Wandering Monsters: Wandering Monster-ception

Rather than talk about monsters, this week’s Wandering Monsters column talks about the qualities of a good encounter, the purpose of random encounters, and asks how—or even if—you use either in your games.

The article states that a great encounter has history, a clear objective, and a meaningful outcome. I guess I can agree with these standards; I do not think that every great encounter has to have all of them, but it probably does not hurt. I would add that a great encounter should also be interesting and fun, which due to varied gamer tastes are harder standards to quantify but likely benefit from the previous factors.

An interesting encounter, to me, is one that goes above and beyond a handful of orcs in a corridor or a goblin ambush on a road. In a lot of earlier-edition combat encounters you pretty much just stood next to a monster and rolled dice until someone fell over. That is not really interesting, especially if the only “consequences” are you having to take a minute to tell the Dungeon Master that you are going back to town for the night.

4th Edition combat encounters are almost always more dynamic than in previous editions, and while I do not think that the game necessarily needs that level of tactical intricacy for every fight—especially not with “trash fights”, which I will get to in a bit—having some way to mix things up would go a long way to making them more engaging. Like, fighting an orc should not be fundamentally the same as an ogre; the ogre should be able to knock the characters around, or even throw them at each other.

Both Dungeon World and Numenera (and other games) solve this pretty easily with moves and complications respectively. In Dungeon World if a character rolls within a certain range the GM can just respond with a narratively appropriate move. No back and forth, no hard mechanics, it just happens. In Numenera the GM can impose a complication in exchange for a few points of XP, or at any time a character rolls a natural 1.

These sorts of complications can also be derived from the environment; a character or enemy could get knocked into a fire pit, trampled by a horse, slip on some rubble, stuck in a bog, entangled in vines, have their axe get stuck in a door, thrown through a window, blasted by steam, and so on. The point is that these elements can really liven up an encounter, and they do not need to be incredibly complicated or require numerous dice rolls.

Another thing that makes for a great encounter is purpose. I cannot think of a book or movie where the characters go into a room, beat up some henchmen, go into another room, beat up some more, then go into yet another room and beat up even more because that sounds incredibly boring. I have played a lot of action games and some of the worse parts are when you just fight waves of faceless, unnamed enemies. Yeah, it can be fun now and then, but eventually it gets to a point where I just want it to end.

In Dungeons & Dragons these are trash fights. They are just there to pad out the adventure or get the characters some more XP, because for some reason Dungeons & Dragons is using a XP system analogous to console games and extra lives. Seriously, 4th Edition became so, so much more fun when I stopped tracking XP and leveled up the characters when I felt it was appropriate. It also made it a lot easier to plan and pace the game when I did not have to worry about cramming 10+ encounters into a single adventure.

I am not saying to ditch XP altogether—though that is perfectly viable and should at least be a supported option—but there are plenty of games out there with far, far better systems for tracking character advancement.

Speaking of things that could stand to be ditched, how about random encounters? Some argue that they convey a sense of “realism” or emphasize how the game does not just revolve around the characters and their actions (though it can and often does). I disagree with this because there are other, better ways to demonstrate that an imaginary world featuring dragons, elves, and a nonsensical magic system keeps turning when you are not paying attention:

• A history, even a brief or implied one.
• A world map, or even mentioning locations that exist beyond the confines of a local map.
• NPCs with personalities, motivations, and goals.
• Actions with far-reaching rewards and/or consequences.
• Events that occur outside their immediate sphere of influence.

To me any one of these adds more realism to a fantasy world than running into a brown bear in a forest ever could.

A more baffling claim is that without them you might as well just be pushing your players through a script. Like, if you decide ahead of time that your players run into 2d6 + 1 wolves instead of 10d10 bats (or worse, decide the number of wolves and bats ahead of time) instead of deferring to a table that they have no capacity for choice, and that you might as well just back up your books and go write a novel.

By that logic why have a Dungeon Master determine anything? WotC could just make a big book with thousands of tables for you to work through in order to generate a world, history, dominant races, cosmology, gods, etc. You could even take it a step further and just have players roll on tables to determine their race, class, skill selection, and, why not, actions taken during the game.

I think that random encounters are largely a waste of time. In some cases they might be useful, but most of the time like older-edition traps they end up being a cheap way to try and shoehorn tension and urgency into the game. If the characters are trekking through a forest trying to find a ruin, unless I think of something interesting for them to deal with on the way I am probably just going to tell them that they get to their destination after x days.

I might have them make skill checks to reduce the time if I think that supplies are even an issue (which thanks to magic in some editions it is usually not), but I do not see a point in rolling to see if they run into something, especially when there is only about a 15% chance of that happening at all, the encounter is not even relevant, and any hit to resources can just be slept off. I actually did use random encounters for about the first half of my Epiro campaign, but they so rarely came up that I decided to just start pre-planning encounters.

That is actually the closest I get to random encounters; I write encounter “cliff notes” that I keep on tap as a fall back in case the players do something expected, I think of a good spot to add them, or if there is just enough time to include them. My group only gets a handful of hours each week to get together and game, so I try to make sure that they are getting the most bang for their time, and random encounters-as-written just have a horrible return on investment.

