Sometimes you just have to mix things up a bit. Maybe the PCs are bloody effective at what they do, or maybe they just know all the stats ... whatever the reason, a little variety is always good ;3
Being honest, I could probably better call these "critter traits"; they were written up for dragons but -- with a merest smidge of tweaking, and maybe some thematics -- could be applied to almost any beastie. (I have a sudden terrifying image of a swarm of giant rats ...)
Don't forget to bump the XP awarded appropriately ~!
Roll for a selected trait or simply pick one from the table below. If you're really feeling frisky, roll 1d4 times:
01. Primal Energies: Instead of (or in addition to!) the dragon's breath weapon, its claws and fangs are wreathed in the same damaging forces that compose said breath weapon. Double the damage of these attacks (2d4 instead of 1d4, etc). Appropriate immunities will negate this extra damage.
02. Phaseshift: Every 1d3 rounds the dragon is simply ... not all there, partially fading into some other dimension of existence. Attacks at this time fail 75%; on the upside, the dragon has the same situation.
03. Runic Ablation: Whether an aura of ghostly flame, orbiting glyphs, a transparent, shimmering energy field, glowing channels carved through the scales or most anything else, the dragon has a buffer against damage equal to 1/3 of its hit points. This buffer must be negated before the dragon itself takes damage. Half the instances of such fields affect physical damage, half magical damage.
04. Blood Scion: When reduced to half or less of its hit points, the dragon may produce a blood scion from its spilled life, effectively creating a draconic simulacra resembling a dragon of its type and 1/3 of its Hit Dice. The scion acts as directed by the dragon, lasts for 1 day + a number of days equal to the dragon's Hit Dice, and has a range of 100 miles.
05. Reservoir: Altered by magitech, the dragon bears a oily, slowly-shifting carbuncle mounted in orichalcum and black iron clockwork imbedded in its flesh. The carbuncle contains an additional 1d3 breath weapon uses, regenerating over 48 hours -- and this breath weapon need not match the dragon's own.
06. Life Siphon: The dragon is a psychic vampire, feeding on the pain and injury of those around it. For every four hit points of damage dealt to other creatures within 100' feet of the dragon, the beast regenerates one hit point.
07. Artefact Maestro: The dragon can make use of any and every magic item it may possess, whether warping them (to fit rings on claws, for example) or imbedding them into its scales in order to draw on the item's enchantment. It may expend breath weapon uses instead of using up charges or expending one-use items.
08. Death Curse: Not so useful in combat (unless the dragon has a way of making that impending doom abundantly clear), but a wonderful parting shot. With its dying breath the dragon lays down a major curse on the creatures that ended its life -- DMs, be horribly creative.
09. Master of Nature: All stone/plants/water/flames/more esoteric materials within 1d4+1x100 feet of the dragon may be affected by the beast as if by move earth, stoneform and related spells. Choose one substance, or 1d4 for added malevolence.
10. Godling's Beneficience: The dragon may grant a fraction of its power (a breath weapon equal in damage to its Hit Dice, a half-strength claw attack, a one-shot spell if the dragon has casting ability) to a number of subordinate creatures equal to twice its Hit Dice.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Plentiful Potions
Aah, potions. Those useful little gulps of liquid, especially when they happen to be a potion of healing and one's hapless PC is in desperate need of hit points; dungeon standbys, really, especially in the low levels where I tend to have most of my games.
Magical potions have an appeal for me (as do one-shot items in general, but more on those in another post), evoking a certain alchemical flavour on the one hand and strange herb-brewery on the other. They can easily get a little boring, however, especially if delivered with a routine "you find a potion of healing/invisibility/ESP" -- so here are a few thoughts on making potions a little more interesting.
Standard Descriptions: This one is an old chestnut but always bears returning to; give each non-poison potion type a typical suite of details. (Sure it makes identification progressively easier -- until the party comes across a flat of botched or deliberately altered potions -- but that's not always a bad thing. Rewards for observation are good!)
