The Sorcerer - A Demon Summoner class for AD&D

CLICK HERE TO GET THE PDF 

At Gary Con VII last month, I ran a Stormbringer 1st edition game. I hadn't played Stormbringer in more than 20 years (except for a one-evening playtest before the convention). It was enjoyable to play it again, but playing Stormbringer reminded me why AD&D is my game of choice. I'm not a fan of Stormbringer's attack-then-parry-then-roll-armor mechanic. I'm not a fan of how long it took to make pre-generated Stormbringer characters.

But I like the idea of demon-summoning sorcerers as the primary source of magic in the game world. (No clerics!) I like the idea of bargaining with demons and elemental lords for favors. I like the idea of binding fiery elementals or angry demons into your longsword, then cutting down your enemies. And I like the idea that you might get betrayed by the demon you just made a pact with.

... so I made THE SORCERER. It's a class for use with AD&D that summons elementals & demons and tries to force them into servitude. It's a 24 page digest-size pdf, and includes the Sorcerer class description, guidelines for summoning & binding, stats for minor elementals, details on the six demon types (Destruction, Suffering, Creation, Insanity, Ideas, and Shifting), random demon generation guidelines, and some brief suggested house rules to make AD&D feel a little more like the Michael Moorcock inspirational material. THE SORCERER should also work just fine with Swords & Wizardry, B/X D&D, Original D&D, or any of the other usual suspects.

Ian Baggley illustrated the cover beautifully. Right now it has no interior art. I'll commission interior art later; the rectangles in the pdf are artwork placeholders. But first I need to playtest it.

If you run this, I'd love to hear your feedback!

The Meaning of Hit Points and Damage

What does it mean when a 1st-level fighter takes 5 damage? That is, if observed in the game world, how would an onlooker describe the wound? Is it a vicious cut into the gut and spine, or is it just a superficial flesh wound? What if a 10th-level fighter takes 5 damage? Is the wound the same severity? What if a 10-hit die giant takes 5 damage? Still the same? Do higher-hit point creatures receive smaller wounds from equivalent damage? And why does it take longer for a high-hp character to fully heal from 1 hit point to maximum, than it does for a low-hp character?

All Gygax-era versions of D&D and AD&D share the same set of answers. There is consistent, naturalistic meaning to both damage and hit points, as implied by the various relevant mechanics...

Damage that Kills You vs. Damage that Doesn't

Creatures aren't materially affected by damage that doesn't reduce them to zero hit points. A 10th-level character might start with 51 hp, and then get hit ten times, each for 5 damage; but he still adventures at full capacity, simply by virtue of having 1 hp left. Despite receiving 50 damage (enough points to kill three average warhorses), he doesn't suffer any movement rate or carrying capacity reduction. He doesn't suffer any attack, AC, or save penalties. If applicable, he can still cast spells, or scale sheer walls using just his hands and feet.

This shows that those wounds, each triggered by 5 damage, are pretty minor.

However, characters are significantly affected by damage that does reduce them to zero or lower. If that same character subsequently gets hit for 5 more damage from an orc's sword attack, he's dead.

This shows that even though all those attacks delivered the same quantity of damage, only the last one mattered in terms of the character's capabilities.

Another example: Consider a 1st-level character with just 1 hp maximum. If he gets hit for 5 damage from an orc's sword attack, he's dead. Just as dead, in fact, as the 10th-level character. Hell, it could have been the same orc that killed them both.

This shows that when damage kills a character, neither the character's full hp, nor the attacker's & defender's relative skill are significant in describing the injury. In both the 1st-level and 10th-level cases, we could describe the sword thrust as a cut that slashed through intestines and severed ribs and spine.

Yet another example: The previous 51 hp character starts fresh, after being wished back to life. During a dungeon expedition, he gets blasted by fireball for 50 damage. He's down to 1 hp again, and of course he still adventures at full capacity.

But if he subsequently gets hit by for 5 more damage from the same orc's sword attack, he's dead.

Even though the fireball reduced the character's hp by ten times more than the orc's sword, the orc's sword attack still caused a bigger, more grievous wound.

This all shows that the biggest factor in the description of a wound isn't the number of "points" of damage, but rather: Did the wound reduce the character to zero or below? A 1 damage hit that kills you should be described as a more serious injury than a 100 damage hit that doesn't kill you.

Describing Damage that Doesn't Kill You

Whether a combatant is 1st level with 5 hp or 10th level with 50 hp, a 4 point blow that doesn't kill him represents the same amount of physical damage — a superficial laceration, a contusion, perhaps a non-debilitating fracture, etc.

