Dojo Darelir, the School of Xenograg the Sorcerer

Tag: Dungeons & Dragons

Potions of Healing Restore One-Quarter of Maximum Hit Points

March 19, 2026

I recently read Healing Potions Are Dumb (and how I fix them), and enjoyed both its analysis and proposed solution. Then an old thought came back to me.

I never played the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, but one concept from it always impressed me: Healing Surges. Specifically, that a Healing Surge restores one-quarter of a character’s maximum Hit Points. No more risk of bad dice rolls on healing spells.

That fixed proportion can easily be ported to apply to Potions of Healing in D&D 5e—in any edition, really, but especially in 5e where combat damage frequently outpaces healing abilities. This is a middle ground between the current rule and Nerdwerd’s maximalist option.

Backlinks

Deranged, Murderous Thuggees

August 19, 2025

…I don’t think that every class should get a raft of soldiers. The cleric should get less soldiers and more zealots and believers, but probably this was a bit creepy for the 1979 company [that published Dungeons & Dragons]…. I can cheerfully allow an “evil” cleric player character to gain eighty or so deranged, murderous thuggees ready to konk women unconscious and burn them alive in monthly festivals…. This was done in reality, once; no reason it shouldn’t be done in a player’s imagination.

β€” Food for Powder, Food for Worms – The Tao of D&D

White Dragon As Anti-Dragon

August 12, 2025

I have never been a fan of the chromatic and metallic dragons of Dungeons & Dragons, even when ignoring the Alignment aspect. Great variety but otherwise lacking both depth and need, in my opinion. Red dragons are the closest to traditional European mythology: flying fire breathers. That seems sufficient—with one exception.

Regarding Alignment, something recently reminded me that in Basic D&D, with its single Law-Neutral-Chaos axis, white dragons are Neutral. This makes them usable as mounts by non-evil people. A new idea then occurred to me: white dragons, being cold-based, would be the ideal counter to red dragons. Anti-dragons.

Perhaps not even true dragons, but a species created and/or bred by mortals or gods to protect against the true ones.

Anything Swords and Anything Items

July 16, 2025

Advanced Dungeons & Dragon’s Unearthed Arcana has an interesting magical item that I have never seen used: the Anything Sword.

screenshot of book page

As with several other things in Unearthed Arcana, this power comes with restrictions that make it almost not worth having. Ahem. πŸ˜€

This item has great potential for roleplay. So I am going to update it for use with D&D 5e. The biggest change I am making is removing the impermanence.

Anything Sword

Weapon (any sword), Legendary

This sword has a base type (e.g. short sword, longsword, et. al.) and a base +1 magical bonus. While drawn and held, you can use an action to have it transform into another magic sword. This is limited by the rarity of the new form:

  • A Uncommon sword, any number of times per day
  • A Rare sword, once per day (resetting at dawn)
  • A Very Rare or Legendary sword, once per day (resetting at dawn)

It may stay in its new form indefinitely. If still in a Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary form at dawn, it remains in that form but it also expends the appropriate usage for the new day. Note that the sword type counts as part of its form. For example, it cannot change from a Vorpal longsword to a Vorpal greatsword as the latter would be a second Legendary form.

This can be taken further.

Anything Item

Wondrous Item, Legendary

This item has the base form of any Uncommon magical item. While held, you can use an action to have it transform into another magical item. This is limited by the rarity of the new form:

  • A Uncommon item, any number of times per day
  • A Rare item, once per day (resetting at dawn)
  • A Very Rare or Legendary item, once per day (resetting at dawn)

It may stay in its new form indefinitely. If still in a Rare, Very Rare, or Legendary form at dawn, it remains in that form but it also expends the appropriate usage for the new day. Note that the item type/size counts as part of its form just like the Anything Sword.

So it can be all magical items but only one at a time, and only two big ones a day. Very powerful but I do not believe abusively so. Properly legendary.

FYI, the Elemental Blade of Fire is an Anything Item. Its base form is a Ring of Warmth. πŸ˜€

RPG Spells Of My Creation

July 1, 2025

Well, spell names. I have never been able to create original spells for Dungeons & Dragons. I would read the Pages From The Mages series in Dragon Magazine issues in the 80’s, and just be intimidated by the concept.

In forty years, I have compiled but a short list of original spells:

  • Fire Lance of the Ifrits (inspired by Doctor Strange comic)
  • Occular Arc of Flame (inspired by Doctor Strange comic)
  • Breath of the Dragon (predates Avatar: The Last Airbender)
  • Andesoln’s Unerring Aim
  • Eldrughei’s Shroud
  • Wrath of the Largorahr
  • Arhis’s Shield
  • Great Mother’s Succor

Wisdom As Sanity

April 22, 2025

Witnessing unspeakable supernatural horrors—always a professional risk for any protagonist in a ‘swords and sorcery’ adventure—can drive a mortal man or woman mad. Deliberately delving into ancient eldritch secrets for the purposes of unleashing unnatural forces or contacting demonic intelligences radically increases this risk. Insane sorcerers and men whose minds have been broken by ancient evils are standard staples in ‘swords and sorcery’ tales.

