Mapping Terrain Just Got Better

Oh the total Awesomeness of it all.

If you are like me and absolutely SUCK at map-making, especially terrain, then  I was just given the best thing in the world and I'm telling you about it too.

My maps suck.  I won't lie to you.  I hate mapping because I am no good at all at it.

A buddy on DF chatroom just saved my life. (Heya Lord Raffles)

Have you ever played with the GIMP?  It's an image creation/editing tool that is free/opensource.  I love it when  I can figure out how to use it.

Making hex maps for AD&D on it?  Up until now, no frickin way.

Then I was introduced to Hex-Map 1.5.  It is provided on a website called "The ISO-Mages House".  You'll see a permanent link to it on the right side of my blog here as "Hex-GIMP".

I have just started playing with it and already have made two maps that up until now I have been working on for weeks.  It's that doggone easy to use once you set it up.

I am using it on a Linux system but it also works on Windows as well.

Here's a shot at a map made using it from their website.  I will soon be adding my own in future posts.

Try it out, play with it.  May your mapping be a pleasant thing.

The Difference Between Clerics and Paladins

I have spent quite a lot of time talking about Clerics lately.  They are one of my favorite classes to play, if not my favorite.

Recently, I was talking with some folks who asked about the Paladin and if they weren't basically the same thing.

Here's my take on the situation.

Clerics, as per the Players Handbook, are essentially like the Knights Templar.  Clerics have pretty much one commander and that is their deity.  They have little to do with Kings or other forms of hierarchy.  This makes them a bit one track minded.

Paladins on the other hand, are what I liken to the Knights of the Round Table.  While they do hold their deity above all, they make room to recognize King and Country.  Because of this divided allegiance, they have less clerical ability.

As a matter of fact, Paladins, BtB are made to depend on Clerics to a certain degree.  For example, if they should ever do something out of alignment, especially something "Chaotic" (remember that Paladins can only be Lawful Good in alignment), they must seek out a Cleric to give them penance or they risk losing Paladin status.  If they knowingly, intentionally do Evil, they lose Paladin-hood for good.

They are able to perform limited Clerical spells, thus they will be required to learn from Clerics in order to train to level up.

Of special interest, and I relate this to how I use Paladins myself, is that Paladins do NOT accumulate men-at-arms as other fighters/PC's do. They can have henchmen though.  Though when I use them,  I don't give them any.  They are the henchmen in my eyes.  Though, I can see them as being sent out on a quest or mission with a select group on request (or demand) of his liege.  Especially if said liege doesn't fully trust the rest of the group to be 100% loyal to his wants.  The Paladin makes for a good agent of the liege in such a case.  Usually the Paladin in question is sent as an NPC in such a case.

I only use Paladins as Henchmen or Men-At-Arms for Clerics in games.  While the Cleric is a knight of a sort and can do battle, their focus is on leading the righteous battle and bringing the wrath of their deity down on the enemy.

As the henchman of a Cleric, a Paladin can fit in perfectly by having a Cleric to look over them, to train them and to provide them the guidance/direction as the need to confess and do penance would indicate. 

You can certainly use a Paladin on their own and in other situations but, BtB, they are very limited as to their adventuring abilities with mixed groups and such.

As for the Cleric with Paladin Men-At-Arms, talk about an awesome presence going into battle or going on a quest.  Nearly the best right hand men you can have as a Cleric plus adding in some others to round out a party.  A regular fighter, a Magic User and/or Illusionist.    An epic adventure is in the works for that group.

Medical Care in the AD&D Age

Most people assume that AD&D gaming takes place in a medieval setting.  That isn't far off I guess, though I myself think of it as an "Alternate Earth" setting which precedes the industrial revolution, if not mimicking a renaissance time.

In AD&D, healing is mostly looked at as being effected by Clerics with curing /healing magic.  The alternative described is primarily wrap it up and rest.

Without becoming too "re-enactment" level realistic though, let's think of other medical solutions.  I've been reading a book series that includes medieval medical practices like barbers and physicians as well as purveyors of herbal remedies and other healing.

As a matter of fact, the books ("The Hangman's Daughter" and "Dark Monk"  by Oliver Pötzsch) go into excellent detail of all those methods by way of storytelling. (fictional mystery based in historical 1600's Bavaria).

The Physician largely relied on the Four Humors and the balance or alignment of those.  They were surgeons and did amputations, etc... They looked upon any other kind of healing art as sacrilegious.

The Barber would do minor things, pull teeth as a dentist, cauterize wounds, handle stings and bites of insects and animals.  They would "bleed" patients as well as shaving and cutting hair.  

Below them, social ladder speaking, were the herbalists and other healers who were just a step away from being considered witches, etc.. and literally risked being burned at the stake if the wrong person decided they didn't like the results of their work.