Among blows that don't kill a character, ones that deal less damage represent more minor wounds, as compared to blows that deal more damage. It's not unreasonable to think that a high level fighter in a fantasy world can fight at full effectiveness despite a bone break, a slight concussion and a deep muscle laceration, each of which could be a fine description for a 15+ damage hit that didn't kill him.

But Hit Points Also Represent Skill & Luck, Right?

That idea is crudely paraphrased from the Players Handbook (page 34) and Dungeon Masters Guide (page 82). What the "skill & luck" concept really means is this:

Higher hp only represents fighting skill, luck, divine favor, and what-not insofar as it allows a character to take one more minor wound instead of a fatal wound.

After the skillful, lucky, or divinely-favored character takes some damage (and thus some wounds), his rest doesn't actually restore his skill, luck, or divine favor. His rest is really about healing actual physical wounds. (Yes, I realize this might not mesh 100% with the DMG phrase about "metaphysical peak".)

The Answer

So that 5 damage wound mentioned way up at the top: If it didn't kill the recipient, it's a pretty minor wound, regardless of how many hp he has left. But if it did kill the recipient, it's a really nasty wound.

A 10th-level character who has suffered a total of 50 damage from ten different attacks really does have ten wounds. They're probably all minor, and they don't impact his active capabilities, but they're there nonetheless.

That is why high level characters typically behave differently in-game when they have greatly reduced hp (and are thus closer to zero hp). The accumulating pain of many small wounds, the trickle of blood in the eye, the weight of his shield on the arm with the hairline fracture — these are all clues to the high-level fighter that he cannot keep up fighting this way forever, and that it's time for his comrade to take a turn at the front of the party.

Hell, maybe that 10th-level character has an 18 constitution and got some great hp rolls, for a total of 100 hp or more. After a brutal day of adventuring, he may be walking around with dozens of small wounds. This is not unreasonable for someone of heroic bent and the pinnacle of human constitution.

Natural Healing

(To be added later. This shows how the natural healing rates in various D&Ds also support the idea all damage represents actual (though typically non-debilitating) wounds. Mention also AD&D's rule about four weeks of rest being enough to restore all hp.)

Cure Spells

This understanding of damage and wounds works together with cure spells, with a surprising amount verisimilitude. Ignore the adjectives in the cure spell names ("light," "serious," "critical"); the spell names are also game-world parlance, so just think of it as the first cleric choosing spell names that seemed pretty good, without worrying about absolute naming perfection.

Cure light wounds and cure critical wounds aren't really about the difference in severity of wounds in an absolute sense. That is, cure critical wounds will generally be used on wounds that aren't really critical. The various spells are more about lesser and greater quantities of wounds healed, relative to each other. Roughly speaking, a cure light wounds spell heals one small wound, whereas cure critical wounds heals four small wounds or one large (and yet still not debilitating) wound.

(To be added later: Note that fact that even cure spells used to bring a character back to positive hit points do not obviate AD&D's requirement for one week's rest after having dropped to zero or below.)

Damage to Giants, Monsters, and Worse

(To be added, to help understand the meaning of damage on creatures physically larger than humans.)

Falling: Where this Descriptive Model Falls Down

(To be added. Admittedly this model doesn't handle descriptions of falling damage very well. But then again, by-the-book falling damage has been tricky to fit into most/all models for the meaning of damage.)

Additional Reading

Character Hit Points on page 34 of the Players Handbook

Hit Points on page 82 of the Dungeon Masters Guide

The Explaining Hit Points article at The Alexandrian gets it almost right for Gygax-era versions of D&D, but misses the mark on a few details (mostly by not accounting properly for the implications of healing on the description of damage):

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/explaining-hit-points.html

Critical Fumbles are bad — Fumbles based on Fighting Superiority are good

Most versions of D&D don't offer a critical fumble rule. Some referees like to use critical fumbles in their campaigns. Rolemaster has a low percentage chance of a fumble (IIRC generally 3-8%, based on the weapon used). Some referees consider an analogous mechanic in D&D: A natural 1 is a fumble or other sort of critical failure.

But the typical critical fumble house rule (example here) is kind of lame...

Dropping one's weapon 5% of the time, injuring oneself 5% of the time, or stunning oneself 5% of the time seems more appropriate for Paranoia or Toon than it does for D&D.