In order to simulate this aspect of the ‘swords and sorcery’ genre, these rules treat a character’s Wisdom score as a measurement of his/her sanity. A character with a Wisdom score of 18 has a firm grasp of the nature of reality, considerable self-discipline, and remarkable strength of will. In contrast, a character with a Wisdom score of 3 is barely lucid, easily confuses reality with fantasy, and is on the border of lapsing into madness. Characters with Wisdom scores of 2 or lower are utterly insane, and must be treated as non-player characters. (If this Wisdom loss is temporary, as explained below, the character is under the control of the Game Master until he/she regains his/her sanity.)

β€” Sanity – Akratic Wizardry

Magic Swords Use Their Wielders

April 9, 2025

Fighters are strong and resistant and overcome mundane opponents in mundane means. As they grow in skill, they become more resistant and more lethal. However, as lethal as they can be, they still are mundane and can’t harm enchanted beings.

Enemies that can’t be harmed are awesome. As in, literally, terror inducing. Because we mundanes have no way of defending ourselves from them.

For those, fighters need a magic weapon.

Crucially, magic weapons, and especially magic swords, are the most common permanent magic item in [Original D&D]. Magic swords can only be used by fighters, and magic swords are pretty much the best magic weapon in the game: beyond giving the capacity to hit magic beings, they often give extra powers, like detection of invisible or magic, or even more, which are incredibly useful and not easy to come by (at least they require casters to spend precious spell slots).

Magic swords also have the habit of having intelligence and big personalities and taking sides in the Eternal Struggle between Law and Chaos. They can also possess their fighter, and shift from being an empowering tool for the fighter into a master for the fighter, their body and limbs mere tool for the Sword.

This might seem like a douche move. However, these swords are quite the equivalent of having a Faustian deal with the devil: great power comes at a great cost. Sure, they lead you to gems, and let you vanquish vampires, but what do the Swords ask in return?

And the Faustian deal usually generates buckets of solid, engaging drama at the table: for example the sword can force a noncompliant fighter into giving itself away to a fighter more worthy of the sword mission, and more compliant. If you want to keep the sword, you need to make the sword want to keep you.

So when you find an intelligent magic sword in a dragon trove ask yourself what kind of reckless sucidal action the sword must have forced on the fighter wielding it. The sword is in the dragon hoard because either it forced the fighter into fighting the dragon, or it let the fighter believe it could.

Magic swords use their fighters to leave a trail of death until they lead their own fighter to death. Then they lay unused in a hoard until their new owner is killed by a fighter. And the trail of death can start again. And again. And again. And again, until the timeless magic sword, and its unquenchable bloodthirst, is no more.

Good luck with that. Magic swords are much more resilient than the countless arms that bear them. Beside dragonfire and powerful magic, they have little to fear.

D&D Magic Swords are awesome as the creatures they can harm. As in, they inspire terror. Not only when facing them, but also when wielding them.

Because, mostly, what fighters do to fight the supernatural is wielding supernaturally angry steel that has a proven history of leading previous bearers to death.

β€” A few disordered thoughts on writing magic, starting from a detour on magic swords – Lost Pages

Combat Bonuses For (Nonmagical) Weapon Quality

April 8, 2025

When you get a +1 sword, you don’t just get a sword that does more damage and hits more often. In D&D, this sword is inherently magical – the enhancement is the result of literal magic, as opposed to superior craftmanship. And that strikes me as really, really weird. Like, I was reading this series of posts over on a Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (super cool blog btw), and it seems like there was quite a range of possible qualities when making and finishing a sword. There are many fine considerations that go into making a predominantly metal weapon. What kind of iron and steel are using? How did you laminate the differing types of steel to make best use of their different material qualities? How do you finish the blade?

In a pre-capitalist society, there’s a lot of room for smiths of differing ability to be making dogshit swords or really really good ones, depending on region, price and demand, and I feel this isn’t represented very well in D&D rules. Like, okay, there are masterwork weapons in 3e but to be honest those rules kind of suck. Most of what makes a weapon special is magic.

What galls me in particular is the effect this has on internal logic in low-magic worlds. Like, okay, magic is rare, except every adventuring party has a wizard AND every every fighter past a certain level has a magically enhanced sword. And you could always just say "No magic swords" but in D&D this is the same thing as saying "No +1 swords." Which is pretty fucking boring for the sword-wielding members of your party.

So fuck it. The new enhancement scheme is +0 to +3 non-magical swords, to reflect differing abilities of smiths.

