Æglor
Hit Dice: 1d4
Armor Class: 9[10]
Attacks: 2 Weapon (1d6)
Saving Throw: 18
Special: Immune to non-magical weapons, destroyed by light, low weight
Move: 24
Alignment: Chaos
Challenge Level/XP: B/10
Chaotic Sorcerers commonly use evil rituals to provide themselves with willing servants and foot soldiers. Most commonly, they employ their twisting magics to turn Humans into Orcs or Dwarves into Goblins, but occasionally, with the right knowledge, they will bend the Fey to their will.
Æglor are Seelie Fey who have been warped by dark magic into servants of Chaos. They unquestioningly obey their masters and, where once they took delight in song, dance, beauty and mischief, now delight only in battle, slaughter and destruction. In appearance they are very short humanoids clad in dark hooded robes that cover them completely. They almost always appear in mobs of 5d20 and are small enough that two of them are able to attack an opponent in a space where only one normal-sized attacker would fit. Æglor move and attack quickly, swarming and overwhelming their opponents.
Æglor are immune to non-magical weapons but their small size and weight means that when an Æglor is hit with a weapon in combat then the Æglor is thrown into the air 5d4 feet away from the character, taking no damage. Æglor are not immune to magic. The weakness of the Æglor is that they dissolve completely into the air when exposed to light. Their hooded robes magically cling to them and normally protect them from light but when an opponent makes a critical hit on an Æglor this signifies that the hood or some other part of the robe has been lifted back and the Æglor dissolves with robe and weapon. If called shot mechanics are used then called shots can be applied to targeting an Æglor's hood.
_________________________________________________________________________________
These guys popped into my head a week or so ago as a mental picture of manic bloodthirsty hybrids of Jawas and the little yellow minions from the Despicable Me movies. I've been messing around with Fey in my designing recently and these guys actually solved a few problems for me. For one, I long ago decided that most monstrous humanoids in my setting (the notable exception being Kobolds) are twisted humans and demi-humans, a la Tolkien, but, besides Orcs being twisted Humans, I hadn't ever nailed down a whole lot - I'm still not sure what bugbears and hob-goblins are. The Æglor helped me decide that Goblins are twisted Dwarves, since Elves are Fey in my setting. In addition, I've got a sorcerer luring Fey into a trap in my megadungeon for use in a Carcosa-style ritual but I hadn't figured out what that was going to be until I realized that the sorcerer could be tiring of his human assistants and planning on replacing them with Æglor, created from the Fey he has trapped in a dark ritual requiring the still-beating heart of the Faerie King. So, if the players don't figure this out and stop it in time whenever I actually start running games again, then there will be hordes of these little guys running around the dungeon giving them problems.
I really like the image of these guys mobbing a room and the fighters, with multiple attacks against opponents with less than 1 HD, desperately knocking these guys harmlessly across the room only to watch them rebound and join the mad rush against the party again, occasionally with one occasionally disappearing but all of the characters too busy fighting the others off to notice exactly what happened or how to replicate it without a Wisdom check (so, "the little robed guy you just hit disappears into the air; everyone make a Wisdom check"). Yes, this is designed to scare and confuse players.
Also, once they figure this out, it makes for a great opportunity for them to use Zack's called shot mechanic. Over and over again. Which means that there will be lots and lots of fumbles.
Exploring games that were published before I was born - and the games inspired by them.
Showing posts with label Monsters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsters. Show all posts
Monday, June 24, 2013
Monday, October 15, 2012
The DMG, Section by Section, Part 16: Character Spells – Recovery of Spells, Spell Casting and Tribal Spell Casters
I'm still – slowly – working on the ideas I've got from the last section, but it's high time I resumed this series.
Recovery of Spells
Gary gives a short table for how long you have to sleep to be able to memorize new spells; these range from just four hours, if all you want to memorize are first or second level spells, all the way to a whopping twelve hours if you want to memorize a ninth level spell. The implications for this are interesting: low level Magic-Users, Clerics and other spell casters now have no excuse for not standing watch at night, and there may come times when a high-level character chooses not to rest long enough to memorize their highest level spells. Interrupting a high-level enemy Magic-User's 12 hours sleep certainly becomes an attractive strategy. While I find all of these ideas interesting, though, I just don't expect them to come up that often in gaming, or perhaps to even come up at all.
After a spell caster has rested sufficiently, each spell takes 15 minutes per spell level to memorize. Even more than resting times, I've always had a problem with this approach, for a few reasons. Again, I don't really see the point of the extra math, it doesn't fit my reading of the source material in the Tales of the Dying Earth (specifically in the first few pages of Turjan of Miir), and, least logically but most viscerally, it clashes with my preferred metaphor for Vancian magic: loading bullets into a gun, which is quick and easy.
Insight into how variable rest time and lengthy spell memorization times make the game better is very much appreciated.
Spell Casting
Gary goes into a half page of explanation of how AD&D Vancian magic works, in-game. Basically, each spell brings energy from another plane to the caster's plane and channels it into the spell's effects. In exchange for the energy from the other plane, material components (the caster's breath, when none are listed) are destroyed to provide the energy to send back to the other plane.
Gary also mentions the the first two Dying Earth books (The Eyes of the Overworld and The Dying Earth) and John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost, a book I haven't heard of before or remember reading any reviews of on OSR blogs, as inspiration for the way AD&D magic works. I'm guessing that a good deal of the elements of AD&D magic I don't recognize from Vance are from the latter work, which seems to be highly recommended by Bellairs' fellow fantasy writers. The Face in the Frost is now on my reading list.
On the other hand, even if I thought that Vancian magic needed this level of explanation, I don't like this explanation of how magic works. This isn't making it into my game.
Tribal Spell Casters
Certain humanoids and a few other groups (cavemen, ettins…) have spell casters in their tribes. Shamans are the tribal equivalent of Clerics and may go up to 7th level, depending on species, while Witch Doctors are the tribal equivalent of Magic-Users and may go up to 4th level, depending on species. Both NPC classes have limited spell lists and only Cavemen may have both a Shaman and Witch Doctor in one tribe. Altogether, a helpful but not terribly exciting section.
Recovery of Spells
Gary gives a short table for how long you have to sleep to be able to memorize new spells; these range from just four hours, if all you want to memorize are first or second level spells, all the way to a whopping twelve hours if you want to memorize a ninth level spell. The implications for this are interesting: low level Magic-Users, Clerics and other spell casters now have no excuse for not standing watch at night, and there may come times when a high-level character chooses not to rest long enough to memorize their highest level spells. Interrupting a high-level enemy Magic-User's 12 hours sleep certainly becomes an attractive strategy. While I find all of these ideas interesting, though, I just don't expect them to come up that often in gaming, or perhaps to even come up at all.
After a spell caster has rested sufficiently, each spell takes 15 minutes per spell level to memorize. Even more than resting times, I've always had a problem with this approach, for a few reasons. Again, I don't really see the point of the extra math, it doesn't fit my reading of the source material in the Tales of the Dying Earth (specifically in the first few pages of Turjan of Miir), and, least logically but most viscerally, it clashes with my preferred metaphor for Vancian magic: loading bullets into a gun, which is quick and easy.
Insight into how variable rest time and lengthy spell memorization times make the game better is very much appreciated.
Spell Casting
Gary goes into a half page of explanation of how AD&D Vancian magic works, in-game. Basically, each spell brings energy from another plane to the caster's plane and channels it into the spell's effects. In exchange for the energy from the other plane, material components (the caster's breath, when none are listed) are destroyed to provide the energy to send back to the other plane.
Gary also mentions the the first two Dying Earth books (The Eyes of the Overworld and The Dying Earth) and John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost, a book I haven't heard of before or remember reading any reviews of on OSR blogs, as inspiration for the way AD&D magic works. I'm guessing that a good deal of the elements of AD&D magic I don't recognize from Vance are from the latter work, which seems to be highly recommended by Bellairs' fellow fantasy writers. The Face in the Frost is now on my reading list.
On the other hand, even if I thought that Vancian magic needed this level of explanation, I don't like this explanation of how magic works. This isn't making it into my game.
Tribal Spell Casters
Certain humanoids and a few other groups (cavemen, ettins…) have spell casters in their tribes. Shamans are the tribal equivalent of Clerics and may go up to 7th level, depending on species, while Witch Doctors are the tribal equivalent of Magic-Users and may go up to 4th level, depending on species. Both NPC classes have limited spell lists and only Cavemen may have both a Shaman and Witch Doctor in one tribe. Altogether, a helpful but not terribly exciting section.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Brainstorming about Dragon PCs
Yesterday's DMG reading got me thinking, so I'm going to take a break from my DMG series for today and throw out some half-formed ideas for your review, specifically about running Dragons as PCs. At some point, I'd like to work them into a playable… something, but that's probably not going to happen soon. Reflections appreciated!
First off, playing a Dragon should be more challenging than playing a conventional, standard race. This should be something that a player chooses because s/he wants to make the game harder, not because s/he wants to make it easier.
Also, while I'd like to eventually figure out how to make any Dragon playable, it seems to me that the Gold Dragon is the most playable, largely because of its Polymorph ability, but because of its alignment (Lawful/Lawful Good in most sources I have access to) and its interest in humanity as well.
I really like Gary's idea to require treasure accumulation and retention, not just age, in order to level.
