Tag: rpg

Character Names, Copyright, and RPGs #RPG #DnD #ADnD #copyright

Frylock4 Comments

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Blog posts cannot substitute for legal advice. If the topics discussed in this post are relevant to a real case you have, please consult an attorney.

I’m designing a database for 1st Edition Dungeons & Dragons and am close to finishing the data entry on spells. This brought a copyright issue to the forefront. Characters can be copyrighted. This isn’t a controversial position. However, the name of a character is not copyrightable, and unless a name is used as a brand for your line of products, it doesn’t even receive the (much weaker) protection of trademark. So why does everyone remove proper names from spell names when referencing D&D spells?

Copyrighting a Single Word or Short Phrase

While there is no “bright line” rule stating a minimum number of words necessary to secure a copyright, it’s well settled that a short phrase is not copyrightable. Either they lack tiny amount of creativity necessary for copyright (thus likely representing independent creation) or the merger doctrine applies. A simple Google search will uncover a multitude of articles supporting this notion.

Only nothing at all is more minimal than a single word, so there’s no doubt (outside of Poland) that a single word can’t be copyrighted. But even a short phrase, such as the name of a spell, can’t be copyrighted, especially where it’s descriptive of the mechanics of the spell (mostly the case).

The Nichols Case and Copyrighting Characters

The standard for copyrighting characters comes from Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), in which the Court stated:

If Twelfth Night were copyrighted, it is quite possible that a second comer might so closely imitate Sir Toby Belch or Malvolio as to infringe, but it would not be enough that for one of his characters he cast a riotous knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the household, or a vain and foppish steward who became amorous of his mistress. These would be no more than Shakespeare’s “ideas” in the play. . . . It follows that the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for marking them too indistinctly.

45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930). This has since become known as the “well delineated character” test.

Can a spy be protected? Of course not. What if that spy uses sex as a tool of the trade? Don’t all spies (at least in fiction) do that? How about if he’s a martini drinker? Hmm, that sounds familiar. “Shaken not stirred”? Well. . . . Eventually, we get to the specific character of James Bond, and he’s certainly a copyrighted character, but it took a bit of detail beyond his name to get there. If I created a fictional character of James Bond who was an accountant, I’d be just fine. In fact, I could even have him joke, “I’m not that James Bond.” I’m not using Ian Fleming’s James Bond, just referencing him, and to the extent James Bond is trademarked, readers will understand from context that I don’t have the endorsement of whoever currently owns the character.

The less common, “story being told” test isn’t relevant here, but in case you’re interested, see Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 971 (1955) (“It is conceivable that the character really constitutes the story being told, but if the character is only the chessman in the game of telling the story he is not within the area of the protection afforded by the copyright.”).

Elsewhere when discussing the precise boundaries of copyright as it related to plays, the Nichols Court went on to add that, “[n]obody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can.” Nichols at 121. That makes copyright hard, but it’s not impossible, and sometimes it’s even easy. A name cannot be protected by copyright, even within the context of a spell name of a few words.

Tenser’s Floating Disc

So why do so many of you seem to think that you’re avoiding copyright infringement by avoiding writing, “Tenser’s Floating Disc,” “Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion,” and “Tasha’s Hideous Laughter”? Based solely on the text of the spell as written, can you tell who Mordenkainen is? Is Mordenkainen the wizard that wrote the spell? The wizard’s significant other, child, or pet? The name of the Wizard’s favorite watering hole anthropomorphized into the owner of a mansion? Even if the original spell as written by TSR contained the answers to such questions in sufficient detail to flesh out the character (it didn’t even try), a reproduction of the spell not including such information, but rather limited to the spell’s mechanical effects, wouldn’t infringe on the character of Mordenkainen just by using the name. The name isn’t what’s copyrighted; the combination of several traits defining the character are, but they’ve been left out.

Seriously? You think WotC can restrict use of the name, Tasha?

