#4e fix

[crustmonster]

4e Fix--dev log 1

Some of the best times I’ve ever had playing D&D were with 4th edition. It’s the only edition where I got just as much enjoyment out of interacting with the mechanics of the game as I did hanging out with my friends playing make believe. That said, it’s pretty hard to get back into 4e after playing other editions of D&D, and especially other RPGs in general. Once the game gets going it’s easy enough to play, but the sheer amount of effort you have to go through to make a character, and to level them up between sessions is daunting. Plus, the game is slowed down by lots of bonuses that are so small, and rules so specific, that they don’t have any meaningful impact on gameplay. The way I see it, these problems are mostly due to “vestigial 3.5-isms”--game elements from the previous edition that stuck around even though they didn’t need to. 

The goal of 4e Fix is to create a supplement that can be used alongside the core 4e books which removes these vestigial game elements, and incorporates a handful of modern game design elements to streamline and declutter the D&D 4e experience without altering so much that it stops being D&D 4e altogether.

To-Do:

Simplify races (renamed to origins) down to 2 traits each. Get rid of  minor bonuses too small to matter.

Simplify classes. Get rid of class features that provide minor bonuses too small to matter. Rewrite class features that provide feats.

Get rid of ability scores–just use modifiers.

Get rid of the “add ½ your level” bonus some stats have. Adjust monster math to compensate.

Simplify weapons and armor, taking inspiration from the way D&D Gamma World does it.

Experimental:

Get rid of both feats and skills–replace them with a single new thing that fills both roles.

I’ll be posting updates.

#dnd #d&d #dungeons and dragons #dungeons & dragons #ttrpg #indie ttrpg #dev log #dnd homebrew #d&d 4e #game design #4e fix

[redwizardofgay]

And while I'm on the topic of 4e, I MUST talk about how bizarre their approach to the new core setting was. The idea for the Points of Light/Dawn War setting --- basically a fantasy dark age/post apocalypse world with elements borrowed from Planescape, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk, is a really good one. I like that 4e tried to capture the zeitgeist of the post-Bush era by making the world one haunted by the bones of a glorious empire whose greatness was not for any still living to enjoy. Like that just fucks. And especially with the new Origins system adding depth and connection to how race and class connected the setting's cosmology you've got a really solid foundation for a Dark Fantasy version of dnd.

BUT the world is fundementally incomplete. It's called Points of Light or Dawn War because the world itself doesn't even have a name --- at least not one that was ever published as part of an official release. Major historical events are left merely implied --- allegedly so that GMs could create their own versions of the world, and even the function of the world is so foggy it's hard to find a footing for your PC to come from. Like, just trying to figure out how long ago the tiefling and dragonborn empires fell is hard to do because the best we get is some vague posturing about how it's been both millennia ago, and also centuries ago --- but also somehow recent enough that knowledge of them is common knowledge?

It's no wonder 4e was the golden age of the backstory-less murder hobo, cause despite the great theming in some places the books really don't give you anywhere to start!

And that's not even touching the resurrection of 1e Basic's understanding of Alignment and how that really muddles the world.

4e is just so full of interesting ideas that go nowhere that it's fascinating onto itself. I understand, principally, why the game was developed this way, but I also can't quite wrap my head around it. Like surely someone, somewhere in the development process flagged that Points of Light was a soulless pile of ideas and vibes that normal people wouldn't be able to make much out of and, even if they did, the hyper localized nature of the lore would mean that it would never be as big of a bit as Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance were. Right?

#dnd #d&d #4e #dungeons and dragons #the setting is the main reason i want to fix 4e #cause there ws potential here for something unqiue #something insightful and valuable #but instead it's an aborted mess of half-baked ideas and half-naked warrior women #the art is ankther mess I'll need to hit at some point

[thydungeongal]

Games with strong and flexible tactical combat rules, lesser known than PF2E/Lancer? Im running PF1 by force and hate it to death.

Strike! One of my all-time faves. Feels like a combination of D&D 4e's combat system with a non-combat system more inspired by games like Mouse Guard, Fate, and the like. The game embraces reflavoring and has a strong tactical core, and is thus adaptable to many settings provided the gameplay you want is "tactical combat and heedless adventure" (the game's tagline).

Fragged Empire. Post-cataclysmic post-humanity science fiction with an interesting setting where humanity is long gone and what remains are genetically modified species that may have once been humans? Anyway, lots of tactical depth and customization. Might want to wait since a second edition is coming that seeks to fix some of the original's issues. Has lots of variant settings that adapt the system to other genres (like Fragged Kingdom that's set in the same universe as Empire but on a medieval planet where science is seen as magic).

ICON. From one of the folks behind Lancer, this one's a tactical fantasy RPG. I haven't delved into it a lot but what I have seen of it kicks ass.

#thydungeongal answers

[hustlerose]

one day i'm gonna get a group thats willing to play dnd 4e with me. that system fixes so many things i hate about 5e

[vintagerpg]

This is the much anticipated and slightly contentious Cyberpunk Red (2020), the fourth or so iteration of the RPG ballsy enough to take the name of a whole genre for itself.

I think it does a pretty good job of earning that name — just about every facet of every sort of cyberpunk (and a LOT of variants have cropped up in forty or so years) has some sort of representation in the world of Night City (and, yea, its a city, but so dense and varied that it may as well be a whole world). The most common complaints I see about the game focus in on the art. I like the art! I think it does a good job of selling the mood and building the world.

The core of the system is fast and simple — roll a D10, add in modifier, beat the GM’s number to succeed. Easy! It doesn’t stay so easy, though. MY main complaint is that the more you dig into the game, the more discrete subsystems you encounter. A lot of it is optional, but some of it isn’t and it leaks into the core experience. It isn’t so pronounced as say, the complexity of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4E, but it feels more complex than it needed to be. The complexity does add depth, which is nice, but I’d be a little daunted bringing this to the table.

Which is a shame, because it fixes one of my biggest reservations about the original iterations of Cyberpunk: the callous live fast die faster ethos. That 80s style-over-substance stuff is in there, but there is also a lot more attention given to taking care of and defending folks in need. The old games didn’t care about people or changing the world, Red does, and lays down lots of suggestions, both explicit and implicit, on how to do it in play. I really dig that.