Motivation: Gary, in the section of the DMG I discussed yesterday, questions why a Dragon would join an adventuring party, given the difficulties involved and Dragons' tendency to be solitary and not interested in interacting with other races. I've got a few ideas about this. The first is that Dragons need treasure to level up and, especially for Lawful/Lawful Good Dragons, what better way for a young, weak Dragon to accumulate wealth than by adventuring? In addition, if we take inspiration from Pellatarrum, one path a young, weak Dragon, just starting out and without any network, might take would be disguising itself as a human and living among them for a while, building up power and a network for later in life. Finally, according to OSRIC, Gold Dragons are naturally interested in man, so it would make sense for a Gold Dragon to live among men for a time, especially since their interest in man dovetails with the other advantages of adventuring.
This is not to say that most NPC Dragons, or even most NPC Gold Dragons should spend a significant amount of time adventuring during their youth; if everyone did it, older Dragons would be more on the lookout for young Dragon adventurers! These reasons, though, I think are sufficient to justify the very occasional Dragon PC.
Dragon PCs should also have to constantly worry about detection by other Dragons. If a Dragon notices the party, there should be some chance of detection, in which case the PC's life would be sought by the NPC Dragon.
The end-game for the Dragon should have to do not so much with the creation of a stronghold (the Dragon should establish multiple lairs without many attendants) but with the creation of the Dragon's personal network and (un)diplomatic dealings with Dragons (favors, territory disputes, etc.). As the Dragon ages, perhaps other PC adventuring parties will catch its attention and it can decide whether to attempt to eradicate them or incorporate them into its network…
Most sources I've looked at have each type of dragon ranging between three different numbers of hit dice (so, 8-10 HD, for expample), as well as having a set number of hit points per hit die, that number being determined by age. Synthesizing these could result in something analogous to levels for Dragons: a Dragon starts out with the lowest number of HD available (so, 8HD for this example), with 1 hit point per die, then moves up to 9 HD, but still 1 hit point per die, then 10 HD, but only one hit point per die, then moves up to 2 hit points per die, but drops back down to 8 HD. This makes growing up as a Dragon less jumpy and more gradual.
The fact that a PC is a Dragon should be witheld from the rest of the party for as long as possible, just as a Dragon would want if adventuring with humans. This would mean staying polymorphed and refraining from using breath weapons. Depending on what class the Dragon masquerades as, the Dragon will have to hide spell-casting or fighting ability. This will add some dramatic fun and also make the Dragon harder to play. In order to facilitate this, it may be helpful to have special classes and character backgrounds that are secrets from other players (lycanthropy, or being hunted by this or that group, or secret political or religious society membership, for example) be somewhat common in the game.
Speaking of magic, Dragons should have access to Dragon magic, powerful spells that are seldom or never shared with humans and which are difficult for them to master when they are exposed to them. These spells should be rare and difficult to find, but well worth it. In addition, Dragons should not have to study spellbooks (though they may certainly pretend to), instead memorizing their spells. Possible models include the Order of the Trehaen in the Majestic Wilderlands and the spell point system at the end of Green Devil Face 4. (I'd lean towards using the Order of the Trehean model, as the GDF model feels more suited to classes for whom magic comes so naturally that it is not studied at all, like my Dryads.)
One troublesome issue is that a Dragon's strength has always been connected to the Dragon's age, and Dragons have considerable lifespans: how can a Dragon keep up with the other members of the party, or even grow/"level up" more than perhaps once during a campaign? There are a few possible ways to address the issue.
One is to have Dragon strength and growth dependent not upon both age and wealth, as Gary suggests, but instead solely upon wealth. Most Dragons take decades or even centuries to acquire enough treasure to grow to the next level, but most Dragons don't adventure, so a PC Dragon will grow more quickly than other Dragons as its hoard grows more quickly than the other Dragons' hoards.
Another possibility is to run decade-long campaigns in which time moves more quickly than in real time. The Dragon PC will slowly age and come into its own as its adventuring companions die and leave their legacy to their heirs. A variant of this option would be to take one's Dragon PC from game to game, though getting referees to allow it, especially at higher levels, might be difficult.
Another possibility is to provide some sort of time-warping mechanism for the Dragon to use. Perhaps whenever growing, the Dragon leaves for an inter-dimensional pocket where its hoard is to sleep, molt and grow and perhaps time passes much more quickly in the inter-dimensional pocket than in the normal game world; while the Dragon sleeps and grows for a few centuries, the Dragon is only absent from the game for no more than a year of game-time.
Finally, if Dragons level as they accumulate their hoards, it becomes important to figure out at what wealth levels they level up. Most OSR games I've referenced don't seem to vary hoard sizes by age, which strikes me as odd; does anyone with access to TSR editions know whether D&D or 1E or 2E varied hoard sizes by age? I know that they started doing that in 3E, because treasure depended upon Challenge Ratings, which varied with age. ACKS also varies treasure with age, so that's likely where I'll start in figuring out how much treasure must be accumulated to "level."
What are your thoughts? Would you allow something like this in your game, and if so, would you have any conditions that accompanied its inclusion? Would you be interested in playing something like this? Am I missing something? How would you improve these rudimentary building blocks for a Dragon PC?
First off, playing a Dragon should be more challenging than playing a conventional, standard race. This should be something that a player chooses because s/he wants to make the game harder, not because s/he wants to make it easier.
Also, while I'd like to eventually figure out how to make any Dragon playable, it seems to me that the Gold Dragon is the most playable, largely because of its Polymorph ability, but because of its alignment (Lawful/Lawful Good in most sources I have access to) and its interest in humanity as well.
I really like Gary's idea to require treasure accumulation and retention, not just age, in order to level.
Motivation: Gary, in the section of the DMG I discussed yesterday, questions why a Dragon would join an adventuring party, given the difficulties involved and Dragons' tendency to be solitary and not interested in interacting with other races. I've got a few ideas about this. The first is that Dragons need treasure to level up and, especially for Lawful/Lawful Good Dragons, what better way for a young, weak Dragon to accumulate wealth than by adventuring? In addition, if we take inspiration from Pellatarrum, one path a young, weak Dragon, just starting out and without any network, might take would be disguising itself as a human and living among them for a while, building up power and a network for later in life. Finally, according to OSRIC, Gold Dragons are naturally interested in man, so it would make sense for a Gold Dragon to live among men for a time, especially since their interest in man dovetails with the other advantages of adventuring.
This is not to say that most NPC Dragons, or even most NPC Gold Dragons should spend a significant amount of time adventuring during their youth; if everyone did it, older Dragons would be more on the lookout for young Dragon adventurers! These reasons, though, I think are sufficient to justify the very occasional Dragon PC.
Dragon PCs should also have to constantly worry about detection by other Dragons. If a Dragon notices the party, there should be some chance of detection, in which case the PC's life would be sought by the NPC Dragon.
The end-game for the Dragon should have to do not so much with the creation of a stronghold (the Dragon should establish multiple lairs without many attendants) but with the creation of the Dragon's personal network and (un)diplomatic dealings with Dragons (favors, territory disputes, etc.). As the Dragon ages, perhaps other PC adventuring parties will catch its attention and it can decide whether to attempt to eradicate them or incorporate them into its network…
Most sources I've looked at have each type of dragon ranging between three different numbers of hit dice (so, 8-10 HD, for expample), as well as having a set number of hit points per hit die, that number being determined by age. Synthesizing these could result in something analogous to levels for Dragons: a Dragon starts out with the lowest number of HD available (so, 8HD for this example), with 1 hit point per die, then moves up to 9 HD, but still 1 hit point per die, then 10 HD, but only one hit point per die, then moves up to 2 hit points per die, but drops back down to 8 HD. This makes growing up as a Dragon less jumpy and more gradual.
The fact that a PC is a Dragon should be witheld from the rest of the party for as long as possible, just as a Dragon would want if adventuring with humans. This would mean staying polymorphed and refraining from using breath weapons. Depending on what class the Dragon masquerades as, the Dragon will have to hide spell-casting or fighting ability. This will add some dramatic fun and also make the Dragon harder to play. In order to facilitate this, it may be helpful to have special classes and character backgrounds that are secrets from other players (lycanthropy, or being hunted by this or that group, or secret political or religious society membership, for example) be somewhat common in the game.
Speaking of magic, Dragons should have access to Dragon magic, powerful spells that are seldom or never shared with humans and which are difficult for them to master when they are exposed to them. These spells should be rare and difficult to find, but well worth it. In addition, Dragons should not have to study spellbooks (though they may certainly pretend to), instead memorizing their spells. Possible models include the Order of the Trehaen in the Majestic Wilderlands and the spell point system at the end of Green Devil Face 4. (I'd lean towards using the Order of the Trehean model, as the GDF model feels more suited to classes for whom magic comes so naturally that it is not studied at all, like my Dryads.)
One troublesome issue is that a Dragon's strength has always been connected to the Dragon's age, and Dragons have considerable lifespans: how can a Dragon keep up with the other members of the party, or even grow/"level up" more than perhaps once during a campaign? There are a few possible ways to address the issue.
One is to have Dragon strength and growth dependent not upon both age and wealth, as Gary suggests, but instead solely upon wealth. Most Dragons take decades or even centuries to acquire enough treasure to grow to the next level, but most Dragons don't adventure, so a PC Dragon will grow more quickly than other Dragons as its hoard grows more quickly than the other Dragons' hoards.
Another possibility is to run decade-long campaigns in which time moves more quickly than in real time. The Dragon PC will slowly age and come into its own as its adventuring companions die and leave their legacy to their heirs. A variant of this option would be to take one's Dragon PC from game to game, though getting referees to allow it, especially at higher levels, might be difficult.