This is as ridiculous as, for example, using the word “Forgeborn” for “Warforged” as if WotC owns the word, “Warforged,” and that use of “Forgeborn” relieves the writer of any infringement of WotC’s text describing the species. Such a writer is focusing on the wrong thing. Think of it this way: If you think that dropping the name off of the spell cures your text of copyright infringement, then you concede my point that spell text describing the mechanical effect of a spell within the context of an RPG isn’t usually copyrightable. Great! However, you then must be thinking** that the name itself is where the copyright lies. That can’t possibly be true. It flies in the face of every knowledgeable commentator (again, outside of Poland) that’s ever addressed the issue.

** Unless, of course, you’re still under the mistaken impression that the OGL is somehow a valid contract, and that its terms, if taken seriously, wouldn’t constitute copyright misuse. But if you really want to know why that’s silly, you’ll have to read that long post.

There’s absolutely no legal reason not to use those names in spells, and it doesn’t hurt WotC at all to use them (other than perhaps robbing their arrogant legal department of their hubris). Why is this important? Because there are too many misconceptions about copyright law that have had far reaching consequences to the gaming industry and the gaming community in general. The text of the Open Gaming License and System Reference Document collectively foster this misinterpretation, and I suspect (can’t prove) that’s an intentional scam. If WotC legal gets you to focus on the word, “Tasha,” but does nothing to stop you from copying the text of the spell, then you still may be infringing whatever copyright they arguably have. If you do something that’s 100% legal later down the road, but it’s something they don’t like, they can go after you for that infringement. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, this can often lead to copyright misuse, but most gamers aren’t sophisticated or wealthy enough to hit back on those grounds. More importantly to the community as a whole, while using these names in spells is not creative on your part, your misconceptions eventually lead down the road of stifling your own creativity. The purpose of copyright is to promote creativity. When copyright law stifles creativity, its entire purpose vanishes, in which case we may as well not even have copyright.

You can’t know what you can’t do unless you also know what you can do.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)

Character Aging in First Edition AD&D #ADnD #DnD #RPG #biology

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

I’m going to take you down the same rabbit hole my mind entered while gradually waking up one recent morning. Most (if not all) gamers have encountered those online quizzes that tell you what D&D class you are in real life. I’ve always been of the mindset that I’m probably best characterized as a monk. I’ve trained a lot in the martial arts, starting when I was 14 (almost four decades ago), and every online alignment test has pegged me as lawful good or lawful neutral (very heavy on law). All of that checks out, which is unsurprising considering I’m answering the questions about myself (which means my biases must creep in). I feel like I might be a bad monk because I wouldn’t consider my Wisdom score my maximum, but that’s my skill set. Of course, you have to suspend some disbelief here either way. We’re translating classes into a real world that doesn’t enjoy the effects of magic.

But even considering that translation, what concerned me the most is that, while my knowledge of that hobby continues to improve, my body can’t keep up. I’m old, and that’s no small matter. Everything is always injured. Usually, it’s just a strain or something like that, but at times I’ve had to take weeks off to recover, even having had my first surgery ever at age 51 a couple years ago.

Aging in 1e

All of that got me thinking about how much I like the aging rules from page 13 of the 1e DMG, but not the aging rules from page 12. On the one hand, I like the idea that characters’ ability scores change as they age. It’s yet another tool that promotes immersion in the game world, and anyone who’s read this blog knows how much I prefer that play style. On the other hand, I don’t like that age is determined randomly. These two positions create a tension. Players can game the system, setting, for example, a cleric as age, mature, to boost Strength and Wisdom by 1 with no downside. In fact, other than a magic user or illusionist who’d likely go with middle aged, what character wouldn’t benefit from that?