#RPG #TTRPG #Tabletop RPG #Roleplaying Game #D&D #dungeons & dragons #R Talsorian #Cyberpunk #Cyberpunk Red

[uvexar]

Dragon Discourse is back to 5e social media and I've realized that dragons form a really fascinating vertical slice of all the problems with the system. Not just technical problems, but problems in the culture of the game.

Dragons in 5e D&D are big sacks of hit points with deadly breath weapons. Large dragons have a Frightful Presence, which is like a fight-or-flight response effect triggered on everyone close enough to it. The largest get to slap people with their wings and knock them over with their tails. The most powerful dragons have Legendary Actions, giving them extra attacks on other people's turns, and if you fight them in their lair, their lair has effects too. A burst of fire might come out of a crack in a red dragon's cave, for instance.

It's not a bad setup. But the problem comes when dragons have to intersect with the rest of the game.

If you play a dragon like an intelligent creature (which you should - "intelligence" meaning not totally brain-dead), its abilities suggest a monster that outside of its lair will *never* let go of its areal advantage. It will fly down, use its fire breath on the player characters, then fly away until it recharges. This wouldn't be bad, except that 5e as a system encourages characters builds around specific aspects of combat. In this situation, melee-only characters are going to have to suck it up and use a bow, which they wouldn't be as optimized for, but which would still be effective.

But 5e as a culture? HATES this kind of scenario. You might be wondering, why is a tabletop game encouraging closing off an entire area of combat for the sake of optimization? The answer is, it isn't; however, the culture of 5e suggests that when a character specializes in something, they should be expected to be doing that thing *all the time* and *nothing else.* Players will get upset if they encounter a monster that hard-counters their focused character build!

This isn't necessarily their fault, of course. 5e is incredibly glued to the 2D grid/battlemap, only surpassed by 4e in that respect. Its range increments in all areas (weapons, spell areas, movement speeds) are set up for a space no wider than 150 feet or so across, and that's honestly being generous. And because streaming is absolutely enamored with rich territory maps and VTTs, and streaming is a cornerstone of 5e as a product, very few players have any reason to expect a battle with a vertical component larger than 30 feet. (Anything larger is increasingly abstract and hard to render on a grid map.) As a result, players are able to comfortably design builds that are "melee-only."

Dragons break the whole paradigm of 2D, VTT-focused combat in half. So what happens when you play a dragon intelligently in 5e? Simple: Players get frustrated, and characters die.

An analogy here that I think is appropriate is, imagine if enemies just inside your load range in Skyrim could spray fire at you with a 20% chance of nearly killing you. That wouldn't be fun! 5e doesn't have a literal load range, of course, but *effectively* it does.

There are three ways you can run a dragon in 5e. The first is to give it a death wish. Make it land like a Skyrim dragon at half health, or hell just treat it like a big dinosaur that can do some long jumps. What you're left with is a bag of hit points with no brain that can't fly. And that's a pretty easy fight - worse, it's *boring.*

The second way is to homebrew the shit out of it. 4e has this over 5e in terms of dragons: they escape the trap of the grid's event horizon by having a lot of cool abilities they can use. You can add a bunch of these cool abilities to a dragon in 5e, and it almost makes it a good fight! Except now you're fixing an issue with the game on your own time, in ways that are explicitly counter to the game's actual monster design paradigms. You are stapling 4e onto 5e. Which is fine until the contradictions become overwhelming.

The third way, of course, is to play it intelligently. How are players expected to respond to a real life dragon?

In myth and legend, heroes never meet dragons on even turf. Even Saint George, the classic knight on a lance facing down a fiery serpent, actually pacifies the dragon with the Cross in the story. So if a group of PCs wants to kill a dragon, they have to use every tool at their disposal. Find allies, place traps, seek it out in its lair where it has nowhere else to run, and keep it from getting airborne.

This is proactive play. And this is where the last and biggest issue with 5e comes in: *5e actively discourages proactive play.*

This is a problem both cultural and mechanical. Mechanically, 5e's adventure design is extremely reactive and railroad-y, almost scripted in some cases (Descent into Avernus comes to mind). Culturally, the fantasy games most often played by people nowadays are *incredibly* reactive and railroad-y, because that's how video games are programmed! Dragon Age and the Witcher and World of Warcraft and *especially* Skyrim aren't designed for you to be proactive, to build your own goals, or find your own solution to problems.

What this means is that very few players, unless they came up in an older game tradition (or are a horrible revanchist like me), expect the solution to a combat encounter to be found outside of that very combat encounter. And if they have no other choice? It's frustrating! The game isn't giving them the tools to succeed! *They haven't been taught to think this way.*

(This goes for DMs too - the game encourages DMs to design adventures and encounters in a video-game fashion, mechanically and culturally. So of course a dragon in that paradigm, using the 5e rules, is going to suck.)

What's the solution? Well, other than homebrewing (which let's be honest means you should just play 4e), the solution is a hard uphill battle against cultural and mechanical biases. So honestly the easiest way to play a dragon in 5e is to not play it at all.

And that sucks.

#dnd #dragon #5e #ttrpg

[thecreaturecodex]

Anaxim

Image © Wizards of the Coast, by Wayne Reynolds

[Commissioned by @justicegundam82​​. The anaxim was one of the abominations in the D&D 3.0 Epic Level Handbook, and even in its initial appearance seemed like a strange fit. It doesn’t have an epic level CR, at CR 20, and it is the only non-evil abomination. 4e tried to reinvent them by moving them to the Forgotten Realms, and conflating them with a 2e monster family from Dragon Magazine, the sheen. Like most decisions involving the Realms in the 4e era, I hate this and am ignoring it.

My inspiration for the flavor text is as much from conversations with my followers as from any official source. Their first canon backstory is that they are the abandoned creations of a forge god who tried and failed to make an ultimate weapon. The commissioner suggested, in light of this and to give the anaxim something to do other than fight, that they be interested in “fixing” themselves. A conversation with @strawberry-crocodile​​ about one of her upcoming commissions got me thinking about how Pathfinder RPG treats Law vs. Chaos as the big reality-defining conflict as opposed to Good vs. Evil (more traditional fantasy settings) or Evil vs. Evil (the Blood War). And, because of where I am in my life, there’s definitely an element of queer symbolism in this entry as well. Feel free to play that up, or play that down, depending on how you want to use the anaxim in your game.]