Another possibility is to provide some sort of time-warping mechanism for the Dragon to use. Perhaps whenever growing, the Dragon leaves for an inter-dimensional pocket where its hoard is to sleep, molt and grow and perhaps time passes much more quickly in the inter-dimensional pocket than in the normal game world; while the Dragon sleeps and grows for a few centuries, the Dragon is only absent from the game for no more than a year of game-time.
Finally, if Dragons level as they accumulate their hoards, it becomes important to figure out at what wealth levels they level up. Most OSR games I've referenced don't seem to vary hoard sizes by age, which strikes me as odd; does anyone with access to TSR editions know whether D&D or 1E or 2E varied hoard sizes by age? I know that they started doing that in 3E, because treasure depended upon Challenge Ratings, which varied with age. ACKS also varies treasure with age, so that's likely where I'll start in figuring out how much treasure must be accumulated to "level."
What are your thoughts? Would you allow something like this in your game, and if so, would you have any conditions that accompanied its inclusion? Would you be interested in playing something like this? Am I missing something? How would you improve these rudimentary building blocks for a Dragon PC?
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The DMG, Section by Section, Part 8: Character Classes - The Use of Poison by Assassins, Monsters as PCs and Lycanthropy
The Use of Poisons by Assassins
Up until 9th level, Assassins use poison pretty much like everyone else. Once they hit 9th level, however, Assassins can choose to make a study of four aspects of poisons:
If you think that's a lot of payout for little benefit, listen to this: the DM isn't allowed to tell the player about the availability of these options, or even hint at them! I'm extremely curious how often a player came up with the idea of having their name-level Assassin study poisons all on their own (and how often their DMs would accuse them of reading the DMG if they did ask about it!).
Altogether, I'm ambivalent about these extra poison rules; they seem pretty complicated and I partly think Gary may have been doing players a favor by instructing the DM not to tell players about them… on the other hand, why shouldn't an Assassin get to study the advanced levels of his craft, just like Magic Users?
The Monster as a Player Character
I was really disappointed with this section, in which Gary addresses what was apparently a not-uncommon request: running monsters as PCs. Gary declares a few times that, "in most cases [running monsters as PCs] was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination." His antidote for this power-gaming motive for running monsters is to explain the in-game limits monster PCs would face. Monsters would be hunted down if they wondered into a tavern to join an adventuring party, and, besides, "Men are the worst monsters." By that, Gary means that high-level characters are able to challenge even demon princes and demi-gods; high-enough level characters, with no limit to the number of magic items they can possess, leave all monsters behind in terms of the danger they pose to their enemies.
For the DM, Gary also points out that it is difficult enough to create a campaign world that is humanocentric, with the aid of humanocentric literature and science; he states that attempts to create a campaign setting which revolves around, or even is partially based on, a monster's perspective, "is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?"
To be fair, Gary does allow that some players will want to run monsters out of curiosity and an honest desire to experiment. He suggests letting them do so, confident that they will quickly lose interest in running those monster PCs; he states that monster PCs whose players have lost interest in them make interesting NPCs and can contribute positively to the campaign setting.
I wish Gary hadn't taken this position; I've expressed elsewhere my desire to try running a dragon character from its first age category into maturity, so I won't repeat that here. Who knows? Gary might be right and I might lose interest after trying this out for a bit; I just won't know until I've given it a shot.
Finally, Gary does partially redeem this section in my eyes in a short section in which he specifically addresses the true unattractiveness of dragons as PCs. He states that, "only time and accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age)." This both provides a mechanism for leveling for dragon PCs - retaining, not spending treasure - and provides an incentive for young dragons to adventure. I will have to give this further thought…
Lycanthropy
Gary stresses that lycanthropy is supposed to be undesirable in AD&D, something to be cured of rather than some sort of bonus. Lycanthropy in AD&D consists mostly of loss of control; characters have chances to change into their were-form six times a month (full, half, quarter, new, quarter and half moon - I'm not sure if 3/4 moons were left out intentionally or not) with varying chances of being able to have any control over those changes or not. Were-PCs are apt to change if they are hurt badly in combat, arguing with other party members, proximity to creature-summoning magic, etc. Lycanthropy can also cause serious mental anguish in those whose alignments are different from their were-form (which is usually the case, since they usually contracted lycanthropy fighting those of different alignment) as their alignment slowly changes to that of their were-forms. Lycanthropy is especially bad for Paladins, who lose their Paladinhood and are considered, "no longer pure enough for that honored state;" Gary even advises against allowing a redemptive quest for the ex-Paladin! Finally, no XP is gained while in lycanthrope form and there is no such thing as "leveling up:" it is impossible to be a "2nd level Werewolf," for example.
In short, lycanthropy is supposed to be incredibly inconvenient.
Gary also provides multiple cures for lycanthropy; the cheapest and easiest are only efficacious very soon after contracting lycanthropy. The most expensive option is to go to a holy/unholy place and drink holy/unholy water prepared by the clergy there and laced with wolfsbane and belladonna out of a silver chalice for a month or more. I found it puzzling that unholy sites would assist in curing lycanthropy until I realized that some lycanthropes are, I believe, lawful and good-aligned.
Finally Gary gives short profiles of lycanthrope behavior. Werebears fight evil creatures until one or the other is dead, and are likely to attack evil creatures immediately upon encountering them. Wereboars are argumentative and want to be in charge. Wererats are the only type of lycanthrope that can use weapons while in were-form; they volunteer to be at the back of the party marching order if they are in a party. Weretigers are supremely self-interested and have a fondness for cats. Werewolves seldom join adventuring parties, but when they do and are discovered, they tend to wait until the party is in combat and then turn on their comrades.
Up until 9th level, Assassins use poison pretty much like everyone else. Once they hit 9th level, however, Assassins can choose to make a study of four aspects of poisons:
- injected/blood poison
- ingested poison
- contact poison and poisons that work both ingested and injected
- creating poisons and antidotes.
If you think that's a lot of payout for little benefit, listen to this: the DM isn't allowed to tell the player about the availability of these options, or even hint at them! I'm extremely curious how often a player came up with the idea of having their name-level Assassin study poisons all on their own (and how often their DMs would accuse them of reading the DMG if they did ask about it!).
Altogether, I'm ambivalent about these extra poison rules; they seem pretty complicated and I partly think Gary may have been doing players a favor by instructing the DM not to tell players about them… on the other hand, why shouldn't an Assassin get to study the advanced levels of his craft, just like Magic Users?
The Monster as a Player Character
I was really disappointed with this section, in which Gary addresses what was apparently a not-uncommon request: running monsters as PCs. Gary declares a few times that, "in most cases [running monsters as PCs] was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination." His antidote for this power-gaming motive for running monsters is to explain the in-game limits monster PCs would face. Monsters would be hunted down if they wondered into a tavern to join an adventuring party, and, besides, "Men are the worst monsters." By that, Gary means that high-level characters are able to challenge even demon princes and demi-gods; high-enough level characters, with no limit to the number of magic items they can possess, leave all monsters behind in terms of the danger they pose to their enemies.
For the DM, Gary also points out that it is difficult enough to create a campaign world that is humanocentric, with the aid of humanocentric literature and science; he states that attempts to create a campaign setting which revolves around, or even is partially based on, a monster's perspective, "is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?"
To be fair, Gary does allow that some players will want to run monsters out of curiosity and an honest desire to experiment. He suggests letting them do so, confident that they will quickly lose interest in running those monster PCs; he states that monster PCs whose players have lost interest in them make interesting NPCs and can contribute positively to the campaign setting.
I wish Gary hadn't taken this position; I've expressed elsewhere my desire to try running a dragon character from its first age category into maturity, so I won't repeat that here. Who knows? Gary might be right and I might lose interest after trying this out for a bit; I just won't know until I've given it a shot.
Finally, Gary does partially redeem this section in my eyes in a short section in which he specifically addresses the true unattractiveness of dragons as PCs. He states that, "only time and accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age)." This both provides a mechanism for leveling for dragon PCs - retaining, not spending treasure - and provides an incentive for young dragons to adventure. I will have to give this further thought…
Lycanthropy
Gary stresses that lycanthropy is supposed to be undesirable in AD&D, something to be cured of rather than some sort of bonus. Lycanthropy in AD&D consists mostly of loss of control; characters have chances to change into their were-form six times a month (full, half, quarter, new, quarter and half moon - I'm not sure if 3/4 moons were left out intentionally or not) with varying chances of being able to have any control over those changes or not. Were-PCs are apt to change if they are hurt badly in combat, arguing with other party members, proximity to creature-summoning magic, etc. Lycanthropy can also cause serious mental anguish in those whose alignments are different from their were-form (which is usually the case, since they usually contracted lycanthropy fighting those of different alignment) as their alignment slowly changes to that of their were-forms. Lycanthropy is especially bad for Paladins, who lose their Paladinhood and are considered, "no longer pure enough for that honored state;" Gary even advises against allowing a redemptive quest for the ex-Paladin! Finally, no XP is gained while in lycanthrope form and there is no such thing as "leveling up:" it is impossible to be a "2nd level Werewolf," for example.
In short, lycanthropy is supposed to be incredibly inconvenient.