Maybe invisibility potions are typically completely colourless, filled with uncountable tiny bubbles and rather thin. A potion of growth may be syrupy, granular, and the colour of flesh or a deep greenish-brown. Potion descriptions may even be specialized within certain time periods, specific cultures/organizations or both; unsettled were the PCs in a past campaign when, unwittingly on the trail of a certain small god's cult, they kept coming across potions of healing of a distinct deep crimson, thick and vaguely metallic-tasting. Certainly they worked just fine, but it was like drinking blood -- which was exactly the point.
Other forms: Of course, the liquid-in-a-vial potion is the "industry standard"; but changing it up a bit can make for a nice change of pace. Some of these alternate forms are as easy or easier to make use of than the "standard" potion, some harder:
- Powdered: Sealed in a waxen packet or small pouch, this potion requires mixing with a liquid (mmm, magical Kool-Aid) before being consumed. On the upside, no worrying about bottles breaking ...
- Tinctures: Found in tiny phials indeed, droppers of metal or glass encased in a "sheath" and often hung on a chain or lace to be carried around the neck, tinctures are highly concentrated and are meant to be dropped under the tongue or -- frequently -- into the eyes. (If there is more than one dosage, be careful!)
- Fruits or other edibles: Enchant a peach instead of a potion? Why not? This one is a classic, used in everything from Snow White to Dark Sun.
- Absorption gels or crystals: Now we get a little stranger, with ovals of flexible crystal or gelatin (or stranger things) meant to be applied to the flesh directly. Perhaps they fall off immediately; perhaps they stay attached until the effects end, slowly changing colour or being absorbed by the body.
- Injectibles: Almost a standard potion, except this one needs to go into the flesh by the direct route. Whether administered by the "poison pin" of a ring, through a cut in the flesh, or perhaps by its own specialized mode of delivery (perhaps a bulb of glass with a long 'stinger' -- break off the tip, drive the thing home), its all good.
And here is a new potion, just to round things off:
Ghostsight Potion: Murky grey-white threaded with colourless marbling, a ghostsight potion seems to swirl a little whenever it is watched for a time; it resembles mist or fog captured in water. When a ghostsight potion is consumed, it grants the ability to perceive intangible, invisible and ethereal creatures for 2-7 turns.
Magical potions have an appeal for me (as do one-shot items in general, but more on those in another post), evoking a certain alchemical flavour on the one hand and strange herb-brewery on the other. They can easily get a little boring, however, especially if delivered with a routine "you find a potion of healing/invisibility/ESP" -- so here are a few thoughts on making potions a little more interesting.
Standard Descriptions: This one is an old chestnut but always bears returning to; give each non-poison potion type a typical suite of details. (Sure it makes identification progressively easier -- until the party comes across a flat of botched or deliberately altered potions -- but that's not always a bad thing. Rewards for observation are good!)
Maybe invisibility potions are typically completely colourless, filled with uncountable tiny bubbles and rather thin. A potion of growth may be syrupy, granular, and the colour of flesh or a deep greenish-brown. Potion descriptions may even be specialized within certain time periods, specific cultures/organizations or both; unsettled were the PCs in a past campaign when, unwittingly on the trail of a certain small god's cult, they kept coming across potions of healing of a distinct deep crimson, thick and vaguely metallic-tasting. Certainly they worked just fine, but it was like drinking blood -- which was exactly the point.
Other forms: Of course, the liquid-in-a-vial potion is the "industry standard"; but changing it up a bit can make for a nice change of pace. Some of these alternate forms are as easy or easier to make use of than the "standard" potion, some harder:
- Powdered: Sealed in a waxen packet or small pouch, this potion requires mixing with a liquid (mmm, magical Kool-Aid) before being consumed. On the upside, no worrying about bottles breaking ...
- Tinctures: Found in tiny phials indeed, droppers of metal or glass encased in a "sheath" and often hung on a chain or lace to be carried around the neck, tinctures are highly concentrated and are meant to be dropped under the tongue or -- frequently -- into the eyes. (If there is more than one dosage, be careful!)
