by Michael H. Olson

Should D&D Next emulate fourth edition as far as alignment goes, at least when it comes to what alignment system to use for the core rules? 

I think so. 

Why? Because the core rules should be simple, and what is more simple than 4th-edition's version of alignment? Unless of course, you remove alignment completely, something I’m not totally against by the way except for the fact that it also means getting rid of a lot of iconic powers that rely on alignment from past editions of D&D (like “protection from evil"). For that reason, I don't think it should be axed completely.

So there you are: alignments remain, but I think we should at least keep them simple, and that brings me back to 4th edition.

Alignment simplification and the addition of the “unaligned” designation were some of the best changes 4e brought to the table. If Wizards of the Coast wishes to offer more complicated versions from past editions, fine, but I think those systems should be made into optional add-on modules for those who prefer them, not mandated and part of the core rules. Of course, at least at present, it doesn't look like designers are taking that direction, so that means the next iteration of D&D will not likely follow my recommendation. That, to me, is a disappointment.

I also think D&D Next should place less emphasis on alignments in general as a standardized trait for races and monsters. A good compromise, to me, is to change the alignment designation in stat blocks to something less concrete sounding like "alignment tendencies" instead of “alignment.” That way, when people play D&D, they know specific creatures favor certain alignments, but variances also occur and to what extent. A subtle difference, I know, but an important one. This should then be followed up with a more complete description in each creature's flavor text, including how often that creature’s alignment does or does not vary from its racial tendencies. The text for demons, for instance, could state they NEVER vary from their racial tendencies, while the flavor text for elves could state the majority of the population is chaotic good, but 10 percent tend toward neutral good or lawful good, and a minuscule 1 percent embrace lawful evil or chaotic evil alignments, even to the point of rivaling drow in their maliciousness.

I don’t know, what do you think?

In 4e, you had only five alignments. These designations included "good" (which is the equivalent of chaotic good under the older rules sets); lawful good; evil (which is the equivalent of lawful evil under the old rules sets); chaotic evil; and unaligned, which covers anything that doesn't fall rigidly into those camps (i.e. neutral, neutral evil, neutral good, truly unaligned, etc.). Really, what else do you need? This, of course, compares to the current play-test material of D&D Next where there are ten different alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, and unaligned.

Again, I ask: why do we need this many?

I have difficulty to this day grasping nuances of different categorizations of "neutral." 

In my opinion, alignment should be more of a measuring stick, anyway, to keep track of how “tainted” a PC or creature is—not a straight jacket that dictates how a PC or creature should be role-played. For instance, players should play the game however they want and then, if their character conducts enough evil acts, their PC's overall barometer of good-verse-evil should tip more and more toward "evil" until it finally attains the solid designation of "evil," enough to make anyone and anything attuned to such things take notice. From that point on, the PC is adversely or beneficially affected by spells, items, and powers that depend upon such a reading. Those who do not lean in either direction, a mixture of good and selfish acts, who are unaligned, receive no benefits from either side and quite possibly find themselves punished and/or in disdain by both parties. However, they can always atone for their "sins" by pursuing good acts instead, which will eventually revert them to the other party once they have obtained a "tipping point" determined by the DM. 

What do you think?

###

by Michael H. Olson

One thing I really like about D&D Next, so far, is that it gives player characters a much lower starting point for hit points, similar to first-edition D&D and second-edition Dungeons and Dragons. However, I'm not sure hit points needed to be lowered from what was presented in the first D&D Next test packet. 

The benefits of lower hit points are that magic items actually mean something now (that was something that always bothered me about 4th edition) with a +1 to hit and damage being much more important when enemies have only 10 hit points as opposed to 30 and when an enemy has static armor class as opposed to level-improving scaling armor class. 

On the other hand, I don't want D&DNext to return to the old broken mechanic of wizards getting killed every time someone grazes them with a weapon at first level because they only start with one or two hit points. Really, I think a happy medium is in order in this case, at least for low level play. That means designers should bump the starting hit points back up to where they were in the first D&D Next test packet. This solves the fragility problem of wizards AND the hit-dice mechanic problem mentioned by some people for healing at low levels (right now, each class has one healing hit die at first level, but it basically has the effect of PCs waiting until they have zero hit points or only one before suddenly "springing back to life," going from one hit point or less to full hit points. With a few more hit points, they would still retain at least a little bit of damage even after using a hit die).

After setting the starting level of hit points back to a slightly higher amount, though, I think the real problem with hit points is not in how many PCs start with, but in how they SCALE. Time and again, in past editions of D&D, game-play has bogged down at high levels because everyone has a ridiculous number of hit points and it takes too long to beat down an enemy’s hit points to nothing. Perhaps, for this reason, D&DNext should completely eliminate the idea of increasing hit points when you level up, or at least reduce the amount gained per level by a drastic amount (i.e. maybe only one hit point per level for non-fighter types and two hit points per level for fighter types)?

Anyway, what do you think about starting hit points? Are they not enough, too many, or just right? Also, are you like me and think the designers should instead concentrate on limiting or eliminating the number of hit points gained per level?

--END--

by Michael H. Olson

Overall, I must say that I am pleased with the direction D&D Next is headed. I am also liking how designers are responding to surveys and criticism. The game is fast, furious, simple, and encompassing. That being said, I still believe it has room for improvement.

In regard to the latest survey, I have two criticisms about D&D Next races. One involves humans, and the other involves hill dwarves. The current rules, in my opinion, give humans too many stat bonuses for ability scores (+2 to one stat and +1 to all other stats). I would rather they receive a special trait instead, something that has color and meaning to it and makes sense with the flavor text given for the race, perhaps a free skill of their choice or something. Doing this would better reflect their ability to learn quickly and adapt to diverse environments as suggested by their current flavor text. Even if the designers manage to somehow come up with a rationale as to why humans receive stat bonuses, I would rather they only receive a +1 to two stats or, at most, a +2 to one stat and a +1 to one other stat. Also, since humans tend to be more prolific than other races in D&D anyway, it seems to me they already have a built-in benefit of being the dominant, least discriminated-upon race.

As for hill dwarves, I think dwarven toughness, the feature in which all hit dice are increased by one step, is too powerful and unbalanced, especially when a dwarf becomes high level. For instance, if the dwarf becomes 20th level, he or she will gain at least 20 extra points of healing. This is especially unbalanced if the hill dwarf is a magic-user or rogue because the heal bonus is proportionately larger than for other classes (20 extra points of healing for a 20th-level magic-user that normally rolls 1D4 per hit die is a far greater benefit than the advantage gained by a fighter that rolls 1D10 per die). In the case of a magic-user, for instance, the PC is essentially increasing the class’s inherent healing ability by 1/3 or more. A better solution is to give the hill dwarf one extra hit die instead (not per level) and make it 1D8 regardless of class.

After the section on races, the survey asks for feedback on backgrounds and skills. There was a question on skills that I wasn’t sure how to answer because it was too generalized. Basically, it asks if there are enough skills, too many skills, or not enough. I am unsure how to respond because I’m not sure what they are asking.

If they are asking how many skills each background should give as a bonus, I think the number of three is perfect. But if they are asking if the total number of skills available in the game are enough, I have to say no.