Most towns did not have it's own physician or the physician had not been to a university and had learned their craft by associating with those who had been to university.

Most towns and villages did have at least one barber and several healers.  Chief among these were midwives and to give credit to the historical accuracy of these books, even the Hangman or executioner was skilled in everything from setting bones to making herbal remedies, anti-poisons, and more.

As a DM,  I admit to a certain level of vindictiveness.  If there is a player who is running their PC into the ground and is being generally obnoxious or pig headed, why I can see how the only healing help available to them might be the nearest town barber.  Have a bleeding and maybe some leeches.  Would you like a shave while you are becoming anemic?

I am going to have a lot of fun populating my towns, villages and cities with these types of NPC's.

Blood Curses vs Magical Curses and Healing Them

In part because of the Strigoi monster I created (Gypsy name for Vampire), and in discussion about other curses transmitted by bite, I have been chatting with some other DM's about curing survivors of such bites.

Lycanthropes, according to the Monster manual, can have an early intervention of belladonna treatment (which has a chance of killing the PC) to prevent spread of the blood curse.  As someone else once said (Hey there OO) "Lycanthropy is not an STD".  Meaning, it's not just some weird biological disease or something.

Lycanthropy is a "Blood Curse".  Mystical in origin, but not handled as a typical magical curse.  Similarly, vampirisim, by any name, is a blood curse.  Meaning, you don't just cast a spell and someone becomes a Vampire/Strigoi or Lycanthrope.

Consequently, a spell such as "Remove Curse" will not work on a person having been bitten by a Vampire/Strigoi or Lycanthrope.  A magical curse is cast "externally" so to speak and is usually a temporary condition.  "Blood Curses" are permanent and completely life changing.

In my rules regarding Strigoi,  I have it so that only a "Heal" spell by a Cleric or a "Wish" spell will "cure" a living person of a "Blood Curse".  "Heal" is more than a regular "Cure ... Wounds" spell and falls more into the "Miracle" category.  Thus able to remove any blight of the body and soul or otherwise.  It is a transformation of the person, much as a "Blood Curse" transforms a person.

Having said that, once a person has become so "Healed",  I require a System Shock roll because such a drastic level of change can kill a person.The person is being taken from a somewhat magical/mystical condition that would protect them from typical System Shock consequences to a "normal" non mystical condition, thus not protected from the changes that happen as a Strigoi or Lycanthrope.

I have a Flesh Eating Zombie in a similar condition. FEZ's are not created by typical curses or spells.  They are created by mystical disease originating with a person. (No thanks to a Demon Lord named Imdugud/Pazuzu)  Thus once started on it's way with the first person, all subsequent bite victims of FEZ's also become FEZ's and it is essentially a "Blood Curse".  If a "Heal" or "Wish" spell is used befrore the person succumbs to becoming an FEZ they can be spared the transformation.  Once changed, that's it, the best they can hope for is true death.

The poll of the week

What's a blog page without a poll.   I learned recently that I haven't had a  poll going and the blog police threatened to shut me down.  Establishment rats!

You can have multiple choices on this poll about your favorite Class to play.   I bet you can all figure out what my Choices were.

Join on in and show the world, at least my world, how you prefer to play.

Monster Tweaking & Creation

Just like many other DMs out there in the worlds,  I see some monsters in the books and don't like them.  either that or I like them partly but I don't like some key things about them which mostly ruin the whole monster for me.

At first, when it came to monsters I partly liked and partly didn't,  I would try to house-rule the monster to be different.  That just ended up confusing everyone, including myself.  Say you have three or four Players sitting there and you mention a Vampire, if they have read the MM or had any previous experience with one, they have a fixed view of the monster in mind already.  Then there  I go, trying to re-define that monster on them.  It doesn't work.

What to do?  I still don't like how the monster works per the book.  Then I decided, why not just create my own and give it a different name instead.  This way, when  I introduce the monster by the different name, there is no per-conceived idea to fight against.

One example I can offer is the Vampire, but you never saw that coming, did ya?  I hate level drain.  I think the mechanic of tying life force to experience levels is completely nonsensical.  Also,  I dislike treating the Vampire like a large rodent or snake where it will only get a single attack and it uses it's most unique attack, the blood sucking bite, every time.  These are intelligent humanoid monsters, to give them such a simple attack makes no sense.

Many of the other features and abilities of the MM Vampire I can accept.  After failing miserably with the house-ruled change I decided to make my own.   I called it a "Strigoi", the old Gypsy name for a creature like this.  It shares most of the basics of the Vampire from the book.  But, when it comes to attacks,  I gave it something different. 

First off,  I gave it 3 attacks instead d of one. Why?  Well because first of all, this kind of creature, mythologically speaking, is not going to fight like a typical human anyway.  Only after it has tried magical based or other attacks will this monster go hand to hand with an opponent.  They aren't likely to use a weapon like a sword or such. 

