Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Fling Ally

Convinced that the Book of Nine Swords is the only place where you might find obscene, cartoonish maneuvers that prioritize Rule of Cool over practicality? Races of Stone gives us the feat "Fling Ally" for the fans of the Fastball Special, which lets you hurl an ally smaller than you as though that ally was a ranged weapon with an incredibly terrible range. Funny imagery, but not very practical. Where do we go from here?

Well, the Epic Level Handbook contains Distant Shot, an epic level feat that lets you perform the epic level task of throwing or firing a ranged weapon against any target within line of sight. See where I'm going with this now?

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Spell Component Pouch of Holding

A spell component pouch contains an infinite number of live spiders.

Saturday, September 15, 2018

Phantom Trap

No matter how long you've been playing this game, no matter how many times you've reread the Player's Handbook, I find there's always some obtuse spell you've never seen before. Case in point: I recently stumbled across a core spell called phantom trap that I swear I've never laid eyes on. Unlike a lot of these obscure and worthless spells that crop up now and then, however... this one I kind of wish I had. It's strange, so strange that I'm having trouble thinking of any real, practical applications for such a spell. That said, it is worth investigating by virtue of how unique it is - and likely more for the DM than any of the players. The text for phantom trap is as follows:

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Art Object Database

"Satisfied with a job well done at the end of an arduous dungeon, you pry open the old treasure chest to find... uh... seven +1 longswords!"

This is extending an olive branch to all of those DMs out there. When you're selecting (or rolling up) treasure for the party, do things not feel a little too... unrealistic? Using the tables provided in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and other published books, will lead to player characters mostly finding coins and gems, with some magic items when you're feeling generous. Who are all these dungeon-dwellers that mindlessly stockpile wealth in amounts perfectly divisible by 4, though? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend some of that coin? That said, it's never been the case for the wealthy to only spend on practical items. Not every one of someone's possessions are going to be potions, oils and magic weapons. Having egregious shows of wealth is the whole point of being wealthy!

In comes the second problem, though. The DMG does have a tidy table of art objects that can be found as part of treasure, for a neat alternative to raw monetary units. Said table, however, is woefully sparse - especially as a party approaches the higher levels, where the only pieces of art in circulation are gold rings and gold cups. Just how many nonmagical gold rings could one guy be reasonably expected to have?

Here then, I have an answer to your sparse and unrealistic treasure woes.


Saturday, July 28, 2018

The One-Man Party

Dungeons & Dragons is a social game built around the core concept of the adventuring party. To that end, the various threats and obstacles throughout an adventuring day necessitate a variety of skill sets. One party member can bash down doors and cross swords with burly foes, another can pick locks and disable traps, a third can cast spells and, uh... do everything the first two do as well as much more. Nonetheless, the point stands: if you want to get far in this world, you'll need some friends with different class features before long.

Such is the conventional wisdom, anyway. But we here are all about bucking trends. Wouldn't it be exciting to try and have a single character be as versatile as possible to try and fill every party role? I'm not saying he or she has to be just as good at doing everything a complete party is, merely well enough to have a fair shot at any demand the adventuring world may throw at him. There's a certain tidiness (and thrill) to running a one-man party: how different does the D&D game feel when it's just one player and the DM? Imagine not having to share any loot from a treasure horde or XP from a fight. Imagine never having to argue about where to go or what needs to be done. Plus, it's the only way to experience one of my favourite adventure modules from a conceptual viewpoint: Jacob's Well.

So what sort of class is suited to take on such a demanding role? Perhaps it's tempting to take one or two levels of several different classes, hoping to score the most fundamental aspects of their class features and thus being able to do a little of everything. Your base attack bonus, spell progressions and general effectiveness at any one thing are going to suffer mightily for it, though. Surely it would be more elegant (and no doubt effective) to try and tick all the boxes while still staying in one base class!