So a regular +0 sword is basically pure iron, or steel but made by someone who doesn’t know how to work steel well. It’s probably worse than a bronze sword, because pure iron is actually worse for weapons than bronze. Mercenaries and very rural or isolated nobility or the nobility of less metallurgically advanced societies usually carry these around. People who shouldn’t be able to afford swords, like adventurers or peasants, but somehow inexplicably have them will only have +1 swords. If you pull a sword out of a dungeon, or get it from salvage, it’s probably going to be a +0 sword because of long abandoned maintenance.

A +1 sword represents a smith who knows what the fuck they’re doing making an honest to god steel sword. It’s still rudimentary, not heavily layered, but its superior metallurgical quality still carries through. A knight from a kingdom’s core regions, well-off or high ranking professional soldier, or successful adventurer is going to have a +1 sword.

A +2 sword is getting into the real good stuff. This is the best work of the top tier of smiths currently alive. These are always commissioned, usually for richer nobles and kings. Actually, +1 swords are commissioned too, but commissioning a +2 sword is a Big Deal. A +2 sword is the best any adventurer should ever expect to get. +2 swords usually have names, and if they are wielded by someone famous, they will become famous as well.

A +3 sword barely even qualifies as a sword. Most people who own them think they’re too precious to risk actually using in a battle. It’s really more like an art object. If your players recover one of these, and decide not to use it, it should count as treasure for XP and stuff. Longstanding dynasties might have one of these, passed down from generation to generation, and they’ll sometimes wave it around before battle to motivate their troops. All of them have names. In my campaign, they’re all named after battles the Romans lost, like Carrhae, Cannae, Ebrittus, Caudine, or after their enemies, like Volsci, Aequi, Samnite, Alaric, and so on. The people who made them have names, and are legends unto themselves. A smith capable of making such a blade is trained once every half-millennium. Or maybe they’re like, a cyclops or something.

Note that this only applies to swords, in a sword-centric culture. Around here, the best a spear can be is +1, to account for better materials. This also helps keep swords distinct, as I tend to have a lot of different weapons In foreign places, maybe they’re really obsessed with axes or spears, and I guess all of this can apply to those weapons instead.

I also chose +3 because my campaign is supposed to have some pretty hard caps on to-hit bonuses. The highest to-hit bonus anyone can reasonably get with a +0 weapon is +4, for example. You can easily do the same thing with a traditional +5 scale.

"But wait!" You protest, "now none of my fighter characters have cool magic weapons! This blows!" Not so. I love magic swords. I just don’t see why they have to be +X or whatever. In fact, I think this kind of has the result of making magic weapons lame. To illustrate:

"You recover from the demi-liches a mighty sword, clearly of magical provenance."

"Holy shit, awesome! What does it do?"

"Um, it gives you +4 to hit and to damage."

Not exactly titillating, is it? But by tying sword enhancement to magic, I think this sort of play ends up being encouraged. The benefit of a magic sword should be the magic.

You could enchant a +1 sword to be magic, but most of these are being dug out of treasure piles of the gullets of scary monsters, so they should probably be +0. Or you could enchant a +0 sword to have +1 to-hit and damage, but that’s pretty boring and should require, like, a wizard that inexplicably has professional level knowledge of blacksmithing techniques. Sort of like this twitter thread I saw recently where a guy talked about how he (no joke) went to clown college and worked as a clown before pursuing a PhD. Incidentally, the clown stuff paid better than the PhD. But yeah, a wizard who can just make a +1 sword for you is going to require that specific melding of expertise in vastly different areas… if you want a +1 sword it’s way easier to just find a competent smith.

Mostly, magic swords should be weird or have cool but situational effects. Check out this (also a super cool blog especially if you like glog stuff) generator, except, you know, leave out the +1 stuff. I’m also cracking up imagining an intelligent sword that’s +0 and kind of insecure about it. Come on, that would be hilarious.

β€” +3 Swords – Profane Ape

A Quarterstaff Is a Polearm

October 9, 2024

A quarterstaff is a polearm. It is a two-handed weapon. RPG wizards should not be proficient with it.

A wizard’s staff is, mechanically, a club.

There Are Only Five Weapon Sizes

September 10, 2024

I, too, have spent countless hours on making D&D combat more to my liking. Like many I have come to appreciate simpler, more elegant mechanics.

While I have not yet found the right combination of attacks versus defense bonuses, I have “solved” the weapons list. Emphasizing the abstract design of D&D combat, I see only five weapon sizes—really just three:

Weapon Type/Size Usage
light/short one-handed only
medium both
heavy/long two-handed only

New Magical Item: Gauntlet of Lances

August 10, 2024

I have lately been pondering cavalry lances in D&D. I never see them used. (I never see mounted combat, either, but nevermind that now.) With a charge attack scoring double damage, a lance is the most powerful melee weapon. Yet no one uses them.