Anaxim CR 17 N Outsider (extraplanar) This mechanical thing is approximately human shaped, but nearly twice as broad. Its body seems to be made entirely of weapons—it has spinning blades mounted on its back, multiple hooks and cleavers growing along its arms, and a face like a knight’s helmet.

In the war between the inevitables and proteans, there are casualties. Most of these are outright fatalities, but in some cases, an inevitable becomes irreversibly changed by the forces of chaos. When this happens, the inevitable transforms into an anaxim. No two anaxim look identical, but all resemble loosely humanoid metal figures covered in weapons. The primary goal of most anaxim is perfection: making themselves whole and complete in a way that is unique to each individual. Many anaxim would also like to figure out a way to reliably replicate, one that didn’t rely on freak chance and outside intervention. A few anaxim are instead filled with self-loathing and seek to lash out at the forces that made them—these are the most dangerous.

A single anaxim is the equivalent of an entire mortal army, and they are able to go toe-to-toe with all but the most powerful proteans or inevitables alike. As anaxims value their own lives very highly, they usually start a combat cautiously, from a distance or with hit and run attacks. The spinning blades that grow between their shoulders are, when spun fast enough, able to act as a wing, granting the creature remarkable maneuverability for its weight. In addition to their impressive physical weaponry, an anaxim can use a number of spells for defense, and a powerful blast of sonic energy for offense.

Anaxims are insane by the standards of the inevitables, which means that they are capable of respecting and understanding multiple viewpoints. Some maintain a balanced approach to achieving their goals, while others veer wildly between chaotic and lawful behavior. On some occasions anaxim will gather together into groups if their views of perfection overlap. If they do not, such groups rapidly fall apart due to infighting, with anaxim attempting to take control of their peers or simply blast them to pieces with their sonic cones.

Anaxim       CR 17 XP 104,200 N Medium outsider (chaotic, extraplanar, lawful) Init +7; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Perception +26, true seeing Defense AC 33, touch 18, flat-footed 25 (+7 Dex, +1 dodge, +15 natural) hp 270 (20d10+140 plus 20); fast healing 10 Fort +13, Ref +19, Will +17 DR 15/(adamantine and lawful) or (adamantine and chaotic); Immune construct traits; Resist cold 20, electricity 20, fire 20; SR 28 (35 vs. divinations) Defensive Abilities constructed Offense Speed 30 ft., fly 100 ft. (perfect) Melee 2 blade arms +31 (2d6+11/19-20), spinning blades +31 (4d6+11/19-20x3) Ranged 6 spikes +27 (1d8+11) Special Attacks control construct, rend (2 blade arms, 2d6+16), sonic cone Spell-like Abilities CL 20th, concentration +25 Constant—nondetection (self only), true seeing At will— chain lightning (DC 21), displacement, greater dispel magic 3/day—ethereal jaunt, quickened greater dispel magic, improved invisibility 1/day—summon (1 iron golem, 100%, 9th level) Statistics Str 33, Dex 25, Con 25, Int 20, Wis 20, Cha 20 Base Atk +20; CMB +31 (+35 sunder); CMD 49 (51 vs. sunder) Feats Cleave, Craft Construct (B), Deadly Aim, Dodge, Flyby Attack, Great Cleave, Greater Sunder, Improved Critical (spinning blades), Improved Sunder, Power Attack, Quicken SLA (greater dispel magic) Skills Acrobatics +28, Craft (clockwork) +24, Fly +24, Knowledge (arcana, dungeoneering) +21, Knowledge (engineering, planes) +24, Perception +26, Sense Motive +26, Stealth +28, Spellcraft +21 (+25 crafting constructs), Survival +26, Use Magic Device +26; Racial Modifiers +4 Spellcraft when crafting constructs Languages Celestial, Common, Modron, Protean, Utopian SQ armament, construct maker Ecology Environment any land or underground (Axis) Organization solitary, binary pair or squad (3-6 plus 0-12 miscellaneous constructs) Treasure standard Special Abilities Armament (Ex) An anaxim’s natural weapons overcome damage reduction as lawful, chaotic and magic weapons. Its blade arms are primary natural weapons that deal slashing and piercing damage, and threaten a critical hit on a roll of 19-20. Its spinning blades are a primary natural weapon that deals slashing damage, and deals x3 damage on a successful critical hit. Control Construct (Su) Three times per day as a standard action, an anaxim can attempt to take over a construct within 60 feet. The construct can attempt a DC 25 Will save; if it fails, it is totally under the control of the anaxim for 24 hours. Creatures with the constructed defensive ability, such as inevitables, modrons and other anaxim, are susceptible to this effect as well. The save DC is Charisma based. Constructed (Ex) Although anaxim are living outsiders, their bodies are constructed of physical components, and in many ways they function as constructs. For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), anaxim count as both outsiders and constructs. They are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Anaxim are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. They are not at risk of death from massive damage. They have bonus hit points as constructs of their size. Anaxim do not need to breathe. Construct Maker (Ex) An anaxim has Craft Construct as a bonus feat. It gains a +4 racial bonus on all Spellcraft checks used in the manufacture of a construct. Sonic Cone (Su) Once every 1d4 rounds as a standard action, an anaxim can create a 60 foot cone of deadly sonic energy. All creatures in the area take 20d6 points of sonic damage and are staggered for 1 round. A successful DC 25 Reflex save halves the damage and negates the staggered condition. The save DC is Charisma based. Spikes (Ex) As a standard action, an anaxim can fire up to six spikes. Each spike is treated as a ranged weapon with a range increment of 100 feet. Each spike deals 1d8 damage plus the anaxim’s Strength modifier. An anaxim never runs out of spikes.

#anaxim #pathfinder 1e #D&D #commissions #inevitable #protean #wayne reynolds

[earlgraytay]

Wait do tieflings still have +2 Cha and +1 Int? I thought WotC got rid of ability score modifiers for different "races"/ancestries

Unfortunately, both things are correct.