In the end I think that great encounters should be entertaining, have a meaningful outcome (by which I mean contribute to more than the XP grind or exist just to pad out an adventure’s length), and do not always have to be immediately related to the adventure, though it certainly helps. I get that not every encounter is going to be great, but most should at least be good, and making them random is probably not going to contribute to the fun-factor. I also think that both the older XP and random encounter conventions should be thrown out.

So, what do you think makes a great encounter? Do you think that the game still needs random encounters, or players to track thousands of XP for character advancement?

Wandering Monsters: Riddle of the Sphinx

This is admittedly not a bad start for sphinx flavor and lore. Mind you it still needs some adjustments, but it is much better than many of the previous Wandering Monsters columns. First, the good.

Despite kind of treading on the angel’s concept, I do not mind the divine origin: they look different, are more grounded in the natural world, and not every god has to have angels on tap. I really like the description of various tests, from withstanding an androsphinx’s roar, to escaping a gynosphinx’s imagination zone, to fighting against a grossly unfair friend-to-foe ratio. This not only makes it easy to use them, but allows you to use them in some really inventive and memorable ways.

And now the bad, or at least the parts that I disagree with.

Being created by divine power is fine. I have nothing wrong with gods making things, especially since they are, ya know, gods. What I am less keen on is making them transformed priests and monarchs. Having to sit in one place for who knows how long just to test people would quickly become tiresome to someone with a human’s (or human-like) mind, and I cannot think of many faithful that would be doing divine backflips over the prospect of being told that, in exchange for a life of devotion and service, to stay in one spot, repeat the same test over and over for anyone that happens to drop by, and kill them if they fail.

Given a lack of mortal needs, and to a point capabilities, I see no reason to assume that they think like humans, or even mortals in general. Why would they shirk their duties? They apparently were not created with the need to eat or sleep, so why would you give them the ability become bored? I liken this to Eberron angels and demons, who are eternally locked in a never ending symbolic war against each other. They do not get bored of the fight because they are not capable of becoming bored, or even realizing the futility of it all; it is an intrinsic part of their nature.

This is a reason why I am largely against “free-range” sphinxes (or glorified hippogriffs), but I guess if I had to include them I would have them serve dead or forgotten gods. I mean they do not need to eat or sleep, so what else are they going to do with their eternity?

Another issue are the types of sphinxes. Yes, 2nd and 3rd Edition had a variety of sphinxes with random heads, capabilities, and alignments, but I am going to do something unprecedented and suggest a break from tradition: instead of establishing a quartet of sphinxes, each with a specific appearance and suite of capabilities just so you can introduce more down the road in the Next Desert Supplement, why not get rid of sphinx presets entirely and…wait for it…give us a toolbox of sphinx parts, powers, and tests?

There are a lot of gods. They have their own portfolios, and many have an animal associated with them: Ares has his boars, Horus has falcons, and so on. So while some might go with the standard male-lion package, a female god of war might want a female-lion, or even female-wolf, to test someone’s valor. What about a god that creates a kind of skeletal, bat-winged sphinx that tests fear? I get that yeah, you can homebrew your own sphinxes and change the flavor, but I think it would be a lot better if they made things more inclusive and easier from the start, instead of doing what anyone can do and swap faces and spell-like abilities.

Speaking of spell-like abilities, given the lists that some of them had in 3rd Edition I am surprised that they each seem to only have one defining trait. 4th Edition proved that you can have quality over quantity (both in terms of spells and monsters), so hopefully they do something unique and interesting instead of just referring you to the spell chapter in the Player’s Handbook.

What I am also hoping is that if an androsphinx decides to test your valor by having you withstand its roar, or you have to escape from a gynosphinxes maze-effect that it boils down to more than just making a saving throw and calling it good. Really the other, more complex tests are the best part of the article, so rather than directing us to a dimensional pocket spell, or citing hard rules and restrictions for building extraplanar testing grounds, it would be nice if all we got were some examples and advice on making a fun, memorable encounter.

Like, if the sphinx wants to test your endurance by forcing you to climb a cliff in a storm, maybe even while fighting off flying monsters, it should not need to have control weather, summon monster y, and, I dunno, greater conjure cliffs; it can just do all of those things because that is what you need it to do. So that is where I stand. Make them somewhat alien in their thoughts and mannerisms, give them unique capabilities that not just any mid- to high-level wizard can do in a couple six seconds, and give us the tools to customize them on a god-by-god, test-by-test basis.

D&D Next: Miss-conceptions

Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding in two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two-handed benefit or versatile property to gain this benefit.
–Classes, pg 25

Now that is a very clunky read, but given that part of D&D Next‘s design philosophy is restructuring the format so that you have to sift through walls of text to get the necessary details I am not really surprised.

A much easier, yet just as clear way to write it could be:

When you miss a target while wielding a two-handed or versatile melee weapon in two hands, the weapon deals damage to the target equal to your Strength modifier.

(EDITED: There ya go Svafa and Justin.)

Same results at half the text. You are welcome. The only other thing I might change is so that the fighter has to at least roll a 10+, or take a page from 13th Age and make it work on an even/odd die result. 4th Edition had reaping strike, which also did damage on a miss, and that never bothered me or upset the game in the slightest…so of course some people are really upset about it. At least when it pertains to non-magical miss damage because, you know, non-magical.