This is especially true when someone has multiple attacks. Got three attacks? If so, you have more than 14% chance per round to negatively affect yourself in a round when you make all those attacks.


Furthermore, when odds of hitting in combat are low, a critical fumble rule pushes characters in the direction of not bothering to attack. Sure, maybe you're twice as likely to hit than you are to fumble, but the penalty associated with fumbling further detracts from the already slim odds of hitting, such that the combatant would be much better served doing something other than melee.

Contrasting with critical hits: As hit points go up, a critical hit (typical house rule: double damage or max damage) becomes less spectacular. The significance of a critical diminishes as targets increase in hp, because the critical is unlikely to materially affect the combat.

But a critical fumble stays equally jarring the whole time. An 13th level lord who drops his weapon every other combat looks pretty comical.

So what to do? Fumbles aren't unheard of in D&D's inspirational sources, so it would be nice to include them somehow. Here's an alternative:

Superior Fighters cause Foes to Fumble

In other words, a critical fumble rule becomes a class feature for Fighters:

If an enemy (with fewer hit dice, or optionally hit points) attacks a Fighter and rolls a natural 1, the superior skills of the Fighter has forced that enemy to fumble/drop his weapon.

There, that's better!

SPI on AD&D: Mostly Pig Lips

The Dragon #22 (Feb, 1979) contains Gary Gygax's famous "SPI on AD&D" article — a scornful response to Strategy & Tactics' unfavorable review of the AD&D Players Handbook. While the details of Gary's response are comparatively well known (or at least easy to find), the original review is not. What follows is a transcription of that original review:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (TSR Games, PO Box 756, Lake Geneva, WI, 53147; $9.95). A Players Handbook, compiling all sorts of information for the D&D crowd. Hardbound (it resembles one of those Golden Wonder Books I used to get stuck with when I was a kid), this is a method to get you to buy what you already have (unless you don't have it, in which case it's not a bad idea). Sort of like the middle ages of rock, when they would put out an album of "Willy One-Book's Greatest Hits". Now you already have everything on the album, in one form or another; but you wouldn't be caught dead without the new item. Same goes for this book. Now it's not that I don't think D&D is a worthwhile pastime; most certainly, it is. A great deal of it is quite clever; then again, most of it is a mound of pig lips. Alas, I know I will be branded a pariah for this outburst. Suffice to say, D&Ders will drool mightily over this. So will Gary G's accountant. Written (rather than grace it with the word designed) by Gary Gygax. One further word: D&D has managed to avoid the great pitfall of role-playing games — rampant silliness. For that it deserves much credit; it is faithful to itself.
—Rich Berg

From Strategy & Tactics 71, p 20.

Cyclopean Deeps Errata & Stuff

This is a list of typos, inconsistencies and other glitches for the Swords & Wizardry versions of the Cyclopean Deeps modules from Frog God Games. I don't know whether these issues are also applicable to the Pathfinder versions of those modules. This list also contains some organizational recommendations for the unified print version.

Bold items are the most significant or confusing; if you don't care about editorial minutia, and just want to know what "gotchas" might otherwise sneak up on you while refereeing, just skim the list for the bold items…

Cyclopean Deeps 1: Down to Ques Querax

Tertiary Passage table (p 5):
- Should have bold 1-20 numbers like the other tables do.

Shroom (p 6):
- Supposed to have 3/2 spells listed, but only has 2 first-level spells, and 1 second-level spell listed. (This was likely a copy/paste error from Fthormidor in Demonspore.)

Dark Creeper and Dark Stalker (p 5):
- Possibly important to mention of the two major dark stalker civilizations, or point to the relevant info in CD3, given the possibility of fighting these wandering monsters and acquiring disguises or artifacts.

Dark Stalker Caravan (p 7):
- "Darkfolk" (four places) might be a misnomer, especially as a label for caravans, given that the other text calls them "dark stalker caravans."
- Misspelling: "darkstalker" should be "Dark stalker" in two places.
- Possibly important to mention of the two major dark stalker civilizations, or point to the relevant info in CD3, given the possibility of fighting these wandering monsters and acquiring disguises or artifacts.

Area 0E-1-E (p 11):
- Refers to the teleportation destination being "Area OE-7" which does not exist, and also describes it as "just outside the fortress of Ques Querax," would would be 3 miles away at area 3H-something.

Area 0E-4 (p 11):
- Should the depth of the crystal clear pools be specified? It's one of the first thing my players would ask, since they are, after all, crystal clear; and various other heights are specified (cliffs, ceiling, etc.).

