and analysis is (I think) still fairly accurate, especially viewed through the lens of B/X. But maybe not from where I'm standing at the moment, knee-deep in Holmes.

Consider, for a moment, my idea of clerics being the (conceptual) equivalent of paladins. If one buys this line of reasoning (and there's really little presented in later books that would refute this assertion), then you really have no reason to create a "paladin" subclass. Of course, the paladin concept is semi-silly anyway, seeing as how it ain't really based on anything. Not saying it's not a neat idea to HAVE a holy warrior type character, but here's one already with the cleric. You just need to give 'em swords. My own B/X Companion did a lot to rectify this (with rules for clerical sword-use and spells to summon celestial mounts, etc.).

But, okay, step away from the B/X for a moment, sir (and keep your hands where I can see 'em). We're talking about Holmes at the moment, and he's got some specific things to say about clerics, and what they are. Specifically:

Clerics -- are humans who who have dedicated themselves to one or more of the gods. Depending on the god, the cleric may be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Clerics have their own special spells and unlike magic-users they begin with none. They may, however, wear armor, including magic armor, and carry non-edged weapons such as the mace or the quarter staff. No swords or bows or arrows can be employed, for the cleric is forbidden by his religion from the drawing of blood. Good clerics can often dispel undead -- skeletons, zombies, and their ilk as explained later. As they advance in experience levels they gain the use of additional spells. Spells for evil clerics differ slightly from those of good clerics.

Earlier in the description of the wisdom ability score he also notes:

Clerics can perform miraculous spells even though they do not have special intelligence...

Which I personally find amusing as well as flavorful.

Compare his description to the rather limited text of Men and Magic (OD&D), which simply states "Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users)..." or especially Gygax's description in the 1E PHB: "This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times."

Only if you really stretch the definition of "a certain resemblance."

Moldvay's own description is rather closer (being influenced and based on Holmes's book) but is slightly different in wording stating, "Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess. They are trained in fighting and casting spells." Can you see the difference there? Moldvay's cleric is very much the "holy warrior," or religious knight. He (or she) has been trained in fighting, as well as clerical magic, and one might infer that the character has taken some sort of oath or vows of service to the god or its representatives on Earth (i.e. the church or temple of organized religion).

This is very different from (in my opinion) the much more priestly version of the cleric that Holmes presents. This isn't a person dedicated to the service of a deity, but to the deity itself (and possibly multiple deities): go build your own temple as commanded by your patron. This isn't a person necessarily trained to fight, but one who is allowed to wear armor and use certain weapons. It's a subtle distinction but (I think) an important one...especially as it applies to other subclasses, like the paladin.

You see, back in "the olden days" (D&D is supposed to be a game with a pseudo-ancient setting, yeah?) folks were a lot more limited from an occupational standing. One didn't simply choose a career after college, nor even "enlist in the army" on their 18th birthday. You didn't, upon reaching adulthood, suddenly decide what you were going to do with your life...by the time you were an adult, that decision had already been made years before. Hell, your career training had been going on for years already. You would have been bundled off to the church as soon as it was found you were useless for anything else on the farm or around the manor (in your early teens, if not younger). Professional soldiers, of course, were trained with weapons and armor and horses from the earliest age possible.

[and if you were going to be a thief, you probably started stealing long before you hit puberty]

The idea of the paladin as a subclass of fighters is one that works with this medieval paradigm. You were probably trained to be a warrior first but, then, having a religious epiphany of some sort, decided to chuck the normal bandit-knight route and dedicate yourself to a more spiritual and chivalrous path. The paladin is a fighting-man (or woman) first, not a person who's spent their life learning the hardcore philosophy of their faith, nor (presumably) communicating directly with some deity.

Meanwhile, the cleric has been doing just that...this is, in fact a far better reason to limit the character's selection of weapons: because it's a lot harder to learn how to use a sword or bow or axe correctly (and in a combat situation) than it is to club someone with a mace. You can have a strong right arm and a stout swing with or without a lot of fancy footwork. Becoming a decent archer or sword-slinger takes practice...practice that steals time from the philosophical studies and life of prayer that is, presumably, the Holmesian cleric's life-path.

Other stuff I've written about the cleric (like why clerics are out looting tombs) still applies, even (or especially) to the Holmes version of the class.

NOW...about those druids.

Considering that druids (per Holmes) are a subclass of clerics (remember, this whole thought experiment is one of looking at Holmes as if it was the final stage of the game's evolution), we need to use the cleric as the starting point and then pick a way for the subclass to diverge from the "standard track." Let's see:

A cleric is a human who is devoted to one or more gods. They've been raised to their religion, gaining magical powers because of their devotion (not because of any "special intelligence").

It would seem to me that, for both subclasses (including the monk), the easiest change here is to change the cleric's devotion to something other than "one or more gods." I realize that this means going down the same road I did with witches and illusionists, but at least we'll be starting with a priestly (clerical) base. SO...something like:

• Druids have chosen to dedicate themselves to the gods' greatest creation...the natural world...instead of to a specific deity or pantheon, and
• Monks have chosen to dedicate themselves to the gods' greatest creation...the human mind-body temple...instead of to a specific deity or pantheon.

OKAY, that works without too much cosmology needing to be set in stone. I'm not sure, but I suspect that my druid subclass is going to look a bit different from the dude in leather armor with scimitar and a tiger buddy. But we'll see.

By the way, I'm going to just go ahead and keep the Celtic "druid" title because, A) is it really cultural appropriation if part of my ancestry is Celtic?, and B) it reminds me of Druid's Glen Golf Course back home. No, I don't golf...but if I did, I'd want to golf someplace called "Druid's Glen."

[my friend's brother was married by a druid a few years back. No animals were involved in the ceremony]

All right...that's enough for now.

Ugh...I miss the Pacific Northwest!