Although there has never been a rule for it, one reason I never used a lance was because they usually break—are supposed to break. A Player Character needs to carry more than one. (Missed opportunity to have a person-of-hench as a squire.)

A magical lance that does not break is a danger to its wielder. It should be impermanent in the same way magical arrows are. (You should find 1d4 lances +1 in a treasure trove. 😁)

My pondering led me to the conclusion that the best application of magic here is overcoming the need for spare lances; all my Player Character truly wants is another, unbroken lance. A lance that magically reassembles after breaking is too fanciful for my tastes. Conjuring a new lance is the simplest solution. Since the lances are not the permanent magical item, something else needs to perform the conjuring.

And so I give you: the Gauntlet of Lances!

Gauntlet of Lances

Wondrous Item, Rare

A gauntlet for the right hand that creates in its grip a nonmagical wooden lance (of appropriate size).

Letting go of the (presumed broken) lance causes all pieces of it to disappear.

Game Master’s discretion as to what level of action is required for a wearer to conjure a new lance.

White Dragon As Alpha Predator

July 18, 2024

Ok, as the resident White Dragon fan, I feel I gotta point some stuff out. While White Dragons are the dumbest dragon, they are so much smarter than an animal, being Int 6 whereas your average Orc is Int 8, so not much of a difference there. Where White Dragons differ is in that they are absolutely savage. They don’t care for social niceties, hell they don’t even care to talk to their victims, even to gloat. That is because of one reason and one reason only.

Their environment.

White Dragons live in probably the single most hostile location in a fantasy world, the frozen north. Up here they start their lives as flying housecat-sized dispensers of frozen death. They behave much like Hawks or other flying predators and this lasts up until they hit Young, because now they’re the size of a wolf and can’t really sit on your average tree branch. So begins the next phase of their life.

Once they hit wolf-sized they start to become straight up ambush predators as they can’t rely on being able to swoop down on their larger targets anymore. So they dig a hole or lie in a snowbank waiting for something to come by. Why don’t they just track stuff? The could, but the long range hunter niche is filled by wolf packs, which the dragon can simply avoid competing with by being an ambush predator, which it is insanely good at. This comes to an end once it becomes Large though.

Now, the White Dragon has just spent the first 100 years or so of its life being some sort of ambush predator, and at no point was it the top of the local food chain, unlike how many other dragons can be. The fact that so many creatures up north can be resistant to its breath weapon means that it can’t punch up as effectively as its relatives and so it had to avoid stuff like Winter Wolves. Now that it’s large those things aren’t as big of a threat, but it also needs more food, so they will often head to the ocean to eat seals and small whales. Except now its in direct competition with Frost Giants and other large sea-dwelling predators. Most of which are either highly resistant or outright immune, to its breath weapon. So it becomes a high speed, hit and run predator, returning to its origins as a mostly aerial hunter. Swooping down on prey and getting out before anything else gets close.

This continues until the dragon is at least a Mature Adult, as at that point it should be able to effectively take on multiple Frost Giants. Now, the White Dragon is, arguably, at the top of the land-based food chain, though it has to watch out for some waterborne predators. Its 400 years old, and only now is it at the top of its local food chain. Most dragons have been here for quite a while.

So what does it do from here? Continue what it’s always done, be a large ambush predator, using ever more sophisticated tactics as it springs on its prey, possibly using bait and other lures to bring things into its reach. It may have found various ways to actually leverage its breath weapon, maybe it has an Energy Substitution feat for its Breath or it can Pierce Immunity? Each White Dragon will have carved out its specific hunting style and niche with blood, sweat and the shattered bodies of its prey. And each one will be a savage and implacable foe that will not be deterred. Because past Mature, the White Dragon only gets worse. Once it hits Gargantuan it knows that it is finally, at long last, the true Alpha Predator of the North and nothing will force it back into hiding.

Blue and Green Dragons can be bargained with, Black Dragons bribed or impressed, Red Dragons can be flattered, seduced, or otherwise have their egos stroked. White Dragons? White Dragons can’t be negotiated with. You have nothing they want, nothing they care for, because nothing other than its survival matters to it, and you are its prey, and nothing gets away from a White Dragon.

β€” Giant in the Playground Forum

OSR D&D As a Post-Apocalyptic Setting

July 17, 2024

[NB: The following are threads or other sources that you might want to read as background material. Or because at least some of them contain great posts.]

In the search to further differentiate one’s own classic D&D1 campaign from others, it’s possible to mutate the setting assumptions in a lot of different ways without actually changing the rules much. I think we’re mostly familiar with those ideas. What’s maybe not as familiar, though, is that D&D can feel a hell of a lot different if you go back to original or later classic D&D and follow the game’s rules as written, and figure out what the world looks like given that.