Only if pressed into a corner will it fight tooth and nail to get out.  So I figured IF it goes into melee combat with a "hand to hand" attack, it will attack animal like with a claw/claw/bite and the bite is just as any normal creature biting, it's not trying to do a complex blood slurping bite, it is just tearing with it's teeth.

Beyond that, I gave it a special attack as a "Draining Bite".  This attack also drains the life force from it's victim at 2 points per round if the monster can hold the attack from round to round.  There is a chance, a slight one, for a victim to break free, but at this point, the victim is in a swoon or paralyzed state and pretty much just can't resist enough to move away. (Save vs Paralyzation -4)

Instead of draining 2 levels from experience, it drains points from the victims Constitution score.  Should it drain all points, the victim is dead and will rise later as a minor Strigoi.  However, if somehow the Strigoi has drained at least half of the PC's Con points and the "Drain Bite" attack is broken, the PC will likely live but is "infected" and upon dying at a later time, will rise afterward as a minor Strigoi.

There are more specifics and details but  I gave you the gist of it.   I have what  I wanted, a vampire that makes sense to me ans is just as badass if not a tad bit moreso (in my own opinion) than the one in the book.

I've done this with a few monsters and  I don't even use the the original monsters from the books any more.   I just use my own instead.  However, if I'm running a module (which I rarely if ever do anymore) that has BtB vampire in it, and Players who are not regulars in my game, then I will usually leave it alone and play it BtB, disliking every instance of it.

Roleplaying classes a little bit differently

Let's investigate a minor phenomenon in the game of AD&D here.  I hear semi-frequently of how people approach certain character classes and I can't help but think they are doing it wrong.

Yes, yes I know.  I am one of the first who will say that it's a fantasy game, there is almost no way you can do it "wrong".   Maybe  I don't mean "wrong", maybe  I mean suffering from a lack of perspective.

For example, one of the classes I think is most often not played in the most appropriate way is the Cleric.  Clerics are far too often talked about and referred to as "magic priests".  I would like to say that they are much more than that.

The description in the Players Handbook goes to the point of referring to Clerics as being very much like the knights of holy or religious orders.  To me, the first thing that reflects that statement are the Knights Templar.  These are no parish priests or church vicars here.  These are some of the most determined and devoted warriors around.

As a matter of fact, one could say it is their "fervent" devotion to their deity that makes them all the more dangerous as warriors and knightly types.  They are not simply out to joust and fight for king, country and honor.  It's about more than just amassing treasure and riches and pretty young girls.

No no my friends, these knights and warriors have a higher purpose to them.  They have already accepted death and often look forward to it as long as it occurs while doing the work they have been sent to do.

Make no mistake, they ARE warriors.  It's almost crazy how often I see people not approach it as anything but a knight or warrior.  Then they are bummed out and say that they don't like to play clerics anymore.  Of course they don't, they robbed the Cleric of all its potential by playing it as just a priest.

Druids I think people tend to get into a little more because they are seen as more fantastical and less "real".  They have less "false" leads to follow in regard to Druids so must immerse themselves more in the fantasy of them.  But and still,  just to share, I will tell you how I view them.

The Druid is not simply a meek and mild (necessarily) plant lover. Again, the Druid is a sub-class of the Cleric.  Now we are back to people who are action oriented with a higher purpose.  The Druid may or may not be devoted to a particular deity as much as they are to the capital "N", Nature.  Nature and the ways of nature are their motivation, their purpose for living.  They see the synthetic industries of man as something that threatens the natural workings of the world.

They are part protector of natural places and creatures as well as proponents of living in accordance to Nature.  Ecological and environmental conservation and "synergy" is their passion.  Foes who threaten that are going to be dealt with in dramatic fashion.  just as the Cleric of a deity will chase down a pack of thieves who robbed a church and dispatch them with a will, so to the Druid is a warrior of the Natural world.

Monks.  Monks are yet another poorly played class.  Most folks seem to approach the Monk as the dowdy friar who wears a brown robe and cowl and makes mead or bread or something.    I would say that this is not so.  Again, the adventurer classes in AD&D are action types.  They "Do" things.  They are protagonists.  The same applies to the Monk.

The description of the Monk in the Players Handbook is more akin to a character from a movie like the character Chow Yun-Fat played in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".  They follow a rigorous discipline in their life and that often includes a style of self defense or other fighting.  Watch the movie, pay attention to his character of Li Mu Bai

They won't do anything the situation does not call for.  If the situation does not call for killing, they will not draw their weapon but if there is some action to be taken, they are neither shy or afraid to do what needs to be done.

I think of the Monk Class as a heroic "knight" type or warrior that is bound by honor and discipline instead of a deity or Nature.  This is not some meek or wayward zen gardener by a longshot.