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Goblin Mini-Guide

I'm no Mons Johnson, but I'm going to say it: I really like goblins. I like the goofy, self-destructive, idiot savant medieval-steampunk-mad-scientists who are there for comic relief. I like the noble, misunderstood humanoid race facing ostracization because they've been labelled "evil." Hell, I even like the sexy little green women that seem to have been popularized by World of Warcraft. So imagine my disappointment, then, when they turned out to be such a bust in Dungeons & Dragons.

The thing is, goblins weren't really meant for player use, and it shows. While they have a +0 level adjustment, which is probably to be expected, their statblock also notes that "goblins with levels in NPC classes have a CR equal to their character level -2" (as opposed to the usual NPC's -1.) So really they're intended to be evil but weak little foes with some character levels that might be familiar. A level 3 goblin warrior or adept will have a CR of 1, but don't expect to play a level 3 goblin adept and have it count as a level 1 character.

I'm going to go off on a brief tangent here and lament the fact that goblins perhaps had the problem of not quite being bad enough. I mean, they come up a little short as far as player character races go, but it's not by a lot. Consider the kobold, however: another weak, evil 'NPC race,' the kobold is probably inferior to even the goblin, with its stat modifiers providing an overall net loss of -4. They were seen as so weak that Wizards stepped in and provided plenty of support material for them, from an entire chapter in Races of the Dragon that provided all sorts of kobold-specific feats and alternate class features, to a tailor-made web enhancement article that just threw in four more racial traits for free, not to mention a feat that increases your goddamn caster level. Most discussion of kobolds nowadays centers around how overpowered they often are in practice, with the poorly-thought-out Dragonwrought feat and various spellcasting boosts made available to kobolds alone. This is, of course, in addition to the various subraces printed since then that allow for superior stat modifiers depending on your build. There are no doubt a number of players who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the kobold was ever seen as a weak point in need of shoring up. See what I mean? The kobold is so weak that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, whereas the long-suffering goblin is just decent enough that it can be completely ignored in a system that prints books at the drop of a hat.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Battle Jump

If it hasn't already been made abundantly clear, you can do some pretty silly things thanks to the Book of Nine Swords. Really it has no shortage of silliness within its very pages, but sometimes you can get a really spiffy effect by combining the new offerings for marshal adepts with an abusable piece of minutae from a previous splatbook.

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Mirror Move

In D&D, it can be tempting to try and do everything. You want to have all these spells, and these prestige classes, and these feats, and even these various skill ranks... yes, it can be tricky to fit everything that catches your eyes into a single build. But what if you were able to sub in what you want when you want it now and then? You might not be able to trade out class levels on the fly, but whenever you see someone using a cool feat, do you not think to yourself "I wish I could try that"?

Well if you're willing to look way back to a dubious little corner of an unofficial web article, you just might be able to try that.

Mirror move is a 2nd level bard/wizard spell that allows you to make like Taskmaster and copy any physically demonstrable feat that you see. If you're wondering why you haven't seen nor heard of this admittedly funky spell, it's because it's from a somewhat dubious source - a web article published in 2001 that was never subsequently included in a book, updated for 3.5, or otherwise mentioned again. Yes, the same source as guidance of the avatar and other suspect tidbits. Still, it was published by Wizards, so if your DM doesn't mind you can have some fun with this one.

If it wasn't obvious already, I have a deep love for open-ended feats and spells. Having a single option that can be tooled to the current situation rewards creativity and inventiveness without demanding perfect foresight or having an overabundance of niche options prepared "just in case." After all, you can rarely be certain of what you'll come across in any given day of your adventuring career, let alone while adventuring in general, so having a multi-tool can keep you from being caught with your pants down. Unlike a lot of the usual "cast this and pick what you want" sorts of spells, though, mirror move functions a little differently.


Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Firepower

Not all things are created equal, a tacit fact that is again and again reinforced by the mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons. The fighter can never hope to keep up with the wizard as levels ramp up, and everything a monk can do a swordsage can do better. Even in less fundamental aspects of the game, this can creep in: just ask any melee character who has tried to use a sword and shield versus a two-handed weapon. Indeed, even something as seemingly flavourful as energy types suffer from this. Don't believe me? Compare how many monsters resist sonic damage versus those that resist fire.