By the way, I would prefer to call skills something different, something like "special training." Why? Because I think it would be great to get rid of the skill list all together (as it was before the most recent update) and replace them with specified bonuses/areas of expertise based purely on background. What's the difference, you ask? Well, skills are much more specific and one-dimensional, while special training/areas of expertise would be much more adaptable and tailored to the individual backgrounds. For example, why pigeonhole stealth into one specific skill that ALWAYS provides a generic +3 bonus to all stealth situations, even when it doesn't make sense for a given background? Instead, special training could be used to grant bonuses only to rolls that make sense. For instance, a rogue with a woodsman background would gain a +3 bonus to checks for hiding in woods, but not in a city; while a rogue with a street urchin background would gain a +3 bonus for hiding in a city, but not the woods. In effect, this means the game will no longer have a limited list of generic skills; instead players can do whatever they want and then, if a benefit gained from a background applies to that roll, they receive a bonus. This is something the new rules are already leaning toward anyway.

As I stated before, gaining three benefits, or what the game designers like to call "skills," for each background is perfect. However, I think it would be better to eliminate the standardized "skill list" that is being pushed. Even if some of these training benefits overlap with and appear very similar to another training benefit, so what? The only real difference is that each of these benefits will have slightly different nuances for every single background, and variability, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Another question asked in the survey that I have some feedback for is in regard to the stat blocks.

In my opinion, the ones used in the adventures are fine, but I'd like to see more comprehensive, attractive-looking versions used in the bestiary (stat blocks similar to what are currently being used in fourth edition). This is definitely one of the best things fourth edition brought to the table, and I would also like to see more detailed backgrounds and flavor text for each creature, similar to what was provided in first- and second-edition D&D, or what is currently being provided for PC races in D&D Next.

Now on to something else.

This wasn’t part of the survey, but I’d also like to see some improvement in the rules for critical hits, a different system than the tired old rule of a natural 20 always resulting in maximum damage. I’d also like to see them make it easier for PCs to die. I think the current rules for death saves are too lenient. To fix this, I'd increase death-save DCs to 13 and add in an additional rule that if a dying PC fails a total of three saves, he or she dies. This has the added benefit of allowing the designers to get rid of the rule to roll damage every time a PC fails a save. Why continue to keep rolling more damage when the PC is already dying? A “three failed saves, your dead” modification makes it completely unnecessary.

One more thing: the current rules for reactions in D&D Next state that only one reaction can be attempted per turn, and the rules describing opportunity attacks say to treat them as if they are a reaction. Does this mean that a PC can only do one or the other per round? If this is so, it seems too restrictive. Wouldn't it make more sense to limit a PC to conducting one reaction AND one opportunity attack per round. I think some clarification in that area is needed.

What about you? Do you like the overall direction the game is taking, and what do you think needs improvement? Is there anything broken?

--END--

by Michael H. Olson

In the distance, you see a large lake with an exposed boulder in the middle. Lying back on the rock, propped up on her forearms and exposed to the sun, completely naked, is perhaps the most beautiful woman you’ve ever seen. She is sunbathing on the rock. Her hair is abnormally long, reddish-brown, and covers most of her body, splaying down into the water. She appears to not notice you are there.

The side trek begins by reading the previous text to the players. This can be done any time while the player characters are traveling through wilderness.

First clues (determined by passive or active perception):
* A passive or active perception DC10 check notices many tracks near the edge of the lake. They appear to be a mix of different animals and bipedal footprints.
* Anyone who says they are looking into the water or the lake’s bottom near the shore will also automatically see one of two things (see “looking into the water” section, below). Even if they do not say this, though, they may still notice one of these two things. In this case, a passive DC15 perception check means they’ve taken notice of the same information.

* A passive or active insight DC18 check provides the player characters with the feeling that the woman on the rock is not paying attention to them on purpose, but knows they are there. It also gives them the feeling she means them no harm, and may even be willing to speak with them.
* A passive or active perception DC15 check notices a small white bird flying overhead. It appears to be circling the lake.
* A passive or active nature DC14 check provides the PCs with the following lore about the woman: She is obviously a water nymph. Water nymphs are typically harmless and love to sing and dance, but they are difficult to approach. Doing so will usually cause them to disappear. They will occasionally play pranks, but more often than not they will ignore interlopers. When a water nymph does decide to communicate with someone it usually does so in a dreamy, mystical manner and by utilizing obscure phrases and riddles that make them difficult to understand.
* A passive or active nature DC19 provides the following information as well: water nymphs hide jewels and other treasures in their lairs beneath the water.

Further investigation of the tracks:
A passive or active perception DC10 check notices that all bipedal tracks lead to a little-used trail to the north, and seem to originate from the same trail the PCs used to approach the lake.

Speaking to the woman:
In response to their first words, the woman on the rock will look at the PCs with luminescent green eyes, and speak dreamily: “All keepers must take the high road.” She then points to the trail leading upward (the same one to which all the bipedal tracks lead, if the PCs noticed that earlier). It leads around the lake and to the north. She will say nothing more, only smile at them and lay back, soaking in the sun.

For her statistics and lore, click here.

A PC who makes a passive or active insight DC15 check realizes that she will likely respond in a scared manner to anyone attempting to approach her too closely. She hides it well, but beneath her nonchalant exterior, she seems very wary of them.

Anyone asking her questions of a personal nature, like who she is, where she came from, etc., will elicit the following response: “I am water. Ask me not for what I am, but where I come from, for I am timeless.” After that she will smile and lay back in the sun.

Anyone who asks her about the bipedal tracks or those people who have come here and followed the trail north will receive the following cryptic reply: “All keepers go looking for answers. The jars await them.” After that she will only smile at them and lay back, soaking in the sun. She will not respond to any questions about the jars.

Anyone asking her for assistance in determining whether or not they are a “keeper” and/or asking which direction they should travel from the lake will elicit this response: “Look not to me for the answer, but to nature’s mirror instead. One will see, one will touch, and the one who touches must fully trust. He must be pure of heart, strong of arm, and one who fights. He must trust in the sense of the wisest one.” If pressed, she will sigh and continue to repeat this cryptic riddle again and again as though the PCs are quite dense, but will say no more.

Attacking the woman or swimming out to the rock:
Anyone attempting to attack the woman or swim out to the rock will cause her to slip into the water, providing one last lustful glimpse of her nakedness. The water nymph will then dive beneath the surface and never return. She has crossed back into the fey world through a secret portal at the bottom of the lake. She will not flee until a PC reaches a distance of 10 feet or more from the shoreline, which requires them to swim. At that point, the PC is well beyond the distance where the sword and illusionary muck are located (see “looking into the water” section, below).