Personally I do not get it. Dungeons & Dragons has always had, to put it lightly, very abstract rules. Take hit points for example: they represent a combination of your physical fortitude, combat aptitude, luck, mental resolve, “plot armor”, etc. Where some games give you a physical and mental pool to individually track, Dungeons & Dragons kind of lumps it all up together. Certainly it is easier to manage, but then you run into the problem of how cure light wounds restores damage if you are not even wounded.

So why take umbrage with damage on a miss?

Some think that a miss should just be a miss. While this might make sense it discards the fact that a miss has really never meant that the attack failed to connect at all, unless for some reason you believe that wearing plate armor and packing a tower shield makes you somehow better at dodging. Especially for characters without a Dexterity bonus or, worse yet, a penalty, misses more often than not mean that you did get hit, but it just failed to inflict any appreciable damage.

You can see another example of this in Next by taking a look at the barbarian class: one class feature lets you add your Constitution modifier to your Armor Class so long as you are not wearing any armor at all. So what does that mean? Is the barbarian somehow better at dodging because she is incredibly tough? No, it means that she is so tough that she is able to ignore minor wounds, ie “misses”.

Another claim is simulation. As in they do not like the idea of a character that can never miss. This kind of plays upon the previous point, but there the fact that Dungeons & Dragons is not only horrible when it comes to simulation, and hit points do not, and never have universally represented physical trauma. A fighter that takes that feature is not always hitting things. Rather her blows hammer shields so hard that it rattles her foe, or her swings force them to exert themselves trying to keep out of the way, or maybe she is just be scary as fuck swinging a giant axe.

The thing is that what hit points mean has always been dependent on context. If you are attacking an orc then to a point they represent varying degrees of exertion, combat prowess, and physical damage. If you are attacking a goblin then they are likely more representative of prowess, luck, and resolve than anything else. It is when you get into to stuff like mindless undead, elementals, or big, tough monsters that making them represent “meat” points is probably going to be more appropriate.

Here is another exercise in context: if a giant throws a rock at you and hits, do you interpret it that the rock actually struck your character? No, you would be crushed. Even if it was just a glancing blow you would at least have broken bones, something more than some damage that not only affects you in no way, but that you can walk off in a day or so. Same thing for a dragon: do you honestly think any living person would survived getting blasted by fire, or taking the brunt of a multiattack routine?

Now a huge factor is magic. For the longest time Dungeons & Dragons often two different task resolution systems for swords and sorcery (some of the time, anyway), and for some the only way for magic to seem magical is if it continues to use different rules or even ignore them entirely. Why? I have no idea: Mage: The Ascension, FATE, Numenera, 13th Age, Dungeon World, Shadowrun, and 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons all resolve tasks the same way, and I do not hear anyone making the argument that magic in those games does not seem…magical enough.

Another major trend for spells? Half damage on a miss. Not all spells do this, mind you, but enough to where people seem to get hung up and think that it should be the purview of magic for no discernible reason other than “this is how it worked before”. Some argue that it “makes sense” for area-effect spells like fireball, because you have to dodge so much–ignoring the fact that you can still somehow take half damage even in a small pit–but then is it really that much of a stretch to allow a fighter with a specific ability to force one enemy to have to “dodge so much” with a big weapon?

Finally the last argument that I found was that–despite Dungeons & Dragons have a lot of exception-based design–allowing fighters to (not really) “hit” on a “miss” will somehow onfuse players. The d20 system is built around the simple idea that you roll a d20, add some modifiers, and try to beat a number to determine success; if anything were to violate that universal truth? Well…probably nothing, because again there are already many rules exceptions built into the game:

• Elves cannot be put to sleep.
• Uncanny Dodge causing you to take no damage on a successful Dexterity save.
• Magic missile deals automatic damage (except in 4th Edition, for awhile anyway).
• Melf’s acid arrow deals half damage on a miss despite being single target spell.
• Alert prevents you from being surprised, ever.
• Mobile prevents you from taking opportunity attacks against the target you attack.
• Polearm Master allows you to make opportunity attacks against creatures that enter your reach.
• Stealthy allows you to hide when only lightly obscured.
• Goblins can hide at the end of their turn without spending an action.

There are more I am sure, but you get the idea.

So maybe people are opposed to this because they for some reason think that 4th Edition is the worst thing to happen to the game, ever. Maybe they dislike it because it was not in previous editions. Maybe despite all the other rules exceptions, abstract nature of hit points, and other reasonable explanations they do not understand it, or do not want to understand it. Ultimately it is just one ability that–fighter players have to consciously choose, mind you–is guaranteed to inflict a trivial amount of damage on a miss. It is not going to ruin encounters, or break the game.

Legends & Lore: Warlock Design

Given that the warlock is one of my favorite classes in Dungeons & Dragons of all time, it is comforting that at least this time I only see potential issues in today’s Legends & Lore.

I never played a warlock in 3rd Edition. It seemed like a two-trick pseudo-sorcerer that was created as a mechanical experiment to see if it would be possible to permit a character to cast a couple of spells whenever they wanted to. Of course given that magic does not have to let you circumvent the rules of the game the answer is yes, it was just a fairly lackluster execution.