At the top of this pyramid of supremacy, force damage is the way and the path. Essentially nothing resists or is immune to force damage, asides from the (very epic-level) force dragon. A few spells and items make a particular call-out for magic missile spells. Next there is the second-tier of energy types: unusual call-outs like holy damage (a la flame strike,) and desiccation damage (a la desiccate.) Very rarely are these going to be resisted or affected in any way: they're virtually "typeless" the way force damage often is. That said, they're also very uncommon. Third tier belongs to sonic damage, which is the most effective of the "core" energy types. Fourth tier holds acid and electricity, in that order, and the bottom tier holds cold damage and lastly fire.

This hierarchy is in no way official or rigid: it's just a vague guideline I've determined from observation. It simply means that putting aside the setting, environment or pre-established foes, if you prepare an acid spell instead of an otherwise-identical fire spell, you're less likely to run across a foe who will be resistant or immune to it. 3d6 acid damage isn't "better" than 3d6 fire damage, there have just been more creatures with fire resistance that have been printed. Demons, devils, dragons, celestials: all the major players shrug off the effects of fire.

So why the imbalance? Is this just another matter of "X is better than Y, get over it"? Well... sort of. The thing is, the greater reliability of the higher-tier energy types often comes with an arbitrary balancing factor. This is perhaps best demonstrated in the orb of X line of spells. Orb of fire deals 1d6 fire damage per level (maximum 15d6) and makes the target save against dazing. Each orb has a different riding effect, though, so the orbs with a slightly better damage have slightly worse effects. For instance, orb of cold forces a save against blinding (not as impressive) and orb of acid a save against being sickened (a comparatively minor hindrance indeed.) Then you get to orb of sound, which can deafen the target (ho-hum) and deals only 1d4 damage per level. The fact it's dealing sonic damage is reason enough to lower the damage dice. Then lastly, there's orb of force, which has no secondary effect and tops out at a maximum of 10d6 damage, rather than 15.

So there isn't really an inherent pros-and-cons debate introduced by using force damage over fire damage, say, it's just that in many cases spells and effects will likely be balanced to somewhat favour the "worse" energy types in case-by-case bases. In addition, there are far more feats, class features and items to improve your cold and fire spells (take even a casual glance at Frostburn) than for, say, sonic or desiccation damage. This is an imperfect science, of course, but at least the effort is there.

If we know what energy types are "best" and which are "worst" (yet have the best spells,) what do we do with this knowledge? Well, fire damage may be much-maligned in general for its generally underperforming against a variety of enemies, but its humble status as the lowliest energy type has earned it the most published support. If all of this support material exists mostly to balance it out against the other types, though, why bother? Well, it would suddenly get a lot more impressive (and hey, interesting for roleplaying) if those shortcomings could be easily undone, wouldn't it?

Enter Searing Spell.

This little gem from Sandstorm does something very unusual - it makes your fire spells so supernaturally hot that they ignore all fire resistance and even still do half damage to creatures with fire immunity. What do you want to bet that a fire elemental has never felt what it's like to be burned before? As a nice bonus, a searing spell also does double damage to creatures with the cold subtype - which is on top of the double damage they were already taking from a fire spell. This peace of mind comes at the acceptable cost of a spell slot one level higher.

So now you can fling fire spells around with little worry for targeting restrictions. Sure, Energy Substitution already existed and doesn't even raise the spell's level, but what if you want to stick to fire spells thematically? A pyromaniac shouldn't have to shoot "coldballs" just because he's facing an efreet. More importantly, it's generally the case that if a monster has resistance to one energy type, it does to most of them, especially with Outsiders and at higher levels. It's also the case that changing the energy types of your spells won't let you reliably capitalize on its original energy type - something that can be very handy, as we're about to see.

So removing the biggest downside of fire damage is a real coup, but pumping the cost of all of your spells by one level is a pretty hefty cost. Is there enough support for fire damage that can make it worthwhile? Unshockingly, the answer is... perhaps!