Some Thoughts on Multiclassing

If you know anything about D&D history, you know that multiclassing has undergone a lot of radical change since the game’s inception, and nearly everyone has an opinion on the topic. In fact originally, there was no multiclassing!

(See below for a summary of D&D’s history of multiclassing.)


Fulfilling Two Desires

What may not be obvious to everyone, and what often goes unspoken in internet debates, is that multiclassing fulfills two very different desires. The first desire is to play a character outside D&D’s rigid class structure; to mix and match two or more classes into one character from campaign’s start. The second desire is to change a character’s nature and skillset, as inspired by campaign events and relationships.

(Multiclassing can also fulfill a desire to optimize, but this desire isn’t unique to multiclassing, so it’s not relevant to this particular point.)

One of the realities of multiclassing is that different approaches to it may only fulfill one of these two desires. Original and Basic D&D’s approach, for example, does nothing to satisfy the changing-character desire and only satisfies the mix n match desire in the most limited and superficial way. 3e D&D’s approach satisfies the changing-character desire (with a few provisos), but doesn’t satisfy the mix n match desire (unless a campaign starts above 1st level). Meanwhile, 4e D&D’s two approaches each satisfy a different desire. Thus, different editions satisfy different groups of players, with varying degrees of success.


The Nature of D&D

Once again, if you’ve spent much time on internet forums devoted to D&D, you know that multiclassing is a controversial topic, and even fans of each edition can have radically different opinions on that edition’s approach to it. In fact many fans — including yours truly — will say that multiclassing has been a continual disappointment of every single edition. Original and Basic D&D pleases fans who don’t like the idea of multiclassing to begin with; 1e and 2e AD&D arguably make multiclassing a power gamer’s wet dream; 3e’s approach to multiclassing is revolutionary, but similarly incentivizes a lot of system mastery; and 4e multiclassing either feels a bit anemic or lacks this edition’s usual rigor, depending on approach.

I like aspects of certain D&D approaches to multiclassing, but there isn’t a single one of them that I can unequivocally say “Yes, this is the way I want to do multiclassing!” And there’s a reason for that.

At its core D&D is a class-based game, and multiclassing is a structural afterthought. Not that some future edition of D&D couldn’t fundamentally shift away from its class-based structure, or that the game’s developers don’t think much about multiclassing. But D&D began without multiclassing at all, and classes — even in the more open WotC editions — are still structured around the assumption that a character is defined by her class, from level 1 to max. Classes often, especially in pre-WotC editions, have restrictions and features which exist to protect class niches and are entirely dependent on their class-hood. (Allowed weapon & armor lists, allowed magical item lists (particularly in pre-WotC editions), the pre-4e paladin’s evil-detection ability, name-level followers, etc..) Additionally, WotC editions have given each class a hearty competence-boost at 1st level: 2-3 later levels worth of hit points, bonuses, and features. To a large extent, class defines character.

Structurally, multiclassing is an awkward wrinkle in this unspoken assumption, a bone thrown to players not entirely satisfied with D&D’s class structure. No doubt this is one reason why so many gamers move on to other tabletop RPGs after entering the hobby through D&D, and it’s the reason that I’ve never been entirely satisfied with D&D’s multiclassing.

Though I have come to understand why some fans would rather not have multiclassing at all, particularly if there are a myriad of classes to choose from, I do think that the mix n match and the changing-character desires are worth catering to. And while I do understand why some gamers prefer to avoid class structures to begin with, I do like a certain degree of structure that classes can afford. So what’s a gamer like me to do?

…Well, that’s a discussion for another post. 😉


D&D’s History of Multiclassing

Original and Basic (B/X, BECMI, Classic) D&D: There is no multiclassing, and in fact each demihuman race was originally its own class. While the elf class is similar to a fighter/magic-user hybrid, and some supplements add more hybrid-ish classes like the dwarf-cleric (fighter/cleric), there is no way to directly mix and match classes.

Advanced (1e & 2e) D&D: There are two multiclassing subsystems, one called multiclassing and one called dual-classing. Multiclassing is restricted to demihuman races, and is a character creation choice. A multiclassed demihuman starts as two or three classes — each race has a list of predefined class combos which can be chosen from — and XP is then split between each class.

Dual-classing is restricted to humans, and happens after 1st level. A human who meets the high ability score requirements can begin advancing in a new class, though there are a couple of noteworthy restrictions: The character is penalized for using spells and abilities from his old class, until his new class’ level equals his old class’ level. And he can never again advance in her old class.

3e D&D: Multiclassing is an a la carte subsystem, where each level of each class is treated as a building block which is used to create and advance a character. Hypothetically, these levels can be combined in any number and order, but a favored-class sub-subsystem penalizes multiclass characters who don’t build around it.

Pathfinder uses a favored-class sub-subsystem which rewards single-classed characters with various extra benefits, rather than penalizing carelessly multiclassed characters.

Fantasy Craft designates certain 1st-level features and abilities as 1st-level 1st-class only, rather than using any favored-class sub-subsystem.