Gary also provides multiple cures for lycanthropy; the cheapest and easiest are only efficacious very soon after contracting lycanthropy. The most expensive option is to go to a holy/unholy place and drink holy/unholy water prepared by the clergy there and laced with wolfsbane and belladonna out of a silver chalice for a month or more. I found it puzzling that unholy sites would assist in curing lycanthropy until I realized that some lycanthropes are, I believe, lawful and good-aligned.
Finally Gary gives short profiles of lycanthrope behavior. Werebears fight evil creatures until one or the other is dead, and are likely to attack evil creatures immediately upon encountering them. Wereboars are argumentative and want to be in charge. Wererats are the only type of lycanthrope that can use weapons while in were-form; they volunteer to be at the back of the party marching order if they are in a party. Weretigers are supremely self-interested and have a fondness for cats. Werewolves seldom join adventuring parties, but when they do and are discovered, they tend to wait until the party is in combat and then turn on their comrades.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thoth Razylym: First Dragon in my Setting
So, now that the party in my Skype campaign has had a dragon take notice of them (and send two dopplegangers to try to kill them next session), I need to create a dragon which is doing all of this. I used three resources to create this dragon, plus Swords & Wizardry Core for the final format in which I write up my dragon.
First off, I used this Random Female Dragon Name Generator until I found a name I liked: Thoth Razylym, which I'm deciding, from the options, means "Worm Steel." This is also what helped me decide to have this dragon be female.
Secondly, I used Matt Finch's excellent Tome of Adventure Design to figure out a few things about this dragon:
First off, I used this Random Female Dragon Name Generator until I found a name I liked: Thoth Razylym, which I'm deciding, from the options, means "Worm Steel." This is also what helped me decide to have this dragon be female.
Secondly, I used Matt Finch's excellent Tome of Adventure Design to figure out a few things about this dragon:
- There is some kind of parasite/symbiote/other life form always attached to Thoth's body. I've decided that this will be a Firx, which I'll address in a later post. This is the Dying Earth connection that got me thinking about the topic of my last post.
- Thoth has some kind of illusion special ability. I decided that her spells will come from the Illusionist spell list instead of the Magic-User Spell list. This also inspired me to decide that the assassins she sends after the party will be dopplegangers. I'll generally try to have her minions be creatures and people that use illusion. Also, though every dragon in my setting can transform into human-ish form, Thoth can transform into many, many forms.
- Her breath weapon is a large cloud that even envelopes her; the cloud causes those who breathe it to dance uncontrollably.
- Her obsession is to collect something. This caused me to reject more detailed rolls in the next resource until they came up with something compatible.
Lastly, I used the extensive Unexpurgated Dragon Generator, probably the best way to create a unique dragon that I've seen to date. From it I learned that:
- Thoth is Neutral Evil
- Thoth has some kind of "madness"
- She's young, with 2 hit points per hit die
- She's large, about 4 meters long
- Her AC is 21
- She has 11 Hit die
- She moves with BMR 3/8 when on ground/flying
- She has three attacks per round, which do 1d4, 1d6 and 1d10 damage.
- She has claws of sharpness that sever limbs when they hit on a natural 20
- She's amphibian
- Her body type is serpentine- no legs, no wings. This seems to clash with the flying and claws of sharpness. I'm ruling that she can fly without wings by flattening her body (similar to a flying snake), having fins along her sides and because of natural dragon buoyancy and that she's got some sort of sharp claw-like thing on her tail.
- She's white and brown. I decided that she'll be striped, much like many real-life snakes.
- She has a 40% chance to be in her lair and a 5% chance to be asleep.
- She collects maidens and may or may not eat them. I've decided that she doesn't eat them- at least not right away- because that's more interesting, that's more consistent with "collecting" and I can see Thoth having the maidens dance for her with her breath weapon.
I didn't roll on some of the tables, such as about Thoth's intelligence and her ability to use magic, as I'd already decided that all dragons in my setting are super-humanly intelligent and can use magic.
I also needed to find a "madness" for Thoth. The DMG doesn't come out until April, so I can't use the insanity tables I believe are in it, and the OSRIC table only contains very debilitating insanities I don't want to use for a foe as formidable as I want Thoth to be.
Fortunately, I own a copy of Dragontree Press' Handbook of Traps and Tricks, which has more extensive insanity tables. Many of these options are also severe, but that can be remedied by choosing an insanity instead of rolling for one, as many other options are not so bad. Looking through the phobia/philia sub-table, I noticed the entry "paladins." Maybe Thoth has an unhealthy fascination with paladins? Perhaps she's collecting maidens so that a paladin will try to rescue one of them and she will be able to meet, and, hopefully, detain and get to know, him? That sounds very interesting to me and is a nice twist to Thoth. She'll lop the limbs off of a knight or cleric without a second thought, but somehow a paladin grabs her fascination.
The last thing I need to figure out is Thoth's spells. Dragons in my setting all use magic, and I've already decided that Thoth uses Illusionist instead of standard Magic-User spells, but which spells will she have? Upon some research, Illusionists are seeming somewhat complicated (for someone like me who is only used to Swords & Wizardry), what with only seven spell levels and choices to make about spell slot progressions. I'm going to leave off on Thoth's spells for now, saving them for another post.
Finally, here's a Swords & Wizardry compatible write-up, with some added notes so I can use it quickly with my house-rules:
Thoth Razylym, Dragon
Hit Dice: 11
Hit Points: 22
Armor Class: -2 [21]
Attacks: 1 Fin Swipe (1d4), 1 Bite (1d6), 1 Tail-Claw (1d10)
Saving Throw: 4
Special: Breathes Cloud of Dancing (surrounds Thoth to radius of 30 meters, distributes 22 points of damage among victims, save or dance, check save every round), Tail-Claw of Sharpness (severs limb on natural 20 to-hit roll)
Move: 9/24 (flying) (3/8 with my movement system)
Alignment: Chaos (Chaotic Neutral)
Challenge Level/XP: 12 (22/4=5.5, round up to 6, +1 to finish dragon calculation, +1 for irresistible dance facet of breath weapon, +3 for multiple spells 5th level and higher)/2000
I also needed to find a "madness" for Thoth. The DMG doesn't come out until April, so I can't use the insanity tables I believe are in it, and the OSRIC table only contains very debilitating insanities I don't want to use for a foe as formidable as I want Thoth to be.
Fortunately, I own a copy of Dragontree Press' Handbook of Traps and Tricks, which has more extensive insanity tables. Many of these options are also severe, but that can be remedied by choosing an insanity instead of rolling for one, as many other options are not so bad. Looking through the phobia/philia sub-table, I noticed the entry "paladins." Maybe Thoth has an unhealthy fascination with paladins? Perhaps she's collecting maidens so that a paladin will try to rescue one of them and she will be able to meet, and, hopefully, detain and get to know, him? That sounds very interesting to me and is a nice twist to Thoth. She'll lop the limbs off of a knight or cleric without a second thought, but somehow a paladin grabs her fascination.
The last thing I need to figure out is Thoth's spells. Dragons in my setting all use magic, and I've already decided that Thoth uses Illusionist instead of standard Magic-User spells, but which spells will she have? Upon some research, Illusionists are seeming somewhat complicated (for someone like me who is only used to Swords & Wizardry), what with only seven spell levels and choices to make about spell slot progressions. I'm going to leave off on Thoth's spells for now, saving them for another post.
Finally, here's a Swords & Wizardry compatible write-up, with some added notes so I can use it quickly with my house-rules:
Thoth Razylym, Dragon
Hit Dice: 11
Hit Points: 22
Armor Class: -2 [21]
Attacks: 1 Fin Swipe (1d4), 1 Bite (1d6), 1 Tail-Claw (1d10)
Saving Throw: 4
Special: Breathes Cloud of Dancing (surrounds Thoth to radius of 30 meters, distributes 22 points of damage among victims, save or dance, check save every round), Tail-Claw of Sharpness (severs limb on natural 20 to-hit roll)
Move: 9/24 (flying) (3/8 with my movement system)
Alignment: Chaos (Chaotic Neutral)
Challenge Level/XP: 12 (22/4=5.5, round up to 6, +1 to finish dragon calculation, +1 for irresistible dance facet of breath weapon, +3 for multiple spells 5th level and higher)/2000
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Carcosa Race Conversion Chart
In Carcosa, there are 13 races of men and no demi-humans or humanoids (except the space aliens and the extinct lizard-men). The 13 races of men are each a different color, and each color accurately describes the color of their skin; for example, in the US, I'm called "White" even though my skin color is pinkish-tan, but on Carcosa, White men's skin is actually white, like a sheet of printer paper. While "Black" people in the US have skin of various shades of brown, in Carcosa, Black men's skin is jet black. These races can't interbreed, and they exist as 13 distinct races because they were genetically modified by the lizard-men for use in their rituals. Any sorcerous ritual on Carcosa that requires a human victim specifies the race of the victim(s). In addition, different ray guns have different effects on different races, some doing half-damage to certain races, others doing double damage to certain races.
This is very cool and flavorful, but it also represents the main challenge, I think, in using Carcosa to influence a more standard setting, like the one I run, with dwarves and elves and goblins, where humans can all interbreed and there are not 13 distinct races of men.
My solution to this challenge is the chart below. It can be used in two different ways:
This is very cool and flavorful, but it also represents the main challenge, I think, in using Carcosa to influence a more standard setting, like the one I run, with dwarves and elves and goblins, where humans can all interbreed and there are not 13 distinct races of men.
