History Headscratchers / DungeonsAndDragons

** Ir's also quite plausible to assume that many spell-casters, or at least the ones who aren't interested in becoming liches or whatever, spend the last few years of their lives channeling their power into magical items. Aging clerics would imbue items for their church's defenders and acolytes; wizards would equip their apprentices or the warriors of a royal patron; druids would craft gifts for rangers and forest folk with whom they've worked. The archetype of the venerable mage who expends the last of his power to bequeath some enchanted boon to a new generation is a staple of fantasy fiction.

** Because it's a divination spell centered on the caster that affects their senses, kind of like a passive sensor or microphone, except for magic. Presumably, the ''highly intelligent'' caster who originally developed the spell designed it so that the spell would detect 'itself'' in action.

** Elves may also be more amenable to ''retiring'' from adventure than short-lived races. Once an elf's first non-elvish adventuring companions start aging out or settling down, he or she may find that dungeon-crawling just isn't as much fun as it used to be. Other elves may eventually see enough comrades-at-arms die to realize that the odds will catch up to them eventually if they keep risking their lives for decade after decade. And still others may take up adventuring simply as a hobby or phase, from which they eventually move on.

** Also, the Controller role is more vaguely defined than the others. The Fighter and Rogue already have so many powers focusing on forced movement or StandardStatusEffects respectively that a martial Controller can't be a new class. The only concept that makes sense is a ''WorldOfWarcraft'' Ranger with pets and traps.

** From the main FAQ on the WOTC website:

** If bestiality is making such a regular appearance in your campaign that this comes up, you can feel fairly safe in making a house-rule without worrying that WotC are going to publish errata that will contradict it.

* The climax of "The Dragons' Graveyard": Morality aside, are we really supposed to believe that arrow ''could'' have killed Venger, even with the FieldPowerEffect in place? The guy has repeatedly survived stuff that looked ''a lot'' more lethal than Hank's powered-up arrows, giving the impression that he's immortal. You figured the reason the kids enlisted Tiamat's help in the first place is because she's the only thing in the Realm powerful enough to kill him DeaderThanDead. But when she agrees to help, all she does is bring him there, so they don't need her to kill him for them after all, meaning this place supposedly must make their weapons ''as powerful as Tiamat'', but she breaks out of one of Hank's energy lassos very easily. Even with the power boost they have there, it doesn't look like their weapons have been made as lethal as Heart Stones, the Dragon's Heart, a collapsing Hall of Bones, or an erupting volcano -- that is, as the stuff Venger's returned from without a scratch. During the battle, Venger bats one of Hank's powered-up arrows aside as easily as he always does. So why how is one shot from an arrow suddenly supposed to be able to kill this guy?

** Probably be rejected by her body which recognises the child as a non-related entity. Sort of like how humans can't carry a baby chimpanzee to term.

** Also, out of the elder evils so far only the worm that walks has been updated for 4e(Atropus has been briefly mentioned), and Kyuss is very much within the epic levels. It's been a while since I've looked at Open Grave, but I remember him either being a level 28 or 30 solo(boss).

** Okay, but the ''Book Of Exalted Deeds'' still says that "only a niave fool would try to convert" demons and devils to good. So again, I wonder, why is it that celestials can turn bad but their {{Evil Counterpart}}s can't turn good?

*** I like it, except for the fact that it sounds like an Underdark or Dwarven thing rather than "see through stuff".

* In 3.5e, making a magic item generally requires access to magic that somehow relates to the item's desired effect. And yet, the Ring of X-Ray Vision requires True Seeing, which [[http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm very explicitly]] doesn't let you see through solid objects, even specifically pointing out x-ray vision as something the spell doesn't do.

** 1: a variation of {{Greyhawk}} (see the deties) is standard for core in 3.5, including said cosmology 2: ForgottenRealms ''part'' of {{Planescape}}'s multiverse, just zoomed farther in (There may be others that are explicitly part of it as well, though PS is implied to be it for everything).