Map 0E (p 12):
- The pool depicted in area 4 should be depicted as closer to the cliff face. The description of area 0E-3 says, "one of the pools is directly underneath the cliff face," and refers the reader to the map for specific positioning.
- There should be a third pool depicted in area 4. The description of area 0E-4 says, "Three pools of crystal-clear liquid glitter in the floor."

Player Map 1 (p 13):
- It has the wrong top-of-page header ("Hex OE Map").
- This map more properly belongs in Cyclopean Deeps #2, since that's where the PCs can actually find it (area 3H-21). (And also because there is no mention of it or commentary about it in CD1.)

Area 0E-5 (p 14):
- Should this indicate the height of the cliff face? (For comparison, area 0E-3 indicates its cliff face height.)

Area 0E-6 (p 14):
- Incorrect implication that Ques Querax is 1/2 mile away, when it is actually more like 3 miles away.

Monster Appendix (p 15-19):
- A number of creature descriptions don't give any indication of the creature's size. Some are called out explicitly in this list below, but not all. The unmentioned ones are probably obvious given the reader's likely familiarity with other versions of the game, but then again, maybe not.

Dark Creeper and Dark Stalker (p 15):
- Possibly important to mention of the two major dark stalker civilizations, or point to the relevant info in CD3.

Fungus Bat (p 16):
- Needs to describe the creature's size.

Khryll (p 17):
- Only an oblique indication of size is given (10ft. tentacles), though the picture can help sort this out.
- Size (length/width) of the psychic cone blast is not specified.
- No indication of how telepathy works. This ought to be specified because of the setup of the Khryll in area 3H-20 (in CD2), where PCs are granted a saving throw to avoid mental probing. (There is no default behavior to be inferred from the S&W rulebook.)

Neh-Thalggu (p 18):
- Needs to describe the creature's size.
- There is an errant line break (and paragraph start) in the last paragraph, between "perhaps" and "exiled."

Shroom (p 19):
- Needs to describe the creature's size.
- Remove the inadvertently left-in phrase, "DC 15 Fortitude save."

Syanngg (p 19):
- Needs to describe the creature's size.

Cyclopean Deeps 2: Eye of the Titan

Cover:
- Subtitle should be changed from "Cult of the Khryll" to "Eye of the Titan."

Introduction (p 3)
- Last sentence of the introduction is clunky, particularly the start of the last phrase, "... that the Eye ..."

Area 3H-1 (p 5):
Typo: "... they are be attacked."

p 6, Patrons of the Sunworm (p 6)
- The random table doesn't list creature quantity ranges for random patrons, from Huggermuggers on down.
- Shroom: Supposed to have 3/2 spells listed, but only has 2 first-level spells, and 1 second-level spell listed.

Area 3H-7 (p 7):
- It's not clear what level spells the occupants can cast.

Area 3H-9 (p 8):
- Last paragraph has a typo: "... think blue gas ..." should probably be "... thick blue gas ..."

Illustration of Ques Querax (p 10):
- This illustration doesn't match the description on page 5, area 3H-2: "... the walls [of Ques Querax] rise to the top of the cavern like a hollow pillar – they do not have a “top” that can be climbed over."

Area 3H-17 (p 11):
- Refers to Cyclopean Deeps 4: Dread Domes of the Serpentfolk, but according to a note at the end of CD3, CD4 covers a different area. Also the name "Dread Domes of the Serpentfolk" is inconsistent with the name given in area 3H-23 ("Domes of the Serpentfolk").

Area 3H-18 (p 12):
- No indication of room/passage height is given, nor depth of the vertical connection between this area and the throne room above. (Either would be sufficient.) (Note that area 3H-21 gives some clue, with one glass sphere being, "a full ten feet off the ground, very near the ceiling.")

Map of Catacombs of Ques Querax (p 13):
- The lobsters/titans depicted on the map (areas 3H-18 and 3H-22) are too narrow. Area 3H-18 describes it with, "the segments have a diameter of about 20 ft." (Ditto for 3H-22.) If the map depiction is correct, then perhaps the text should use circumference instead of diameter?
- The map depicts area 23 a little oddly/wrong, as if it is south of the area behind columns, when it is actually underneath the columns themselves. (From area 3H-22: "... a stone dais with three orbs floating in the air directly above it. ... the top of the dais swings up and backward on a hidden hinge, revealing the entrance to the prison cell underneath." From area 3H-21: "The prisoner is in a small cell, and is seen from overhead as the ceiling of the cell is lowered down like a hinged box lid.")