In the run-up to the newest Mad Max film being released, I’ve spent some time thinking about what it would take to make D&D feel post-apocalyptic. Most of my campaigns have already been what I like to call “polyapocalyptic,” which means that they clearly take place after an indefinite series of world-altering and civilization-destroying disasters. At a certain point, people might take a somewhat nihilistic point of view about the phenomenon, and accept that everything they’ve ever built might be destroyed by insect deities or meteor strikes tomorrow. If you love the Dying Earth books as much as I do, this might feel familiar.

The thing is, you don’t have to do a whole lot different. The DM builds a hexmap and doesn’t show it to the players. There are few cities, far apart and with very little communication between each other. The PCs have at best rumors of where those settlements might be. You could walk through the wastelands for days and see nobody, or you could run into a rampaging tribe of 300 orcs/bandits/whatever. Seriously, look at those wilderness encounter charts, they are insane.

If your horse dies while you’re out in the middle of the desert, we hope you like walking. So, if you really wanted to make things look more like this kind of setting, the following are things that I would do.

1. Bands of marauders are important and need to happen. However, if the PCs do in fact run into 300 orcs that turn out to be hostile, this doesn’t mean that 300 orcs jump out from behind a bush and attack. It probably means that the PCs stumble into a scouting party or part of the vanguard, and the main body is over a ridge or something. This gives you a fight with some stakes or an opportunity to run away, makes things feel a little more realistic, and also prevents the entire party from being slaughtered quite so suddenly. Also, now you have a plot thread dangling. The marauders led by Renf the Red-Handed have seen the party’s face, and may track them across the wastelands in addition to sacking any settlements that might happen to be out there.

2. Treasure takes a nose-dive in practical value. I think that gems and jewelry are still at least somewhat important, because bling (more on this later) is a vital survival tool. However, huge chests of coins are not useful outside the largest cities. In any smaller settlements, with their relatively narrow survival margin and slim expectations of seeing a traveling merchant any given month, something you can use to stay alive is worth more than coins. Now, if you can get back to one of the few large cities with a big score…you might have hit the jackpot.

3. Make encumbrance matter. I would suggest importing one of the more closely-tracked encumbrance systems from any retroclone you like. Food and water need to be heavy. Carrying enough water to get through a desert is a big, big deal. Animals need water too! Your horse is vitally important for carrying more weight than you could by yourself, but that means you need to spend an appropriate amount of effort taking care of them. The next town you encounter might not be willing to let a horse go for mere gold.

4. Market Classes: One of the oddities of D&D is that it isn’t uncommon for a gold ring to be worth 100gp, when that amount of coins might weigh ten pounds. I have generally assumed this to mean that the coinage is highly debased, whereas the metal used in jewelry is close to pure. I’d stick with that, and maybe say that coins are worth even less than usual. You could use something like the market classes from ACKS, and rule that a market counts as one or two classes lower if you are trying to buy things using coins. This means that, basically, you won’t be able to buy much stuff if all you have is GP. However, markets could be treated as their actual class if you are using gems/jewelry, and maybe one class higher if you are attempting to barter with things that people can use to live. A sack of gold coins and an oxcart full of steel ingots might have the same theoretical value, but in fact people are much more willing to trade goods for the latter, since you can do things like make a plow out of it. Now, that isn’t quite the way that supply & demand work, but it’s a starting point for a post I’m writing off the cuff.

5. Bling: One of the things that D&D has historically not paid enough attention to is playing dress-up. I don’t mean that the players should show up in costume. I mean that the PCs should be spending much more time on fantastical Vancian couture, terrifying battle-masks or makeup inspired by various parts of real-world history, necklaces made of their enemy’s teeth, and actually wearing the jewelry they’ve pulled out of various tombs in order to advertise that they are successful stone-cold badasses. I’ve instituted a rule in a lot of my campaigns that if you openly wear articles of jewelry, they don’t count towards your encumbrance. Ten CN worth of encumbrance here and there can make a big difference when you want portable wealth. Also, you can use it to modify reaction rolls (people can immediately tell that a sorceress with a 5,000gp crown of onyx and platinum is a VIP, and they’d probably better not fuck with her, or anyone else who can accumulate and keep that kind of wealth) and morale rolls (enemies might fight harder for a chance to loot the PCs’ goods.) So! Add rules for this. I suggest moving reaction rolls and morale rolls to 3d6 instead of 2d6, so you can make the range bands a bit wider and have room for a 1 or 2 point modifier without breaking the tables.

6. Goods. Going back to market classes. There are tools in ACKS (and probably other systems) for converting treasure into trade goods. So, if the PCs beat some bandits and the treasure table gives them 3,000gp, then what you might actually want to do as the DM is to say that in fact they just have 3,000 gp worth of trade goods, and then convert all of that to incense sticks, spices, valuable monster parts, wine, furs, et cetera. In a literally postapocalyptic campaign, I can’t recommend that highly enough. One, it makes encumbrance way more of a problem. They can’t just run off into the night with a purse full of jewels, they really need to get to that next big city while guarding a caravan of ox-carts full of whatever if they want their XP.