*** How about a Ring of Deepsight? ...too New Agey?
*** Main/TranslationConvention: whatever word means "seeing through stuff" in D&D Common translates most easily to "X-ray" in English
*** People question the use of "X-Rays" but no one questions why a ''ring'' not ''goggles'' is used.
**** Because GogglesDoNothing?

*** They print it in modern day language so you don't have to keep logging on to google every five minutes.
*** Pretty sure that was the other troper's point, duder.

*** Specifically, it results in chemical burns, which are at least as distinct from a fire or electrical burn as frostburn ("cold damage") is.
*** That's not why, though. The "why" is that D&D follows the old european elemental system, Fire, air(electrical), water(cold), and earth(acid), with the spare sonic/force thrown in there for brute physical force. Acid was what was more-or-less arbitrarily picked for the Earth alignment method of applying damage since it's produced from plants and minerals for the most part.

*** Because playing a half-dragon can be fun. And now you can create the same character - thematically, at least - without the harsh level adjustment.
*** Until relatively recently, I wasn't even aware that dragonborn (as opposed to half-dragons) existed in 3.5. And from what little I understand, they were normal mortals blessed by Bahamut or something. That is not the case anymore. They're a race of their own, albeit one with a cultural reverence for Bahamut. To put it another way, that was the point in the previous edition - the point in the new edition is to play as a character who can spray acid on his enemies.

*** Here's something you may not have considered: being torn asunder HURTS.
*** Just because death isn't permanent doesn't necessarily mean it's not painful. Also, it would probably be reasonable to assume that powerful demons like the Balor can totally buttrape the 'soul' or 'essence' of the demons in question, which would presumably be significantly more dangerous than just having a mortal shell destroyed.
*** One book also says that they die permanently if they're killed in the Abyss, which is presumably where Balor would kill them.
*** 2 ed. ''TabletopGame/{{Planescape}}'' has it straight: a fiend could be killed for real outside if it leaves its plane on free will. If not, it will be reformed, but in an inferior form. If killed on home plane, result depends on type.

*** Actually, gorillas are in D&D, under "Ape" in the Animals part of the MM. Their constitution is 14, with 10 of course being average.
*** Actually. Humans should have a higher constitution than damn near anything, or at the very least endurance which is several multitudes higher than anything else.
**** While humans are Main/MadeOfIron by the standards of Earth biology, D&D's averages are adjusted for "the average person." Giving humans a by-the-numbers higher Constitution would alter people's reference points of the scores, and and lowering everyone else's could nudge game balance over a bit.
***** [=DnD=] is based around Humans being 'the average'. If something has a score of higher than 10, it's better than your standard Human in that respect. When you think of 10 as the arbitrary score for an average man walking down the street, many of the scores make sense. Far more make absolutely none however.
***** Also, Constitution doesn't just affect endurance. It affects all fortitude saves (including resistance to poison and disease), and hit points. I'm not sure about the first one, but many animals can take a lot more damage than humans can. The best way to model the exceptional endurance of humans would probably be some special quality, possibly given in the humanoid type. It's a shame the designers didn't think of that.
***** The main problem with this idea is that we're not considering the whole "Dwarves have a higher constitution than we do" point. Meaning that, in [=DnD=], if humans are MadeOfIron, Dwarves are Made Of Steel.
****** Or mithril.

*** Yes, there's a modron enhancement.

*** And hip-squared to be [[TotallyRadical totally cubical.]]

*** That Good an All, But would thay Origin be Immoral (as in from the Astral Sea) or Aberrant (from the Far Realm)? Because Mechanus isn't... well Unknown.
*** Um... The Think is... Um... AprilFoolsDay?

*** There are optional rules for tracking where projectiles went in the DMG. However, you're right; they are ''complicated.'' The DMG even acknowledges this, saying that you can implement these rules, but your gain would probably not be worth having to make four or more additional die rolls.