Searching underwater near the rock:
If a PC dives beneath the water near the rock and searches carefully (DC15 perception), he or she will find an entrance to a small rocky cave filled with water: her lair. Inside that cave, they will find some unusual fey markings, some rock carvings, some polished rocks, and a few pieces of pottery. They will also find a pile of decorative, but worthless buttons, and what appears to be an underwater bed made of lake weeds. A thorough search of the lair (requires an ability to breath underwater or to hold one’s breath for many minutes and a DC19 perception check) will find a small sack that has been hidden amongst the weeds by the nymph. The bag contains 15 gold coins, 20 silver coins, and a small jewel. If the PCs specifically say they will search the weeds, lower this DC to 12. The jewel is worth 500 GC. Taking them, though, will forever anger the nymph, and should they ever pass near this lake again, the nymph will attempt to steal something of greater value from them and play a prank on them using her ghost sounds and other magical abilities; she will then flee back to the fey world through the portal with her stolen item. At the bottom of the lake, much deeper than the cave entrance, is a hidden portal to the fey world. It is hidden between a rocky crevice. It is through this portal that the nymph passes from one world into the other. Should a PC somehow find the portal and follow her through it, they will find themselves in the fey world beneath a different body of water, next to the frightened nymph, who will defend herself.

Looking into the water (nature’s mirror):
Any PC looking into the water near the shore will see one of two things: 1) The PC with the highest wisdom score will see a beautiful sword, edges glitter in the sun, and its hilt made of pure silver. Tiny jewels encrust its pommel and cross-guard, and some sort of arcane symbol glows faintly at the base of the blade (as if etched into it). The cross-guard is fashioned into the shape of a bird of prey. The weapon rests on the bottom of the lake, three feet from the water’s edge at a depth of about three feet, and is clearly visible to him or her, who sees it through the crystal-clear water. 2) All other PCs will see a huge nasty growth of dense, slimy reeds and muck, nothing else. The viewer of the sword does not see this nasty stuff. He or she only sees the sword resting in a pool of pristine water at the sandy bottom. Likewise, the other people do not see the sword. But if those who do not see the sword pass a DC25 insight check, they will notice the reeds and muck seem to be abnormal in some way. They will recognize it as some sort of illusion, but this illusion will continue to persist. Likewise, a successful DC25 detect magic attempt will inform them that magic is at work here, that the reeds and muck are some sort of illusion, but it will not break the illusion.

Asking the nymph about the sword:
Anyone who asks the nymph about the sword will receive this response over and over: “One will see, one will touch, and the one who touches must fully trust. He must be pure of heart, strong of arm, one who fights. He must trust in the sense of the wisest one.” If pressed, she will continue to repeat this cryptic riddle as though the listeners are quite dense, but will say no more.

Claiming the sword:
If the person who sees the sword attempts to reach in and grab the sword, his hand is unable to reach it. It looks like he should be able to reach it, but he can’t. His arm will “bend” away from the sword. Any objects (rope, etc) used to try and snare the weapon will also fail to reach it; the objects appear to warp unnaturally away from the sword and/or become unnaturally shortened in the water, but as soon they are pulled back they will re-emerge from the water looking perfectly normal. When this happens, the nymph will laugh. Anyone attempting to swim toward the nymph will cause the nymph and the sword to disappear completely and forever. Though the viewer of the sword cannot pick up the sword it certainly looks real. Any kind of insight check will convince him it’s real (because it is). By contrast, anyone else making a DC25 insight check will realize the reeds and muck are some sort of illusion, but they will be unable to break that illusion. Likewise, a successful DC25 attempt to use detect magic will inform them that the reeds and muck are a magical illusion, but will not break the illusion either.

The sword, known as Aerifrial, Sword of the Fey, is an artifact. Click here for its statistics.

If the person who sees the sword convinces the PC who qualifies as the sword's favored choice (see below) to reach in and grab it even though that other person can’t see it, the favored person will grope about uselessly in failure unless the person with high WIS, who can see the sword, assists him in finding it (i.e. tells him which way to move his hand, etc.). The person who can see the sword will immediately know that his instructions are working. The instructions will not work with any other PC (those who are not favored by the sword).

To determine which PC is the sword’s favored choice use this criteria (the PC with the highest point total will be the sword’s chosen):

1) The sword will prefer a good aligned character (worth 5 points of concordance), a lawful good character as its second choice (worth 2 points), and an unaligned character as its last choice (worth 0 points). It will immediately be angered if it senses an evil PC has grasped it (set initial concordance of the sword to 0 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets).
2) It will prefer a human wielder (worth 5 points of concordance) or a half-elf wielder (worth 3 points), but will tolerate the temporary possession of an eladrin, elf, or dragonborn (worth 0 points) until a worthy candidate of one of those two races becomes available. Until then, it never rises above “satisfied” concordance (12 total) with its temporary wielder. Also, it will immediately be unsatisfied (set initial concordance to 1 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets) if a teifling or member of any other race attempts to claim it.
3) The sword will prefer a fighter (worth 4 points of concordance) over a paladin or warlord (worth 2 points) or a ranger (worth 1 point). It will immediately be unsatisfied (set initial concordance to 1 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets) if a wizard or warlock or member of any other class attempts to claim it, or if anyone who attempts to claim it lacks the proficiency of long sword.
4) When comparing individuals (after adding up score totals for numbers 1-3 above), the sword will prefer the PC with the higher strength as long as he/she otherwise qualifies to wield the sword (worth 1 point per strength bonus).

If the viewer of the sword (the PC with high WIS) gives the sword’s favored PC directions on how to grasp it, the person will continue to grope around a bit in what feels like disgusting weeds and slime and then, as he is about to give up and declare the other person mad, will grab hold of something rubbery, slimy and living. He or she does not think it is a sword, though. Rather, it feels like some sort of creature trying to wrap itself around his or her arm. If the person is convinced not to let go (that he indeed does have the sword, perhaps by the high WIS viewer who can see the sword for what it is), and pulls the object free of the water it will break the illusions completely, revealing the magic sword in its entire splendor. The sword will then speak to him or her. The person with high WIS, if watching, will, of course, only see him gripping a sword the entire time (not a creature).

A successful retrieval of the sword will cause the nymph to say: “Perhaps you are not keepers after all.” She will then giggle and disappear into the water.

Anyone bearing the sword who does not take the path pointed out by the nymph (toward “the keepers”) will find that the magic sword is gone the next morning after he sleeps. All his other belongings are exactly as he left them the night before and a search of the entire premises shows no signs of intrusion or unknown visitors. If they return to the lake, they will find the sword has magically teleported back to its place of bondage, awaiting a new worthy person to find and claim it to use it to free the “keepers" and seek out the jars.

To keep full possession of the sword (as much as one can possess an artifact, that is) the user will need to take it before the riddle-makers who are found at the end of the path pointed out by the nymph, and survive the ordeal with the jars. The artifact will then remain in the PCs possession for as long as it remains concordance with him or her, or until the sword feels compelled to “move on” (see the description and stat block for Aerifrial, The Sword of the Fey).

Continuing the adventure:
You can continue this side trek adventure with Keepers of the Fey, Part II, which will be posted on this site in the coming weeks, in which the PCs will need to free "the keepers" from magical bondage inside the jars. These jars, of course, are protected by vile magic and creatures. Or you can expand this side trek adventure in some other manner if you wish, or incorporate it into a larger campaign by utilizing the sword as a story hook device to generate encounters and quests that involve the fey and enemies of the fey, like the drow and other followers of Lolth.