7. Slaves. This is kind of important. Forced labor is a huge economic driver, and also it gives you a powerful excuse to take PCs captive. You might want to insert some variant of the rules that let PCs survive being reduced to 0HP, so that they can wake up in shackles with all of their shit stolen. Furthermore, it’s close to always justifiable to kill off slavers, and lets you thematically wonder about if civilization is really worth rebuilding after all.

8. Constructions from different eras. I would strongly recommend a bit of historical grounding that the PCs can use to get a practical read on things. New settlements are wooden palisades, earthworks, log cabins, sod houses, crap like that. They’re crude but honest. The newer but still decadent cities are made of big stone blocks, quarried and hauled into place by slaves that live in thatch longhouses or something. Probably a lot of dry masonry there. The perimeter of the old civilization might have well-mortared fortresses or similar types of structures that are still standing, maybe occupied by tribes of people who couldn’t rebuild it if they wanted to. The dungeons underneath them are possibly still intact. The actual cities of the ancients might have glowing towers of crystal that are hard as steel, domes of pearlescent glass, remarkable types of concrete that none now know the making of. Those places aren’t typically squatted in because they’re full of weird alien horrors. It’s also where the miraculous devices of the ancients are to be found, of course, or piles of gold simply laying where it was left, never more than a bauble in the first place to the High Men who once lived there.

Well, that was a huge post, and I’m not sure if I actually said much of anything useful. I just wanted to get some more of my weird ideas written down while I had a bit of time.

1 OD&D with or without supplements, Basic Set, B/X, BECMI, most retroclones.

β€” RPG.net Forums

Author’s emphases in italic. Mine are in bold.

Narrative of Undeath

July 16, 2024

Something that always interested me about undead creatures in certain systems is their XP-drain or level-drain. I enjoyed the concept because it made something as simple as a zombie unique mechanically. Other types of monsters didn’t have the same effect—a badger didn’t drain your levels, nor did a goblin. Among all the fodder available for adventures, it provided something unique mechanically that set undead apart and made them slightly more dangerous at the low level and extremely dangerous once you were dealing with vampires or liches.

I had a conversation awhile ago with a few others on the glog-ghetto discord channel about XP-draining undead and I recently remembered this conversation. The discussion included the mechanical side of things and its complexities, but what interested me more was the narrative side of things. How did losing experience from being damaged by an undead creature look in-world?

The Unbecoming-ining

Chances are you’ve read, watched, or played something that involves undead, probably zombies. Within popular media, they are an ever-present monster, though their popularity has waned somewhat in recent years. Usually, during the story involving undead, someone gets “bitten”. This is a problem because “undeath” is spread by undead-ness getting inside the body. This is usually done through being wounded, such as a bite or scratch, and the infection quickly overtaking the body, though there are occasions where it is spread through the air or water instead.

Once the infection happens, there is very rarely a chance to stop it. Few stories involving undead have a “cure” readily available, and if one does it exist, it exists too late for our dear secondary character. Instead, over time our beloved secondary character becomes worse and worse, to the point where they are no longer them but something else. Then they are dispatched and left behind. It is this “unbecoming” that is closest to the narrative progression of XP-drain.

You-ness and Experience Points

It isn’t that you are losing experience, per se; you are losing “you-ness”. When the zombie scratches you, narratively you slowly are becoming “not you”. You become an undead version of you or “you-adjacent”: like you, but not. Slowly or rapidly, the infection takes over and the same flesh sack is no longer inhabited by you, but an undead abomination.

I believe this narrative change of “you” to “you-adjacent” is best expressed through experience points. For those systems which use levels and experience points, experience points are a representation of your character’s past experiences. You only get experience points from battle you’ve won, not battles you will win. Thus, slowly, your character becomes better, stronger, wiser, smarter, whatever-er because they accrue more experiences and therefore more experience points.

In real-life, hopefully those who have more experiences under their belt are better than those who have less experiences. Hopefully they are wiser, smarter, stronger, whatever-er than someone with less experience. But as these experiences take place, the person changes as well. You are (hopefully) not the same you from 5 years ago, and (hopefully) the you of 2025 is different from the you of right now. Experience points then represent this life journey of growth, in a word. Just as in real-life we become someone different and hopefully better, so do our characters.

Not You, But Them

Your character grows into a better version of themselves, hopefully. More “whatever-er” than when you started. The growth is a positive change—something is being added to our characters to change them. Narratively, undeath is a negative change—something is being removed from our characters to change them. Mechanically, this is experience points; narratively this is you being converted to “not you”. And this is not a static process, but a slow bleed.