... Wizards has been churning out these books that contain a bunch of errata-fixes, Alternate Ways To Play, and stuff like that-- kinda like the 3e Unearthed Arcana book, except that there's so. many. more. of. them. Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, and so on and so on.

And one of the things they've really been pushing with these books is a model of the game where different species don't have innate ability score increases (or cultural weapon proficiencies/skill proficiencies, or any sort of proclivity for a particular class, or... you get the idea). They've really taken the backlash about how D&D Is Racist to heart and have given people who don't want to play a game like that the tools they need to do so.

....Except that a) the shit in the Everything books only overwrites what's in the Player's Handbook if your DM says so, and b) it's a band-aid solution at best and shoddy game design at worst.

Because, like... look... yes, the model of the world that D&D is based on is fucked up; the idea that people can be divided into separate "races" that each have their own culture and are fundamentally good at different things is Bad irl and is Bad in D&D.

But also, character creation in a TTRPG is about making interesting choices. Whether it's like, Gamma World 4e where the "interesting choices" are "roll on a table and make sense of the abomination you've created", or a PBTA game where your skin mostly determines what kind of story you want to tell, or D&D where you sit down and crunch a bunch of numbers. You're making choices that give you certain abilities and lock you out of others.

In D&D, the two fundamental choices that you make at the start of every game are "species" and "class". Are you an elven wizard, a halfling rogue, a human fighter, a dwarven cleric? These choices are supposed to shape how your character interacts with the world on both a mechanical and characterization level.

Taking one of those choices and making it, essentially, "how fast do you want to move and do you want a spell-like ability or a feat"... I feel like that's a bad idea from a game design perspective, even if it's the correct idea from a Not Having A Fucked Up Worldview perspective. Because, like, it turns a choice that's supposed to be incredibly meaningful for the first few levels into "eh, whatever your DM feels is Goodthink".

The way I would honestly handle it is to make backgrounds more mechanically important than they are in 5e right now and offload most of what used to be ~racial traits~ into backgrounds. Keep "what species are you" as an actually interesting choice, but move most of the crunch into a place where you could be a human raised by dwarves if you want.

#dnd #tabletop #sigh #yeah

[chronotsr]

No. 1 - G1, The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (July 1978)

Author(s): Gary Gygax Artist(s): Erol Otus, Dave C. Sutherland III (cover), David A. Trampier Level range: Average of 9, preferably 5+ players Theme: Standard Swords and Sorcery Major re-releases: G1-3 Against the Giants, GDQ1-7 Queen of the Spiders, Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff, Dungeon #197, Tales from the Yawning Portal

I'm not sure if G1-G3 are the most remastered adventures of all time, but it's gotta be competitive. I think Tomb of Horrors might have it beat, but I haven't counted. The 4e conversion [the Dungeon #197 one] is really weird in particular because…4e feels like the edition least interested in the legacy of DND? It was boldly doing its own thing. A good quality, actually.

Anyway, it's time to slag off* on a beloved adventure. Note, I am using the earliest copy of G1 I can find, which is from waaaay later when D3 was complete. I apologize.

*And by slag off, I mean "be critical of at all". In practice, this module is actually showing some unusual acumen compared to its contemporaries.

EDIT: I forgot to mention a rather important thing when this was made live -- note the title there! We are officially in ADND land now, so put away your little brown booklets and switch over to the fuck-off awesome player's handbook with the iconic Moloch statue!

Somehow I had gotten my whole life at this point never really…understanding what this structure was supposed to look like? It looks like this.

I honestly think exterior shots of dungeons are critically underrated. Handouts are amazing and being able to flash the back cover art to safely show the party "like this" is actually great, I deeply wish that….any? of the previous modules had done that? I think the only one that did was Tsojconth. Weirdly, the interior drawing is very subtly different. Look at how the logs face:

Not a huge deal but, a kind of weird inconsistency that top one looks like a stockade and the bottom one looks like a log cabin. Side note, we know that the long dimension of this is using 210 feet tall logs, which is to say, the size of an average redwood. These are some big fuck-off trees -- which could be a very interesting detail about the local area.

Now the setup is pretty simple. You were hired to go beat up the giants because they've been raiding the local humans, figure out why they're raiding, and comeback posthaste. The locals have kitted you out with horses, guides, maps, et c -- but no compensation, they have simply omitted a finder's fee (cheap bastards). Also, if you fail, they'll execute you. With friends like these, who needs Giants?

Gary starts with some mild railroading (you accepted the job already, you are already kitted out, you already walked to a nearby cave, you waited til dusk to approach, you notice two guards are missing, and the cave is guaranteed to be moderately hidden. Sure, whatever, I'm going to ignore that if I run this tho. Gary notifies us of a few critical details:

Don't run this stock, that's immoral

Any surviving giants will flee to G2 if they have the opportunity (which, kind of inherently punishes clever play that avoids combat?)

There is a 2% chance per round that the wooden structure will be lit on fire due to chronic rain (why is this a dice roll??)

If you will permit me a tangent, player arson is truly the bane of interesting scenarios everywhere. Whenever a player wonders, "why are all the GM's dungeons underground or in stonework buildings?", it's because doing anything else invites arson as the default and best answer to all problems. Magic items are fireproof and most metal items will not get hot enough to be destroyed, so very often the best solution is to burn the place to the ground and loot it the next day. So, yeah. No wood buildings. Gary's fix is to have all the giants flee into the basement, then waste a week of the PC's time for daring to use arson. Kind of sucks!

Tangent complete.

Here's some random interesting bits:

Gary explicitly states that you can pass yourself off as hill giant kids, which is extremely funny. Minus the implicit child murder.

Naturally there are giant moms doing giant housemaid shit in several rooms. Presumably they have giant curlers too.

The secret door is, literally just a doorway covered by a pelt. I have to hand it to them, that'd trip up most players in 2024 AND make them feel stupid for not figuring it out!

The big reveal that Eclavdra the Drow is secretly behind it all is so lightly teased that it feels downright tasteful.