*** From the main FAQ on the WOTC website: \\
"Can a monk get an extra unarmed attack each round by making an off-hand attack?" \\
"There’s no such thing as a monk making an off-hand unarmed attack, because monks are already using pretty much their whole bodies for unarmed combat. For unarmed monks, the flurry of blows ability replaces off-hand unarmed attacks."
*** Except the latest downloadable 3.5 FAQ says they can, so nyeah.
*** An unarmed attack should already be assumed to be dual-wielded. It's not "I hit him exclusively with my right hand". It's rights, lefts, uppercuts, and kicks, all mixed in. The lack of a bonus attack for this is simply because it takes a hell of a lot of effort for punching people to be as effective as hacking them in half with an axe; medieval knights generally used weapons instead of their gauntlets, after all.

*** Symbolics and "you just forgot it" version of VancianMagic was retconned off long ago for good reasons, and at least in 2 ed. sources it was "memorization creates a ''pattern'', casting just powers it up and deploys properly". There are items that can repeat any sound indefinitely, including Power Word -- it will be just a sound. So, ''components'' has little to do with the spell complexity. There were even old spells ''without'' V component or even any at all, and in 3+ ed ''all'' components can be eliminated: it has no M, [[http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stillSpell still]]+ [[http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#silentSpell silent]] means only 2 extra spell levels.
**** Which is why I vastly prefer "preparation" to "memorization."

*** Or just sitting and looking at the stars. Though it depends. On the setting and on the elf. At least, AD&D2 elven campaigns recommended to drop the limitation, but use "slow advancement" option.
---> El blinked at the old Coronal. "A warrior?"
---> The white-haired elf sighed. "I did in my time down some orcs--"
---> And a hundred thousand men or so, and a dragon or two," the Srinshee put in. The Coronal waved a dismissive hand.
---> -- ''Elminster in Myth Drannor''

---> El looked about. " 'Yonder worm'?" he asked hesitantly, seeing no beast or trophy of one, but only rooms of treasure.
---> "That passage," the Srinshee told him, "is vaulted with the bones of a deep-worm that rose up from gnawing in the deep places and came tunneling in here, hungry for treasure. They eat metal, you know."
---> El stared at the [[ThatsNoMoon vaulting along the indicated passage. It did look like bone, come to think of it, but...]] He looked back at the sorceress with new respect. "So if I offer you violence, or try to leave this place, you can slay me by lifting one finger."
---> -- ''Elminster in Myth Drannor''

*** Because they are [[BrilliantButLazy lazy]] bastards who just care for [[OrcusOnHisThrone sleeping for centuries on a pile of gold]]!
*** Because they are! See the sorcerer levels.
*** Because the ones that are that powerful require you to be obscenely strong yourself to ever fight, at least in 4e. Hatchlings and Wyrmlings tend to be around level one to five; juvenile to young (a few years to a couple decades) run the 5-11 range; "adult" of various flavors (a century or so or younger) comprise Paragon tier, 11-20. It's not until you approach or reach Epic tier, 21+, that you start fighting "elder" dragons, and may the gods help you, Ancient ones.

*** As of 4E, elves (and eladrin) mature about as quickly as humans do and only start to age more slowly ''then''. With regard to the starting ages of earlier editions...it's purely speculation on my part, but part of it, at least, could be cultural. Elves aren't precisely the quickest-breeding of species in D&D land, after all, so a stance of "No adventuring for you until you've done your duty to your race and spawned and raised at least one offspring!" would only make pragmatic sense.
*** The 3.5 book Races of the Wild explains that elves mature only slightly slower than humans, with humans being considered full adults at 20 and elves at 25. Past that, elves stop physically aging, at least in any way that resembles aging to the other races. It's mentioned that the reason they don't tend to head out adventuring until they're roughly a century old is because elves view mental maturity much differently. It's considered foolish to just run out to slay a dragon when you haven't even taken a decade or so to figure out how a house is built, how to bake bread, how to forge a sword, what berries are safe to eat, and so forth. It's rarely done because spreading skill ranks too thin can mechanically gimp a character, but they're meant to have at least dabbled in a little of quite literally everything before choosing what they would prefer to do, especially if that ends up being something as dangerous as adventuring.

