Rule Changes and Clarifications

Below are some mail message segments discussing various proposed rule changes and clarifications. Read through 'em and enjoy...!

Illusions and Illusionists

I hereby request someone to play an illusionist.

I have always felt this was an under-utilized class. I still do. Most people get frightened of the rules which are very vague and hard to administer. Sooo...

I am going to change the mechanics I use to adjucate illusions. In fact, I propose to use the rules as presented in the new version of the PH -- with the following changes (of course!). I know Elf and Ott are probably wondering if I've flipped, but hear out the changes, first...

Basically, if you make an illusion, it'll run by the books. I will, however (first alteration), let the illusion attack as a monster with as many hit dice as the illusionist created it, regardless of what she made (rational: if a higher level illusionist wants to make an image that hits you, she should be able to. This isn't a function of what she created, but a function of how good she can fuck with your mind...). So, a 1st level illusionist makes a kobold. The little beast strikes on the one hit die table (2nd level fighter). This gives an edge to the illusionist at lower levels (which is good to keep 'em alive!). Now, if the illusionist makes a troll, warthog or goblin, the to-hit remains the same (making the exact form of the criter less important -- and keeping alive the adage -- you can't judge a monster by its hide!). If a 10th level illusionist makes the image of a kobold, she knows just how to control the little sucker to make it hit you every time (and perahps give the illusion away...)

Second alteration/clarification: if you make an image of a monster that you've never seen, it isn't going to be very plausible -- especially to someone conversant with that critter. Likewise, the fewer elements in the illusion, the more likely someone will see through it.

For example, Slee and Gamoth's love-child Slamoth is an illusionist. He is first level and creates the image of a tiger. Smart money says he's seen more of Ashtabular than he cares to and has this image down pat -- no saving throw bonus and perhaps even a penalty for detail (-1)!

Slamoth tries for a lizard king. Slee became one once, so he knows what they look like. No bonus or penalty.

Next the boy-wonder tries for a dragon. He's never seen one but has been given some good descriptions. His dragon, well, sucks. Anyone who really has seen a dragon would do a much better job (ever seen medieval pictures of tigers, elephants and other "fantasy" wild life?). Against someone who has never seen a dragon, the illusion only suffers a +1 save. Against someone who knows about dragons, the illusion suffers a +2, with +2 more FOR EACH MISSING ELEMENT (auditory, thermal, etc). Kinda makes it dumb to try things you've never seen, as well it should be. If we're talking about a phantasmal force, this illusion has a saving throw bonus of at least +4 (+2 for lameness and +2 more for missing sounds with maybe +2 more for missing heat/smell depending upon the dragon!).

Critters with special sense would always get these saving throw bonuses (most animals get a +2 cuz the thing just doesn't smell right!). Critters able to detect invisible objects should get a +2 to +4 for auditory or visual clues (dragons can hear someone's heart beating -- if it's that quiet and the dragon thinks about it, you illusion and its creator are toast!).

Third alteration: if you create an image of something that has more hit dice than you have levels, you aren't going to be as good at running all the details. It is more taxing than you thought. So, for every hit die more than you've got, the saving throw versus your illusion is at +1. A third level illusionist makes the image of an ogre. Save at +1 just cuz there's so much detail. If it was an improved phantsmal force (visual and auditory) cast by someone who's never seen an ogre who then used the phantasm against Rhom (killed more ogres than been alive in days), there would be a save bonus of around +6 -- +1 for too big, +2 for too lame, +2 for isn't smelly and grunting and not enough ogrish cuss words, +1 just for Rhom's attention to this sucker's detail!

The converse of this is that the illusion of something well within the illusionist's range should be more convincing. Okay, I'll buy that for a gold piece. I'd suggest a -1 saving throw penalty for every TWO FULL levels difference with a cap at -4. This way a 9th level illusionist can whip out very believable orcs, goblins and kobolds but they still ain't perfect...