- Fruits or other edibles: Enchant a peach instead of a potion? Why not? This one is a classic, used in everything from Snow White to Dark Sun.
- Absorption gels or crystals: Now we get a little stranger, with ovals of flexible crystal or gelatin (or stranger things) meant to be applied to the flesh directly. Perhaps they fall off immediately; perhaps they stay attached until the effects end, slowly changing colour or being absorbed by the body.
- Injectibles: Almost a standard potion, except this one needs to go into the flesh by the direct route. Whether administered by the "poison pin" of a ring, through a cut in the flesh, or perhaps by its own specialized mode of delivery (perhaps a bulb of glass with a long 'stinger' -- break off the tip, drive the thing home), its all good.
And here is a new potion, just to round things off:
Ghostsight Potion: Murky grey-white threaded with colourless marbling, a ghostsight potion seems to swirl a little whenever it is watched for a time; it resembles mist or fog captured in water. When a ghostsight potion is consumed, it grants the ability to perceive intangible, invisible and ethereal creatures for 2-7 turns.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Egypt Gazetteer thoughts: on clerics.
Well, it looks like I'm actually devoting some brainpower to trying to make this work. Naturally, almost immediately I find myself having Deep Thoughts -- in this case about the four classes and what I plan to do with them.
The cleric is being, to put it kindly, a pain in the arse.
You see, the concept of a "cleric" or "priest" as it exists in the modern Western world (and in many other modern places for that matter) is of an individual who feels a higher calling, called to serve a higher power, preach the word, etc. etc, and this carries over into D&D with the benefits of getting nifty spells and the ability to smite (or control) the undead. Which is cool; I love me some crusaderish types with a warhammer or the pious healer types. It's all good.
But for the vast, vast majority of pharonic history in Egypt, it wasn't like that. Ye hells, there wasn't even an established priestly "social class" until the New Kingdom -- serving at a temple was something the middle class and the nobility did as a job, as a duty. They had seasonal shift-work at the temples, even. And when the concept of an "official" priesthood developed in the New Kingdom it was still more of a job than what we often define as "priest": one could be granted a priesthood as a sinecure, much like any other title, and men could pass on their positions to their sons. Certainly a lowly we'eb could work his way up the priestly ranks, but it was often more like looking for a promotion.
Priestly duties are also different from what the Western world is used to. The Egyptian priest maintains the rituals of the temple and performs the offerings to the god's statue in return for the benefices of the god in question to be given to the people -- a business transaction of sorts -- and because the rituals maintain the order of the universe so that the gods can do their thing. (The offerings to the deity were then distributed to the temple staff as part of their wages!) Very much an "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of thing. This is why, when shrines and temples fell into disrepair such as during the Amarna interlude, the gods were said to not answer; humanity wasn't holding up its end of the bargain.
All of this isn't to say that there wasn't faith in Egypt -- there certainly was. In many ways, though, it was a very D&D-ish way of faith, with it's "I'll do x if you do y" (leaving aside how even the faithful will cheerfully threaten the gods when using magical incantations -- which the sun god gave to humanity as its perogative).
So, should there even be a "cleric class"? Or should it be subsumed into the other classes as something any given character may do as a profession? Much of the mechanical abilities assigned to the class fit just as well with an Egyptian "wizard" if not moreso. On the other hand, tweaking a few things to add a bit more flavour and keep the fourth class probably wouldn't break the metaphorical bank even if it might feel a little redundant to me as I write it.
Deep thoughts, blaergh ...
The cleric is being, to put it kindly, a pain in the arse.
You see, the concept of a "cleric" or "priest" as it exists in the modern Western world (and in many other modern places for that matter) is of an individual who feels a higher calling, called to serve a higher power, preach the word, etc. etc, and this carries over into D&D with the benefits of getting nifty spells and the ability to smite (or control) the undead. Which is cool; I love me some crusaderish types with a warhammer or the pious healer types. It's all good.