Undeath is converting living cells into undead cells, to the point where you die because of it. Except you don’t die as many think of it; you turn into the undead abomination. So when an undead creature drains your XP, they are taking “you” and converting it into “not you, but them”; they are taking your XP which is going to your levels and putting it into their levels which are now inside you. You are losing your “you-ness” and becoming “them”—same flesh sack, totally different entity. Those experience points become undead experience points, and once you hit the threshold to “level up” you “convert” into the undead abomination. Thus, you are not so much losing experience as you are converting experience into something else; in this case, undeath.

Be Afraid

Hopefully, everything I wrote above makes sense. It probably doesn’t in such an abstract form, but I tried. This narrative of slowly converting into something “not you, but them” is, to me, horrifying. It is a slow, nigh-unstoppable creep which will eventually claim you, like time! Having the narrative understanding alone makes even a zombie something any sensible adventurer, regardless of level, would avoid without proper protections or preparations, like holy water or a holy flamethrower.

That a single scratch, a single gulp of tainted water, or a single inhale of unfiltered air could begin the process of conversion is realistically terrifying. The closest analogy to the real-world I can think of would be radiation and cancer. Few would willingly go into a highly irradiated zone even with proper protections; fewer still without any protections. The radiation would produce something perhaps similar to undeath—cancer—which would slowly kill you if not treated. It isn’t body horror or jump-scare horror, both of which are lazy and uncreative derivations of horror. Rather it is something to be rightfully afraid of, for one does not want to become them.

β€” Narrative of Undeath – Stepped On a d4

Author’s emphases.

Alas, that blog is gone, and the Internet Archive does not have a copy of this blogpost. I have copied the entire text here for posterity.

Less Killing

July 11, 2024

The body count in D&D really bums me out, especially when it comes to my players (my kids).

The kill count of an adventurer who makes it to level 20 is only one seen by a small number of machine gun operators in modern times. Soldiers who kill in war have high incidence of PTSD and other mental illness. I have a hard time getting away from that idea that this “Robocop 2”-level bodycount really makes the game bleak and sad.

What if…

  • most enemies stopped attacking after half damage, and tried to reach safety instead
  • when you take half your hit points worth of damage you get a level of exhaustion
  • when you come back from zero hit points you have a level of exhaustion
  • most opponents swoon or cower after 3/4 damage
  • if you have killed a person, on a long rest you had to make a flat d20 roll and beat 10+ the number of people you killed or your rest doesn’t clear any exhaustion

Does that just ruin D&D or could it still be fun?

β€” Enworld Forums

Hit Points As a Resource?

July 10, 2024

A few weeks ago, we talked about Stamina points as a resource players can spend. Today, we’re going to look at a different method, namely burning hit points for effect in more heroic games.

One of the oldest topics of D&D is what Hit Points actually represent, and while it’s inconsistent and imperfect, it’s generally accepted that it’s a vague mix of health, luck, endurance, luck and general good fortune.

Under these rules, characters can elect to sacrifice hit points to obtain rerolls and other benefits. By definition this will mainly benefit more experienced characters but it serves to give players another, mechanical, escape valve in a bad situation and it presents an interesting decision. While losing a hit point is almost always preferable to losing a saving throw, it will still leave you worn down by the end of the adventure.

These all reflect things that can come about through extreme efforts, whether pushing yourself physically or presenting a supreme effort of will.

Only one option from the below list can be selected in any given combat round. DM’s discretion if they must be spent before or after actions are resolved (in the case of rerolls)Please note that you could assign higher costs to some items. I elected to keep it simple.

By spending 1 hit point, a player may do any of the following:

  • Make an additional melee attack.
  • Move an additional 20% of their movement rate.
  • Leave a combat without taking a “free swing” from the enemy.
  • Reroll a failed saving throw.
  • Take a hit for a comrade in the same melee (or adjacent if missile fire)
  • Reroll a failed thief skill.
  • Act before any other characters in a combat round (and simultaneously with characters that magically act first)
  • Negate the effects of surprise for 1 combat round.
  • Inflict 2 additional damage with a successful hit (melee or ranged).
  • Reroll the damage dice or healing dice for a spell.
  • Reroll any skill or proficiency check.
  • Get one clue from the GM regarding a puzzle or situation.
  • Reroll a reaction roll.
  • Negate the effect of a critical hit.

Too radical? Not radical enough? Other things that should go on the list? Let me know in the comments!

β€” Hit Points As a Resource? – The Daily OSR

Alas, that blog is gone, and the Internet Archive does not have a copy of this blogpost. I have copied the entire text here for posterity.

Low-level Versus High-level Roleplay

July 8, 2024

Low level D&D play is about struggling against the [ever-present] specter of Death in a dark, lonely dungeon filled with monsters.

High level D&D play is about the monsters trying to survive the PCs.

High level play should be about your PCs having fun and going nuts with their power. Too many DMs and system designers don’t get it and don’t like it, and try to find ways to bring PCs back down to the relative power of beginner characters. Players, on the other hand, have an instinctive desire to make their characters ever more wildly powerful.