Area 3H-20 (p 12 & 14)
- There's an orphaned line at the top of page 14 ("magic resistance.") that is the end of a paragraph that started two pages earlier. Because of the intervening map page, there is definitely an unfortunate page flip that would need to be made when running this room. (Also it would be great if the Treasure paragraph were also kept on the same page as the rest of the keyed area description, though that is somewhat less jarring.)

Area 3H-21 (p 14):
- No indication is given about the size of the glass spheres.
- Misspelling: At the top of the second column, "darkstalker" should be "dark stalker".

Area 3H-23 (p 15):
- Refers to Cyclopean Deeps 4: Domes of the Serpentfolk, but according to a note at the end of CD3, CD4 covers a different area. Also the name "Domes of the Serpentfolk" is inconsistent with the name given in area 3H-17 ("Dread Domes of the Serpentfolk").

Illustration of area 3H-22 (p 15):
- This illustration probably depicts the room incorrectly. I take the corresponding textual description (area 3H-22, especially "Across the bridge, the characters are able to see the room’s southern chamber, which is blocked off by the bulk of the titan.") to mean the floor was not sunken, but that the "bridge" was more like an arch-shaped apparatus allowing access to the top of (and over) the lobster/titan body. If the floor is indeed intended to be sunken, then perhaps the map needs some drop-off indicators.

Cyclopean Deeps 3: Izamne, City of Endless Dark

General:
- Given the prevalence of new monsters, and instances of "see New Monsters" blurbs (which are often longer than the name of the new monster itself), it might be worthwhile to standardize on a simpler sort of pointer: An asterisk * or dagger † could be the shorthand for "see the new stuff section".

Darkmist (p 3):
- Should mention that darkmist reduces illumination from flames down to 10 ft. (This is otherwise first mentioned in area 8Q-4.)

Language (p 3):
- In the finished compilation version, this section should be moved earlier, toward the beginning of the entire book.

The Darkfolk/Dark Ones (p 3):
- It seems odd to introduce yet another term for dark stalkers, dark creepers, etc. Admittedly "Dark Ones" at least has some precedent in the WotC versions of the game. (And google tells me that Pathfinder has "dark folk.") I think I see some value in using terms that bolster peoples' familiarity with the relevant creatures, but I wonder if this could be achieved differently. Possibly in the relevant Monster Appendices? In this case, I think sticking to one term in the body text would be best; and also use that term in each relevant creature description; and also include a monster meta-entry for the selected term which mentions the other term, and directs to all relevant monster entries.
- The start of one sentence is awkward (albeit probably grammatically correct): "They depend for their existence on stealth and mobility,..."
- Misspelling: "Darkstalker" should be "dark stalker."

Avarthamna Civilization (p 4):
- Misspelling: "Darkstalker" should be "dark stalker." (3 occurrences of this misspelling here.)

Kshamarat Civilization (p 4):
- Last paragraph incorrectly uses the concepts of receipts, Ancestor-tokens, and victory-trophies. In the first sentence, "victory-tokens" should be "victory-trophies." In the last sentence, "ancestor-tokens" should be "victory-trophies."

Map of The Shrines (p 6):
- It's not clear where the land part of the ledges are (over which the waterfalls pour).

Area 8Q-3 (p 8):
- Missing a closing parenthesis after, "(see, “New Magic Items".
- Should either include a stat block for ethereal maggots, or at least refer the reader to the new monsters section. (Upon first reading, I assumed they were intended to be handled by the referee in an ad-hoc manner. Only after I reached the new monsters section did I realize that they had actual stats that are significant in terms of removing them.)

Area 8Q-4 (p 8-9):
- Misspelling: "Darkstalker" should be "dark stalker." (3 occurrences of this misspelling here.)

Area 8Q-5 (p 9):
- Table entry 3 says, "... the face, of course, is the face of the wizard Jupiter Kwan." Since this is the first ever mention of Jupiter Kwan in the series, the "of course" should be removed.
- Table entry 4 says, "a hold in a stone floor," which should probably say "hole" instead of "hold."

Area 9L-2 (p 10-11):
- The fourth paragraph refers the reader to the glossary entry for "azamarthi," after the third mention of that term. It might make more sense to move this reference one paragraph earlier, near the first mention of the term. (Or maybe just eliminate the reference to the glossary, because the glossary entry says no more than has already been said.)
- The last sentence's identification of the substance as Darkmist is unnecessary, because that term has already been used to concretely describe the substance. Also, since darkmist was already defined in the introductory information, I'm not sure it's necessary to point the reader to the glossary (though it certainly doesn't hurt).