But for the vast, vast majority of pharonic history in Egypt, it wasn't like that. Ye hells, there wasn't even an established priestly "social class" until the New Kingdom -- serving at a temple was something the middle class and the nobility did as a job, as a duty. They had seasonal shift-work at the temples, even. And when the concept of an "official" priesthood developed in the New Kingdom it was still more of a job than what we often define as "priest": one could be granted a priesthood as a sinecure, much like any other title, and men could pass on their positions to their sons. Certainly a lowly we'eb could work his way up the priestly ranks, but it was often more like looking for a promotion.
Priestly duties are also different from what the Western world is used to. The Egyptian priest maintains the rituals of the temple and performs the offerings to the god's statue in return for the benefices of the god in question to be given to the people -- a business transaction of sorts -- and because the rituals maintain the order of the universe so that the gods can do their thing. (The offerings to the deity were then distributed to the temple staff as part of their wages!) Very much an "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of thing. This is why, when shrines and temples fell into disrepair such as during the Amarna interlude, the gods were said to not answer; humanity wasn't holding up its end of the bargain.
All of this isn't to say that there wasn't faith in Egypt -- there certainly was. In many ways, though, it was a very D&D-ish way of faith, with it's "I'll do x if you do y" (leaving aside how even the faithful will cheerfully threaten the gods when using magical incantations -- which the sun god gave to humanity as its perogative).
So, should there even be a "cleric class"? Or should it be subsumed into the other classes as something any given character may do as a profession? Much of the mechanical abilities assigned to the class fit just as well with an Egyptian "wizard" if not moreso. On the other hand, tweaking a few things to add a bit more flavour and keep the fourth class probably wouldn't break the metaphorical bank even if it might feel a little redundant to me as I write it.
Deep thoughts, blaergh ...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Class: Esper (alpha version)
Nothing in BEMCI has had me howling in frustration quite so much as my attempts to work up some rules for a psionic class. Admittedly I have a certain set of goals I've been trying to reach ...
- limited number of psionic abilities
- abilities usable pretty much at will
- "power points" and the like to be avoided if at all possible
... and they likely aren't helping me at all.
Despite all that, after knocking my head against the proverbial wall I've put together a draft of an idea for a Red Box esper class. I haven't been able to test it yet, let alone eyeball it and see how horribly it breaks; but this or something like it with minor tweaking is what I'm aiming for.
I'm posting the alpha up, if only to try and convince myself it's "finished" and to leave it alone for a bit before I go silly in the head. And who knows, someone just might find it useful --
- limited number of psionic abilities
- abilities usable pretty much at will
- "power points" and the like to be avoided if at all possible
... and they likely aren't helping me at all.
Despite all that, after knocking my head against the proverbial wall I've put together a draft of an idea for a Red Box esper class. I haven't been able to test it yet, let alone eyeball it and see how horribly it breaks; but this or something like it with minor tweaking is what I'm aiming for.
I'm posting the alpha up, if only to try and convince myself it's "finished" and to leave it alone for a bit before I go silly in the head. And who knows, someone just might find it useful --
Esper_class_v_alpha.pdf 72.1 Kb
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Spellbook musings: part the third.
It is very annoying to me how, in the BEMCI ruleset (and Labyrinth Lord for that matter), there is no cost for adding spells into a spellbook and yet replacing lost or destroyed books costs a veritable fortune, to the tune of 1000gp per spell level. I'm all for paying for what you need to replace -- but gouging that much cash from a hapless MU who will be defenseless without the spellbook(s) seems a little much. Especially when first scribing the books costs the character nothing at all.
A little tinkering, says I, is required. Luckily, there are many examples to borrow inspiration from -- and a useful extenuating circumstance.
Scribing costs: A widely-used (from 1e to 3.x) and fairly reasonable standard scribing-price for a spell is 100gp per spell level to be scribed. This works nicely, to my mind; expensive enough to keep rampant scribing in check, not so expensive as to completely bankrupt the MU given the rates of treasure acquisition. (If a little randomness is desired, make it, oh, 6d10+50gp.)