--TO BE CONTINUED--

by Michael H. Olson

Aerifrial is an ancient and nearly indestructible weapon created by a well-meaning cabal of eladrin. It now seeks out a human champion to wield it who is worthy of fighting on the behalf of the fey. The goal of the sword is to eventually ask its wielder to willingly meld his or her mind to Aerifrial, the spirit of the sword, so they can become “one” in their efforts to find a way to destroy the drow and Lolth, demon queen of spiders. This is meant to bring mankind and the fey closer together and to aid in the sword’s efforts to make the world a better place. The sword, infused with a silvery sliver of the life force of Corellon, god of the fey, strives to protect eladrin, elves, and other fey creatures from harm, as well as those humans who are aligned to their cause. It continuously attempts to further that god’s agenda in the world. Should any fey creature ever prove to be evil, though—by committing more than one evil act or by committing a very heinous act—the sword will order its wielder to smite that creature as well. Lighter and stronger than adamantine, Aerifrial is indestructible by normal means. It is thought, though, that if one were to convince the god Corellon, who helped create it, to utter magic words to pull his sliver of essence from it, it would lose its special properties. Other ways may exist to destroy it as well, but they are not readily known and will require extensive research to determine.

For the DM:

Originally designed for the generic Points of Light setting or Forgotten Realms, Aerifrial can easily be adapted to other settings. Simply change the name of the god Corellon to some other, alternate god.

Aerifrial, Sword of the Fey (long sword)                                                                               Paragon Level (Artifact)

Aerifrial, infused with a sliver of the essence of a god, is made from a silvery fey substance that has never been replicated. It is both elegant and light with a cross-guard fashioned into the shape of a bird of prey. The hilt is made of pure silver. It is capable of creating its own dim glow, and it reflects both sunlight and moonlight whenever it is exposed to them. Tiny jewels encrust its pommel and cross-guard with some sort of arcane symbol at the base of its blade (as if etched into it) that always glows faintly blue .

Aerifrial is a +3 cloaked long sword with the following additional properties and powers:
Item Slot: weapon (main hand)
Requirement: See “sword preferences” section, below.
Enhancement: Attack rolls and damage rolls
Critical: +3d6 damage
Property: If you are not eladrin you gain a +5 bonus to saving throws against charm effects.
Property: You can speak and understand the elven language and read the rellanic script
Property: The wielder of Aerifrial receives a +5 to diplomacy rolls when dealing with any sentient fey creature that is good aligned or unaligned.
Power (encounter * divine, healing): Minor action, you can spend a healing surge.
Power (encounter * teleportation): Move action, personal, teleport up to 5 squares (same as fey step).
Power (at-will * arcane): Free action. The sword is capable of instantly creating dim light at the request of its wielder or on its own. This light fills a 2-square radius. The sword or the wielder can put out the light as a free action.

Sword Preferences:
The sword prefers to be wielded by a good-aligned human, one who is strong and capable of wielding a long sword and who is an effective fighter. To determine the sword’s initial concordance use this criteria:
1) The sword will prefer a good aligned character (worth 5 points of concordance), a lawful good character as its second choice (worth 2 points), and an unaligned character as its last choice (worth 0 points). It will immediately be angered if it senses an evil PC has grasped it (set initial concordance of the sword to 0 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets).
2) It will prefer a human wielder (worth 5 points of concordance) or a half-elf wielder (worth 3 points), but will tolerate the temporary possession of an eladrin, elf, or dragonborn (worth 0 points) until a worthy candidate of one of those two races becomes available. Until then, it never rises above “satisfied” concordance (12 total) with its temporary wielder. Also, it will immediately be unsatisfied (set initial concordance to 1 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets) if a teifling or member of any other race attempts to claim it.
3) The sword will prefer a fighter (worth 4 points of concordance) over a paladin or warlord (worth 2 points) or a ranger (worth 1 point). It will immediately be unsatisfied (set initial concordance to 1 no matter what other criteria the wielder meets) if a wizard or warlock or member of any other class attempts to claim it, or if anyone who attempts to claim it lacks the proficiency of long sword.
4) When comparing individuals (after adding up score totals for numbers 1-3 above), the sword will prefer the PC with the higher strength as long as he/she otherwise qualifies to wield the sword (worth 1 point per strength bonus).

If at any time the sword comes across a different PC or NPC who fits its preferences closer than its current wielder, it will likely tell its wielder that it must “move on” to that person.

Arcana, Religion, or History DC16: Aerifrial was created a thousand-plus years ago by a well-meaning cabal of eladrin who, at that time, were in a war with the drow, but losing. The creation of the weapon allowed them to enlist the aid of a human champion who then gathered a great host of human followers. With their combined strength, the remaining eladrin defeated the drow. The weapon prefers to be in the possession of a human with great strength and good intentions, as well as skill with a long sword and who looks favorably upon the fey. The sword’s goal is to defeat drow and other evil fey as well as Lolth, while protecting all other fey.

Arcana, Religion, or History DC21: The sword is infused with a sliver of the god Corellon’s essence, which makes it nearly indestructible. The personality of the sword can be quite amicable and helpful if it approves of its wielder. It can also speak in the mind of its wielder, and hear its wielder’s thoughts, and eventually, it will ask to join minds with the wielder.

Arcana, Religion, or History DC25: In addition to Corellon’s essence, the sword contains the soul and personality of Aerifrial, a female eladrin cleric from the cabal that created the sword. She willingly allowed this to happen as a selfless act to protect her people and god. It was one of the greatest selfless acts ever performed by an eladrin or cleric. Until the sword is destroyed she will never be allowed to join her beloved god in the afterlife, a cruel punishment for someone such as she.

Arcana, Religion, or History DC30: The only known way to destroy the sword and release Aerifrial’s spirit from its imprisonment is to convince the god Corellon, who helped create it, to utter magic words that will pull his essence from the sword. He will only willingly agree to do this if the threat of the drow is completely over (i.e. Lolth is defeated).

Goals of The Sword of Fey:
* To assist and protect any good-aligned and unaligned fey creature in any manner possible so long as that creature’s causes are in keeping with their alignment and they are not actively promoting evil.
* To cultivate beauty in the world and to protect it.
* To seek out lost magical items, forgotten rituals and ancient works of art that may have been inspired by Corellon and deposit them into the safekeeping of good-aligned fey or a priest of Corellon.
* Thwart the followers of Lolth at every opportunity.
* Attach itself to a human hero of honor, action, and great deeds.
* To defeat and destroy Lolth.

Roleplaying The Sword of Fey:
Aerifrial is warm and kind toward its wielder as long as the wielder is bettering him or herself toward the sword’s ideal and striving to meet the sword’s expectations. She will continually offer helpful opinions and advice, encouraging her wielder to do his or her best, especially if it involves pursuing one of the weapon’s goals. Aerifrial is overly optimistic to the point of being annoying. She is quite syrupy, cheerful, and overly wise, and much more chatty and communicative than most other artifacts. She cooperates closely with her wielder as long as that wielder is not actively attempting to commit an evil act or going against her tenants. Should this happen, the sword will become sharp-tongued, even disdainful. All the while she will continue to spout syrupy and optimistic advice and attempt to convince her wielder to repent his or her distasteful ways.