Fourth alteration: the illusion "dies" when it takes enough damage. Just about every fantasy phantasm does get killed this way. Hit points reflect dodging and what not, as well as cuts, nicks, hits, etc. If the illusionist doesn't reflect the damage of each hit, then she pretty much gives her victim a save on the spot. If the illusion has taken more damage than a real critter could ever possibly take, it's gotta die -- this is the best (and only!) way to reflect a sword slash through the neck. A tougher illusionist, however, should make tougher critters. Roll the things hit dice and add the caster's level, up to maximum. 7th level illusionist always make really tough orcs, goblins and the like.

Fifth (and final) alteration/clarification (for now): if you whip up something that the victim ain't familiar with, the unfamiliar elements don't work. A true eskimo doesn't know a red dragon from a dead wagon. Breathing fire may not be all that plausible. The amount of damage certainly wouldn't...

Which brings me to this: if you make a save versus an illusionary attack (like a phantasmal fireball), you take NO DAMAGE. If you fail, you get burned, at least in your head. If you disbelieve a monster successfully, you take NO DAMAGE. Other people might, but not you. To you (and only you) the creature is a faded image, incapable of harm.

Well what do you (the players) think? Some ideas for illusionists include having a first level one whip up a very tough and plausible orc or a very lame troll. Either one is fine! These new rules make it a little bit easier to run and comprehend for the players.

Druids and Spell Research

You're 7th level now. You can now do spell research. Now, for any other class, being embroiled in a war zone kind of prevents you from researching spells. But, since I REALLY don't think it makes alot of sense for a druid to go into a library to gain new spells, this is not as much of a problem. Basically, instead of spending gold on spell research, you need to spend experience points to reflect self-study. This is not like burning eeps for skills -- you can redirect ALL you xps if you'd like. Once you've "spent" enough experience points to warrent a roll, you need to spend a certain amount of time alone and in isolation praying and communing with nature (this is where you'd drop away from your party). Anyway, these are the basics. I can give you details, but it'd be best to show you the rules in the book, so you have a clear idea.

Combat Dodge

-Combat Dodge-
cost: one weapon slot
classes: all (with approval)
effect: character is experienced with dodge and moving in combat such that she receives a bonus to her AC and saving throws, similar to that granted by a high dexterity. Unlike bonuses for a high dexterity, this skill functions whenever the character is aware and prepared (thus it applies when the character is struck from behind/flank during an existing melee but not when she is completely surprised, stunned, sleeping, unconscious, relaxed, etc). In situations where there is some question (surprise condition of a ready character), the skill can be halved (round down), to reflect "rolling with a blow". The Combat Dodge skill gives a +1 to AC and a +2 to dodgeable saving throws. This skill may be purchased a second time for a total of +3 to AC and +3 to saving throws. All classes may purchase this skill with sufficient training.
Combat Dodge is *limited* as follows:
* characters cannot have more weapons in Combat Dodge than levels of experience
* characters must be trained by someone else with the skill to gain it
* heavy armor and/or encumbrance may restrict Combat Dodge. While the bonuses for Combat Dodge are normally cumulative with those for dexterity, the following caveats remain:
armor -or- encumbrance max level max bonus (with dex)
--------- ----------- --------- --------------------
platemail fully one +4 AC and +4 saves
chainmail partial two +6 AC and +6 saves
leather none +8 AC and +8 saves
none none no maximum
**if the character is both armored and encumbered, move the max level
and max bonus up one. Someone encumbered AND in platemail gets only
a max benefit of +2/+2 from combat dodge and dexterity combined.

Gaining Non-weapons Proficiency Slots

All characters begin with a number of weapon and non-weapon skills dictated by their character class. Multi-classed characters gain the number of weapons and non-weapons of their most favorable class(es). For example a fighter begins with 4 weapons and 2 non-weapons, but a fighter/mage begins with 4 weapons and 3 non-weapons (4 weapon for a fighter, but 3 non-weapons for a mage).