4th Edition made them into a distinct, interesting concept: unlike wizards, who study magic, and sorcerers, who have magic in their blood, warlocks bargain for it. It also provided a variety of pacts to choose from; infernal, fey, star, and eventually vestige and gloom. Each pact had a separate benefit associated with it, and while you were not forced or limited to your spell selection, many received additional benefits if you had a specific pact. Plus there were also numerous feats and paragon paths to choose from, too.

For now Next‘s warlock will retain 4th Edition’s flavor, in which you choose a patron that gives you access to power in exchange for something else or ongoing “employment”. It would be nice to see the patron as a more involved force, but this will do for now. I am also liking the three types of suggested pacts: blade (4th Edition’s hexblade subclass), book (more spells than the rest), and chain (summoning/binding planar critters). They sound pretty evocative and diverse, as do some of the other things mentioned (summoned minion serving as a magical conduit), so what could go wrong?

Well, at least four things.

The first is execution. Summoning a weapon and casting spells is the easy part, it is summoning monsters and bossing them around that might cause issues. In 3rd Edition you could summon an army of monsters and basically play your own party, while 4th Edition made it so that it either cost you actions to command your “pets”, or gave them instinctive actions that they would do on their own if not told otherwise. While this might sound good in theory (hey, free action), this could include a giant spider munching down on whoever was unfortunate to be the closest at the time.

The second is patrons. The article only refers to the patron in regards to the book pact. The 4th Edition hexblade had access to a weapon thematic to your pact, and I think that summoning monsters could certainly benefit from a patron’s type (devils for infernal, tentacled horrors for star, etc). I am hoping that these two pacts are not relegated to “vanilla” capabilities, especially since 4th Edition pretty much does the work for them.

Then we have the pacts themselves. I know I said that they sound neat and distinct, but I am guessing that this means WotC will lazily construct three subclass packages with a handful of needlessly divided features, forcing you to isolate yourself to one category early on in your career. It would be great to see a talent tree structure that lets you customize your character as you progress instead of locking you in, but given all the limitations we have seen so far I am not holding my breath.

Finally, magic. Warlocks started out with all at-will magic, then they followed 4th Edition’s mostly unified power structure. I mostly-liked the warlock’s mechanics in the previous packets, but would not be surprised if they just give them daily spells limited by your patron. What I would love to see is if they actually sit down, think about how warlock magic works, and create mechanics that support that explanation.

If I were in charge, here is how I would do it:

• Your patron provides access to thematically appropriate spells and other features. It makes sense for a patron to only be able to dole out magic appropriate to its own capabilities.
• Each warlock starts with eldritch blast, flavored as a burst of raw, magical energy. They might look different and have different effects based on pact (like fire for infernal). 
• You would also start with access to a thematic spell or two, which would be usable at-will or burn some sort of point mechanic, flavored as the warlock’s body “burning out”. You could perform a ritual to get in touch with your patron to swap them.
• You would get a choice as to how to specialize your character at the start: if you choose blade, you can summon a weapon, book gets you another spell, while chain lets you conjure things. Each time you level you get to purchase a new talent, upgrade an older one, etc.
• You have a “sign” that starts small, but gets more obvious as you level up, potentially revealing your allegiance at a glance.
• You can contact your patron to ask questions or for favors. You might have to exchange something or do something later on, but the character is an investment after all.

With this players get to choose how they progress, and can determine their complexity as they go. None of that “per-day” leveled magic, forcing you to stick with a subclass, or barring off other options for no good reason.

Wandering Monsters: Trite Trickery

Wandering Monsters takes a break from monsters this week to talk about what exploration means and various dungeon “tricks”.

Starting things on a positive note, I actually agree with the definition of what exploration is, as well as the bullet list of activities (which could be broken up into travel, problem-solving, and investigation). The only thing I would add is that more than just a category of things that can occur in the game, I think it is also important for adventure pacing.

>In other words it is not only the glue that holds your encounters together, but it is also the padding that keeps the game session from being an endless
sequence of fights and dialogue.

Kind of like how meat binders keep every bite from being cheap meat.

Where I start to disagree is when it mentions how you will “more often” rely on your wits while interacting with the Dungeon Master.

I have never liked this disparity, where it is for some reason okay to roll your Strength to scale a wall or Dexterity to balance across a narrow beam, but not when you want to use Intelligence to solve a puzzle or Charisma to fast talk your way past a guard. That is kind of the point of playing a game where you allegedly can pretend to be whatever you want, so why potentially close those doors to characters who might not be as intelligent or witty (or conversely, benefit a player who is smarter or witter than her character)?

Like pseudo-Vancian magic I cannot remember any bit of fiction where the main character sits around and fiddles with levels for awhile before continuing on with actual the story. It might amuse some Dungeon Masters to grind the game to halt for an hour or so while the players poke and push statues trying to intuit the correct combination of actions required to get on with the fun parts of the game, but that probably means that they are either bad or inexperienced. In either case advice in the DMG on how to avoid that sort of thing could be helpful.