If the DM has draconian character creation guidelines (e.g., 3d6 assigned in order, or even slightly better ones), the characters are sometimes going to have some terrible scores, and if the scores can’t be assigned out of order, perhaps scores that prohibit playing the class the player wants to play. In such a situation, gaming the system may make an unplayable character playable, so it’s not a bad thing after all. However, in my game world, the characters will roll 4d6 dropping the lowest, and assigning in whatever order they want, so the danger of overpowered characters is greater.

Because I don’t want their ages rolled randomly, I’ll probably require that the scores as rolled stay as they are, but perhaps create my own schedule of ability score changes due to aging. I’ve noticed that imbalance in minor things like this often go unnoticed by game designers, resulting in design elements with either a benefit or a drawback, but not both (c.f., the 4e Invoker’s own powers always harming itself without any extra harm delivered to its target). No matter what I do, I’ll keep this 1e DMG rule on page 13: “The only ability which may exceed 18 due to age effects (unless age restricts this) is wisdom.”

A few days after writing this post, MerricB tweeted something relevant:

Which I’m only now publishing. I’m way ahead of schedule.

I don’t have any problem with optimism, but this is a game system, so gains in Wisdom should be accompanied by losses elsewhere, even if they make just as little sense as a rule.

Who says I don’t have an 18 Constitution?

If you’ve had a different experience from what I suggest here, please share your thoughts.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)


AD&D Monster Manual II: Even More Cats #DnD #RPG #ADnD #Caturday

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

I’ve gone through all of the cats from the 1e AD&D Fiend Folio here and here, and I pretty much covered the 1e AD&D Monster Manual cats here. Now it’s time for the 1e AD&D Monster Manual II (“MM2“), which is entirely new to me. I recently got it as part of my stash of 1e purchases, so it’s time to go through MM2 cats. There aren’t a lot.

Cat (p. 22)

Umm, okay. A cat. There are two varieties: domestic and wild. As a human living in the real world, I understand that wild cats can be a pain in the ass when they’re angry, but . . . what? Okay, let’s just move on.

Level I, not included on any of the encounter tables. No idea why. 🙂

Cat Lord (p. 22)

This is the master of all cats, but he looks like an ordinary dude. Despite the art, we’re told he has ferocious bite and claw attacks, and being a level X (10) monster, that’s backed up by the numbers. I should relate to the character, but I can’t see including him in any adventures except as a joke. A level X joke, but a joke nevertheless.

Astral Plane, 5.3% chance of encounter (3 on a 2d10).

Catfish, Giant (p. 23)

No, no, no, no, no. Doesn’t count. Move on.

Level VI, 5.3% chance of encounter in tropical and subtropical freshwater.

Cheetah (p. 25)

I have to say that I’m not particularly impressed with the MM2 cats so far. It’s an ordinary cheetah. What else do you need to know?

Level III, not found in any of the random encounter tables. For creating your own random encounter tables, cheetahs are “rare” in both tropical wilderness plains and tropical wilderness deserts.

Hey, there’s a demilich on page 32!

Stop, Rob! Don’t get distracted.

Elfin Cat (p. 63)

We don’t get a picture of this cat, but it’s described as “usually mistaken for a wild cat or possibly a lynx, but this is because the creature does not wish to be recognized as out of the ordinary.” Yeah, this cat’s got some magic, including Enlarge, Reduce, Pass Without Trace, Tree, and Trip. They have limited ESP, magically resistant 20% of the time, are surprised only on 1 out of 20, and surprise 1-5 on a d6 (1-2 is normal). What the hell. They can also leap 20 feet “with ease.” So, throw a bunch of wild cats at the PCs, then have them stumble upon a pair and their kits.

Level IV, found in forests when rolling a 19 on a 2d10 (5.3% chance). For creating your own random encounter tables, elfin cats are “very rare” in temperate wilderness forests.

Wemic (p. 126)

These count. A wemic is a “lion centaur,” akin to the urmahlullu from Mesopotamian mythology. Wemic are intelligent, use armor and weapons (both melee and ranged), and may even have magic items. If they lose their weapons, they can use their claws instead, so they’re never truly unarmed. They are surprised only on a 1.