A giant that uses a ballista as a crossbow (based) and spears for arrows (also based) -- between the prevalence of lightning spears and greatarrows, one starts to think of a certain famous video game. Genuinely I think it'd be a fun exercise one day, for someone who is more knowledgeable than me about Japanese fantasy roleplaying culture, to talk about how anglophone fantasy works made their way into Japan and were interpreted.

One of the cloud giants has hidden a sentient giant slaying sword that speaks all the giant languages, it feels like there's a hell of a story going on there that is only alluded to!

To my knowledge, this is the first official depiction of an orc in DND? Which implies that Gary is team pig-orcs, which is cool. Frankly, I love porcine orcs, or even better just pigfolk in general, they're great.

I think it is actually a rather bold early stance for Gary to hold that, even here in 1978, Chaotic aligned creatures are not automatically friends. Granted, that's how it is in Elric, so it's not THAT bold, but clearly everyone else missed the memo. The orcs are willing to side with you at least in the short-run, and in our previous modules it was very rare to have groups of chaotic-aligned creatures fighting one another. It was always just personal beefs. In fact, the overall theme of G1 so far is that despite the boxy-ass dungeon design, there's already a command of naturalism that even modern dungeons really struggle with. Factionalism truly is the gift that keeps on giving for the GM!

So the big reveal internally to G1 (just think of that -- a reveal internally to G1, and externally to the GDQ supermodule -- we're already getting pacing!) is that the orc slaves have rebelled. And -- hey -- good for them. There's also a kind of…built-in companion refill system going on here? So in oldish DND the way it works is, the expectation is the party is not just 5 guys with swords. You've got companions to help fight, and you've got hirelings to do other stuff (test suspected traps, if you're evil). And you can only hire so many of these guys from town, but attrition is going to happen. So the modules simply provides, automatic replacements should you negotiate worth a quarter of a shit. A dwarf slave here, an orc slave there. Maybe a giant dissenter if you're really clever. One of the potential "rewards" you can get is more dudes to throw at problems.

More interesting bits

There is, what I can only really call an abortive idea going on here where there's a scary temple in the basement? But no one worships there and no information is provided. It is merely a fucked up altar. I think I vaguely recall that it's retconned Tharizdun in one of the remakes? They always retcon things to be Tharizdun. Busy man, Tharzy.

Gary, Gary no. Stop it. Stop this 78 guys bullshit. I thought we had established that giant rooms of giant clumps of guys was bad. I know you have terminal Napoleonics brain but stop.

Wait, Steading is a noun? I always thought it was a verb. Yknow, like "Steading those hill giants", taking 'em down a notch. Apparently, a Steading is a small farm -- same etymology as Homestead. I guess mark that as our first Gygaxism?

Our second Gygaxism is gill, which is "a quarter pint of an alcoholic drink", which is to say a few mouthfuls

Always end your adventures with weird, ominous non-diegetic text. On the flip-side, absolutely do not do what the adventure does, and end on a teleporter that takes you to the next dungeon. That is the worst option.

Anyway, that's the whole Hill Giant situation. Honestly, it's better than I remembered, but in proud module tradition up to this point it gets weirdly filler-y in the basement. There's just something about basements that makes dungeon designers stop giving a shit, I swear. I do need to give the man his due, even though he was a shitass person: Gygax wrote an 11 page module that is of noticeably higher killer-to-filler ratio than any of his contemporaries. G1 is better than any of its predecessors, pound for pound. It is way, way shorter which is I suppose a plus to me and a minus to others, but -- there is a clear internal logic to this place that is tragically missing from (say) The Dwarven Glory. And that internal logic is the beginning of good adventure design. Anyway, we have two fun tidbits to discuss before we end for the day.

First up, we have an of-the-time account of events in Dragon #19! It turns out that in Origins '78 they played G1-G3's prototype. The account is of the winners (mostly West Virginians, a few Michiganders), who used their magic extremely liberally to hide what they were doing as well as to scout. They did opt to light the place on fire, good for them! If you want to check this out, it's on page 3. I will mention G2 and G3 here as relevant later.

Second up, there's a weird interquel hiding in Dungeon #198! Hanging out as an informal G1.5 is "The Warrens of the Stone Giant Thane!" I will not review it in full because my understanding of 4e is, basically just skimming the PHB and reading the DMG, but essentially the Stone Giants are hypothetically aloof and not particularly loyal to their Fire Giant superiors, but someone gave them The Rock That Makes You Crazy and so now they are. Smash the rock!

Man, map design in the 4e era was so fucking bad. It looks fine, but like, this is four circles. And downstairs is, of course, cave as far as the eye can see. Aren't stone giants supposed to be skilled carvers? Anyway, If you feel like G2 would be too big of a jump mechanically compared to G1, this exists. I'm sure you could use it if you liked, and certainly there is a Genre of Grognard who would be kinda tickled at the thought of finding "lost content" for el classico GDQ.

Next week, we cover G2, which was also in July. So was G3! They're triplets!

#1e #chronotsr #dnd #dungeons and dragons #tsr #ttrpg #g1 #against the giants #gary gygax #adnd

[kookaburra1701]

WIP Wednesday - Aristeia (Working title)

tagged by @rainpebble3 and @mareenavee tyty friends!

I am tagging @gilgamish @tallmatcha @dirty-bosmer @thana-topsy @nientedenada @avantegarda @totally-not-deacon @greyborn2

Fandom: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Rating: T (blood and violence) Category: gen Genre(s): Adventure, Homer retelling Main characters: Borgakh the Steel Heart, the orcs of Mor Khazgur

Summary: Borgakh is a dutiful daughter of Mor Khazgur, an orc stronghold in a remote corner of the Reach that has existed since the Merethic era. Expected to someday become the shield-wife of a distant chieftain, Borgakh tries to uphold the Code of Malacath as best she can. But when her father, the chief of their stronghold, goes missing while on a quest for vengeance, the suitors that show up to vie for his place cause no end of trouble and threaten the strength of Mor Khazgur. Borgakh soon finds herself traveling far from home across the Druadach Mountains to find her father and save the stronghold.

The first chapter is in my capable beta's hands, so have the opening of chapter 2!

I might as well—might better—see my treasure  and livestock taken over by you all; then, if you fed on them, I’d have some remedy,  and when we met, in public, in the town,  I’d press my claim; you might make restitution.