Map of Izame (p 12-13):
- Should include elevation info on the key, at least showing which colors are higher and which are lower. I think darker areas are higher than lighter areas, mainly due to what appears to be a stairs symbol in some areas leading between levels.
- In the PDF, the second page of the map has no grid labels for the vertical access, which makes it tougher to look up particular coordinates on that half.

Rooftop Animals (p 14):
- Goblin dogs entry should point at the New Monsters section.

Buildings (p 14):
- Temple row says "(see sub-table)" but there is no sub-table for temples.

Agent of Operations (p 15):
- This label has the wrong font & style, and should be like the Alchemical Workshop entry label that follows it.
- Element table: In the first row, "goblin dogs" should point at the New Monsters section.

Flophouse (p 15):
- The table has messed up roll number sequencing; the first two entries are 1-2 and 1-4, followed by 5, 6, 7, 8.

Mills/Pumps (p 15):
- To better match the other categories of buildings names, which are in the singular (not plural) form, this ought to be "Mill/Pump".

Reliquary-House (p 15-16):
- There are two area typos: "3R-15" should be "13R-15," and "3R-11" should be "13R-11."
- The last paragraph of this section is (partially?) redundant with that section's earlier discussion of treasure; though this last paragraph is slightly more generous than the earlier table. In any case, the info could get combined together, so as not to be in two disparate areas (before & after creature stat blocks).
- Should the reference to 13R-11 (as well as the mistaken "3R-11" preceding it) specify the map coordinates for that location (V38), like most of the other 13R-XX references in the module? Ditto for the 13R-15 (as "3R-15") reference (Y25 ?).

Residence, Private (p 16-17):
- various table entries: "Goblin dogs" should point at the New Monsters section.
- table entry 66-70: Should the reference to 13R-16 specify the map coordinates for that location (W65?), like most of the other 13R-XX references in the module?
- table entry 81: Refers to a future installment as "Cyclopean Deeps: Hidden Worlds of Jupiter Kwan", whereas other references add "9": "Cyclopean Deeps 9: Hidden Worlds of Jupiter Kwan."
- table entry 96-99: Misspelling: "Fin Arts" should be "Fine Arts."
- table entry 100: Misspelling: "Reson" should be "reason."

Store (p 17-19):
- Awkward sentence? "Since many of the stores in Izamne are actually craftsmen, or do not fashion the object on site..." It seems like "stores" should really be "store owners" or "proprietors."
- table entry 66-70: "Goblin Dog" should point at the New Monsters section.

Wizard, Shaman, Other Spellcaster (p 19):
- This label has the wrong font & style, and should be like the Theater of Sound and Shadow entry label that precedes it.

Main Streets (p 19-20):
- Table is missing entry for a roll of 18.

Secondary Streets (p 20):
- table entry 53: should refer to New Monsters section for the encephalon gorger.
- table entry 91-97: "Goblin dogs" should point at the New Monsters section.

New Magic Items (p 21):
- No entry for the Veil of Seeing is included, even though area 8Q-3 (p 8) and the Residence, Private entry (p 16) include references to here for a description.

Giant, Jack-in-Irons (p 22):
- Stats are listed in the wrong order. (Saving Throw should be listed before Special.)

Goblin Dog (p 22):
- Stats are listed in the wrong order. (Saving Throw should be listed before Special.)
- Mentions "the goblinoid subtype," which is a d20-ism. Could probably simplify that sentence to just refer to "goblinoids."
- The following sentence is missing a phrase before "saving throw": "...or who otherwise comes into contact with a goblin dog saving throw or break out in an itching rash."

Mites and Pesties (p 23):
- Save stat should be called Saving Throw. (Applies to both the Mites and Pesties stat lists.)

Gloom Crawler (p 23):
- This is out of alphabetical order relative to the rest of the monsters (except Grue).
- Seems odd that the description doesn't say how frequently a Gloom Crawler takes damage from natural sunlight (e.g., once per round or turn or whatever).

Grue (p 23):
- This is out of alphabetical order relative to the rest of the monsters (except Gloom Crawler).
- Stats include Number Encountered, which is not usually given for S&W creatures.

Skum (p 24):
- Stats include Number Encountered, which is not usually given for S&W creatures.