Campaign-based rationale for this price can be easily made by considering the materials used. Ritual materials, exotic quills or ink-pens and most of all the ink needed for such an endeavour can easily eat up a MU's gold. Ink for imbuing the spell formula may be infused with myrrh and rosewood ashes, or distilled from cinnabar and dragon's blood, or glittering with miniscule flecks of purified jade and gold ...
Replacement costs: At a minimum, replacing a spellbook should cost as much as the initial scribing of the book; the MU is, after all, performing the same work again. However, a case could be made that replacements -- having to start from scratch, without references -- should cost twice as much, or three times if the DM prefers it (though I would argue against it).
The real cost in losing spellbooks, whether to damage or theft, is in finding the means to have any reference for the spells being replaced. One could make a good argument that -- except for any spells memorized at the time and still in memory -- a MU cannot replace lost scribed spells unless a reference is at hand. Gaining that needed reference could become costly in a different way, as the MU goes into debt with other spellcasters for access to their books for copying purposes, and rare spells may not be recoverable at all! Truly, this spectre presents a good argument for spending the gold for multiple copies of ones' spellbooks!
Duplicating spellbooks: An optional notion would be to allow a MU to re-copy their own spellbooks (so as to make two copies, one being already in hand) at half the required cost, as they are already well familiar with the material and the notation. On the other hand, it could be as easily argued that familiarity or no, material costs are material costs.
A little tinkering, says I, is required. Luckily, there are many examples to borrow inspiration from -- and a useful extenuating circumstance.
Scribing costs: A widely-used (from 1e to 3.x) and fairly reasonable standard scribing-price for a spell is 100gp per spell level to be scribed. This works nicely, to my mind; expensive enough to keep rampant scribing in check, not so expensive as to completely bankrupt the MU given the rates of treasure acquisition. (If a little randomness is desired, make it, oh, 6d10+50gp.)
Campaign-based rationale for this price can be easily made by considering the materials used. Ritual materials, exotic quills or ink-pens and most of all the ink needed for such an endeavour can easily eat up a MU's gold. Ink for imbuing the spell formula may be infused with myrrh and rosewood ashes, or distilled from cinnabar and dragon's blood, or glittering with miniscule flecks of purified jade and gold ...
Replacement costs: At a minimum, replacing a spellbook should cost as much as the initial scribing of the book; the MU is, after all, performing the same work again. However, a case could be made that replacements -- having to start from scratch, without references -- should cost twice as much, or three times if the DM prefers it (though I would argue against it).
The real cost in losing spellbooks, whether to damage or theft, is in finding the means to have any reference for the spells being replaced. One could make a good argument that -- except for any spells memorized at the time and still in memory -- a MU cannot replace lost scribed spells unless a reference is at hand. Gaining that needed reference could become costly in a different way, as the MU goes into debt with other spellcasters for access to their books for copying purposes, and rare spells may not be recoverable at all! Truly, this spectre presents a good argument for spending the gold for multiple copies of ones' spellbooks!
Duplicating spellbooks: An optional notion would be to allow a MU to re-copy their own spellbooks (so as to make two copies, one being already in hand) at half the required cost, as they are already well familiar with the material and the notation. On the other hand, it could be as easily argued that familiarity or no, material costs are material costs.
Spellbook musings: part the second.
After some thought on the matter, here are some ideas for the use of spellbooks that have drifted though my mind so far. It's somewhat rough-and-ready; but then, so are the original rules --
The first thing to note is that I wanted to have some idea of how many pages scribing a spell may take up. 3.x uses this scheme; at that, I'd had some formula or other years ago for pagecount for 2e but have long since forgotten exactly what it was (alas). Page-count could be abstracted for spellbooks, but for things like scrolls and folios of loose "spellbook pages" I'd like to have a number. Call me odd that way I suppose.