My solution to this challenge is the chart below. It can be used in two different ways:
- The first 13 items on the table represent direct conversions from Carcosan races to more standard races. Whenever a Carcosan ritual or ray gun specifies a color of man, simple refer to the chart and substitute the corresponding race. If you don't, say, use Centaurs in your game, choose one of the entries after the first 13 that you prefer and use that instead whenever a ritual or ray gun specifies a Purple man.
- Whenever a ritual or ray-gun specifies a color of men, roll 1d20 on this table to determine which standard race will be specified instead in your game.
- Black–Elves
- Blue–Dwarves
- Bone–Kobolds
- Brown–Humans
- Dolm–Goblins
- Green–Orcs
- Jale–Gnolls
- Orange–Gnomes
- Purple–Centaurs
- Red–Dopplegangers
- Ulfire–Lizard-Men (or Troglodytes, or some other reptilian humanoid)
- White–Satyr if male, Dryad, Nymph or other nature-spirit thing if female
- Yellow–Halflings
- Larger Fey creatures, like Leprechauns and Brownies
- Lycanthropes
- Yuan-Ti
- Deep Ones
- Trolls
- Merfolk
- Re-Roll Twice: the offspring of those two races
Friday, January 20, 2012
The Coeurl
Almost a year ago, Aaron of Paladin in Citadel made a great case for using the literary ancestors of Displacer Beasts in a dungeon, and I've done just that, placing a Coeurl's lair on the first floor of my Mews of Methas megadungeon (as the keeper of this trap, actually). OSRIC and Microlite 74 have stats for the Coeurl, but here's stats for running the Coeurl in Swords & Wizardry. They're based off of the OD&D stats for the Displacer Beast, as received through Judges Guild's Ready Ref Sheets (since I don't have the PDFs), as well as Aaron's ideas and what I got reading "Black Destroyer".
Coeurl
Hit Dice: 6
Armor Class: 5 [14]
Attacks: 2 tentacles (2d4 dmg)
Saving Throw: 11
Special: Greater-than-Human Intelligence, Create Darkness Ability, Magic (and Electro-Magnetic Energy) Resistance (80%)
Move: 15 (Metric Base Movement Rate: 5)
Alignment: Chaos
Challenge Level/XP: 10/1400
Terribly intelligent, always hungry for Id (measured in the square of a meal's hit dice), the Coeurl resembles a black panther with two tentacles - each tipped with seven fingers - rising from its shoulders, thin energy-manipulating tendrils for ears and forelegs twice as long as panthers on Earth. The Coeurl should be played as intelligently as possible, engaging a lower-level party in various schemes and tricks to get them to bring him creatures of higher hit dice than themselves, appealing to whatever motivation it thinks will works, including payment and justice. When a party a Coeurl forges a relationship with reaches a high enough level, the Coeurl will turn on them and attempt to kill and eat them, all while minimizing risk to itself. A Coeurl may hide its identity by creating a sphere of darkness around himself to a radius of 15' (~5 meters). As a super-intelligent being, an individual Coeurl may utilize magic or psionics at the referee's discretion.
And yes, before anyone says anything, the Coeurl is a nasty thing to place on the first level, but I don't intend for my players to fight it until much later in the campaign; if they do, well, they will have specifically chosen to do so and they also have two ray guns that might help (but, per "Black Destroyer, it has a very high resistance against energy weapons). I intend to use the Coeurl as Aaron suggests, attempting to employ the party in bringing higher hit dice monsters from lower in the dungeon to him for consumption. The party got the closest it's ever gotten to meeting the Coeurl last session and they may return that way again tomorrow, so we'll see what happens. I'll be excited whatever happens when they meet the Coeurl: if they lose, it will be entertaining, but if they win I'll get to roll to see whether a dragon takes note or not!
Finally, I have a question for my readers: in the Mews of Methas, the Coeurl's lair has two side-rooms. What would a Coeurl put in those side rooms?
Thursday, December 29, 2011
10 ways Carcosa will improve my game
So, apparently posts about Carcosa garner lots of attention, whether truly merited by their content or not. Here's a list of ways that I'll be cherry-picking from Carcosa to enrich my own campaign that I hope has more merit for attention than my last Carcosa post.
1. Psionics: Carcosa has a psionics system that could easily fit on one sheet of a legal pad. I'm going to give it a shot; I've never even seen psionics used in any game I've played in, so this will be a new experience. It should be interesting.
2. Mindflayers: Now that I have a psionics system that is easy and fun to work with, I can introduce mindflayers into my game setting. Anyone have suggestions of reading material I should use for inspiration (that is easily accessible)? The only thing I really have is a Type III (not III.V) Monster Manual. Any help on this would be appreciated.
3. A good foundation for a Barbarian class that is built around immunity to mechanics taking over your character instead of being built around mechanics taking over your character. I'll post a Barbarian class here when I figure the rest of the class out.
4. Really nasty NPCs: I've decided that Carcosan sorcerers in my setting will also be Magic Users. Why are they summoning nasty Old Ones? I've decided that, along with the standard reasons sorcerers summon Old Ones, many sorcerers are trying to destroy dragons, which are inspired by Pellatarum.
5. Endless motive for kidnapping: Strip the colors (or replace them with more standard D&D races), rape and details from the rituals in Carcosa and you have generic PG-13 rituals with a certain number of a certain kind of victims that can be transplanted into any setting. Have a strange number of members of one particular demographic recently disappeared? Before long, my players may immediately go into "sorcerer hunting mode" when they hear that.
6. Ray Guns: Carcosa has a great advanced technological weapons generator that is intended for Space Alien weaponry, but it works just as well for generating lost weapons from before the fall of ancient advanced civilization. D&D is, after all, post-apocalyptic.
7. Nasty Cthuloid entities: Pretty self-explanitory. I should point out that there's a very good set of 13 charts for generating more if ever I "use up" the ones that are included.
8. Making alignment mean something: When Cthuloid entities, Mindflayers (made possible by Carcosa), Shrooms and Dragons (those last two not from Carcosa at all), etc. exercise such control over the setting, Law and Chaos become not just ways of interpreting meaning, but two very different ways for humans and demi-humans to attempt to gain and keep independence. That means that alignment will, for the first time in my game, have concrete courses of action tied to them. (Yes, I realize that what I've described isn't the Carcosan alignment system, where Chaos means allegiance to the Old Ones; the Law-Chaos alignment spectrum I've described comes from thinking about the implications of cherry-picking elements of Carcosa and adding them to my game.)
9. The five lotuses: Each one, in powdered form, has drastic and dangerous effects on those who consume them. One creates non-undead zombies, so that's pretty cool.
10: Three new colors with which to freak my players out: I realize that Geoffrey didn't invent these, but how much on this list did he really invent? The great thing about Carcosa isn't so much that Geoffrey created a setting out of whole cloth but that he synthesized lots of ideas from Appendix N and other traditional D&D sources and then distilled them into fun, easy-to-adjudicate systems and a setting with its own very flavorful atmosphere.
Disclaimer: This is a quasi-review, so, consistent with my policy, I'll point out here that Geoffrey commented on my last post about Carcosa. I haven't had any contact with him other than that.
1. Psionics: Carcosa has a psionics system that could easily fit on one sheet of a legal pad. I'm going to give it a shot; I've never even seen psionics used in any game I've played in, so this will be a new experience. It should be interesting.
2. Mindflayers: Now that I have a psionics system that is easy and fun to work with, I can introduce mindflayers into my game setting. Anyone have suggestions of reading material I should use for inspiration (that is easily accessible)? The only thing I really have is a Type III (not III.V) Monster Manual. Any help on this would be appreciated.
3. A good foundation for a Barbarian class that is built around immunity to mechanics taking over your character instead of being built around mechanics taking over your character. I'll post a Barbarian class here when I figure the rest of the class out.
4. Really nasty NPCs: I've decided that Carcosan sorcerers in my setting will also be Magic Users. Why are they summoning nasty Old Ones? I've decided that, along with the standard reasons sorcerers summon Old Ones, many sorcerers are trying to destroy dragons, which are inspired by Pellatarum.
5. Endless motive for kidnapping: Strip the colors (or replace them with more standard D&D races), rape and details from the rituals in Carcosa and you have generic PG-13 rituals with a certain number of a certain kind of victims that can be transplanted into any setting. Have a strange number of members of one particular demographic recently disappeared? Before long, my players may immediately go into "sorcerer hunting mode" when they hear that.
6. Ray Guns: Carcosa has a great advanced technological weapons generator that is intended for Space Alien weaponry, but it works just as well for generating lost weapons from before the fall of ancient advanced civilization. D&D is, after all, post-apocalyptic.
7. Nasty Cthuloid entities: Pretty self-explanitory. I should point out that there's a very good set of 13 charts for generating more if ever I "use up" the ones that are included.
8. Making alignment mean something: When Cthuloid entities, Mindflayers (made possible by Carcosa), Shrooms and Dragons (those last two not from Carcosa at all), etc. exercise such control over the setting, Law and Chaos become not just ways of interpreting meaning, but two very different ways for humans and demi-humans to attempt to gain and keep independence. That means that alignment will, for the first time in my game, have concrete courses of action tied to them. (Yes, I realize that what I've described isn't the Carcosan alignment system, where Chaos means allegiance to the Old Ones; the Law-Chaos alignment spectrum I've described comes from thinking about the implications of cherry-picking elements of Carcosa and adding them to my game.)
9. The five lotuses: Each one, in powdered form, has drastic and dangerous effects on those who consume them. One creates non-undead zombies, so that's pretty cool.
