The geographical setting will just happen to look exactly like Great Britain. The starting point will just happen to be right where Bristol is, and the name of that city will be (somewhat unoriginally) "Bridgstow".
While the setting will have bits and pieces that are distinctly evocative of historical Britain, that's partly an illusion; I've got a Greyhawk gazetteer, and I'm taking a chunk of that land mass, mushing it into a Britain-shape, and associating pieces of it with their approximate historic/legendary equivalents. So whether you think of the theocracy to the north as the Prince-Bishop of County Durham or the Archbishop Hazen's Veluna is up to you; the names and geography are mostly the former, but the social structure and characters are mostly the latter.
Here's some social background that's a little different from what the 3rd edition D&D folks are used to; for everyone else, you can just take it as the way it is for this campaign, or argue about why the campaign world's destined for trouble if it's set up this way.
Halflings are like hobbits. Unlike the current D&D image, they are not short gypsies. Instead, they integrate very well with human society, with many towns going by two names, a halfling (actually, they prefer "hole-builder" or "hill person") name and a human one. Effectively, the hill person town co-exists with the human town, generally managing to share space without fighting over resources. This is because the humans tend to farm the lowlands and the hill people tend to, uh, live in and off the hills, herding animals on land that's not desirable for farming and farming terraced slopes that are too steep for humans to want to fool with.
Gnomes, on the other hand, are (or at least seem to fit stereotypes of) short gypsies. Most gnomes the non-gnomes see are in visiting caravans, usually circuses or musicians, but sometimes merchants with exotic snake oil to cure your every ailment. Gnomes are tolerated, rather than encouraged, by many town authorities. Often the gnomes set up outside the town, and are not welcomed in. "By all means, go to the circus -- it's the best show all year! But leave your money-pouches at home, kids -- if you've got nothing to steal, you've got nothing to worry about." Gnomes have a reputation as flim-flam artists; everyone knows that a gnome can make you see whatever he wants you to see. Fortunately, although they're sometimes out to line their pockets at your expense, they're not particularly malevolent.
There are no kung-fu monks walking the earth and acting aloof. Well, there might be some in Asia, but there aren't any in Bridgstow.
Click here to return to Fantasy - and not the X-rated kind home page
6 comments:
As I said: I'm a big fan of the halflings-into-hobbits bit.
(And: I'll bet the pseudo-British setting is just a chance to show off all that Celtic Studies and Arthurian knowledge rattling around in your head, isn't it?
:-) )
Sorry for making commenting more complicated, but I don't want spamminess mucking up my website.
Response to Jacob: well, the pseudo-British setting is to show off all that stuff, and also the tidbits I've gotten from actually living here. Use what you know, I figure, since there's plenty of work already without trying to create back-history out of whole cloth.
Response to the dungeon master: do you want background color (like I wrote about gnomes) or what classes exist?
The only other classes I think could be problematic are barbarians and paladins. For this campaign, other classes are pretty much as they're depicted in the Players Handbook. (I might throw in some "color" about Druids preferring oral tradition to literacy or things like that, but that won't have much practical game effect.)
I say this about paladins because they're always a funny behavior-restricted class, but campaign-wise I think they fit in my background just fine. If anything, a paladin would probably fit this campaign better than most.
The only problem I have with barbarians is that they're not barbaric enough. In addition to a little social stigma (a high-level barbarian is never going to be elected mayor), I probably would make it harder to be a "barbarian of convenience". Specifically, I'd tweak it so a barbarian would have to spend the skill points to become literate before getting a level in another class (except Druid -- so I guess that color did have a little game effect), and if they did get a level in another class, they couldn't go further as a barbarian (since they've been "civilized"). Unless they returned to their roots and lived in the wild again.
Regarding monks: I just think the genre's all wrong. You want a kung fu campaign, do a kung fu campaign, with samurai and ninjas and monks. But trying to simulate a fight between a Knight of the Round Table and a Shaolin Monk is just goofy.
That said, while my first principle is "You don't have to know the rules", my second principle is "There is nothing you can't try." If you really want to be a monk, you can. But it'll demand more story background from you -- how'd you get here? Why? And you're not liable to run into any _other_ monks, at least not for a long time.
On the other hand, people seem to want to be "monks of convenience". It's very tempting for an aspiring wizard to offset some of the wizard deficiencies by taking a couple of levels in monk first. I don't blame Aaron for doing this -- it seems like the smartest way to make a viable spellcaster without glaring weaknesses. But story-wise, it seems to highlight that monks don't quite belong.
A better solution, it seems to me, is that if what you want is to be a Buffy/Trinity-type character, who has the monk's unarmed fighting qualities but not necessarily the general monk archetype, is to tweak the class and change its backstory. If someone wanted, I'd be happy to invent a "Chosen One" class, that has a lot of the same game characteristics as a monk, but doesn't have the lawful requirement, and in its place the character has a mission from some power center (secret society, wizard in a cave, little blue dudes from another planet).
I can't say that I get the "monk of convenience" thing. Barbarian of convenience, absolutely-- it's insanely tempting, really, because you get a lot of goodies at barbarian first level. But it actually never seemed to me like you got much out of being a monk the first few levels.
I'm not sure it makes sense for everyone to consider the "monk of convenience" strategy, but for spellcasters, it seems preferable to barbarian for making it through those awkward teenage years of the first few levels.
Barbarians get the huge hit points, the rage opportunity, and the speed (which seems like a big deal to my dwarven character.) The next two levels get more hp, uncanny dodge (keep your Dex bonus), and trap sense.
Monks get decent hp, sweet saves, improved unarmed strike with better damage (and not needing hands free), flurry of blows for extra attacks, and another bonus feat (for more hand-to-hand). The next two levels get you another bonus feat, evasion, still mind (save bonus against enchantments, which Linnam probably wishes he had), and the faster speed.
For someone who's liable to be the heavy hitter, the barbarian's d12 and rage are very strong. But for someone with aspirations to spellcasting, rage is worth less (can't Concentrate), saves are worth more, and the 1-6 unarmed strike damage is significant. Evasion is better than uncanny dodge (and rocks generally). And extra attacks at first level without spending a couple of feats is pretty nice.
The feat acquisition, though narrowly defined, is crazy for monks. Fighters get two bonus feats their first two levels, and that's all fighters have going for them. Rangers get two also (Track and combat style). Monks get three, one of which can be Deflect Arrows, which is nothing for a spellcaster to sneeze at.
Perhaps not least, even though I don't think they fit terribly well, it makes a lot more sense to be a wizard/monk (at least they both study) than a wizard/barbarian (a poster child for the Reading Is Fundamental program?)
I guess my point is: one level of barbarian gets you big HP and speed. One level of monk doesn't speed you up, and doesn't give you unarmed strike with any more damage than the one-handed club wizards can use anyways. Flurry of blows and not needing hands free are nice, but don't seem decisive.
By the time you've invested three levels, monk starts to bring big-time benefits. But three levels is a serious commitment, not a powergaming matter of convenience; by then you've foregone a lot of spells if you're a spellcaster.
Anyways, doesn't matter for purposes of the new campaign, since there are no monks!
I see your point -- the 4 extra hp at 1st level are huge. Personally, I think multiple attacks at first level is a bigger deal than speed, but not nearly so much as to outweigh the hit points.
Post a Comment