4e D&D: Multiclass feats are the original means of multiclassing. Each class has an associated multiclass feat which grants a skill and a class feature. Each character is restricted to one of these feats, but separate power-swap feats allow multiclassed characters to gain powers from their new class.

The 4e PHB added another multiclass option, called hybriding, which combines two classes into one character at level 1.

13th Age uses a multiclassing subsystem much like 4e hybriding.

Points of Light has both multiclass feats and a hybrid-like subsystem. Its multiclass feats grant fewer benefits and more options than their 4e equivalents, while PoL’s dual-classing subsystem is more even than 4e’s hybriding subsystem.

5e D&D: This edition takes a page from 3e, Fantasy Craft, and from 2e. Each level is a building block, but there are ability requirements to multiclass, and certain class features are 1st-level only.


Leave a comment

Posted by on 09/07/2017 in Uncategorized


Evergreen Arguments: Meat Points v. Duck Points

Argument 1: Hit points are not meat points. Definitely not meat points. Until your last hit point is lost, every hit you take is a last-ditch dodge, your luck running out, or some other explanation that makes sense in the moment. So hit points are definitely duck points.

  • Except that you lose hit points when you get hit and take damage.
  • And your primary means of regaining hit points is probably some sort of healing spell.
  • And if you get stabbed by a sword of wounding, you start bleeding while still having hit points.
  • And if you get hit by a poisoned dart, you’re poisoned despite your many remaining hit points.
  • And after a few levels, you can reliably survive falling from lethally high heights with hit points to spare.
  • And a rogue can skewer your organs with a well-placed near-miss.
  • And if a dragon or wizard gets angry with you, you’ll end up burned despite a few remaining hit points.
  • And various monsters can grab, swallow, and pin-cushion you with damage-dealing near-misses.
  • Oh, and bigger monsters almost invariably have more hit points than smaller ones.

But no, contrary to any strange ideas you may have, hit points are definitely not meat points.

Argument 2: Hit points are not duck points. Definitely not duck points. Every time you lose hit points, physical damage is being done. So hit points are definitely meat points.

  • Except that every PHB describes hit points as dodging, luck, stamina, parrying, divine favor, and anything else that makes sense for the character.
  • And unless you’re lucky enough to be playing 4e, you’re just standing in combat like a Rock’em Sock’em robot, hammering on some monster while it does the same to you.
  • And you don’t bleed or suffer any other impairment until you drop unconscious or drop dead, despite losing feast-sized chunks of your body.
  • And with every good night’s rest, you regain a shocking portion of your damaged meat.
  • And if an ally gives a inspiring shout, strums an inspiring tune, or casts an inspiring spell, you may either regain lost meat or gain temporary meat.
  • Oh, and you gain more and more meat with experience.

But no, contrary to any strange ideas you may have, hit points are definitely not duck points.

Argument 3: Hit points are hit points. They represent hit points, they simulate hit points, and they model hit points.

Leave a comment

Posted by on 14/09/2016 in Uncategorized


DMing 4e D&D

4e D&D is a game of big damn heroes battling big damn villains. Like any other edition, 4e can be used in many ways. It supports political intrigue and exploration as well as any other, and arguably better; it can simulate a fantastical reality with a bit of refluffing; it can be used for dungeon delving with a few considerations; it can support sandbox adventures, with the right tweaks. And so on. But where 4e D&D really shines is dramatic action-adventure, like that seen in The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and other adventure films and books.

If you’re accustomed to other D&D editions, 4e’s philosophy and rules may seem strange and uncomfortable. Whereas other editions are written with strategic wargame-like gameplay first and foremost in mind, with combat being something to avoid whenever possible in early editions, 4e is very strategically written with the philosophy that combat ought to be fun in and of itself. So while you can use 1d6-goblins random encounter tables and 10-by-10 rooms with 2 orcs in 4e, this edition is much more fun when you think big. Big environments, big challenges, big fantasy, big drama, and big action!

To put 4e and its game style in context, it may help to read a fellow gamer’s thoughts on D&D’s different flavors, which I’ve copy-pasted to the end of this post.

Rules-wise, there are a few common DM advisories to be aware of:

1. 4e monsters can be pretty grindy in the first two books, so the MM3, the two Monster Vaults, and the Dark Sun Creature Catalogue are all highly recommended. If you do use the MM1 and/or the MM2, it is advised that you MM3-ize the monster math. MM3 on a business card is very handy, and if you get into writing your own monsters my Marvelous Monsters is even better.

2. WotC was very Johnny-on-the-spot with errata during the 4e era, so there is a great big errata pdf covering all the 4e books. Most of it is just minor clarifications and tweaks to powers and traits, so most of it isn’t really necessary. The only highly-recommended errata is that for the Stealth rules and that for Skill Challenges.

3. Speaking of skill challenges, some fans like ’em and others don’t. Pretty much everyone agrees that WotC never really got the presentation/explanation right, but some fans have gotten SCs to really shine. One of ENworld’s regulars wrote the Obsidian Skill Challenge pdf to help other 4e DMs use SCs.