Characters gain new weapon proficiencies according to their character class(es). All characters gain additional non-weapon proficiencies every odd level. Multi- or Duo-classed characters only gain non-weapons for their highest level class, not for each class. For example a 5th level fighter gains 2 added non-weapons (one at 3rd and one at 5th), but a 6th level fighter / 5th level mage also gains 2 non-weapons (and gets the next non-weapon when one class reaches 7th level).

One weapon is equal to two non-weapons and the two are freely interchangeable. For additional information of skills, proficiencies and their cost, see Lists and Tables under Table of Proficiencies.

Learning Proficiencies

If you want to pick up a new prof, you MUST have a mentor to teach you. This applies whether you wish to learn swimming, Drow lore, short bow, combat dodge, shield use, double prof in long sword, etc.

The mentor must either have the skill you want or have a very closely related skill (DM's opinion). Under certain circumstances, high-quality books may be used instead of mentors, although this is mostly with cerebral skills (lore, languages, cooking, etc). Physical skills (most combat based proficiencies) require a living teacher. Even our world's best athletes still need coaches...

There are a few exceptions to the above...

At 5th level, a character has enough experience to self-teach himself any skill which is either universal (swimming, running, cooking) or general (bow, sword, axe, horsemanship, etc).

At 10th level, a character has enough experience to self-teach herself any skill to the double-proficiency level (specialization with a weapon, combat dodge, shield use).

At 15th level, a character can self-teach itself any skill to the triple-proficiency level (double specialization with a weapon, double combat dodge, etc).

I may allow characters to self-trainer earlier than these points IN EXCHANGE FOR BURNING EXTRA EEPS. The logic is the character is trying to gain an ability beyond her current level. As such, studying/practicing to gain this new talent will take away from other skills which the character is also working on. I'm still working on this, but my thought is sum of 1,000xps times the missing levels. So to self-teach triple-proficient long sword at 10th level would be 65,000 xps (11k + 12k + 13k + 14k + 15k). If you think about it, this isn't too much for a 10th level fighter...(22% of the 300k level width).

Of course, with a teacher, any skill may be gained at a MUCH lower level. This rule is only with regard to SELF-TEACHING. None-the-less, a character may have no more proficiencies in any skill/weapon/ability than he has levels of experience (ie, to be triple proficient, even with the best trainer, you must be 3rd level).

Learning "Extra" Proficiencies

For some characters, the progression above is just not enough. Well, there are three other options.

First, humans may convert upto half (round down) of their language slots into non-weapon skills. So a human with 16 intelligence (5 bonus languages) could trade two languages for two non-weapon skills or one weapon proficiency. This option is ONLY available to humans.

Second, a character can burn experience to learn new skills. The character declares that he wants to learn the new proficiency and write this on his character sheet. The first non-weapon gained "costs" 1,000xps, the next 2,000xps, then 4,000xps, 8,000xps, 16,000xps, etc. So, to burn to gain an extra weapon would be 3,000xps (1,000xps for the first non-weapon and another 2,000xps for the second non-weapon -- which becomes a full skill). If the same character wanted to burn experience for swimming, this skill would cost another 4,000xps (since this would be the third "bonus" non-weapon the character has).

Third, a character who retires may devote years to learn a new profession. This is Dnd's equivelent to career-retraining. Basically, for each year spent learning the skill, the character gains 1,000xps to be applied as for burning experience, above. Thus if the example above decided to retire and learn hunting, it would take 8 years (or 8,000xps since this would be the fourth "bonus" non-weapon for the character).

Asian Proficiencies

As of now, I'm doing away with the proficiency system detailed in Oriental Adventures. All characters, no matter where they are from, will now use the same system.

Basically, all Asian characters now have seperate weapon and non-weapon proficiency skills, just like Western characters. There are no longer any "slots". Please, look over your characters carefully when you make the change. I will be happy to aid anyone with conversion difficulties.

* Bushi have certain partial skills: Contacts, Pick Pockets and Weapon Repair
# Kensai are automatically proficient with their chosen weapon
@ Monks begin with a basic (one weapon) martial style and two additiona maneuvers (possibly including the full martial style) plus religion/philosophy and calligraphy

All Asian PCs are now considered literate unless otherwise specified. All Asian PCs now gain one non-weapon skill every odd level, just as Western PCs.