–Homer, The Odyssey: Book II, lines 78-82. Translated by Robert Fitzgerald.

4th First Seed, 4E 195 Juniper’s hooves rang over the stones of the main path through Mor Khazgur as Borgakh trotted her past Pavo and Olur once more. When she halted at the closed gate in the wall, Juniper immediately tried to turn back toward the byre, but Borgakh kept her head close and soon had her pointed back down the pathway towards the forge. There had been frost in the night, and the stones of the path glittered in the morning sun. Juniper snorted, sending a cloud of hay-scented vapor into the air.

“She could do with a full trim,” Pavo was saying. “One of the miners in Karthwasten saw to her feet over the winter when we couldn’t travel cross country. She was tender for a week, so we’ve let them go a bit.”

Olur was nodding, one hand under his chin while he followed Juniper’s hooves with his eyes.

“That’s the problem, people try to shoe a pack mule like some sort of palfrey instead of a working animal. I’ll fix her up.” Olur looked at Borgakh and jerked his chin towards the forge.

As Borgakh led Juniper behind Olur, the mule gave the barn another longing look before relenting to Borgakh’s insistent tugs on her halter and following with a heavy sigh. Pavo gave Juniper a pat as she went by before returning to the table by the longhouse where Ghamorz and Gul had piled the stronghold’s pelts and extra orichalcum from the winter’s mining and trapping.

Shuftharz looked up as Borgakh tied Juniper to the railing next to the forge pavilion and Olur began preparing his tools. On the workbench a large pile of unfinished orichalcum scales gleamed in the morning sun, waiting for tempering and shaping. Shuftharz however, was working on tempering a pick-axe.

“I will be done shortly,” she said, the shaved sides of her head gleaming with sweat from the heat of the forge despite the nip in the air. “This is the last pick that Pavo and Gat brought for repair.”

“Yes, mother.” Olur looked over Juniper’s back to where Sharamph was examining the sacks of wheat, barley, and other staples Pavo had brought to trade. “I think grandmother will be ready soon.” He secured his thick leather farrier’s apron, split down the middle, around his waist. “Make sure to include the value of my services in the bargaining.”

“Of course, my son.”

While Shuftharz put the finishing touches on the pick-axe, Olur set to work removing Juniper’s shoes, his movements quick and sure. Borgakh knew Olur no longer needed her around the forge and that her mother would be soon be telling her to get on with her morning sword drills, but she paused. She liked watching Olur work. As much as he would insist that his primary skill was in forging fierce weapons, when he was working on a horse his customary scowl would soften, except for a small delicate line between his eyebrows as he concentrated. He seemed to anticipate every movement and shift of weight Juniper made, pausing in his work until she settled, and resuming when she was done fussing. It was like a dance.

#mor khazgur #fic: aristeia #borgakh the steel heart #skyrim fanfiction #skyrim #tesblr #wip wednesday #kb writes #orc posting hours #it's not easy being green #orc #hot orc summer

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver

The Helldiver was developed to replace the Douglas SBD Dauntless. It was a much larger aircraft, able to operate from the latest aircraft carriers and carry a considerable array of armament. It featured an internal bomb bay that reduced drag when carrying heavy ordnance. Saddled with demanding requirements set forth by both the U.S. Marines and United States Army Air Forces, the manufacturer incorporated features of a "multi-role" aircraft into the design.

The Model XSB2C-1 prototype initially suffered development issues connected to its Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone engine and three-bladed propeller; further concerns included structural weaknesses, poor handling, directional instability, and bad stall characteristics. In 1939, a student took a model of the new Curtiss XSB2C-1 to the MIT wind tunnel. Professor of Aeronautical Engineering Otto C. Koppen was quoted as saying, "if they build more than one of these, they are crazy". He was referring to controllability issues with the small vertical tail.

The first prototype made its maiden flight on 18 December 1940. It crashed on 8 February 1941 when its engine failed on approach, but Curtiss was asked to rebuild it. The fuselage was lengthened and a larger tail was fitted, while an autopilot was fitted to help the poor stability. The revised prototype flew again on 20 October 1941, but was destroyed when its wing failed during diving tests on 21 December 1941.

Large-scale production had already been ordered on 29 November 1940, but a large number of modifications were specified for the production model. Fin and rudder area were increased, fuel capacity was increased, self-sealing fuel tanks were added, and the fixed armament was doubled to four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns in the wings, compared with the prototype's two cowling guns. The SB2C-1 was built with larger fuel tanks, improving its range considerably.

The program suffered so many delays that the Grumman TBF Avenger entered service before the Helldiver, even though the Avenger had begun its development two years later. Nevertheless, production tempo accelerated with production at Columbus, Ohio and two Canadian factories: Fairchild Aircraft Ltd. (Canada), which produced 300 (under the designations XSBF-l, SBF-l, SBF-3, and SBF-4E), and Canadian Car and Foundry, which built 894 (designated SBW-l, SBW-3, SBW-4, SBW-4E, and SBW-5), these models being respectively equivalent to their Curtiss-built counterparts. A total of 7,140 SB2Cs and equivalent models were produced in World War II.

Initially poor handling characteristics and late modifications caused lengthy delays to production and deployment, to the extent that it was investigated by the Truman Committee, which turned in a scathing report. This contributed to the decline of Curtiss as a company. Neither pilots nor aircraft carrier skippers seemed to like it. Nevertheless, the type was faster than the Dauntless, and by the end of the Pacific War, the Helldiver had become the main dive bomber and attack aircraft on USN carriers.

By the time a land-based variant, known as the A-25 Shrike, became available in late 1943, the Western Allied air forces had abandoned dedicated dive-bombers. A majority of A-25s delivered to the US Army Air Forces were transferred to the US Marine Corps, which used the type only in one side campaign and non-combat roles. The British Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force also cancelled substantial orders, retaining only a few aircraft for research purposes.

Nicknames for the aircraft included "Big-Tailed Beast" or just "Beast", "Two-Cee", and "Son-of-a-Bitch 2nd Class"; the latter nickname was derived from the name SB2C and the aircraft's reputation for having difficult handling characteristics.