I am assigning a page-count of 4 pages per spell. In my campaigns, spells are more powerful as they increase in level but not necessarily more complex, and so needn't eat up more notation; also, the original rules didn't distinguish between spell levels when scribing spells and that fits nicely with the above. Feel free to substitute 3.x page-count or whatever catches your fancy ;3
That said, some sample spellbooks:
"Standard Spellbook": The common beastie, usually bound in hide from some exotic monster or even in thin metal, with corner-caps, straps and lock, and occasionally a protective casing. I've decided on an average measurement of 12x10" for a standard book, give or take a few inches, and a thickness of 2-3" on average. This was based on comfortable sizes of textbooks that I own; and also the Book of Kells, which measures 13x10" and I believe a thickness of 3-4" based on my memory of the facsimile at my university. (Granted it also has 340 leaves, but we'll just say you can get that after adding pages to your spellbook ...)
A typical spellbook will have 90 leaves plus 3d10. It costs 100gp and weighs 100cn / 10lbs.
Travelling Spellbook: Smaller than the standard keep-at-home model, a travelling spellbook is more usually bound in durable leather or monster hide and has fewer of the metallic reinforcements and ornamentation of the full-sized spellbook. A travelling spellbook averages 9x6" with a thickness of 1-2" though one can add more pages if desired. Travelling spellbooks require one-half again as many pages for scribing a spell.
A travelling spellbook will have 50 leaves plus 2d10, before adding pages. It costs 50gp and weighs 40cn / 4lbs.
An example girdle book: Girdle books, like many medieval books, range from small to unbelievably tiny. A 5x4" girdle book like that from the Spencer Collection would be quite thick indeed and require double the standard page-count -- or more! -- but may be designed to have as many leaves as a travelling spellbook, or even more. Other girdle books may be larger but have fewer leaves.
Regardless of actual dimensions, an unornamented girdle book costs 40gp and weighs approximately 10cn / 1lb.
Adding leaves: Spellbooks may be designed to be thicker than the norm. The price will increase in proportion to the percentage of leaves added to the base number. Adding more than dozen leaves to an already-bound book will require it to be re-bound and may damage the already-scribed spells contained within it.
Leaves vs. pages: Yes, one leaf equals two pages. No, I have no problem with allowing that much space in a spellbook; call it a half-nod to the "endless spellbook" of the Red Box *grins* YMMV, however, and like all things feel free to change and tinker with as you will. I may change this myself, though at the moment it best captures the number of actual physical sheets (and even then feels rather low).
Scrolls and folios: A scroll will be at least four pages long (to hold the spell), with perhaps the space of an extra page for "endpapers" or mounting onto end-bars. The more spells, the longer the scroll. Folios, for this purpose, are defined as collections of loose leaves kept between two "covers" -- wooden panels, etc. and the whole secured with ties or similar fasteners.
This bit of houseruling allows for variations in spellbooks, in found spells that aren't expressly spell-scrolls in the "cast 'em now" sense, and -- most especially -- in the kitting-out of beginning MUs. Perhaps the PC's master sent them off with a traveller's book or small girdle book and has left the PC to finance their own master spellbook if and when they need one. Perhaps the PC has fled their master, smuggling out a haphazard folio of spells ...
The first thing to note is that I wanted to have some idea of how many pages scribing a spell may take up. 3.x uses this scheme; at that, I'd had some formula or other years ago for pagecount for 2e but have long since forgotten exactly what it was (alas). Page-count could be abstracted for spellbooks, but for things like scrolls and folios of loose "spellbook pages" I'd like to have a number. Call me odd that way I suppose.
I am assigning a page-count of 4 pages per spell. In my campaigns, spells are more powerful as they increase in level but not necessarily more complex, and so needn't eat up more notation; also, the original rules didn't distinguish between spell levels when scribing spells and that fits nicely with the above. Feel free to substitute 3.x page-count or whatever catches your fancy ;3
That said, some sample spellbooks:
"Standard Spellbook": The common beastie, usually bound in hide from some exotic monster or even in thin metal, with corner-caps, straps and lock, and occasionally a protective casing. I've decided on an average measurement of 12x10" for a standard book, give or take a few inches, and a thickness of 2-3" on average. This was based on comfortable sizes of textbooks that I own; and also the Book of Kells, which measures 13x10" and I believe a thickness of 3-4" based on my memory of the facsimile at my university. (Granted it also has 340 leaves, but we'll just say you can get that after adding pages to your spellbook ...)