Elven Heights

Elves in just about all fantasy sources are described as being slender, lithe, and graceful. There is not, however, agreement on their height. In general, elves seem to be depicted as taller than humans, with some very noticeable exceptions. So how tall should they be in Dnd?

As a general rule, it seems that the more "fey" or sylvan elves are shorter, while the more civilized elves are taller. The elves of Tolkein, Tunnels and Trolls, French folklore, and Scottish legends (the Sidhe) seem to all be taller than humans. The elves of ElfQuest, Victorian stories, and modern fairy tales seem to be shorter than humans. So what's a player to do?

There are quite a number of elven sub-races (high, wood, gray, wild, sea, ice, drow, lunar, star, etc), so it is perfectly conceivabel that all of the above could be true. In this case, it would seem that (using the forest folk as the smallest) the order of heights, from small to tall, would be wild, wood, high, gray -- with the others stuck in somewhere (drow are short in all the Dnd literature, but tall according to the [original] Nordic sources, but that's another can of worms). So, if we set the wood elf as the basis for the the height in the Player's Handbook, we get the following average heights:

For a variety of reasons, I can see there being a multi-millenial debate about which came first: gray, high or wood elves. And I think I could safely argue any position. So I shan't. I will, however, point out that elves are an ancient and magical race.

Basically, I'd rather define the world and then justify it retroactively, then get lost is the esoterics of elf lore. My primary goal is to create a world on which can be found a diverse range of elves. From what I've found, other than Dnd and ElfQuest, all the game systems I have with elves define them as TALLER than humans. At the same time, I DEFINITELY see a place for shorter elves. Hence, using race to resolve the issue and give the players (YOU) the option of having a towering, graceful elf-lord/lady (à la Tolkein's Lady Gladriel or Pini's Savah) OR a slightly short elf-maid (à la modern fantasy novels -- heavily influenced by Dnd) OR a short woodland elf (à la mass media's depiction of elves, including the picture on my calendar for this month) OR a tiny, wild, wolf-riding elf (for Lori and any other fan of ElfQuest).

Gray elves are supposedly the closest to faeries. Heck, in one of the books they're actually referred to AS faeries. Perhaps their relationship is like that of the Old Ones and the Preservers (again, drawing on ElfQuest)? Thus, the two could be closely tied, without necessarily being along the same evolutionary chain. Heck, using the same idea, maybe the pixies, sprites, grigs, etc are all products of the elves -- and small cuz they live in the forests...like forest dwelling elves.

I won't try to argue genetics amongst the elves; it's a doomed proposition. Wood and wild elves value strength. Strength and physical power are usually size-dependant. This means "successful" wood and wild elves would tend to be larger and would tend to pass along this trait, resulting in an every-increasingly tall race. Gray and high elves value magic, which is NOT tied to strength or size. In fact, in general, stronger people tend to become fighters which tends to NOT be a successful path in the magical world of elves, hence this would reinforce such elves getting smaller. Perhaps this is how pixies, sprites, etc were created?

Now that I've thrown a monkey wrench in things, lemme fix them: elves are magical and adapt to their environment. That's why we have water-breathing see elves, darkness-creating drow, animal-speaking wood elves, etc. If magic makes elves bigger, than fine, it is more powerful than evolution (like emag vs gravity -- and a nice comparison too!). More magical races of elves are bigger. QED. Sprites, pixies, etc never developed this "mutant growth-tied-to-magic-use gene" perhaps. Or they were created. Or whatever.

I would think that in elven woodlands, being smaller is an advantage (easier to hide, don't need to eat as much, get through dense thickets [shaped woodlands can still be plenty savage and overgrown], ride animals, etc) if strength is not lost. And being taller goes well with the image of the tired, ancient, noble elves who've outlived time itself already.

© 1996-2002 buddhabear@geocities.com