Photo-Description:

Aircraft

Commemorative Air Force

Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver

Reg.: N92879

Code: 32

Location & Date

Wichita - McConnell AFB (IAB / KIAB)

Kansas, USA - September 25, 2010

Caption:

Photographer:

J Snyder (Oklahoma, USA)

#Curtiss Helldiver #Curtiss #helldiver #warplane #airplane #world war 2

[talenlee]

4e: Many Hands Make Fight Work

Yeah I’m stretching for an aphorism, don’t @ me. There’s a term you may have heard in the context of tabletop games, usually in the context of combat-focused tactical games, but not always, and sometimes in the context of videogames or TCGs, which is the idea of Action Economy.

But what is, an action economy?

An Action Economy, in the broadest possible way, is the way in which a limited pool of resources in the context of a play experience are distributed to competing interests within that space. What this usually means is that if a game gives you a limited number of things you can do, and a limited amount of opportunities to do them, typically, being able to get more than your ‘fair share’ of actions is going to give you an advantage.

And this is a really broad way to describe it! Not every game has this – Blackjack, for example, is a game where every player in a hand has the same total amount of hands in a round (and yes you can split and double, but that’s still all from the same hand). In a game like Starcraft you can get all sorts of actions in during the timing of the game – they won’t all be good, or meaningful, or have a positive effect on the outcome of the game, but you can have a lot of actions.

In turn-based games, like Magic: The Gathering, the ‘action economy’ is a bit less constrained – it uses resources like mana and cards to keep you limited on doing too much in a single turn. Action economies are much more important in games like Wingspan, where you have a limited number of actions every game, meaning any game piece that lets you take extra actions has a direct contribution towards you maybe winning the game.

Didn’t come to talk to you about Wingspan though.

Came to talk to you about pets.

In 4th edition D&D, you could have a pet. There were ways to do it, including buying one with gold, and typically, they sucked. Pets purchased with gear money didn’t tend to scale, didn’t tend to have good stats, and weren’t usually worth the money unless you were very coldhearted and planned on buying a lot that were, to you, cheap, as a sort of expendable supply of bodies. Particularly, though, they weren’t that good because to direct one of your pets to do something was a standard action, and you only got one of them. Plus, all your best actions, usually, were standard actions!

This was a deliberate thing, as part of the systems of the game were about dividing up certain types of power. Gear was good! Gear was bought with gold, and gold could be pretty freely available. The best gear was the stuff that interacted with your own powers and abilities, like weapons and armour, but that didn’t mean that was everything – there were all sorts of things that were cheap and expendible, to give you some control over what happened to you in short term. Investments for the future versus immediate needs, that kind of thing.

Instead, if you wanted a good pet you ideally wanted it to come from a class feature. You could do that with some classes, like the druid and the ranger’s pet features, which present the problem of taking a dope class that can do cool things and replacing them with a much less cool thing. The Cavalier’s mount feature – which they only got thanks to a Dragon magazine supplement that kinda feels like a rules patch that’s so good it highlights how the thing it’s fixing sucks a little, but the mount can’t really behave like a pet. Most of the mount’s rules are a ‘mount ability’ which means they don’t do anything unless you’re mounted on them and have the mounted combat feat. That feat, by the way, didn’t do anything meaningful aside from letting you access those abilities.

There’s got, he says, in infomercial cadence, to be a better way!

And there are better ways! In the world of Themes, the two default themes for power level are the Guardian (‘do you do melee and have a good melee basic?’) and the Fey Beast tamer (‘are you anything else?’) The Fey Beast Tamer let you have a pet, and also let you use that pet in a way that didn’t bust the action economy, but did smooth over its roughest spots. If you moved, the Fey Beast moved as well. The Fey Beast could take its own opportunity attacks. If you had a reaction you could pass on to the Fey Beast, you could use it or they could use it, which meant for a lot of characters, the Fey Beast represented a solid block of something you could put in melee to impede your enemies, but which enemies typically did not want to spend actions attacking. It was harder to hurt than you were, after all.

The Fey Beast Tamer sticks onto anything you want, and that’s a very important thing for improving flexibility of all those classes. The Fey Beast can do a lot of different things, but it also serves as a perfectly solid little creature for a supporter to enable. A baby owlbear is swinging 1d12 attacks with a +2 bonus over normal damage, which means if you’re granting them attacks as say, a Warlord or Bard, you’re actually getting a pretty respectable chunk of damage on a unit you can transport around the battlefield safely.

Another important thing about the pet is the Fey Beast doesn’t just get you other potential actions (in the form of movement and opportunity attacks) it can also serve as a way to block spaces. It’s a material entity that you can use to occupy spaces that would otherise be left available for enemies, and they can punish opponents for entering them and doing things. You can even use them to harrass spellcasters, by using your movement action to move you into one square, then the other into a square near an artillery unit and attack them when they make a ranged attack or move.

This runs into a problem I’ve described when talking about the Spelldancer, which is there is a powerful option that players are naturally pulled towards. It’s not as outsized as the Spelldancer – it’s broken and players will discover how it’s broken pretty conveniently – but it is one of the best options, power-wise, which players are going to be pulled towards pretty easily because it’s not just powerful, it’s also cool.

It’s a good sign for how 4e is balanced that this doesn’t really present any kind of a problem. Characters can have cool powers that maybe slow combat down a little for a cool pet, and the pets don’t represent an outrageous power balance. Characters with supporting powers can benefit from something under their control, but it’s hard to push them to the limit like they’re a type of Radiant Mafia enabler, or a Wintertouched agent. They’re just a body, and a way to get a tiny bit of extra actions.

It’s hard to complain about the power of the Fey Beast Tamer in this context, then, because it’s a cool thing, it’s a pet, pets are a good way to express character, and those pets are safe – even if they die in combat, it’s just a disappearing into the feywild, with them being resummonable.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

#DnD 4e #Dungeons & Dragons #Games

[redwizardofgay]

I've been reading through old dnd books for inspiration (and loose mechanics) and I am once again on my "let's fix 4e" bullshit

#dnd #dnd 4e #it's a recurring thing #every ao often I'll encounter something with 4e and think #this is a really neat idea i want to explore it! #and then realize it's a mix of gibberish and interesting but incompetent ideas #and get mad enough to make fixing it and running a campaign a thing #so uh... if you're around Brighton and want to play a game of 4e then lmk

[thydungeongal]

I was going to ask you your opinion about the 4e combat balance overhaul, but when I went to double check the details I couldn't find anything. Did I just dream that up?