Level IV, not included on any of the encounter tables. For creating your own random encounter tables, wemics are “very rare” in both temperate wilderness plains and temperate wilderness deserts.

Well, that’s not a lot, but maybe you can make something of these in your game.

Elfin cats >> cooshees.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)

Monster Taxonomy #DnD #RPG #biology

Frylock4 Comments

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Okay, I know. I went to Vegas, and you don’t care. Fine. Back to 1e AD&D.

My friend and I are developing a game system. It’s unlikely it’ll ever see the commercial light of day, but it constantly keeps me thinking about what I like and dislike about game design. I had an idea that’s apparently not novel (I’ve never even read Shadowrun, let alone played it), and it was brought up a couple of weeks ago on Facebook: Monster taxonomy.

See the source image

Obviously, I think it’s a fun idea. Despite someone complaining that the mere discussion of monster taxonomy was stifling creativity and story, the only use for developing taxonomy is creative in nature, producing a story element with no real mechanical effect. All taxonomy would do (at least as I envision it) is tell the player how closely related two species are. Are elves homo sapiens dryadalis (a subspecies of human), or are they something like dryadalis sapiens (in an entirely different genus from humans)? This would depend on your origin story for each species. Matching the nomenclature with the origin story can be clever and fun, but as a story element, players and GMs that disagree could completely ignore it.

And that was today’s lesson on how to take something nerdy and make it even nerdier.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)


More Thoughts on First Edition AD&D: Secret Rolls and Spells @slyflourish #ADnD #DnD #RPG

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the Withdraw spell. This week, another spell from 1e Unearthed Arcana caught my eye: Meld to Stone. The spell allows a cleric (and gear) to meld into a large block of stone. It has a duration of 1d8+8 rounds, but the 1d8 is rolled by the DM so that the cleric doesn’t know exactly how long protection lasts. This spell isn’t unique in this regard. There are a few spells where the DM rolls secretly.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that the last thing I want is an overbearing DM that thinks, “This is my table!” No, dipshit; it’s our table. As Sly Flourish will tell you, the players do as much story writing as the DM does. But giving the DM this kind of control isn’t anything like that. The spell is simulating how capricious or uncaring gods can be to those pesky little gnats that call themselves “mortals.” To do that, the DM must seize control, but this control is baked into the rules, reducing the potential for conflict between players and DMs. I’ve seen too much conflict at tables, and this spell shows that you can avoid it even where the DM appears to exercise a great deal of control. I say, “appears,” because it’s really the dice, and therefore the gods of luck, that are in control.

Besides, if players don’t like the spell, they can take another instead. This effects players only if they’ve willingly bought into it.

You still have control over your character, but not the entire surrounding universe.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc
Follow Sly Flourish @slyflourish

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)


Visiting an Old Friend, the 1st Edition Fiend Folio: Dragons #DnD #RPG #ADnD

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

My review and discussions of 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (“1e“) has me visiting an old friend, the Fiend Folio (“FF“). My impression, which is anecdotal and thus suspect, is that the FF wasn’t very popular. Oddly enough, it was the only compendium of monsters I owned as a kid other than the small collection in the AD&D Blue Box and the monsters contained in the mods I ran. Plus, none of my friends owned it, so I had something on them. Needless to say, it holds a special place in my heart. I’m not making even more “dumbest monsters of D&D” posts. We’ve all had enough of those. These are about things I like.

| Kamadan | My Favorites | Elemental Princes | More Cats | Giants | Dragons |

I mentioned in the My Favorites post how I love categories of monsters. That was true in 1977 and holds true today. The FF gave us new creatures within existing categories. I’ve already discussed demons, devils, and giants in prior posts. Today, it’s dragons. And how could it not be? The game is Dungeons and Dragons, right? They were originally called oriental dragons, then lung dragons, and while they aren’t in 5e as far as I know, they’re generally called eastern dragons now as far as I can tell.