10: Three new colors with which to freak my players out: I realize that Geoffrey didn't invent these, but how much on this list did he really invent? The great thing about Carcosa isn't so much that Geoffrey created a setting out of whole cloth but that he synthesized lots of ideas from Appendix N and other traditional D&D sources and then distilled them into fun, easy-to-adjudicate systems and a setting with its own very flavorful atmosphere.
Disclaimer: This is a quasi-review, so, consistent with my policy, I'll point out here that Geoffrey commented on my last post about Carcosa. I haven't had any contact with him other than that.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Puppet-Master Machination Tables [Complete]
Somehow just buying the Carcosa PDF got me ready and rearing to play D&D again. I've been on a gaming hiatus for almost as long as my blog has been only half-active.
Weirdly, while thinking about my players killing sorcerers with wild abandon and no moral compunctions, my thoughts turned back to dragons, specifically the puppet-master dragons from Lurking Rhythmically I mentioned the last time I posted. I really liked the idea, but I didn't really see a good way to run them without plotting things out in advance… until I came up with this table. I realized after scrawling most of it down on scratch paper that the tables don't have to just be for puppet-master dragons; any puppet-masters you want in your campaign will work. I do really like the idea of them being dragons, however.
I should also note that this table isn't purporting to be part of Pellatarrum, Erin's setting in which the dragons she describes exist. The table is meant to be helpful in running puppet-masters of any race in any setting, but I use "dragons" because her dragons are what inspired these tables, "dragons" is easier to type and nicer to look at than "puppet-masters" and also because I plan on my puppet-masters being dragons.
First off, whenever the party kills something with 4HD (or whatever you think is appropriate), the party has a 10%, cumulative, chance to be noticed by a dragon. If noticed, the party has a 25% chance to be noticed by 1d4 more dragons as well. Note that the party continues to have a chance to be noticed by new dragons even after having been noticed in the past. Quit rolling for a chance to be noticed whenever all the dragons you feel like including in your setting have noticed the party.
Roll on the following chart whenever a new dragon notices the party. Note that the dragon directs all actions but is never, ever directly involved, and usually has 3d4 intermediaries between itself and whoever the party actually encounters.
Notice Table [d20]
1-4: Ignored… for now. Add 20% to the party's chance to be noticed.
5-7: The dragon attempts to get rid of the party by sending them someplace more dangerous than they should be able to handle. 25% chance that this is disguised as patronage and 1d4 cursed items (that manifest, at your discretion, when it will likely result in the party being killed instead of at first opportunity- these are really bad cursed items) are gifted to the party.
8-10: The dragon attempts to get rid of the party and give its minions practice at killing things by sending its minions to kill the party. Minions are the party's average level in HD, +/-3, with half/double the party's number per +/-, respectively. (Roll 1d6; 1=-3 average level and 8 times the party's number, 2=-2 & 4 times the party's number, 3=-1 & double the party's number, 4=+1 and half the party's number, 5=+2 and a quarter the party's number, 6=+3 and an eighth the party's number)
11-14: The party is employed on a short-term (not meant to be a suicide) mission while the dragon decides what to do with them. Add 20% to the party's chance to be noticed in the future.
15-18: The party is co-opted into the dragon's network through patronage by one of the dragon's minions, who becomes a source of gifts, missions and security through the minion's political and social connections and power. Roll on the co-option tables.
19-20: The party is co-opted into the dragon's schemes by framing some of the dragons enemies as having it out for or actually attacking the party. There is a 25% chance that, once the party is good and mad at the dragon's enemies, the party will be co-opted through patronage as well (see previous entry).
Co-option Strategy Table [d4]
1-3: The whole party is patronized
4: Roll for one party member, who is the one that is patronized. The whole party gets to go on missions, but the one party member selected gets all the gifts; occasionally the rest of the party gets gifts as rewards "for aiding" the patronized party member.
Co-option Goal Table [d12]
1-6: As long-term assets
7-10: As short-term, expendable assets (sent on missions that aren't quite suicidal and only given minor or expendable magic items as gifts)
11: As a way to make the party vulnerable and trusting so it is easier to get rid of them
12: As a way to make other minions jealous
Co-opting Minion Table [20]
1-2: Cleric
3-6: Magic-User
7-8: Fighter
9-11: Thief
12-14: Non-classed Noble or other powerful figure
15-18: Leader in dragon-aligned guild
19-20: Member of dragon-serving secret society
If the party refuses one of these attempts, roll again on the table and follow what it indicates. If the same result comes up, this represents a different minion assigned to try the same tactic. When co-opting, minions get 1+1d4 chances to successfully co-opt the party before re-rolling on the table.
If kobolds (or whatever creatures/minions you decide are somehow special to your puppet-master) are killed, the chance to be noticed is 100% and the only options are getting rid of by sending on a suicide mission (75% chance) and getting rid of by sending minions to kill (25% chance).
Weirdly, while thinking about my players killing sorcerers with wild abandon and no moral compunctions, my thoughts turned back to dragons, specifically the puppet-master dragons from Lurking Rhythmically I mentioned the last time I posted. I really liked the idea, but I didn't really see a good way to run them without plotting things out in advance… until I came up with this table. I realized after scrawling most of it down on scratch paper that the tables don't have to just be for puppet-master dragons; any puppet-masters you want in your campaign will work. I do really like the idea of them being dragons, however.
I should also note that this table isn't purporting to be part of Pellatarrum, Erin's setting in which the dragons she describes exist. The table is meant to be helpful in running puppet-masters of any race in any setting, but I use "dragons" because her dragons are what inspired these tables, "dragons" is easier to type and nicer to look at than "puppet-masters" and also because I plan on my puppet-masters being dragons.
First off, whenever the party kills something with 4HD (or whatever you think is appropriate), the party has a 10%, cumulative, chance to be noticed by a dragon. If noticed, the party has a 25% chance to be noticed by 1d4 more dragons as well. Note that the party continues to have a chance to be noticed by new dragons even after having been noticed in the past. Quit rolling for a chance to be noticed whenever all the dragons you feel like including in your setting have noticed the party.
Roll on the following chart whenever a new dragon notices the party. Note that the dragon directs all actions but is never, ever directly involved, and usually has 3d4 intermediaries between itself and whoever the party actually encounters.
Notice Table [d20]
1-4: Ignored… for now. Add 20% to the party's chance to be noticed.
5-7: The dragon attempts to get rid of the party by sending them someplace more dangerous than they should be able to handle. 25% chance that this is disguised as patronage and 1d4 cursed items (that manifest, at your discretion, when it will likely result in the party being killed instead of at first opportunity- these are really bad cursed items) are gifted to the party.
8-10: The dragon attempts to get rid of the party and give its minions practice at killing things by sending its minions to kill the party. Minions are the party's average level in HD, +/-3, with half/double the party's number per +/-, respectively. (Roll 1d6; 1=-3 average level and 8 times the party's number, 2=-2 & 4 times the party's number, 3=-1 & double the party's number, 4=+1 and half the party's number, 5=+2 and a quarter the party's number, 6=+3 and an eighth the party's number)
11-14: The party is employed on a short-term (not meant to be a suicide) mission while the dragon decides what to do with them. Add 20% to the party's chance to be noticed in the future.
15-18: The party is co-opted into the dragon's network through patronage by one of the dragon's minions, who becomes a source of gifts, missions and security through the minion's political and social connections and power. Roll on the co-option tables.
19-20: The party is co-opted into the dragon's schemes by framing some of the dragons enemies as having it out for or actually attacking the party. There is a 25% chance that, once the party is good and mad at the dragon's enemies, the party will be co-opted through patronage as well (see previous entry).
Co-option Strategy Table [d4]
1-3: The whole party is patronized
4: Roll for one party member, who is the one that is patronized. The whole party gets to go on missions, but the one party member selected gets all the gifts; occasionally the rest of the party gets gifts as rewards "for aiding" the patronized party member.
Co-option Goal Table [d12]
1-6: As long-term assets
7-10: As short-term, expendable assets (sent on missions that aren't quite suicidal and only given minor or expendable magic items as gifts)
11: As a way to make the party vulnerable and trusting so it is easier to get rid of them
12: As a way to make other minions jealous
Co-opting Minion Table [20]
1-2: Cleric
3-6: Magic-User
7-8: Fighter
9-11: Thief
12-14: Non-classed Noble or other powerful figure
15-18: Leader in dragon-aligned guild
19-20: Member of dragon-serving secret society
If the party refuses one of these attempts, roll again on the table and follow what it indicates. If the same result comes up, this represents a different minion assigned to try the same tactic. When co-opting, minions get 1+1d4 chances to successfully co-opt the party before re-rolling on the table.
If kobolds (or whatever creatures/minions you decide are somehow special to your puppet-master) are killed, the chance to be noticed is 100% and the only options are getting rid of by sending on a suicide mission (75% chance) and getting rid of by sending minions to kill (25% chance).
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Foray into Dungeon Building, Part 10
On Tuesday I made this:
And today I made this:
These are Level 1, Area 5 and Level 1, Area 7 of my megadungeon.
These are the areas of my megadungeon my players are likely to explore tomorrow. I've begun stocking them, but there are quite a few rolls on tables left before they're totally ready. Fortunately, rolling on tables is almost all that's left.
The one other thing is my first placed encounter. These are the second important part of stocking a megadungeon, the first being randomly generated and placed encounters. I want this area of the first level to be inhabited by the Coeurl.