I think what you may be referring to is the change to monster math implemented in Monster Manual 3 that was used as the benchmark from then on. It's a commonly acknowledged issue among even the biggest fans of D&D 4e that the math of the first MM and MM2 is a bit wonky. Like, not "makes the game unplayable" wonky, but "monsters are a bit spongy and don't deal that much damage, so combat can drag" wonky, something that gets exasperated at higher levels.

So, like, especially when playing at Heroic tier (levels 1-10) the math feels pretty good, but the general consensus is that the updated MM3 math makes the game sing. Also, if you Google for "Monster Manuals 3 on a business card" you can find a breakdown of how the numbers should look like on a monster at any given level.

There are also some other "community fixes," like giving each character one of the feats that increases to-hit bonuses by +1 per tier, which also smooths out some of the bumps in the math. Honestly, I would be a very happy guy if someone made a 4e-clone that applied all the lessons learned from 4e's entire development cycle, as well as all the cool designs that emerged from it, and basically just copied 4e's homework with regards to the MM3 monster math.

#thydungeongal answers

[fantasy-anatomy-analyst]

dnd 5e cockatrice redesign

because the official art of the cockatrice in the 5e monster manual is not great. honestly, i looked at older dnd official art of the cockatrice and i think 4e had a pretty good one. turns out the 5e design is just the 3e version but with a lot of spikes added on. so here's my notes on the official art:

(image description: a faded image of the officialdnd 5e cokcatrice art, with red outlines and typed notes on its anatomy. The cockatrice resembles a scrawny velociraptor with a whip tail, bat wings, and a chicken-like face, with lots of extra spikes and random patches of feathers all over its body. Its feet each have a large backwards claw on one toe. further notes will be explained below. end description.)

My problems, in summary: too many spikes. The beak is jagged, the toes make little sense, the wings have way too many "fingers", one of which seems to branch out into more spikes along the edge. Also it's just so scrawny. I'm not going to get over the feet, why is it putting all its weight on a single toe and why are the larger claws turned backwards like that. It's clearly meant to take inspiration from the velociraptor claw, but they did it very weird.

Honestly, I do have another nitpick, and it's the visual composition. Just feels awkward to me. All the overlapping parts, the extreme number of jutting spikes, etc. It's so busy, I hate looking at it. Anyway, here's my fix! Simplifying the design and taking it back to a more classic look.

(image description: a digital painting of a cockatrice. It resembles a feathered velociraptor with a rooster-like head and bat-like wings. It is in the same running pose as the other one, but now the large claw on each foot is held upwards and two toes touch the ground firmly. The tail curves but looks more sturdy, now held in line with the spine and turning upward. the head has a large comb and wattle, and there are golden feathers sticking out of its back, contrasting with the light grey ones all over its body. end description.)

Monster designs do not need to look so unique that they become indecipherable. Sometimes it's better to keep things simple. What's a cockatrice? A small monster with a chicken's head and bat wings and a long reptilian tail. no need to go overboard adding weird spikes or trying to reinvent the velociraptor claw. Heck, with how varied chicken breeds are in real life, you could get real fun with the coloring and the style of the feathers and end up with some unique cockatrice designs without straying too far from the base concept. Like those chickens that are ultra black, even down to their internal organs and blood. that'd be neat.

#cockatrice #dnd 5e #dnd 5e cockatrice #accessible art #image description #accessible images #my designs #redesign

[bahamaat]

OneD&D playtest grumble - Force damage

Anyone else following the playtest getting a bit annoyed how the design team has decided to suddenly make Force energy damage the default for all untyped "magic damage"?

I think the largest issue I have is they are being half-assed about it. Which is my uncharitable way of saying they think simply changing things to Force damage is fixing an issue and calling it a day, but then not accounting for the availability of its resistance/immunity options, or how Force was previously established as a "very rare" energy type.

This is no more obvious in how it changes the interaction with the Wildheart barbarian's resistance ability (formerly the Bear totem from the Totem Barbarian subclass). Originally, Bear gave the ability to resist all energy types by Psychic, which when added to the innate rage benefit of resistance to normal physical damage forms, gave the barbarian resistance to virtually all damage in the game. Now, in addition to the Bear spirit only giving 2 energy types chosen per rage (not a huge drawback most times), but Force joined Psychic in the exclusion list.

Another point of consideration is the brooch of shielding, a relatively niche item for anti-magic missile protection, it's ability to deal with Force damage makes it a lot more important. And the whole situation makes the rider on the Shield spell (perhaps the most unbalanced of the level 1 spells) about magic missiles even more nonsensical. Why are magic missiles (Force damage) treated differently from other sources of Force damage?

It just makes me seriously wonder what is happening at Hasbro - either they are accounting for this but haven't shown us how yet (making evaluating the change impossible), or they didn't think about it or didn't think it was worth accounting for (which is poor game design or an error in judgement that should have been caught by senior designers).

The larger issue is of course, that in producing the new revision, they could simply have addressed the damage types and ... maybe tweaked them a bit? I mean everyone else is doing it - Kobold Press has had Void damage forever, Pathfinder is doing a lot of damage recategorization, and they could even go back to 4e or even 3e which had different variations of damage types to work with.

There are a lot of issues that could be addressed in energy damage - like how "low tier" poison damage is given how widely it is resisted. I've mentioned this before - by introducing poison and disease but then giving a lot of options to ignore them in game just undersells them as threats while simultaneously ruining their potential.

The issue with elemental energies could be addressed (a lot of people are upset that a spell that hurls elemental energy just does Blunt damage, or Slashing, or why Water gets to choose between Acid or Cold neither of which are really appropriate most of the time). Or why Necrotic is somehow the default 'evil'/unholy damage AND represents time/entropic effects as well while fiends are themselves not necessarily associated with ageing.

#blog update #ttrpg design #onedndplaytest #onednd #musings