It would also be nice if there at least guidelines, optional ones even, that inform you how a character’s mental and social strengths can help them overcome those sorts of challenges. If nothing else, I would at least like a system where characters can make ability score checks in order to gain hints. If puzzles are worth XP, then you could reduce or even waive the reward entirely if the group decides to make a check to bypass it. It would still not be equal, but at least it help prevent players from getting stuck at puzzles that their characters should not be.

When it comes to tricks I have never really maintained an “arsenal”, at least not like the fountain described in the article, which just comes across as confusing and random. I get that there is a lack of context, but the first thing that comes to my mind when I read the description is not interest or excitement, but why. Why everything. Why is it there? Why would someone go through the effort of constructing an elaborate fountain, enchant a gargoyle to ask a riddle and spray you with acid if you fail, and also enchant a nymph statue to clue you in on some treasure?

It just seems like the kind of thing that would take a long time to construct, enchant, and program, and for what purpose or payoff? To randomly spray explorers with acid, or reward them for answering a riddle? Seems kind of extreme in either case, and not the kind of thing that I would expect a wizard to do, or even something that someone would pay a wizard to do. All it does for me is pull me out of the narrative, and remind me that this is just a game, with a dungeon specifically designed to be explored and conquered.

If I had to describe my arsenal, it would be more like how you write and use Fronts, Dungeon Moves, and Custom Moves in Dungeon World; a list of contextually appropriate events–which can include bits of dungeon dressing, traps, monsters, and effects specific to the dungeon environment–and locations to draw inspiration from, add to the game session if I have the time (or remind me of stuff to use later), and fall back on if the characters go off the rails or do something else unexpected.

Barring specific circumstances I do not see myself using any of the map-muddling tricks, at least not with the express intent to “foil” the characters’ mapping endeavors. In that regard they seem cheap and silly, and like the fountain drag me right back into reality. I have heard of dungeons where if the characters step in a circle–or even an unmarked area–and it teleports them into some ridiculous death trap, or pit trap filled with oozes that closes after you fall in. I do not understand the draw of randomly killing characters, and like map tricks consider them equally cheap and silly.

I am fine with trick categories. Not sure if they are needed, but can see the use of having things better organized for reference so that if I am looking for the obstacles I know where to look.

What surprises me is that the author is bold enough to even suggest that traps as depicted in older editions might not be necessarily good for the game. I do not remember how traps worked in 2nd Edition, but in 3rd Edition it used to be that if you found one and disarmed it you got XP. If you found it and failed to disarm it by a certain margin, or just blundered into it without noticing then it triggered, and the effects varied depending on if it was a dart trap, pit trap, teleporting trap, etc.

The point is that what they were usually for was just a way to deal a bit of random damage before being forgotten. I called this underwhelming method “nut-punching traps”, and like save-or-die effects they are not good for the game, but a way for the lazy DM to try and peddle tension and danger. I find 4th Edition’s way of utilizing them much more engaging because it is advised that you use them with other encounters, and almost everyone in the party can help deal with them; it does not just fall to the rogue and a single die roll.

In regards to the three pillars the only thing I would change is to add traps and hazards to the combat pillar, too, as in 4th Edition the more memorable traps were those that were so elaborate that the entire party had to deal with them, or just a piece of the bigger picture.

Wandering Monsters: Demonic Doldrums

You know I cannot think of a single column of Wanderings Monsters that I have liked, or at least not one that I have regarded in a mostly favorable light. I read them, wonder why they would try pitching something so bland, confusing, uninspired, and/or that panders to previous editions for no discernible reason, and just hope that the final draft is much, much better.

Frankly I think that the flavor I cook up as a reaction to these articles is better, and I am not a professional in this industry by any stretch. Not only have these guys been in the business for years, but they have a whole team working on it, so why are the results almost always so…bleh?

Part of the problem with summoning magic is the same problem that has plagued magic in general: it is too safe and predictable (and makes no sense).

Trying to summon something from the Nine Hells or Elemental Chaos could be a big deal–it depends on what you are going for–but really never is: just wait until you get to a certain level, take a certain spell, and voila; you will always be able to reliably summon the same creature in a couple seconds, it will always listen to you barring some specific corner-case ability or effect, and once the duration elapses it will disappear whence it came (again, barring some corner-case ability or effect).

I think that how summoning magic works should vary from class to class, and if I were in charge of design wizards would unfortunately get shafted because I see them needing to spend more time than most drawing a circle, preparing ritual components, tearing open the planar fabric so that they can either attract or draw a demon through, then either bargaining with or imposing their will upon it.

How long it takes and how hard it is to get the demon to do what you want would vary by the strength of the demon. It should be easy even for a relatively green wizard to conjure up and boss around a dretch, while a babau is going to take some convincing. I would also give a bonus for taking extra time, using exceptional materials, being skilled in certain schools of magic (like abjuration), or having people helping you out.

Conversely you could eschew these things or cut corners, but then you would take a penalty to conjuring and/or containment. If classes and subclasses were flexible and not small preset bundles then you could introduce features that made you better at it, granting bonuses so that you could take shortcuts while still retaining some measure of reliability. Of course if you could still go through the motions anyway, making it do more or getting something even better.

On the topic of sacrifices, I really do not like the notion that you have to give a demon something. For low-level lackeys it might be necessary, but what about a powerful conjurer who knows truenames and has plenty of experience bending reality? Is forcing a demon to obey her through sheer force of will any different than unleashing bolts of force, reducing a giant to a toad, controlling someone’s mind, or crossing vast distances in the blink of an eye?