The first thing I'm going to do is have the Coeurl be an item on the wandering monster list for this area. If I roll a 1 on the chart, instead of using a Random Esoteric Creature, I'll use the Coeurl. Per Paladin's suggestion, the Coeurl won't attack, instead covering himself in darkness and telling the PCs about a monster that owes him somewhere a few levels down. What kind of monster? I'm not sure yet. I'll have to add figuring that out to the list of things I have to do between posting this and the game tomorrow.
Then I have to place the Coeurl's lair. I think I'll place him in room 6 of Area 7. He strikes me as the kind of character that would want multiple escape routes if attacked. That also means that the Coeurl's lair cuts off access to the right side of this area. I don't know what all of the implications of that will be, but it should be interesting.
I've also got some news to report on the "big ideas" front of the megadungeon. I woke up from a nap this last week with "the Mews of Methas" going through my head. I think my subconscious was probably trying to say "maws," but I looked up "mews" and found out that it means either a stables or a place where bats roost. Combining these two ideas, I figure one of the purposes of the dungeon (if not the original purpose) was to house the warbeasts of Methas, whoever that was. Three-headed, four-winged, genetically altered mammalian monsters sound pretty cool. I think I'll have them turned to stone. If the PCs can figure out how to un-stone and tame one, they could have a pretty sweet mount. I'm not sure if I want to have just one or a few left behind after the Mews was cleared out, or if I want it to be fully stocked. This will be quite deep, though, so I have a while to figure out the specifics. It's a good idea to start dropping hints as to the history of the Mews right now, though.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
"Can't" vs. "Typically Won't": A Minor Semantic Quibble
One of the criticisms of Old School D&D, and all class-based RPGs, really, centers around how well class restrictions make sense. Why can't a thief carry a two-handed weapon, or a magic user use a short-sword or an axe? Will one of those characters really sit there and use nothing but their fists if they find themselves in a room with an orc, a restricted weapon and nothing else?
Another point that dovetails with this is how often monsters can use certain attacks; the classic example is dragons, which can only use their breath weapon every few rounds. That really clashes with my intuitive vision of dragons as not only capable of breathing limitless spouts of fire but as unpredictable in battle, at least from their enemies' points of view. The last thing I want to be worrying about when running a battle with a dragon is having the dragon use it's breath weapon and a player exclaim, "OK, move in; he's got four rounds before he can breath fire again!"
I think both of these objections can be dealt with by characterizing the character or monster in terms of "typically won't" instead of "can't." Sure, just about anyone, including a pasty, thin, physically inept weakling, can use an axe in combat without even basic training, and it really isn't a stretch to think that someone who's trained to use a longsword will be able to use a two-handed sword effectively. An out-of-shape magic user who's spent his whole life indoors studying, though, won't know the finer points of using a bearded axe to get past an enemy's shield, and also won't usually want to lug a weapon that weighs a few pounds around on long trips underground or across the wilderness. A thief, by the same token, will want to carry smaller weapons, as much of her job will involve being agile and not having long lengths of steel poking this way and that as she scrambles up a wall or squeezes through a window. She'll naturally prefer shorter weapons to longer ones. Both classes can use restricted weapons (though, and this is an important point, I don't let classes using restricted weapons do any more damage with them than their class weapons do, nor do I let them pack them with the intention to using them at the outset of an expedition), but choose not to unless there is an emergency. Not being able to have your magic user include a battle axe in his pack isn't so much a matter of physical impossibility, but a matter of what your magic user wants; he doesn't want to carry the axe, even if you want him to.
In much the same way, I imagine dragons (and other monsters with restrictions on how often they can use overwhelming weapons) as able to use their breath weapons as often as they want, but choosing not to. Why? Maybe they want to take stock of the battle and can't keep an eye on all those PCs and henchmen scurrying about when flame is bursting forth from their mouths. Maybe they're terribly arrogant about these things. Maybe there's some factor that makes them not want to use their breath weapon; maybe it's painful, or each use takes a day off their lives or something. The point is that what I'm willing to play as what a dragon will (at least usually) do in combats that I run should be what dragons choose to do, not what they are only able to do. It strips dragons of their magic and terror, in my opinion.
And if I ever catch wind that a player thinks that dragons only breath fire every few rounds, you can bet that the first dragon the party meets will breath fire for the first three or four straight combat rounds.
Another point that dovetails with this is how often monsters can use certain attacks; the classic example is dragons, which can only use their breath weapon every few rounds. That really clashes with my intuitive vision of dragons as not only capable of breathing limitless spouts of fire but as unpredictable in battle, at least from their enemies' points of view. The last thing I want to be worrying about when running a battle with a dragon is having the dragon use it's breath weapon and a player exclaim, "OK, move in; he's got four rounds before he can breath fire again!"
I think both of these objections can be dealt with by characterizing the character or monster in terms of "typically won't" instead of "can't." Sure, just about anyone, including a pasty, thin, physically inept weakling, can use an axe in combat without even basic training, and it really isn't a stretch to think that someone who's trained to use a longsword will be able to use a two-handed sword effectively. An out-of-shape magic user who's spent his whole life indoors studying, though, won't know the finer points of using a bearded axe to get past an enemy's shield, and also won't usually want to lug a weapon that weighs a few pounds around on long trips underground or across the wilderness. A thief, by the same token, will want to carry smaller weapons, as much of her job will involve being agile and not having long lengths of steel poking this way and that as she scrambles up a wall or squeezes through a window. She'll naturally prefer shorter weapons to longer ones. Both classes can use restricted weapons (though, and this is an important point, I don't let classes using restricted weapons do any more damage with them than their class weapons do, nor do I let them pack them with the intention to using them at the outset of an expedition), but choose not to unless there is an emergency. Not being able to have your magic user include a battle axe in his pack isn't so much a matter of physical impossibility, but a matter of what your magic user wants; he doesn't want to carry the axe, even if you want him to.
In much the same way, I imagine dragons (and other monsters with restrictions on how often they can use overwhelming weapons) as able to use their breath weapons as often as they want, but choosing not to. Why? Maybe they want to take stock of the battle and can't keep an eye on all those PCs and henchmen scurrying about when flame is bursting forth from their mouths. Maybe they're terribly arrogant about these things. Maybe there's some factor that makes them not want to use their breath weapon; maybe it's painful, or each use takes a day off their lives or something. The point is that what I'm willing to play as what a dragon will (at least usually) do in combats that I run should be what dragons choose to do, not what they are only able to do. It strips dragons of their magic and terror, in my opinion.
And if I ever catch wind that a player thinks that dragons only breath fire every few rounds, you can bet that the first dragon the party meets will breath fire for the first three or four straight combat rounds.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monster Tables Updated
With a general lack of inspiration lately I decided now was as good a time as any to work on my monster table pages. Yesterday and today I combed through A Hamsterish Hoard of Dungeons and Dragons and put links in my tables to all the monsters that caught my fancy. (Yes, that means that a lot of oozes and jellies got added to the wandering monster tables.)
I've also moved the links to the monster tables under my Fellow Grognardlings blogroll. I think it'll be a little easier on the eyes there, though it will also be less visible, unfortunately.
I've also moved the links to the monster tables under my Fellow Grognardlings blogroll. I think it'll be a little easier on the eyes there, though it will also be less visible, unfortunately.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Foray into Dungeon Building, Part 6
So, now I've got the map for Level 1, Area 4. Time to work on filling it, I think. If I switch back and forth between mapping new areas and filling them, that will probably help with the dreaded Gamer ADD.
Before I even mess with choosing what monsters to include, I can create a room contents table. Labyrinth Lord has a good, simple table to start with, I think (page 124).
I want a dungeon that is a bit emptier, though, and one that has "tricks" as well as traps, and one where I don't have to come up with (or steal) "unique" encounters for a quarter of the rooms. I've come up with this:
01-50 Empty 15%
51-80 Monster 50%
81-90 Trap 30%
91-97 Trick 30%
98-00 Unique Varies
The range of numbers on the left is, obviously, the percentile dice rolls and the percentage on the right is the chance that there will be treasure. Now I roll on this table for each room of Area 4.
Rooms 1 and 12 have monsters. Room 5 has a unique encounter. Room 6 and 15 have traps. Rooms 9, 11, 14 and 16 have monsters and treasure. Room 13 is empty but has treasure in it. The other eight rooms are empty. Not bad.
I kind of hit a wall here. The problem was probably that there were so many resources out there that supply monsters! I had been planning on creating a separate monster table for each area of each level, and choosing which monsters to include was daunting! I also wasn't sure how many monsters of different difficulties should be on each level.
Recently, though, I commented on one of Sham's posts about stocking dungeons, and he then posted this in reply. Instead of creating a separate monster table for different levels or areas, Sham sorts his monsters according to hit dice and then rolls to see how many hit dice a monster will have and then rolls on that hit dice table to see which monster shows up! Cool! (Also, really cool to have a big-time blogger take the time to answer my question with a blog post! Thanks, Sham!)
So, with that in mind, all I need to do to be able to randomly place monsters is have a handful of 1 HD and 2 HD monsters that I can roll between. I can counter choice overload by starting with just a few monsters and slowly building my monster lists as I find monsters I like; I just need to add monsters in intervals that correspond to number ranges I can get from my dice.
I do plan on using two types of random monster tables for my dungeon: stationary monsters (for stocking my dungeon) and wandering monsters. I only need to work on the stationary monsters for now.
So, I need a few 1 HD (and less) and 2 HD monsters.