Pleased (16-20):
“I am a great champion of humankind and the most beloved of the fey, and a companion to the sword. I am one with my fey brothers and sisters and Aerifrial. I also follow Corellon.”
The sword is clearly in tune with its wielder at this point, and together they’re advancing the cause of both fey and humans who are aligned with fey. Their minds have melded to become one.
     Property: The sword’s enhancement increases to +4
     Critical: +4d6 damage
     Power (daily * divine): Standard action, close  burst 5, all creatures in the burst except allies and the wielder are affected, strength vs. fortitude. You can stab your sword into the ground and instantly entangle an area with existing wild growth (must be an area with growing grasses, roots, vines and/or trees). The entangled area lasts until the end of the encounter. Hit: the victims are immobilized for one turn. Victims must then make saving throws to move at slowed speed until they exit the area. Miss: The victims must make saving throws to move at slowed speed while in the affected area. Effect: any enemies entering or reentering the affected area must continue to make saves to move at slow speed.
     Special: An exarch or angel in the service of Corellon might occasionally appear near the sword to give you prophetic guidance or send you on a quest. It won’t fight for you.

Satisfied (12-15):
“I’ve become a staunch ally of the fey and a grand protector of the arts. Let Lolth’s minions quail in fear.”
The sword now trusts the wielder. Aerifrial is willing to do its wielder’s bidding with few arguments. She reveres his opinions and will work closely with him, even willing to breach some disobedience if the wielder can convince her that it serves the fey in a greater way.
     Property: You gain wild step (ignore difficult terrain when you shift).
     Power (daily * martial, weapon): Standard action, melee, targets one creature, strength vs. AC. Hit: 3 [W] + strength modifier damage. Allies within 5 squares of you gain a +1 power bonus to all defenses until the end of the encounter. Effect: allies within 5 squares of you gain temporary hit points equal to 5 + your charisma modifier.

Normal (5-11):
“Aerifrial seeks my unwavering support, but I must still prove myself.”
The blade is cautious with its wielder and not sure if it can trust him or her yet. Aerifrial interferes and sometimes argues with the wielder, but is not unfriendly. She can be annoying, but has good intentions. She is constantly offering “helpful” advice and opinions and believes she knows best.

Unsatisfied (1-4):
“The sword is disappointed with me and looks to move on.”
If the wielder does not change his ways soon, the sword will soon leave. Aerifrial will constantly argue with him or her, offering up snide and derisive remarks and reminding him or her of shortcomings and failures.
     Special: You take a -2 penalty to attack and damage rolls against any creatures other than Lolth worshipers. This applies whether or not you are using or even holding the blade.

Angered (0 or lower):
“I am not a worthy of the fey or the sword. The sword despises me.”
The wielder is not meeting the sword’s expectations, and it will not stay in his or her possession for long. It will argue with its wielder and distract the wielder to no end, constantly counting off the ways in which he or she has become a disappointment and failure. It is out-and-out angry with him or her.
     Property: The sword’s enhancement bonus drops to +2
     Critical: Drops to +2d6 damage
     Property: You lose the +5 diplomacy bonus
     Power: You can no longer use fey step.
     Special: You take a -5 penalty to attack rolls and damage rolls against any creatures that are not servants of Lolth. This applies to whether or not you are actually using or even holding the blade.

Moving on:
“Aerifrial tells me she is needed elsewhere in someone else’s hands.”
If at least satisfied with her current wielder, Aerifrial explains that she is needed elsewhere and wishes to find and develop another champion of the fey, but she hopes her current owner will continue to support the fey. As long as the person pledges to uphold this continued support, she will leave behind a normal +3 cloaked long sword in her place. This weapon will have the mark of Corellon on it and continue to give the wielder a +5 to diplomacy rolls when dealing with any sentient fey creature of good or unaligned alignment.

--END--

by Michael H. Olson

Water nymphs are typically harmless, and anyone coming closer than twenty feet to one will usually cause them to disappear. They will occasionally play pranks, but more often than not they will ignore interlopers. When a water nymph does decide to communicate with someone it usually does so in a dreamy, mystical manner and by utilizing obscure phrases and riddles that make them difficult to understand. Only rarely are they caught unawares or surprised. They will often sun bathe on rocks or in the open, allowing themselves to be seen and heard, but only from a distance. At the first signs of anyone approaching, they will slip into the water and disappear. Although completely unashamed about being naked, they abhor being touched and rarely leave the water by more than a few feet. Only occasionally do they become interested in someone else's affairs, and when that does happen it is usually to assist another fey in some fey-like manner or to defend their watery home. A water nymph's hair is extremely long, swirling down into the water around them. They love to sing and dance, and even by fey standards, they are extremely beautiful and mesmerizing. When their home is in danger, though, they can turn out to be a fearsome and dangerous enemy, even leaving their waters at times to bring the fight to their enemies.

ENCOUNTER GROUPS
Water nymphs are most often found alone or in small groups and sometimes with other water animals and fey creatures. Rarely, do they interact with any other races.

LORE
Nature DC14: Water nymphs are typically harmless and love to sing and dance, but they are difficult to approach.
Nature DC19: Water nymphs hide jewels and other treasures in their lairs beneath the water.

This blog comes at you from across the pond. That’s right, jolly old England, or is it Great Britain, or the United Kingdom? (It’s all so confusing to us Americans, you know). Anyway, Greywulf is an extremely insightful and entertaining blogger.

Whether it’s an article exploring ideas on what format Wizards of the Coast should explore for publishing D&DNext, or giving vivid recounts and results of a D&DNext play test, or venting opinions on whether or not the game should be sexist, readers of Greywulf's Lair will usually find something interesting to read. Oh, and Greywulf's Lair also posts computerized renderings of fantasy folk. I don’t really go there for that, though, and he doesn’t really diverge into much else. But that’s all right, because I find his topics of great interest and his writing quite witty. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to play D&D.

by Michael H. Olson

Minions can be a great way to spice up encounters. When used judiciously, they can speed up battles while letting players feel heroically powerful. They can also be used to effectively create non-player-characters who won’t overshadow player characters in combat. Use them too much, though, and they become down-right easy to “read” by players and sometimes players will begin to take them for granted, becoming complacent and lazy with their tactics. If that happens, try spicing up your battles by using the following house rules. They will provide ways to make minions a bit more “beefy,” both as enemies and sidekick non-player characters, and players will find them a bit surprising when they strike one and it refuses to go down in one blow.

Underlings (two-hit minions, a stronger form of minion):

Use these minions in place of two regular minions. Critical hits will strike down a two-hit minion outright. Otherwise a two-hit minion will take two hits to strike down, regardless of damage, and one hit results in the minion becoming bloodied. Also read the section on “striking a minion down” to see how and if a minion actually dies after it is struck down. They cause one extra point of damage compared to regular minions of their kind. To compensate for these changes in rules double the XP value listed for these minions.