*** They are left open for the DM to create.
*** In previous editions Imix and Ogremoch were classified as Elemental Princes. Yan-C-Bin (air), Olhydra (water), and Cryonax (ice) were the other such Princes, so you could use them.
*** Also, two more, Olhydra and Yan-C-Bin, were introduced in Dungeon Magazine (Issue 199 if you need it)

*** He's a level 31 solo.

*** We must remember that XP is just an abstraction for setting a schedule by which an adventurer grows more powerful. An adventuring wizard spends XP to create a magic item because they are infusing the item with some of their potential power in order to make it magical. So perhaps that cost only applies to ''adventuring'' wizards, and most magic items are created by ''non-adventuring'' wizards who can devote themselves full-time to study, development of their magical powers, and raising the energy they need to imbue the items with magic.
*** There's no reason to assume that XP can only be earned by adventuring. All those Commoners get their levels from somewhere, after all.

*** Maybe, but the simple fact is that by the time a wizard is powerful enough to enchant magic items, he's powerful enough to summon monsters to be meat shields for him, to say nothing of various other ways he can deal with threats other than sacrificing precious experience or precious constitution points to make a meat shield more effective. To be perfectly blunt, if I'm playing a wizard, there is pretty much no circumstance under which I would ever make a magical sword, unless someone else is somehow providing the XP (letting someone else provide the con point wasn't an option in 1st and 2nd).
**** Presumably, there is a way for non-player characters to earn XP without running around raiding dungeons. The average player does not want to sit around [=RPing=] sitting around for a week building up magical energy to make items to sell, but presumably there are people that would make a career out of it given how much those items are worth. It's not so much the logical flaw that it is a stupid thing for anyone to do, just a potentially stupid thing for someone who's main occupation is using magic in life and death situations to do.
**** For example, a longsword costs 15 gp. Presumably, blacksmiths can make a living by selling things like longswords, so the amount of money needed to get by isn't very high. A +1 magic enhancement adds 2000 gp, so presumably, unless the amount of time it would take a non-combat enchanter to make a +1 magic enhancement is ridiculously huge (say 133 times longer then how long a blacksmith takes to make a longsword), then there is definitely a lucrative amount of money to made. It just isn't an interesting aspect of the game to roleplay when the average danger is "almost tripped over a slightly disheveled cobble stone."
**** There is also much to be said about perspective in this situation. Most players (and [=DMs=] for that matter) see the world through the eyes of their characters: a group of adventurers wading off into exploration, battle and graverob... Er, archeological looting. Your average PC, barring a background choice or something, would have little to no idea of how to breed, raise and fully care for horses beyond "Ride it to the next town and put it up in the local stable till we head out again". That doesn't mean that there aren't ''any'' people in the D&D world that know how to raise horse. The same goes for enchanting; while adventurers have to go through hoops to do something themselves, there are probably expert wizards or professional enchanters working on commission who are so good at enchanting they don't HAVE to spend XP, only the materials; they then work to either buff up armies or just present a local lord with some flashy mark of office that, a hundred years and multiple raids later, gets looted from the corpse of a gnoll chieftan by the newest level 3 fighter named Greg. That's why costs to MAKE are so much greater than funds gained when breaking down/selling, they're super specialists.

*** Just because death isn't perminant doesn't necessarily mean it's not painful. Also, it would probably be reasonable to assume that powerful demons like the Balor can totally buttrape the 'soul' or 'essence' of the demons in question, which would presumably be significantly more dangerous than just having a mortal shell destroyed.