β€” Low level vs High level chars – Farooq’s Gaming Blog

Thank the gods for the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, else I could not have linked to the source blogpost.

Where Are All the Monasteries?

May 20, 2024

The 5e class description of Monks says

Small walled cloisters dot the landscapes of the worlds of D&D, tiny refuges from the flow of ordinary life, where time seems to stand still. The monks who live there seek personal perfection through contemplation and rigorous training. Many entered the monastery as children, sent to live there when their parents died, when food couldn’t be found to support them, or in return for some kindness that the monks had performed for their families….”

When you actually look at official D&D settings, this very clearly seems not to be true for most of them. Classes like wizards, clerics and druids tend to be incorporated directly into the fabric of their settings. Magic schools and organizations, churches and temples of various gods, and druidic circles are all present and accounted for, providing easy hooks for players of those classes to directly attach their characters to core elements of the setting.

But monasteries that produce D&D style monks? They’re basically nonexistent. If a setting has some ersatz-[East Asia] equivalent, there might be some suggestion that many monks hail from there, but this notion of monasteries that “dot the landscapes of the worlds of D&D” is plainly not true. If there is a monastery, it is far more likely to be a western-style religious institution that produces clerics than a shaolin-style haven for martial arts mastery….

It all seems like a pretty major disconnect to me between the supposed official lore on monks that they come from these monasteries dotting the landscape, and the reality that basically no creators of official D&D content for most settings has bothered to incorporate them in any way.

β€” RPG.net Forums

Author’s emphasis. I could not have said it better, myself.

Zero-Level Characters, Part 6: Advanced D&D 2nd Edition

May 2, 2024

As mentioned in Part 2 of this series, my knowledge of the D&D editions I grew up on is not actually complete. This is especially true of Advanced D&D 2nd Edition (2e).

There is a now-old jibe about how no one has read the 5th Edition Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG) because most DMs (at that time) were older players who had played prior editions. The idea of “rereading a book you already know” caused issues because of rule changes. This is old news to me as I never read the 2nd Edition DMG when it came out.

As orisons were introduced in 2e Players Handbook—which I did read at the time—I decided to check the 2e DMG to see if it covered zero-level characters. Indeed, it did: more than half a page! Here is the introduction:

The great mass of humanity, elf-kind, the dwarven clans, and halflings are 'zero-level' characters. They can gain in wisdom and skill, but they do not earn experience points for their activities. These common folk form the backbone of every fantasy world, doing the labor, making goods, selling cargos, sailing oceans, building ships, cutting trees, hauling lumber, tending horses, raising crops and more. Many are quite talented in the various arts and crafts. Some are even more proficient than player characters with the same training. After all, zero-level characters earn their livings doing this kind of work; for player characters such proficiencies are almost more of a hobby.

It goes on to cover Ability Scores and Proficiencies (weapon and non-weapon) which I am skipping here. It is worth reviewing the section on Hit Points:

The majority of people have from 1 to 6 hit points.... Manual laborers: 1d8; Soldier: 1d8+1; Craftsman: 1d6; Scholar: 1d3; Invalid: 1d4; Child: 1d2; Youth: 1d6

Quite a range depending upon vocation. Basic D&D only had two categories: Normal Man (1d4) and Man-at-arms (1d4+3).

Koku in Dungeons & Dragons: for Samurai

April 11, 2024

It was the 1980 television miniseries Shōgun that introduced me to the concept of koku as a measure of wealth in pre-modern Japan. I purchased the original AD&D Oriental Adventures rulebook when it came out in 1985. I only ever used it for inspiration, though. That never included using koku for player character income/wealth.

It was the 2024 streaming miniseries Shōgun that finally got me curious enough about koku to do the research. My questions were:

  1. How many koku of income did a common samurai need to live?
  2. How was it distributed to him?
  3. What was one koku worth in D&D coinage?

The answers I found:

  1. The Samurai Archives Wiki project’s page for koku states a samurai’s annual expenses “was around 1.8” koku. That does not count the one koku he eats, so it takes almost 3 koku to basically live.
  2. That same page states “one-quarter of the annual stipend was paid in spring, one-quarter in summer, and the remaining one-half in the winter.”
  3. The Oriental Adventures rulebook has two tables in its “Money & Equipment” chapter. The first sets one koku worth 5 ch’ien. The second sets one ch’ien equal to 5 gold pieces (GP). So one koku is worth 25 GP.

So the wage of a “historical” samurai in D&D would be about 70 GP per year. Almost 6 GP per month.

ADDENDUM: 6 GP per month is what the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide lists as the wage for a mercenary heavy cavalryman or mounted archer. So internally consistent between the rulebooks.

See also Fiefs Were Measured By How Much Food They Produced.