Commanders/henchmen (three-hit minions, a stronger form of minion):

Reserve this type of minion for representing sergeants, lieutenants, chieftains, captains, commanders, or trusted henchman, etc., who command other minions in battle, or who operate as a favorite, trusted henchman of some other greater man. Use one of these to take the place of three minions. They operate similar to 2-hit minions/underlings, as listed above, except that they take three hits to kill instead of two, and it takes two hits to bloody them. They also cause two extra points of damage compared to regular minions of their kind, and critical hits do not necessarily strike them down outright. Instead, a critical hit counts as two hits and bloodies them. Also read the section on “striking a minion down” to see how and if a minion actually dies after it is struck down. To compensate for this change in rules triple the XP value listed for these minions.

Striking a minion down (applies to all minions):

When struck down, if not a follower of a PC, these creatures make a save at the end of the battle to see if they are still alive. The victorious side then has the option of killing them outright automatically, or letting them die a slow death (providing them with no aid), or healing them. A failed heal check to stabilize them means the minion must make a new save. If it fails, it immediately dies; if it succeeds, a new heal check can be attempted. For followers, see the “follower minions” section below.

Ongoing damage, vulnerabilities, and resistance for minions:

A minion continues to take 1 more hit per turn until it makes a saving throw to stop ongoing damage. If it has vulnerability to a source, it immediately drops out of combat. If it has resistance to a source, it does not take any ongoing damage from that source.

Follower minions (minions who are followers of a PC):

Receive a maximum of one action point per encounter, subject to the same rules as a PC. They also receive one second wind per encounter, subject to the same rules as a PC, that allows them to regain one lost hit, regardless of whether or not they are bloodied at the cost of one healing surge. A magical healing, on the other hand, allows them to regain two lost hits at the cost of one healing surge. See “healing surges for monsters and NPCs” in the DMG (page 187) to see how many healing surges NPCs and monsters receive. As for skills, a 1-hit follower typically has one trained skill; a 2-hit follower typically has two; and a 3-hit follower usually has three. As for special abilities or attacks, 1-hit and 2-hit followers usually have a maximum of one, though the type of ability is usually more potent for a 2-hit minion; and 3-hit followers typically have no more than two. When minions go up in level they typically receive an increase in defense bonuses, ability modifiers, and the damage they cause (according to the DMG 2), and skill modifiers, as according to their level, but nothing else; this also usually means the potency of special abilities or attacks goes up as appropriate (or are replaced by something better). Minions who are followers of a PC also have three death saves instead of the rules given above under “striking a minion down,” and they follow all the same death-save rules as PCs.

--END--

by Michael H. Olson

The next iteration of D&D is focusing on a desire to please all players of all editions. Meanwhile, the play test of the core rules, which is currently under way, is focused on bringing back the feel of the game’s earliest editions. I must say the game designers are doing an admirable job at achieving this second goal, but not so much at the first—at least not yet.

You can see it in the forums: the negative comments and naysayers; their cries are already beginning to build.

 “It won’t work,” they say, “D&DNext can’t please everyone, and the designers are hanging my favorite edition out to dry!”

Well, that may well prove to be true, but the naysayers shouldn’t actually say this until the final product rolls out the door; they haven’t even given the designers a chance yet. What these naysayers fail to realize is that WOC has not attempted to incorporate the feel of 3rd and 4th edition D&D, at least not very much—yet. That is going to come later.

The system being worked on right now is only the core rules. As such, those rules are meant to cater to people who prefer older, simplified versions of D&D. The flavor of the old-school game is definitely there. Now if WOC can do the same for each of the other editions in later coming modules, wouldn’t everyone be happy? I think so.

What if DMs can eventually have the ability to choose which rules, modules, and how much complexity they want to implement into a game campaign and what they want to ignore? That would be awesome, right?

I, too, am still wondering how they are going to do this and if it is even possible, but I am at least willing to give them a chance to try, and I encourage others to do the same. So stop griping and instead focus efforts on trying to provide useful feedback to WOC and information to the designers that can be used to obtain their current goals, which is to recreate the feel and simplicity of the earliest editions of D&D and do so in a way that will make it possible to add on later modules that will recreate the feel other players are seeking. If everyone puts their emotions and worries aside, I think we can at least agree that WOC has succeeded for the most part at this goal with several kinks left to work out, but that’s why the game is in test mode, right?

Now, moving on from the editions-war to the actual purpose of this article, which is to focus on my personal reviews of the first play tests and survey and where WOC should go from here. As for the core rules, I have many things I like, some I don’t, and a few ideas—well—that I detest. With that in mind, I would like to categorize my comments into the headings “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

The Good

The core rules have definitely succeeded in evoking the feel of the oldest editions of D&D. Like many others, I’ve also fallen in love with the new mechanics for advantage and disadvantage. It almost feels like those rules should have been part of D&D all along. Rolling an extra 20-die when you have advantage or disadvantage is brilliant. You get to keep the best of two rolls in the one case, and in the other you have to take the worst result. The simplicity and speediness of this method and the speed of battles were A+ in my book. I was amazed to find that I could complete two battles, exploration, and include role-playing between PCs, all in one hour. I also liked the simplicity and consistency of how skill checks and saves, contests, abilities, and attacks all worked. By doing this, the game became much easier to learn and run. I also like the open-endedness of how the dungeon master is allowed to interpret tasks, so DMs get to decide the difficulty class (DC) of tasks and what abilities they fall under. Even better, I like not having to reference a skill list. That is refreshing. (Really, why is a skill list even necessary)? All tasks now fall under whatever ability the DM thinks is best and the players then make their rolls, adding applicable bonuses they might have, such as training for certain tasks and racial modifiers, and the only “skills” anyone has to remember are those special training bonuses.

Not having to deal with opportunity attacks and other record-keeping conditions during combat was also refreshing. It made the game quicker and much less complicated.

Oh, and one last thing: I definitely liked being able to play without miniatures and a battle mat. I didn’t miss that at all.

All this adds up to one thing: for those times I want to run a quick, simple, pick-up game of D&D this set of rules will do just fine.

The Bad

Although it has been the default system for several previous editions of D&D, I still don’t like the proposed critical hits mechanics. D&DNext is finally providing an opportunity to nix this stale mechanic, so I hope designers will do it. I don’t mind a natural 1 resulting in an automatic miss or a natural 20 resulting in an automatic hit, but having a natural 20 result in a critical hit with maximum damage is a terrible idea. Why? Because the chances of obtaining a critical hit, as a percentage of the hits you make, increases as the to-hit number increases. For example, a PC who needs a 19 to hit will get a critical hit 50% of the time on a hit (every time they roll a 20, but not when they roll a 19). By contrast, a PC who needs only a 9 to hit will obtain a critical hit only 8.3% of the time when they hit. Honestly, I prefer an alternative house rule I came up with for 4th edition in which players roll an additional 12-die with their attack die to determine critical hits. I know, I know, this system may not work with D&DNext because it is already looking to use an extra 20-die for its new advantage/disadvantage mechanics and this would mean rolling even another die on an attack, but still it’s worth looking into. And no matter what I think, designers need to come up with something that is simple and less screwy.