Whereas the chromatic dragons were all evil, and the metallic dragons were all good, the eastern dragons are neutral along the moral axis. That is, they were chaotic neutral, true neutral, or lawful neutral. (Do you notice what I did there? Probably not.) The Yu Lung live a larva-like existence, morphing into one of the other types after reaching the “old” age (101 years). The others fly despite all but the Li Lung being wingless. Only two of the six have breath weapons. In short, these aren’t your Monster Manual‘s dragons, which gives you new material when providing a familiar context. I could have stood for an eastern equivalent to Tiamat or Bahamut for them, but if that has no basis in the legends, then its absence is understandable.

Wizards of the Coast has a lot on their hands. To my knowledge, they haven’t recreated these dragons for 5e, but if they get the chance, they should. These dragons, among other creatures, could provide a cultural backdrop in which the many, good, non-western stories could be told, and it’d be a shame if the current generation of gamers weren’t able to have some fun with them.

Whatever their reasons.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)

Is First Edition AD&D Really Rules Light? #ADnD #DnD #RPG

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

Maybe. Sort of.

A friend shared a video with me reviewing First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (“1e”). It’s one of many out there, so watching this particular video isn’t what’s important here. Something the speaker said struck me as odd. He referred to 1e as “rules light.” I know this isn’t a popular position, but I disagree.

In game design, there’s always a push and pull between abstraction and reification. Is what happens governed by rolling dice or describing the setting and negotiating what makes sense? In this respect, the differences between games are twofold: 1) Which rules are abstracted v. reified; and 2) in what proportion (i.e., how often is abstraction chosen over reification)? That is, with respect to #1, one game may abstract initiative to a die roll, whereas another game may base initiative on how the encounter and character actions were described. With respect to #2, if a game has 10 rules, what percentage of those rules are abstracted?

I suspect that the reason 1e players see 1e as rules light is based on what they take for granted about the system. They see the complicated rules governing combat and spellcasting and say, “Well, of course those rules exist, but that’s it. Everything else is negotiated.” However, those rules, deeply layered with intricacies, are what make 1e as rules heavy as any others, just in a different way. You can pore over my posts from the past several weeks to see what I’m talking about, but as an example, the distance between the parties at the instant combat begins is largely determined not by a negotiation between the players and DM, but by a die roll. That’s a rule that’s been abstracted by every other game I can name, but in 1e, roll an X on a 1d6, and you start Y feet apart. That doesn’t sound “rules light” to me. Here’s a new one: Sure, on the surface, 1e doesn’t seem to have a system of skills to govern how well a fighter can pick a pocket, but in fact it does have such a rule. They can’t do it. You have to be a thief, assassin, monk, or thief acrobat (I think) to do that. The rules on class abilities define that. Just because the rule isn’t stated expressly in the fighter section doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. No one has ever credited 1e’s rules as “well-organized.”

I don’t mean to overstate the argument. Overall, 1e may be rules lighter than, for example, 5e, but I’m not sure the difference is as great as many may think. If 1e is truly “rules light,” it may be because players are choosing to play it that way through house rules and ignoring rules they don’t like (I’m looking right at you, armor type adjustments). That’s fine of course, but the point is that players can do that with any system. That doesn’t make the system rules light per se.