In my system sacrifices would not be mandatory, but could still be used to sweeten the deal (as could places of power and certain events). This is where you get groups of cultists all working together to get a powerful demon to do their bidding, often in a corrupted temple, possibly during an eclipse or at dusk, but a particularly skilled and powerful conjurer could still do it by herself sans offerings.

Finally I do not think that demon summoners and the act of summoning demons should be an intrinsically evil act. Most people probably do it for less than altruistic reasons, but you could still have exceptions, and I think that leaving those options open makes it easier on storytelling. Kind of like how some people think that all necromancy no matter what should be evil, but then you get “official” good-aligned totally-not-undead undead in Eberron. Just do us a favor and let us decide what, if anything, has to be absolutely evil.

Well that went on quite a bit longer than expected, so let us move on to gnolls.

The backstory for gnolls is that Yeenoghu gets summoned into the world, kills the people that summoned him for absolutely no reason, destroys a bunch of stuff, kills a bunch of people, and maybe gets beaten up by a halfling god. Some of the demonic hyenas get left behind and for some reason ignored, growing up to become gnolls. Also they somehow spread to other “known worlds” in the Dungeons & Dragons multiverse, because I guess Spelljammer was right all along.

Awhile back I mentioned that it is not always necessary to explain a monster’s origins, and if this is the alternative I would rather have not known.

Gnolls could be a race of hyena-like humanoids that dwell in ruined cities or gather around ancient, bloody shrines dedicated to some sinister hyena god. If anyone gets too close they just kill and eat them, so no one has learned much about them, and after while I would hazard a guess that no one wants to. They would not necessarily be evil, just territorial, but still work as antagonists for basic dungeon- or hexcrawling. Simple and straightforward.

Now if you want them to all be evil you can do that too, in a much more interesting, visible way. What if gnolls ventured forth from their ruined cities to pillage, destroy, and capture prisoners. They eat some, but not all, forcing them to fight each other for survival in bloody arenas surrounded by grinning obelisks, watched over by demonic gnoll rulers. Unfortunately the “winners” of these bloody, brutal contests, those willing to do whatever it takes to survive, are transformed into gnolls. Think the Firefly episode Bushwhacked, just a much more overt physical change.

Not working for you? How about hyena-like demons that possess humans and transform them into gnolls? The gnolls gather the necessary sacrifices, open a gate to the abyss, and allow them to possess mortals. This way you get evil gnolls that you can kill without having to think about it too much, and even better you could mix up cults of Yeenoghu with hyena-like demons, gnolls, and un-transformed humans. Think about an isolated village where humans secretly eat travelers, wield flails or claw bracers, and are lead by gnolls.

Of course nothing says gnolls have to be evil. They might be strange looking, territorial, and worship one or more strange hyena gods (some good, some evil), but otherwise have a culture, history, and varying personalities and goals. This is what I would do in a campaign setting where I wanted to allow gnolls as characters.

I do not even know what to say about Orcus‘s story. It takes place in Forgotten Realms, which has become the Naruto of campaign settings because it will never end. Actually given that it just keeps getting changed over and over with each edition despite no one doing anything remotely interesting with it, a more appropriate comparison might be Nintendo, who refuses to invent new heroes within their existing properties and just continues to keep recycling everything, sometimes adding a new gimmick.

I would like to see an Orcus backstory divorced from a specific setting, or that at least takes place in an interesting one.

Legends & Lore: Medusa? More Like Medon’tsa

One thing that I have been critical of with Next, aside from virtually everything involving mechanics, is the flavor, which I guess means pretty much everything. Normally it is the Wandering Monsters column that tries to pitch confusing, contradictory, and/or boring backstories, but today Legends & Lore takes over with the medusa.

The Greek Medusa was a beautiful woman who was cursed by Athena for the “crime” of being raped in one of her temples by another god. Her hair was transformed into snakes, her gaze turned anyone that saw it to stone (no save), and in at least one version of the story she is eventually beheaded by Perseus.

In both 2nd and 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons the medusa is by default not a unique creature, but a female-only race that mates with humanoid males to produce offspring. Unless you count their save-or-die gaze attack (which I do not) there is nothing interesting about them: they are hateful, live in caves, and depending on the Dungeon Master utilizing them might inexplicably leave statues around to make sure adventuring parties know exactly what to expect.

4th Edition kept them as a race but provided several unconfirmed origin stories; cursed elven worshippers of Zehir, a yaun-ti slave race created from mingling other yaun-ti and basilisks, or humans or dragonborn corrupted by Zehir. There is also a bit of flavor content tying them with yaun-ti, which makes sense what with all the mention of Zehir. As an added bonus they get some actually decent combat mechanics.

You have got the gamut of evil monster that pretty much lives in caves and exists to be killed, and a variety of stories to pick, modify, combine, and/or ignore, so what does Next do with all of this flavor content?

Since the backstory of an ugly humanoid monster that is always evil was not compelling enough, they decided to add more depth by having them be created from a curse. That is actually surprising in a good way, since it is not only not just what was done before, but it also sounds a lot better than a snake-haired woman that dupes men into heading back to her cave.