My next complaint is that I think the surprise mechanics for D&DNext are not robust enough yet, or they lack clarity. Either way, they are bad. In the rules of the surprise section, for instance, a -20 penalty to initiative is the only drawback listed. That is fine, but I also think it should result in some other effect, like giving a surprised individual disadvantage on attacks for that round and/or granting enemies advantage against him when attacked. I did find an obscure reference in the advantage/disadvantage rules that could possibly make this point a moot one, for it briefly states that attackers in some situations can be granted advantage against surprised victims. But if that is the case, it definitely needs to be listed more clearly in the actual surprise rules under the section labeled “effect of surprise.”

The Ugly

Now for the ugly.

For one, I didn’t care for the healing and hit dice mechanics. They just felt too awkward and way too randomized and swingy for my tastes. Maybe if the designers make healing a default number instead of rolling a die that would help. I also didn’t like the rule for long rests in which PCs automatically heal to full hit points and regain all healing hit dice. It’s a fantasy game, I know, but I still expect some realism when it comes to implementing natural healing: to heal all your hit points and wounds in one day just doesn’t sit well with me. If a PC is healed by magic, fine, but when healed by resting a player character with a serious injury should suffer some sort of long-lasting residual damage for at least a week.

Secondly, I didn’t like how the play-test material dealt with dying and death. The system for dying seems overly complicated and utilizes unnecessary die rolls. In this case I think the game should just adopt, more or less, the existing rules from fourth edition. The excitement and simplicity of those rules are great. By that, I mean having PCs who are at a negative hit point total roll death saves each turn until they either die by failing three saves or they become successfully stabilized by a healing check or magical healing.

As for the dying mechanics currently being used in the play-test rules, I particularly don’t like having to roll for damage once a character is already dying: I think that is unnecessary and death saves are enough. I also don’t like the rules for automatically becoming stabilized if you make three saves (in essence the play-test rules are attempting to turn what used to be death saves into life saves). I think these “life saves” make it too easy for a PC to become stabilized without medical assistance. It should at least require a healing check or a healing power by another PC to stabilize a dying PC. As for the rule in which a character dies if he exceeds his constitution score as a negative value, I think that is okay, but I don’t see a need to add a character’s level to that total. It just makes the game unnecessarily complicated and increases the difficulty in killing off a high-level character.

Other Critiques

The above complaints were the only mechanics in the play-test survey that I disliked. However, there were also other parts of the rules I disliked that are apparently not under the microscope right now, at least according to the survey. I would like to make sure they don’t fall through the cracks.

The idea of providing a benefit to intoxication as listed under the section for conditions is a good one, but I think rolling a six-die every time that person is hit to see how much less damage they take is an unnecessary complication that will only serve to slow the game down. A better solution is to simply apply three points of damage reduction or to just cut damage in half or something.

As for armor class, I think the values of various types of armor are currently a little out of whack. For instance, a chainmail shirt provides an AC of 14 + Dex rating, but if that is so why would anyone want to wear a full set of chainmail armor when a full suit only has an AC of 15 with no Dex bonus and takes five minutes to put on as opposed to one minute? Even worse, why would anyone want to wear ringmail, which has AC13 + half your Dex modifier and takes five minutes to put on, when studded leather is cheaper and can be donned in one minute and provides an AC of 13 + Dex modifier? It seems to me that heavier armors should provide more AC than lighter ones, even if a PC wearing those lighter armors has a high Dex bonus.

Words about the Play Test

That said, I did want to say something else about my first play session. It didn’t start off well, primarily because I didn’t prepare for it much and I decided to wing it using one of the provided story hooks (Under Evil’s Thumb). As a result my game started off forced, like I was giving the PCs an excuse to go to the Caves of Chaos. Anyway, once they got there and started exploring the kobold’s lair it definitely got better. The PCs easily and quickly fought off a kobold ambush at the cave mouth, taking only a few hits from the initial surprise attack. They then entered the cave mouth and lit up a torch. Stepping forward, they saw another group of kobold’s cowering around the corner in an alcove waiting for them in another obvious attempt to ambush them again. This time, only a few PCs were surprised. Those PCs that weren’t charged toward them only to be stopped by a pit trap the kobolds had set in the passage. One fell in and the other made his save, precariously noticing the pit at the last second, teetering at the edge.

The PCs then had a flurry of daggers thrown at them from over the pit as one of the PCs held up the lid of the pit trap to let their comrade climb out. The wizard and rogue took down two kobolds with distance attacks. That was when they first noticed a squeaking, swarming horde of rats spilling out of the left-hand tunnel, obviously attracted to the sounds of battle and the trap being activated. Two of the PCs then jumped across the pit and engaged the kobolds in melee. Between their attacks and the wizards magic missiles and the rogue’s attacks they quickly dispatched the remaining kobolds in one round. The rats were then halfway down the tunnel and likely to reach them the next round. Luckily, the PCs had won initiative.

That’s when my 10-year-old son came up with a brilliant plan of picking up a kobold body and throwing it to the rats! Rewarding his creativity, I told him the ravenous rats stopped to consume the body, but would likely eat through it in five minutes. He then came up with the idea of placing the rest of the kobold bodies into the pit trap and waiting for the rats to go down into it to consume them while the lid of the trap was held open with a piece of planking they found in the kobold’s alcove (the kobolds had stored a bunch of planks there to use to safely cross the pit whenever they needed to). When the rats swarmed into the pit, the PCs dropped the trap’s lid and placed all the planks on top to help keep it shut.

That was the end of session one.

Final Thoughts

In retrospect, I kind of wish WOC would have picked a module that was a bit more fleshed out and solidified for the first play test because I was in such a hurry to try out the game. That, or I wish I would have taken the time to create a more creative entry point to the adventure. Other than that, though, I was pleased with many of the game mechanics of the play test. We did have a few uncertainties come up. One time I had an instance when it seemed like two abilities (strength and dexterity) should apply to the DC of the task a player character was attempting, so I had the player blend both ability modifiers together and divide it by two (rounded down) to come up with an in between modifier for the attempt. That worked fine. Lastly, I was unclear how to apply advantage for the kobolds whenever they outnumbered the PCs as outlined in the monster stats. I couldn’t tell if the rule was supposed to be as simple and basic as always giving them advantage when they outnumber the PCs in melee and at a distance, seen and unseen. To give them advantage in all these situations seemed a little weird to me. Was I only supposed to give it to them if they swarmed the PCs in melee? What if the PCs have as many people as the kobolds, but three kobolds manage to swarm a single PC? In the end, I made judgment calls for each situation as it arose.

What about you? How did your play session go, and what did you think about the adventure and its survey, and what rules would you change?

--END--

by Michael Karkabe-Olson

As many know, Wizards of the Coast is currently developing a Visual Guidelines document for D&DNext/5th edition. This document will eventually lay out the rules for WOC artists on what is acceptable and what is not. Jon Schindehette, in his last article, tackled the subject of violence and gore. Previously, he has asked how women should be portrayed in D&D art. He is senior creative director for Wizards of the Coast.

Personally, my concern is that “sanitizing” D&D art for 5th edition will go too far and ruin the fun for many who currently like to play the game. I also fear it will eliminate one of the most intriguing aspects about the game: that it teaches players to think, directly and indirectly, about the world around them.