Whether a game is “rules light” is defined by what’s in the sourcebooks, not by how you choose to play it.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)


Visiting an Old Friend, the 1st Edition Fiend Folio: Giants #DnD #RPG #ADnD

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

My review and discussions of 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (“1e“) has me visiting an old friend, the Fiend Folio (“FF“). My impression, which is anecdotal and thus suspect, is that the FF wasn’t very popular. Oddly enough, it was the only compendium of monsters I owned as a kid other than the small collection in the AD&D Blue Box and the monsters contained in the mods I ran. Plus, none of my friends owned it, so I had something on them. Needless to say, it holds a special place in my heart. I’m not making even more “dumbest monsters of D&D” posts. We’ve all had enough of those. These are about things I like.

| Kamadan | My Favorites | Elemental Princes | More Cats | Giants | Dragons |

I mentioned in My Favorites post how I love categories of monsters. That was true in 1977 and holds true today. The FF gave us new creatures within the main categories. I’ve already discussed demons and devils in that prior post. I’m moving on to another.

Serious question: Does anyone not like giants (p. 42)? Besides the fact the Norse pantheon was my favorite pantheon of ancient religions, they’re just cool concepts. The test screenings for the first Blade movie illustrate an already-proven point: People prefer anthropomorphic enemies, but with some sort of twist. A towering human with an axe or sword larger than you are is certainly some sort of twist. Combined with the fact that some people are exceptionally tall due to a medical condition, and perhaps even that ancient cultures discovered dinosaur bones that looked human enough, giants are pretty popular in folklore.

Fog Giants (Level VIII)

The FF gave us two new giants. I’ve mentioned that cloud giants were my favorite giants. Why? It’s a combination of their relative power (in the Monster Manual, 2nd only to the storm giants) and their lairs. A castle on a magical cloud would be a cool place to visit, both exotic and regal. The FF gave us more primal cousins to the cloud giants, the fog giants (level VIII, 2% chance of encounter). What if cloud giants never took to the sky? Even if they were acrophobic, their inherent nature would still draw them to “tiny liquid water droplets that hang in the air.” Thus, if you wanted a cloud giant but with a slightly more primal feel to it, the less sophisticated fog giant could work for you. (Side note: I recall liking their treatment in 3e.)

Mountain Giants (Level VII)

Mountain giants (level VII, 1% chance of encounter) are closely related to hill giants. In fact, they’re too closely related. I don’t see why they exist. To give us a sense of consistency, giants in every edition have a ton of similarity. The differences are in culture/theme, weaponry, the elements they control, their specific use of magic, alignment, and their servants. The last two are the only differences between hill and mountain giants, and they’re still pretty close. Chaotic evil v. chaotic neutral? Meh. Hill giants sometimes were accompanied by dire wolves, lizards, and ogres, whereas mountain giants were accompanied by ogres, trolls, or hill giants. That’s not thematically distinct. They’re also both level VII monsters. I just never saw what mountain giants added to the mix. If you want mountain giants to stand out, you have some work to do.

Giants have a chance of appearing in temperate and subtropical climates, which is based on the predominant terrain (1% or 2%, but 10% for mountains). In such an encounter, the chances of it being a fog giant are 2% for plains, scrub, rough, hills, or mountains; but 9% for forest, and 35% for marshes. They also have a 4% chance of appearing in tropical or near tropical environments on the shore or a small island. For mountain giants, there’s a 2% chance of appearing in temperate or subtropical plains, scrub, forest or rough terrain, but 3% in similar hills, and 11% in similar mountains.

Giants >> amorphous blobs of blood.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)

Visiting an Old Friend, the 1st Edition Fiend Folio: More Cats #DnD #RPG #ADnD #Caturday

Frylock4 Comments

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

My review and discussions of 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (“1e“) has me visiting an old friend, the Fiend Folio (“FF“). My impression, which is anecdotal and thus suspect, is that the FF wasn’t very popular. Oddly enough, it was the only compendium of monsters I owned as a kid other than the small collection in the AD&D Blue Box and the monsters contained in the mods I ran. Plus, none of my friends owned it, so I had something on them. Needless to say, it holds a special place in my heart. I’m not making even more “dumbest monsters of D&D” posts. We’ve all had enough of those. These are about things I like.

| Kamadan | My Favorites | Elemental Princes | More Cats | Giants | Dragons |

As you read this, I’m getting ready to check in to my hotel in Vegas. This is my annual blackjack trip, and it’s been a long time coming. Anywho, it’s Caturday, but I don’t want to spend the next several Saturdays talking about a single feline monster in the FF as I did last week. Instead, I’m going through all of them very briefly.