Really the only problem is that the curse makes absolutely no sense at all:

“Medusas are created by a curse whereby a human trades a decade of great beauty and personal magnetism for an eternity of a visage so wretched that it turns onlookers to stone.”

I guess that this was the best that they could come up with? What is surprising in a bad way is that more than a few of the comments on the page think that this is in anyway interesting or even reasonable. Ten years of beauty for an eternity of snakes and murder-eyes? How does it work? Do you pray to a god of horrible bargains? What does the being that fulfills these curses have to gain? Why is the curse and period of time so oddly specific? Like, what if I just need a few points of Charisma? Where do snakes fit into the whole theme?

You know what makes more sense and still retains everything good about the concept? Having the curse be levied by the gods as punishment for vanity. I am not even necessarily talking about those that dare to compare themselves (or be unfortunately compared to) to a god of beauty, though that is certainly an obvious use. Anyone that is excessively vain could be a potential target, particularly those that use their looks to deceive people, which plays with the snake theme.

With this origin they can still be in positions of power, especially if they were rich beforehand), but whether the curse is placed on bad people that deserve it or innocent people unaware of the ramifications of their boasts (or the boasts of others), it will help rationalize their hatred and possibly make them sympathetic villains.

Wandering Monsers: The Little Guys

When and how do you use kobolds and goblins?

For the most part I agree with the article when it comes to the bulleted basic elements, though I would expand the list to include a draconic heritage and sorcerer elements for kobolds, and goblins lairing in the wilderness (not necessarily just in caves or ruins). If a setting associates goblins with fey (or just makes them fey), then I would also make them adept at illusion or “shadow” magic to further differentiate them from kobolds.

“I’ve got a case of kobolds.”
I really do not like the idea of an innkeeper comparing kobolds to rats. If kobolds manage to tunnel into a cellar and start raiding your food stores that is nothing to shrug at, while waiting for two copper-piece adventurers to show up and tackle. After all rats are not going to prepare traps and ambushes for anyone that comes after them, nor will they sneak into your home at night and eat your face off.

Most of the time.

I am also not too keen on the comic relief angle; if anything having goblins be the violent product of excessive abuse seems more tragic than anything else.

While I do not deliberately play them up as comedic, natural 1’s happen and I do not mind having them trip up, hit someone else, or cause something to explode. However I extend that possibility to every monster, as well as across the screen. It just depends on what you were trying to do and what is going on. Making this a trope for either just unnecessarily downplays the threat they pose.

The example of goblins trussing up a farmer and pelting him with apples is both confusing and pretty tame, especially for a monster that is also evil. It almost sounds like something George Lucas would do if he were to rewrite an adventure module, right up there with naming the bad guy Count Grimevildark and having the skeletons say ow as the characters bash them to pieces.

No, the goblins do not dress up a farmer like a hobgoblin and bully him; they use him for target practice, carve patterns into his flesh, or subject him to a variety of other goblin “games” before he eventually dies. When his body is discovered the characters are more likely to see a grim reminder of the destruction they can inflict, than they are to shake their fist at the sky and proclaim, “Oooh, those blasted goblins are at it again!”

I am fine with goblins riding wolves. It gives them something else to team up with and add variety to encounters, though I think it would also be cool for them to also ride Medium-sized spiders, bats, rats, and similar creatures.

Or rat creatures.

Kobolds should also have mounts, like dire weasels, giant lizards, or felldrakes. What about kobolds on a rage drake howdah?

The classic/traditional goblin and kobold gods are alright. Nothing to write home about, but I think there is the start of something interesting. James mentions that not every setting will feature them, and I think that rather than try to cram in some cliff notes in the monster entries it would be better to relegate them to specific settings where they can be properly fleshed out.

Ultimately a lot of the defining features are fine, but both creatures need more depth beyond being evil for evil’s sake (without a compelling reason), living underground, and just existing to be killed. I do not think that goblins should exist to be bullied, and neither deserves to be the assumed butt of jokes.

D&D Next: Wild Shape & Oaths

This for realsies last last playtest packet updates the druid’s Wild Shape and adds a new paladin oath, the Oath of Vengeance.

Wild Shape
You cannot do this at all until 2nd-level, but you can now do it once between short and long rests. At 8th-level you can use it twice between rests. There are many forms available at the start, including flying critters and a horse. The time limit is one-half your level in hours. Finally, Circle of the Moon grants access to more dangerous animals like dire wolves, tigers, and cave bears (oh my).

I still do not like it.

Shocking, I know.

You cannot change your shape at all until 2nd-level. Why? Wild Shape is a very unique and iconic class feature for the druid, so why make them wait while barbarians can still rage, monks can flurry, and rogues can sneak attack? Would it really unbalance anything to allow players access all of one level sooner?

The forms are also not made equally: unless you have a major need for Speed, owls are better than hawks, and anything weasels can do, cats can do better (at least until they inevitably start adding more animal forms in splatbooks). Why make each animal its own statblock? All you are doing is downplaying certain animals when they are not rendered obsolete. You could just as easily make thematic benefit packages for a druid to choose from, and let them determine what form they take.