* The rules for a Portable Hole and a Bag of Holding bing put together seem counterintuative. If you put the hole in the bag, it turns into a portal to the astral plane, swiftly sucking in everything it can. If you put the bag in the hole, an internal rift is created, destroying both. However, this seems like the opposite of what should happen. Wouldn't it make more sense ofr the "bag-in-the-hole" scenario to create a portal to the Astral Realm? You know, the hole turns into a gateway. Meanwhile, placing the hole in the bag sounds more like what should cause the internal destruction of both: the hole turns into a sucking gate ''within'' the bag, pulling the bag into it from the inside. Aesthetically, the whole thing just seems odd.

* Some Main/FridgeLogic with magic items in 3.5. No wizard would be able to run a business making magic items, because he'd have to keep adventuring to gain back the XP he spent crafting them. Only an actively adventuring wizard would be able to keep crafting, and it would only be practical to make the items he needs for himself and his party. Mechanically this makes sense, because it encourages the players to go on adventures rather than spend their time making magic items for gold. But the fridge logic kicks in when you realize that this means magic items should be ''extremely rare.'' The only ones in existence should be left by retired or dead adventurers. Yet this isn't the case in most campaigns. Adventurers can find or buy whatever magic items they need after a certain level, and most settings have a magic shop in any city above a certain size.

* It seems like the third edition handbooks ''Elder Evils'' (with its story about how Atropus' death brought the deities into being and the implication that the dieties then created the universe), ''Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberations'' (with its story of some kind of world ruled by aboleths existing before the dieties) and ''Epic Level Handbook'' (with its mention of "proto-dieties" existing before the rules of physical form were set in the entry about the hundred-handed monster) all imply slightly different things about how the D&D multiverse came to be and weather the gods came before or after it. I realize the DM can use whatever origin he/she wants and that the third edition has since been replaced by the fourth one, but I'm curious if anyone knows what Wizards of the Coasts' intentions were at the time, or if it's just that different rulebook authors had different intentions and these stories really don't fit together.

* In just about every version of D&D, magic items, especially very powerful ones, can generally only be made by primary spell-casters: wizards, clerics, sorcerers (in 3rd, 3.5, and Pathfinder), druids, etc. Yet all of those classes are generally limited, albeit sometimes by differing game mechanics in different editions, in what weapons and armor they can use. Wizards (and sorcerers) generally cannot use any armor and can use only a handful of weapons like daggers and staves. Druids can use only armors that are made of totally organic materials: leather or padded armor and wooden shields, and are generally limited to weapons that are either entirely wooden, like staves, or have some agricultural function, like sickles, scythes, etc. Clerics can generally use any armor but can only use bludgeoning weapons. In just about every edition, making magic items, especially powerful ones, is difficult and expensive, and imposes costs that frankly ''cannot be monetized'': in 2nd edition, any permanent magic item required expending a point of constitution, while in third edition and after, it required expending experience points. What D&D player would sacrifice a point of con or any more than a trivial amount of XP for any amount of money? So here's my question: where did all these magic swords come from? Because, clearly, AWizardDidNotDoIt!

** [[{{Tropers/PMiller1}} I'd]] to think the Brain on the Central Body and the head are extra lime for it.
* Okay, so the 3.5 Ranger is built to be a damage-dealing type of guy. He uses Combat Styles to take feats in the Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting trees depending on player choice and loses these abilities when wearing anything heavier than light armor. So why, in the name of Obad-hai, do Rangers have a ''proficiency in medium armors''!?

* Okay, so the 3.5 Ranger is built to be a damage-dealing type of guy. He uses Combat Styles to take feats in the Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting trees depending on player choice and loses these abilities when wearing anything heavier than light armor. So why, in the name of Obad-hai, do Rangers have a ''proficiency in medium armors''!?

*** Main/TranslationConvention, whatever word means "seeing through stuff" in D&D Common translates most easily to "X-ray" in English

"There’s no such thing as a monk making an off-hand unarmed attack, because monks are already using pretty much their whole bodies for unarmed combat. For unarmed monks, the flurry of blows ability replaces off-hand unarmed attacks."