1 HD (or less) monsters:
2 HD monsters:
That should do the trick for now, though I definitely expect these tables to grow as I continue to look for awesome monsters, the majority of which my players won't be familiar with.
I've created a permanent stationary monster table page for my own convenience and so anyone who is interested can keep up with my monster tables. I'll create another one for wandering monsters. I'm also going to have to create stationary and wondering monster tables for water as well.
OK, so now I quickly roll up the monsters for rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16:
Room 1: Saucer Fungi
Room 9: Giant Centipedes
Room 11: Giant Centipedes
Room 12: Pemblings
Room 14: Jekti
Room 16: Winged Viper Snake
Next time I'll work on treasure, contents of the other rooms and dungeon dressing. We're getting closer to a one-page PDF of Level 1 Area 4! I think that after I've done this process once I'll get the hang of it more and more, so I should be able to make progress on my megadungeon much more quickly.
Before I even mess with choosing what monsters to include, I can create a room contents table. Labyrinth Lord has a good, simple table to start with, I think (page 124).
I want a dungeon that is a bit emptier, though, and one that has "tricks" as well as traps, and one where I don't have to come up with (or steal) "unique" encounters for a quarter of the rooms. I've come up with this:
01-50 Empty 15%
51-80 Monster 50%
81-90 Trap 30%
91-97 Trick 30%
98-00 Unique Varies
The range of numbers on the left is, obviously, the percentile dice rolls and the percentage on the right is the chance that there will be treasure. Now I roll on this table for each room of Area 4.
Rooms 1 and 12 have monsters. Room 5 has a unique encounter. Room 6 and 15 have traps. Rooms 9, 11, 14 and 16 have monsters and treasure. Room 13 is empty but has treasure in it. The other eight rooms are empty. Not bad.
I kind of hit a wall here. The problem was probably that there were so many resources out there that supply monsters! I had been planning on creating a separate monster table for each area of each level, and choosing which monsters to include was daunting! I also wasn't sure how many monsters of different difficulties should be on each level.
Recently, though, I commented on one of Sham's posts about stocking dungeons, and he then posted this in reply. Instead of creating a separate monster table for different levels or areas, Sham sorts his monsters according to hit dice and then rolls to see how many hit dice a monster will have and then rolls on that hit dice table to see which monster shows up! Cool! (Also, really cool to have a big-time blogger take the time to answer my question with a blog post! Thanks, Sham!)
So, with that in mind, all I need to do to be able to randomly place monsters is have a handful of 1 HD and 2 HD monsters that I can roll between. I can counter choice overload by starting with just a few monsters and slowly building my monster lists as I find monsters I like; I just need to add monsters in intervals that correspond to number ranges I can get from my dice.
I do plan on using two types of random monster tables for my dungeon: stationary monsters (for stocking my dungeon) and wandering monsters. I only need to work on the stationary monsters for now.
So, I need a few 1 HD (and less) and 2 HD monsters.
1 HD (or less) monsters:
- Saucer Fungi (from Varlets and Vermin)
- Barrel Beast (from Varlets and Vermin)
- Pembling (from Varlets and Vermin)
- Fire Frogs (from Arduin Grimoire #2)
- Giant Centipedes (from Swords & Wizardry Core Rules)
- Stirges (from Swords & Wizardry Core Rules)
- Jekti (from Hamsterish Hoard)
- Monsters, in succession, from results from Random Esoteric Creature Generator
2 HD monsters:
- Man-Sized Giant Centipedes (from Swords & Wizardry Core Rules)
- Fungusbat (from Beyond the Black Gate)
- Winged Viper Snake (from Monsters of Myth- can't find the free e-version I downloaded)
- Monsters, in succession, from results from Random Esoteric Creature Generator
That should do the trick for now, though I definitely expect these tables to grow as I continue to look for awesome monsters, the majority of which my players won't be familiar with.
I've created a permanent stationary monster table page for my own convenience and so anyone who is interested can keep up with my monster tables. I'll create another one for wandering monsters. I'm also going to have to create stationary and wondering monster tables for water as well.
OK, so now I quickly roll up the monsters for rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16:
Room 1: Saucer Fungi
Room 9: Giant Centipedes
Room 11: Giant Centipedes
Room 12: Pemblings
Room 14: Jekti
Room 16: Winged Viper Snake
Next time I'll work on treasure, contents of the other rooms and dungeon dressing. We're getting closer to a one-page PDF of Level 1 Area 4! I think that after I've done this process once I'll get the hang of it more and more, so I should be able to make progress on my megadungeon much more quickly.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Moral Dilemmas in the Dungeon
One of my players sent me a link yesterday to this post about moral dilemmas in RPGs. In the real world, he is interested in ethics, so it doesn't surprise me that he'd be interested in me including this stuff in some of our games. I even think I can do it without rail-roading, so I'm going to try, and I'll also probably try some things from the "X is for Xenophobia" page in the Dungeon Alphabet. I've been wanting to do that for a while anyway…
Have any of you purposely inserted moral dilemmas into your games? How did it work out?
In other news, I'm immensely thankful that Sham over at Sham's Grog 'n Blog took the time to answer a question about stocking dungeons with monsters with a whole blog post. After downloading what he's made available, I think that using it as a template for my own dungeon stocking charts will be very easy and work quite nicely. Thanks Sham!
And now back to studying…
Have any of you purposely inserted moral dilemmas into your games? How did it work out?
In other news, I'm immensely thankful that Sham over at Sham's Grog 'n Blog took the time to answer a question about stocking dungeons with monsters with a whole blog post. After downloading what he's made available, I think that using it as a template for my own dungeon stocking charts will be very easy and work quite nicely. Thanks Sham!
And now back to studying…
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Clerics, Zombies and Fungus
I don't use clerics in my campaign right now. The two reasons for that are that I try to spread healing ability around for the classes. Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins all can heal to some degree, and everyone is able to do 1d4 hit points of first aid after a fight.
The second reason is that I don't run undead in my campaign. For one reason or another, the undead really just aren't my style.
With no undead and no monopoly on healing, there really wasn't a good reason to have clerics in my campaign.
Lately, though, I've been thinking more and more about fungi as monsters. This got started because of all the awesome monster fungi in Matt Finch's "The Podcaverns of the Sinister Shroom"- the titular Sinister Shroom, Pod-men, Fungemoths… really cool. Thing is, fungi are kind of (and I do mean kind of) like the undead. They aren't plants or animals, and they feed on death. There's something creepy about them, at least when they are not served on pizza; that creepy factor increases a lot when you have giant mushrooms, sentient mushrooms, mushrooms with unpredictable effects, etc. I've been thinking about ways to incorporate fungi into my games and one recently presented itself as a link on one of my friend's Facebook pages.
Apparently, there is a genus of fungus that infect insects with their spores, take over their brains, kill them and then sprout from their dead bodies. Cool! The ones that feed on ants and sprout just from the head are extra-creepy.
How's that for a zombie apocalypse? Villagers just start shambling off- away from the village instead of toward other living things- and die, and then a giant mushroom sprouts from their heads! How's that for unsettling your players? Of course, you can do all sorts of other things with this. For example, since the cause of the zombies is a fungus and not a necromancer of some sort, the players will have a terrible time trying to identify and neutralize the source before they, too, get infected.
If your games do involve the undead, then you can throw your players off even more. Imagine the look on a player's face when his cleric can't turn a bunch of low-level zombies!
Which brings us back to clerics. While the undead are really not my style, fungi are. What if clerics turned fungi- weird, dead-feeding, sinister things- instead of undead? Hmm, this merits further pondering…
Have you ever used fungi in your games? How did it go? Would you ever let a cleric turn fungi zombies?
The second reason is that I don't run undead in my campaign. For one reason or another, the undead really just aren't my style.
With no undead and no monopoly on healing, there really wasn't a good reason to have clerics in my campaign.
Lately, though, I've been thinking more and more about fungi as monsters. This got started because of all the awesome monster fungi in Matt Finch's "The Podcaverns of the Sinister Shroom"- the titular Sinister Shroom, Pod-men, Fungemoths… really cool. Thing is, fungi are kind of (and I do mean kind of) like the undead. They aren't plants or animals, and they feed on death. There's something creepy about them, at least when they are not served on pizza; that creepy factor increases a lot when you have giant mushrooms, sentient mushrooms, mushrooms with unpredictable effects, etc. I've been thinking about ways to incorporate fungi into my games and one recently presented itself as a link on one of my friend's Facebook pages.
Apparently, there is a genus of fungus that infect insects with their spores, take over their brains, kill them and then sprout from their dead bodies. Cool! The ones that feed on ants and sprout just from the head are extra-creepy.
How's that for a zombie apocalypse? Villagers just start shambling off- away from the village instead of toward other living things- and die, and then a giant mushroom sprouts from their heads! How's that for unsettling your players? Of course, you can do all sorts of other things with this. For example, since the cause of the zombies is a fungus and not a necromancer of some sort, the players will have a terrible time trying to identify and neutralize the source before they, too, get infected.
If your games do involve the undead, then you can throw your players off even more. Imagine the look on a player's face when his cleric can't turn a bunch of low-level zombies!
Which brings us back to clerics. While the undead are really not my style, fungi are. What if clerics turned fungi- weird, dead-feeding, sinister things- instead of undead? Hmm, this merits further pondering…
Have you ever used fungi in your games? How did it go? Would you ever let a cleric turn fungi zombies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)