EDIT: I am also opposed to the inclusion of animal statblocks with only slight mechanical variation. The time and space could be better devoted than giving us numerous blocks for cats, dogs, birds, and other critters that probably will only end up having differing skill bonuses, maybe a movement mode or special sense.

Again I am voicing my dislike of Druid Circles (and the whole paths thing in general). With the current system if I choose Circle of the Land then I irrevocably cut off access to “battle forms” for the rest of the campaign, even if I want to delve into them later. There is no reason why characters cannot make more choices, opting into certain concepts down the road if it suits them. The current model is just…lazy.

ANOTHER EDIT: The fact that forms do not scale is another problem. What if I want to make a druid of, say, a wolf clan? Right now I have to wait until 2nd-level before I can turn into a dire wolf, and…that is it. There are no other wolf forms beyond 2nd-level. If forms were based on your level you would not only not have to wait until you could become a triceratops, but if you wanted to stick around as a wolf it would still be viable.

Also, it would be cool if druids could pick up form-based “maneuvers”.

Oath of Vengeance
You gain access to a set of oath spells, including the very unpaladin-sounding misty step (short-range teleport). One Channel Divinity option lets you frighten a creature (with a bonus against fiends and undead despite undead being largely immune to fear), while the other lets you gain attack advantage against a creature that hits you or something else.

At higher levels you can move after making an opportunity attack against a creature affected by your oath, make an attack against a creature affected by your oath before they attack (assuming they are in range), and eventually transform into a angel with flight and a fear aura.

The flavor behind the oath of vengeance makes it sound like something that a paladin swears once they hear of something bad going down, and that once they handle said bad thing that they are free to swear another kind of oath. Of course oaths are just another path that you lock in at 3rd-level, so once you pick divine Batman from the list you are stuck with it for no discernible reason except that it is how 3rd Edition handled character advancement.

Being able to swear oaths and gain benefits from them would actually make paladins more interesting and diverse from clerics (or fighter/clerics). Dungeon World lets you do something similar: you gain benefits when undertaking a quest, and once you wrap it up you can gain new ones the next time around. In this instance oaths could be thematic packages to choose from, or the Dungeon Master could assign appropriate bonuses from a list.

Legends & Lore: Mildshape

One of the druid’s most iconic features is wildshape.

In 3rd Edition you had to wait until 5th-level before you could change your form into a Small or Medium animal just once per day. As you leveled up you could change more times in a daily period, and you gained access to more size categories and creature types. The only limitation was that the form’s Hit Dice could not exceed the druid’s level, which was not much of a limitation when you could still, say, change into a dinosaur capable of charging while still making multiple poisonous attacks.

A level before the fighter could make her second attack.

Assuming she does not take more than a 5-foot step.

Not eclipsing the fighter–or really any other class–as a melee combatant based on one choice is one of several reasons why 4th Edition’s take on the druid is by far my favorite, but what makes it really interesting is how dynamic it is. Unlike other classes a druid’s evocations require her to be either in a human or beast form, which you can change at-will from the start. This allows you to change up tactics on the fly: do you stand back and blast enemies from a distance, or do you get close and personal with your beast form? Daily evocations could grant you more bonuses, and there are even feats that get in on that form-based action.

The only drawback is that you are limited to Small or Medium size critters, and you do not gain any special features or movement modes. I mean, you could change into a Medium-sized bird, you just cannot fly. To do that you have to choose special evocations, which are generally limited to a per-day basis. I also recall that you could not manipulate objects in those forms, even if you changed into something like a monkey. This was an instance where I feel that they erred way too far on the side of game balance.

Currently 5th Edition’s stab at wildshape is that aside from your mental ability scores, you replace your stat block with that of the creature you change into. I guess each form will have its own hit points, and when those run out you automatically revert back. I do not mind any of this in concept. I think that just swapping out stat blocks streamlines the process while hopefully preventing 3rd Edition’s abusive forms (though I think 4th Edition made it much simpler by just enabling beast form evocations, assuming you took any).

The problem is that wildshape has per-day uses (makes no sense) and that the forms are limited by what the designers feel you should be able to change into, meaning that there is no customization: at 1st-level you get hound, at 5th-level you get steed, etc. I know that there will apparently be a menu to choose from, but I am guessing it will just be more of the same, which is boring and restrictive.

See, aside from re-skinnable daily evocations 4th Edition allowed you to determine what you were changing into, and even let you determine for the most part how much you cared about wildshape through evocation and feat choice. If you want to get in touch with your wild side, take beast form powers and load up on feats that give you benefits in beast form. Feel like wildshape is for the birds? Well you still have to take all of one beast form at will, but otherwise you are free to cultivate your nature magic.

I think druids should be able to not only choose whether they can wildshape at all, but do so whenever they please. I think it would also make sense to limit them based on terrain and/or season (kind of like how Dungeon World does it). You could let the druid determine what she changes into based on these parameters, as well as size and type (which are expanded upon via wildshape class feature selection).

Wildshape benefits could just be a package deal depending on if you are going with a combat/predator or exploration/prey form. Predator forms would make you tougher, stronger, faster, etc, while prey forms would make you faster, harder to hit, and give you skill bonuses. Druids could also have access to something like fighter maneuvers, they just need to be in a suitable animal form to utilize them.