Glossary / Darkmist (p 24):
- Should mention that darkmist reduces illumination from flames down to 10 ft. (This is otherwise mentioned in area 8Q-4.)
- The last sentence refers to just the "demon prince," which probably should be "demon prince Isclaadra." (This confused me when I happened to read that glossary entry without recently reading a passage that mentioned Isclaadra's name.)

Isclaadra (p 24):
- There is an unintentional paragraph break in the middle of the second sentence.

Glossary / Rune of Touch (p 24):
- Misspelling: "Darkstalker" should be "dark stalker."

Player Map of Izame (p 26-27):
- See notes for Map of Izame up above.

Grimmsgate Supplemental Review

This review of Grimmsgate supplements Bryce Lynch's detailed review of the module, as well as Matt Finch's response to that review (Matt is author of Grimmsgate). In particular, this review focuses on some playability/usability details Bryce didn't mention (overlooked?), and focuses in on Grimmsgate's suitability as an introductory module in the rough style of something like B2 The Keep on the Borderlands, which Matt said was the design model for Grimmsgate. But first…

Overall Assessment

Grimmsgate is a good module — a very solid B grade. Not Matt Finch's best (that bar is really high), but good nonetheless. It has a number of Finch-y qualities — odd situations and objects for players to engage with besides just the strategies & tactics of combat avoidance and treasure seeking. There are a lot of recent modules that I simply wouldn't bother running, but I would run Grimmsgate.

However, as an introductory module for players new to roleplaying (or Swords & Wizardry), its grade is lower — probably a C. It has a number of issues that mar its suitability as an introductory module, and some general fit & finish issues that hamper its overall usability. If somebody asked for a recommendation on a good S&W intro module, I would point them elsewhere.

The Village of Grimmsgate

The village itself seems lacking, or underdeveloped as a springboard for adventure. It's fine as a home base; the module tells you what you can buy, how much you'll pay for lodging, and what NPC help might be available. But it's missing built-in adventuring possibilities / temptations.

It's almost unfair to compare Grimmsgate to B2 The Keep on the Borderlands, but since Matt mentioned it as the model, I'll compare it anyway. In B2, the Keep itself is a potential adventure site; there are agents of evil within the Keep, there is literally a secret door leading to another adventure site below the Keep (though I can't find the reference in B2 for that at the moment — I apologize if I'm misremembering), and there are other, more selfish reasons for covertly exploring the Keep: Plenty of loot! ("Did the guard say a jewel merchant lives here!?")

By contrast, although the village of Grimmsgate is initially described in a way that makes it seem like it could be a potential adventure site (its a defensible location with guards that don't seem to initially trust you), the module doesn't build off those features. All the occupants are essentially friendly/allies, there isn't much reason for snooping around, and hell, the module doesn't say how many guards occupy the gatehouse. In hindsight, given that the town is relatively defensible, it might have been interesting for the module to include some built-in way of triggering a raid against the town. (e.g., an bit of loot that the monsters come looking for if/when the PCs bring it back to town.) At least that way the defensible location could be more interesting despite the friendly occupants.

Oddly, there's an inconsistent presentation of stats for the townsfolk. Some of the non-classed townsfolk are given stats, but others aren't. Especially strange is that the guard (who levels his crossbow at the party as they approach the village) is not given stats! This is nothing that would disrupt the flow for a GM of some experience, but it might be troublesome for a new GM, or one who's new to old-school games. More on that later...

The Wilderness

Some of the wilderness areas seem kind of "phoned-in." The ogre/ford has a reasonable amount of usable design meat, but the dragon and the bandits have much less. As an introductory module, I'd expect some kind of rumor or hook that helps neophyte players understand that plundering a dragon's lair can be very lucrative (and very dangerous too). The bandits lack guidelines on purpose and tactics. Bandits have it tough in a world with magic-users; unlike the ogre description (for whom there is guidance on how he likes to tilt the odds in his favor, yet still remain somewhat ogreishly stupid), the bandit section offers no impartial guidance on how they might cannily threaten the party.

Holistically, the wilderness areas are too detached from one-another, as well as from the village and the main dungeon. The dragon, the bandits, the hill of statues — you'd never have an inkling that those things would be around, and be worth investigating. You can't see any of them from the village, and there are no rumors or clues that point toward investigating in those areas. The wilderness needs more trails, a wandering monster chart, additional relevant rumors, or similar. (By contrast, B2 The Keep on the Borderlands includes explicit rumors about two of the main wilderness areas, with enough of a pointer so that an interested party could easily head the right direction to find them.)