A typical spellbook will have 90 leaves plus 3d10. It costs 100gp and weighs 100cn / 10lbs.
Travelling Spellbook: Smaller than the standard keep-at-home model, a travelling spellbook is more usually bound in durable leather or monster hide and has fewer of the metallic reinforcements and ornamentation of the full-sized spellbook. A travelling spellbook averages 9x6" with a thickness of 1-2" though one can add more pages if desired. Travelling spellbooks require one-half again as many pages for scribing a spell.
A travelling spellbook will have 50 leaves plus 2d10, before adding pages. It costs 50gp and weighs 40cn / 4lbs.
An example girdle book: Girdle books, like many medieval books, range from small to unbelievably tiny. A 5x4" girdle book like that from the Spencer Collection would be quite thick indeed and require double the standard page-count -- or more! -- but may be designed to have as many leaves as a travelling spellbook, or even more. Other girdle books may be larger but have fewer leaves.
Regardless of actual dimensions, an unornamented girdle book costs 40gp and weighs approximately 10cn / 1lb.
Adding leaves: Spellbooks may be designed to be thicker than the norm. The price will increase in proportion to the percentage of leaves added to the base number. Adding more than dozen leaves to an already-bound book will require it to be re-bound and may damage the already-scribed spells contained within it.
Leaves vs. pages: Yes, one leaf equals two pages. No, I have no problem with allowing that much space in a spellbook; call it a half-nod to the "endless spellbook" of the Red Box *grins* YMMV, however, and like all things feel free to change and tinker with as you will. I may change this myself, though at the moment it best captures the number of actual physical sheets (and even then feels rather low).
Scrolls and folios: A scroll will be at least four pages long (to hold the spell), with perhaps the space of an extra page for "endpapers" or mounting onto end-bars. The more spells, the longer the scroll. Folios, for this purpose, are defined as collections of loose leaves kept between two "covers" -- wooden panels, etc. and the whole secured with ties or similar fasteners.
This bit of houseruling allows for variations in spellbooks, in found spells that aren't expressly spell-scrolls in the "cast 'em now" sense, and -- most especially -- in the kitting-out of beginning MUs. Perhaps the PC's master sent them off with a traveller's book or small girdle book and has left the PC to finance their own master spellbook if and when they need one. Perhaps the PC has fled their master, smuggling out a haphazard folio of spells ...
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Final Fantasy Red Box Hack 1.0
Here we go again; but this time, with a little more seriousness than the "Mycelian Kingdom" -- a 'hack' of sorts of the first Final Fantasy, for the good ol' BEMCI Red Box. This is a work in progress, so please bear with me.
Also, apologies for those who have already seen the Arcanist class here on this blog, but it does truly belong in the hack.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Holy Water Everywhere, and Not a Drop to Drink
Ah, the vial of holy water. That most convenient of tools in a Cleric's arsenal, the one that gets pulled out when the turning isn't taking and you just don't want to get up close and personal with the ghastly undead beasties quite yet.
There's just one question: why would an adventurer ever buy it?
Glancing through the Red Box, it quickly and painfully becomes apparent that a vial of holy water is overpriced, underutilized, or both – especially when stacked up against its mundane counterpart, a flask of oil. A quick comparison:
Holy water: range 10/30/50; 1-8 points of damage to undead; 25gp / vial. may also be used as a hand-held weapon.
Oil: range 10/30/50; 1-8 points of damage per round to any flammable creature if the oil is burning, for two rounds if the target is covered in oil; oil will burn for a turn instead if in a 3' diameter pool on the ground; 2gp / flask. may also be used as a hand-held weapon.
Something's just not right here.