Caterwaul (p. 18)

Interesting because its AC and number of attacks per round vary from caterwaul to caterwaul. You determine both stats by a percentage die roll. It also has a sonic weapon, which, in a world of magic, is a reasonable extension of the fact that felines are generally known for purring.

Level IV, 2% chance of dungeon encounter. In tropical or near-tropical conditions, 1% in plains or hills, or 2 % in scrub, forest, or rough.

Guardian Familiar (p. 49)

Why are cats said to have nine lives? Because the guardian familiar has nine lives. Yep, D&D stole the legend’s origin. The guardian familiar takes the form of a housecat. It loyally and reliably sits atop a treasure chest or other container to guard it. It’s not aggressive. If everybody’s cool, no one need die. If attacked, it progressively grows to the size of a bobcat. If killed, it returns even more powerful as long as it has lives left. Kind of funny.

Level VII, 1% chance of dungeon encounter.

Hellcat (p. 50)

I could talk a lot about the hellcat, but I promised these would be very brief. Long story short, hellcats serve as familiars to devils, but occasionally travel to the Prime Material Plane to serve lawful evil mortals. There’s a nice backstory here, but unless someone in your party is lawful evil, the hellcat is nothing more than another monster with level-appropriate magical resistances. Most likely, meh.

Level VI, 3% chance of dungeon encounter.

Tabaxi (p. 86)

In 5e, the tabaxi as arrived, but these are its humble origins. They’re a low-level threat that can break up the monotony of encounters with plants, gnolls, giant animals, and anthropomorphic animals . . . with another anthropomorphic animal. That’s not as bad as it sounds. Low-level threats should leave the game somewhere different to go as PCs level up.

Level II, not found randomly in dungeons. There’s a 2% chance of randomly encountering a “tabazi” (sic) in a tropical or near tropical forest. That’s where they live, and seldom leave the area.

Caturwauls >> blink dogs.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)

d4s: The Black Sheep of the Dice Set #ADnD #DnD #RPG

Frylock5 Comments

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it.

I really hate d4s, and just searching for “I hate d4s” on Google shows that I’m not alone.

Good o'l Gary Gygax. He had our back.: DnD

They’re clumsy to roll, and they’re as dangerous as Legos if you lose one in the shag carpet. Unfortunately, one thing that is certain to drive me nuts when I return to 1st Edition AD&D: It seems like d4s are the most common dice rolled for spellcasting. How long are targets blinded by Power Word Blind? Depending on their hit dice, either 1d4+1 turns or 1d4+1 rounds. How long do clerics charm snakes with Snake Charm? Depending on their mood, 1d4+2 turns, 1d3 turns, or 1d4+4 turns. Maze lasts either 1d4 turns, 5d4 rounds, 4d4 rounds, 3d4 rounds, 2d4 rounds, or 1d4 rounds depending on the target’s intelligence. Animate Object, Animate Rock, Regenerate, Symbol, Wall of Thorns … the list goes on. So far, I’ve entered over 300 spells into my database, so a complete list would be impossible here.

Not only are you rolling d4s, but sometimes you’re rolling a ton of them. Flame Strike does 6d4 points of damage. For Enchant an Item, the casting time is 16+8d4 hours. Aerial Servant summons an Aerial Servant (duh), which does 8d4 damage on their attacks. How much damage does a Meteor Swarm spell do? Depending on the type, either 5d4 or 10d4. Who the hell has 10 d4s?

Okay, maybe a lot of you, but that’s your burden.

Freaking caltrops in disguise.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc

Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, LLC, who neither contributed to nor endorsed the contents of this post. (Okay, jackasses?)