Oddly, the early Referee Notes (page 4) contain an allusion to a wilderness wandering monster chart, but no such chart exists.

The Elder Temple (the main dungeon)

This section of the module is pretty good, and the most typically Finch-y. The orbs, the spirit, the repeated visions (with a distinct wandering monster trade-off, as you try to experience more visions), and the different decorations & carvings all give the players interesting stuff to think about, while the odd monsters look pretty tough and could easily cause a number of hasty retreats by the party (a good thing!), and force the players to think both strategically and tactically.

My only peeves about this section have to do with content errors and production glitches that detract from its suitability as an introductory module…

Issues as an Introductory Module

Where Did They Come From? Neither the "Start" text nor the wilderness map makes it clear which way the party is expected to have traveled from. Worse, the only path shown on the village map potentially implies that the party came from the east, but that would lead to a temporal oddity relative to the ogre at the ford along the only road to the east, which the party hasn't encountered yet. There is a rumor implying that the characters didn't come from the ford, but nothing stated explicitly that I could find on a re-skim. This jarring/confusing situation could have been easily avoided. (By contrast, B2 The Keep on the Borderlands does explain where the party is expected to have come from, on page 12 of that module.)

Secret Doors: The secret door workings should have been described, with a brief explanation of how each "door" opens and what the triggering mechanism is. The traps in this section, by contrast, are fully described; what if the traps just said, "the sarcophagus is trapped (1d6 damage)?" That wouldn't be acceptable, so I'm not sure why it's acceptable for secret door designers to just put an "S" symbol on a map wall and call it a day. The S&W rulebook is pretty explicit about the fact that secret door workings ought to be given design consideration; the rulebook says that a successful secret door roll doesn't necessarily reveal how to open such a door. Also, there are two rooms (areas 8 and 10) where the module doesn't explain whether the occupants of the rooms know about the adjacent secret doors; for an introductory module, I'd expect some guidance on that point.

Hard to Map: For a group of beginners interested in trying out old school mapping, the dungeon map is really hard to logistically contend with, both for the DM to describe and the players to interpret. Odd angles, non-standard widths, and a lack of alignment to the grid all make verbal descriptions tricky, which could be a big road block to some groups. There's a reason why B2 The Keep on the Borderlands keeps most areas aligned to the grid.

Inconsistent Presentation of Introductory Info: There's advice for new GMs, but it's scattered around and presented several different ways, and this inconsistency doesn't serve to keep things organized or easily findable. One example is the description for area T-20, where it reminds a new GM too late (!) that he should have already presented some information to the players before they entered the area; the relevant info should have been a separate keyed area on the map, outside area T-20. I'd also expect some mention of monster reactions (initial attitude toward PCs) somewhere in the module, given that reactions are hand-waved in the S&W rulebook. I think the expectation is that they are all aggressive, but it's hard to be sure.

Content Mistakes: There are a handful of these, and these kind of glitches never serve to make a good impression on a new group/GM. The dungeon wandering monster info talks about a "special" entry that purportedly relates to each different section of the dungeon, but there's no "special" actually on the chart, nor is there any mention of it in each section of the dungeon. There a mention of a door in area 23 that isn't on the map. There's a flooded room (area 15) that probably shouldn't be flooded, because it has an obvious drainage path down the adjacent stairs. There's a missing slope connecting the highest part of the dungeon with a lower section, between area 14 and the nexus of areas 40 and 41.

Inconvenient Layout Glitches: There are a number of problems, most of them minor, but one stands out as legitimately troublesome during play. The dragon area description in the wilderness looks all nicely ended on page 8. So when you run the module, you could easily forget to look three pages away for the paragraph that talks about the dragon's treasure. There are a couple other similar, though more minor layout offenses, including a table and a new monster description that each breaks across pages, and orphaned portions of room descriptions that could have been avoided by commissioning art *after* doing the layout. It's hard to say exactly how bad these last few glitches are because I haven't seen the physical printed version yet; having to flip back-and-forth to deal with the table (from area T-13) would get old pretty quickly.

Summary

Overall Grimmsgate is good, but it feels like it was missing a proper/firm producer's hand. The Frog God Games guys needed the guts to push it back to Matt for another revision. They needed to shepherd the layout and illustration a little bit better, to avoid the jarring/inconvenient page breaks. It needed more polish to really be an "A grade" module.

Parody Logo

I had a flash of inspiration that I could not help but follow to its natural creative conclusion. Perhaps I will find a reason to use my creation...