An oil flask admittedly needs to be lit, but a toss of a torch against AC 10 will take care of that, and many many creatures and objects will burn quite nicely, offering at least two rounds' worth of damage for your trouble. Or you could, y'know, light your lantern with it, or make the floor slippery, or ...
Meanwhile, the holy water only affects undead, and deals damage for a single round. Yet it costs more than ten times the coat of a flask of oil. Granted holy water is a sacred substance, but still – why would an adventurer, especially a beginning adventurer, cough up 25gp when oil will do the job and then some? Removing some of the “tricks” of a flask of oil wouldn't make any sense. Nor would making the oil more expensive.
So then, back to the holy water! What can be done to make it more worthwhile? Lowering the price would arguably cheapen the roleplaying aspects of carrying the precious blessed waters of your Cleric's faith; it could be done, but what other options are there?
One possibility is to allow the holy water to damage undead for two rounds, much like burning oil (unless washed off, say by normal water). This brings it more in line with oil, without the possibility of turn-long burning holy puddles.
Perhaps a few roleplaying-related tweaks and quirks to be considered along with the extra round of damage? True, enterprising players may well try some of these anyway, but putting few “into the canon” as it were might jog their creativity along. A few possibilities:
Blessing a corpse to prevent it from rising as one of the undead
Used as an impromptu holy symbol (perhaps with a penalty to the turning roll)
Poured out over an unholy idol or altar as part of a cleansing of its taint
Some DMs may even permit holy water to be used to supplement a turning check (for +1 to the roll, perhaps) or for blessing a weapon to allow it to strike a magical undead once. Situtions such as these would, however, require careful judgement on the part of the DM.
Personally, I would consider allowing the turning supplement but would be careful about the weapon enhancement.
There's just one question: why would an adventurer ever buy it?
Glancing through the Red Box, it quickly and painfully becomes apparent that a vial of holy water is overpriced, underutilized, or both – especially when stacked up against its mundane counterpart, a flask of oil. A quick comparison:
Holy water: range 10/30/50; 1-8 points of damage to undead; 25gp / vial. may also be used as a hand-held weapon.
Oil: range 10/30/50; 1-8 points of damage per round to any flammable creature if the oil is burning, for two rounds if the target is covered in oil; oil will burn for a turn instead if in a 3' diameter pool on the ground; 2gp / flask. may also be used as a hand-held weapon.
Something's just not right here.
An oil flask admittedly needs to be lit, but a toss of a torch against AC 10 will take care of that, and many many creatures and objects will burn quite nicely, offering at least two rounds' worth of damage for your trouble. Or you could, y'know, light your lantern with it, or make the floor slippery, or ...
Meanwhile, the holy water only affects undead, and deals damage for a single round. Yet it costs more than ten times the coat of a flask of oil. Granted holy water is a sacred substance, but still – why would an adventurer, especially a beginning adventurer, cough up 25gp when oil will do the job and then some? Removing some of the “tricks” of a flask of oil wouldn't make any sense. Nor would making the oil more expensive.
So then, back to the holy water! What can be done to make it more worthwhile? Lowering the price would arguably cheapen the roleplaying aspects of carrying the precious blessed waters of your Cleric's faith; it could be done, but what other options are there?
One possibility is to allow the holy water to damage undead for two rounds, much like burning oil (unless washed off, say by normal water). This brings it more in line with oil, without the possibility of turn-long burning holy puddles.
Perhaps a few roleplaying-related tweaks and quirks to be considered along with the extra round of damage? True, enterprising players may well try some of these anyway, but putting few “into the canon” as it were might jog their creativity along. A few possibilities:
Blessing a corpse to prevent it from rising as one of the undead
Used as an impromptu holy symbol (perhaps with a penalty to the turning roll)
Poured out over an unholy idol or altar as part of a cleansing of its taint
Some DMs may even permit holy water to be used to supplement a turning check (for +1 to the roll, perhaps) or for blessing a weapon to allow it to strike a magical undead once. Situtions such as these would, however, require careful judgement on the part of the DM.
Personally, I would consider allowing the turning supplement but would be careful about the weapon enhancement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)