I have to say one of my favorite illustrations in 4e is the one in the Players Handbook (page 297) with the dead fighter sprawled on the ground with blood trickling out of his nose and splattered around his head. The vacant look in his eyes is memorable and haunting. It is not gratuitous, but it is realistic, and it tells a story. As far as pushing an envelope goes, I think it pushed it, but is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I think D&D images should have more of this type of portrayal to show accurate repercussions of fighting. Why? Because violence without bloodshed only serves to glorify it. Think about it.

There is a reason why our government now refuses to allow the media to show dead, bloody bodies returning home from war. Such photographs, which were allowed during the Vietnam war, were a main reason so many people protested that war: because they actually saw the terrible images of war and what happened there.

Because of this, I have no qualms about letting my 10-year-old son see such images. It drives home the fact that war—real war and violence—are very serious issues in our world with very serious consequences and repercussions. That said, I know there are other parents out there who disagree with me, so I respect that. For that reason, I think all D&D books should have a "PG-13" sticker slapped on them and call it good. That takes care of the occasional half-exposed breast as well as violence.

I think blood, even a slight blood spatter, is fine and so is some creepy gore (like flesh hanging on zombies, etc.). It's been my experience that people who are against portrayals of violence and gore won't play D&D anyway. In fact, I know some pacifists who dislike such depictions, and they say the reason they are against such depictions is because they promote aggression and war. Well, that's their right. But there is no way you are going to take violence and war completely out of D&D, so why bother, whether you sugar-coat it or not.

These are the same people, mind you, who are also against allowing young children, usually boys, from playing with plastic guns and violent video games and, yes, role-playing games. Why? Because they believe—wrongly, of course—that such activities will lead those children to grow up and murder someone. My wife was one of those people. When our son was first born, she didn’t want him to ever to be a boy. Well, I have news for people who think like that: you can’t stop it.

My wife learned that, and so will you.

If you refuse to buy plastic guns for a boy, for instance, I can almost guarantee that he will someday pick up a stick or use his finger to point it at another kid and yell “bang!” It’s all part of the male psyche, and it’s all part of how males learn about violence and death.

And no, it’s not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean that kid will grow up to shoot someone. As every parent who has been through this “horrifying” revelation has since come to realize, those kids typically grow up to be just fine.

Like I said, my wife initially had this stance with our own son. She didn’t want him to ever have a toy gun or play violent games or watch a violent television show. I looked at her askance at the time and knowingly, when she said this, replied: “good luck with that.” But I also told her I would respect her wishes and never expose him to such things. That lasted all of five years, until our son was at the play area in the mall and suddenly jumped up on a plastic sandwich and held his arms forward like he was wielding a machine gun, pointing his finger at the other children he was playing with and yelled, “die, soldiers, die!” He then proceeded to mow them all down like he was Rambo.

To this day I don’t know where he came up with that idea, but I guarantee it wasn’t from me. I really did respect my wife’s wishes. All I can guess is that it came from some other kid he was playing with, not that it matters: I knew that day was coming.

I laughed my ass off, and eventually my wife learned to laugh about it as well. To this day, of course, it is one of our favorite stories to tell other people, and she eventually came to accept what I had been telling her all along: that you can’t stop it and it’s harmless play and—whether you like it or not—it’s educational.

You see, such play is ingrained into the male psyche: we are born with it. What many women fail to realize is that boys go through this stage in their lives as a way of coping with the idea of violence and death and coming to terms with it. They need to visualize it and to think about it and to play it out in scenarios so they can learn from it and recognize the dangers of it and what happens when someone is violent. They learn that violence begets violence, and there are repercussions—and no winners. That way, when they grow up, after a hard day’s work they don’t punch their boss or go “hmmm...why don’t I just pull out a gun and shoot him?” Instead, they go: “Oh, yeah, it’s because the police will haul me away and throw away the key, or that poor schmuck’s brother or son will someday hunt me down for revenge. Or what if that poor schmuck was me? Would I like it if someone beat me up?”

One of the great things about role-playing games in my opinion is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes: it often gets you to think about things you otherwise wouldn’t think about and the repercussions. Every good Dungeon Master has done this: they’ve put their players through the occasional moral dilemma. So do authors and directors of most great books and movies.

Some of my best games, in fact, have involved moral dilemmas, though some have not. Sometimes, it’s just simple, harmless fun: a way to pretend you are a fighter doing something you would never do, opening up a can of whoop ass. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not like I am going to go around in real life and start slaying corporate bosses and teachers with a sword or something. Rather, it’s kind of like therapy: like the guy who likes to come home from work and take out his frustrations on a punching bag or something. It’s a release, and that’s all it is, a way of taking out pent-up frustration on something inanimate instead of a real person.

That said, I do think there should be some limits placed on the art WOC puts out in its next edition of D&D, simply for the fact that it is not necessary to take violence and gore to the extreme. After all, you don’t want to go so far that all parents refuse to let their kids play it. The game would quickly become dead from a lack of new players if you did. Also, you don’t want that violence to be so extreme that it becomes a farce and completely unrealistic.

While I think it’s okay and necessary to show some realistic amount of violence and gore in D&D, I don’t think it needs to be exaggerated to the point of becoming a Quentin Tarantino-style portrayal.

Under these guidelines, for instance, I think dismemberment should be avoided. Why? Because for one, it's unnecessary gore, and secondly (even more importantly) it is not realistic, at least when it comes to weapon fights. I remember seeing a Myth Busters show for dismemberment. In it, they proved it was impossible to lop off a limb or head while swinging weapons in combat. This was true even when they used large and unique weapons like a two-handed sword or a samurai sword. To make dismemberment possible, the situation has to be especially unique, like an execution in which a person's head is set in a block while a professional executioner uses an axe to cut the head, etc.

Sure, D&D is fantasy and there are going to be dragons and ogres, magic missiles, etc., but I still think it is beneficial to maintain a consistency to the world, as much as possible, so that people can buy into what they are seeing and playing. When it comes to dismemberment, there are two reasons to not use it: one, it's unnecessary gore, and two, it is physically impossible to do in the real world. Two strikes you're out! Story-wise, this makes it as silly as, say, a chain-mail bikini is when it comes to depicting women fighting in a fantasy environment. For that same reason, I am against bikini chain-mail portrayals. One, it's not realistic, and two, it offends many women.

As I’ve said before in Wizards Addresses Sexism in Fantasy, I think Wizards of the Coast should simply try to encourage its artists to think outside of the box more. On the one hand, they should not be afraid to allow artists to portray a little violence or to show a few images of beautiful women, but they also should not focus all their images on such things. Instead, they should ask their illustrators to start mixing in more story elements into their portrayals: to diversify. If an image doesn’t tell an interesting story, don’t bother to illustrate it. Does violence or gore really need to be in the image to tell the story effectively? If it does, then great. If it doesn’t, then get rid of it. They should also strive for their artists to create as much believability and consistency in their portrayals as possible, not to pursue something cartoonish or outlandish for outlandish sake.

Two strikes, you’re out.

What about you? Do you think Wizards of the Coast should tone down violence and gore in its illustrations or the way it portrays women, and how much?

--END--