4. There are three so-called feat taxes in 4e, which much digital ink has been spilled over and which nobody to this day is quite sure what the heck WotC was thinking when they were written. There are many minor variations of fixes for these feats; the most common of which is to ban any feat with ‘Improved Defenses,’ ‘Weapon Expertise,’ or ‘Implement Expertise’ in the title, and simply give every PC a +1 to all attacks and defenses at 5th, 15th, and 25th levels.

5. Classic 4e books and 4e ‘Essentials’ books can all be used together. Some fans love the E-classes, some hate ’em. What everyone agrees is that the E-classes are WotC’s attempt to make 4e retro, and are in no way essential. In fact, the ‘essentials’ books totally lack rituals, arguably one of 4e’s greatest contributions to D&D.

6. Oh and for the love of all that is good and geeky, do not run Keep on the Shadowfell! It was WotC’s first 4e adventure, and is generally considered one of the worst in D&D history. It’s grindy and doesn’t play to 4e’s strengths.

7. Like characters in every other edition, 4e PCs become more and more reliant upon their magical items as the game progresses. The difference is that 4e explicitly points this out in the PHB, and then provides the Inherent Bonuses variant to DMs who don’t want their PCs to depend on their magical bling. (The variant can be found in the DMG2 and the Dark Sun CS.)

I think that’s about it. Enjoy!

Lastly, and as promised, Armchair Gamer’s thoughts on D&D’s different flavors:

Flavors of D&D (Part II)

Knaves & Kobolds

Tropes: Treasure is the primary focus and reward. Life is cheap, and fighting’s usually for suckers; a fair fight, doubly so. Exploration is central, with a focus on logistics and resources. Interaction is also important and focused primarily on allies (PC and NPCs) and encounters within the dungeon. Party unity is less of a thing than in other styles, and the endgame of acquiring a stronghold and political power is more emphasized. Worldbuilding can be done, but is less important than the in-play experience—there’s a strong streak of parody and satire, at least in the original forms of this style.
System Thoughts: OD&D appears to have been built around/built up this style, and Holmes Basic, B/X and BECMI are close enough to apparently do it well. AD&D contains enough roots of it to be a reasonably good fit for it. 3E and 4E lose the endgame and strongly de-emphasize the ‘avoid combat’ and ‘collect treasure’ elements of this style, and have numerous other issues with it.

Gamma Rays & Godslayers

(aka Galactic Dragons & Godwars)
Tropes: This style revolves heavily around ‘muchness’—use all that cool stuff put out by TSR/WotC, other companies, and even other media sources. (“Gamma Rays” in the new title highlights the overlap with sci-fi, comic books, and the beloved GAMMA WORLD game.  ) Thus, PCs will tend to have vast resources and confront major threats. The combat and magic systems will therefore need to account for broad varieties of power and effects; exploration will likewise be broader in scope. Realism generally takes a backseat to ‘rule of cool’ or flights of pure imagination. This strikes me as one of the two flavors that’s most likely to emerge as the evolution of a campaign instead of being present at the start—but it also seems to be one of the two that’s most likely to take us outside the realms of D&D system-wise.
System Thoughts: OD&D is loose enough to handle it; B/X probably caps too early, but BECMI can really engage it once things get high-enough level, especially if one adds in all 36 Immortal levels. AD&D has the vast arrays of magic, monsters and gods to help this style, as does 3E, although the latter requires some work to keep the non-casters competitive. 4E fits elements of this style into Epic, but in a more contained way, and Epic support is one of the things that edition lost out on.

Dungeoncrawling & Demons

Tropes: This is the ‘stereotypical’ D&D style (although the original apparently hews more closely to K&K). Combat becomes more central, but can be anything from quick and dirty to elaborate tactical setpieces. (Given the tendency to fit a lot of encounters into a ‘crawl’, though, faster and simpler combat systems appear to be preferred.) Exploration remains a key element, but shifts away from logistical challenges to engaging with traps, hazards and the like. Interaction tends to take place outside the dungeon more than inside it. This is a style I really don’t have much of a feel for, so I welcome revision and expansion.
System Thoughts: AD&D and its adventures (especially the tourneys) and style really define this flavor, it seems. WotC is bound and determined that this flavor is D&D, but the systems designed under their aegis fit better with other styles.

Castles & Cronies

(thanks to Daztur for pointing out this one)
Tropes: I’m going to go with a selection from Daztur’s original post here:

It grows out from the fact that a lot of TSR-D&D modules were crazy generous with loot and if adopt that as standard for your own adventures and play in a way in which player death is very rare then the players will eventually accumulate big gobs of cash and magic items. Just like the accumulate lots of magic items the players get more and more allies (often more like a cross between DM PCs and spare PCs than Old Geezer’s henchmen and hirelings, the henchmen rules usually aren’t used here) almost always including intelligent flying mounts. This play style is often reinforce with how saves work in TSR-D&D (it’s very hard to kill high level characters with instant death attacks).

When you have that much treasure and that many allies a lot of play becomes the Sims: Fantasy Billionaire Edition. The players build or take over a base and make out complicated floor with descriptions of what’s where and suites for different PCs and important allies with notations about where things like who gets to hang the tapestry made out of goddess hair in their bedroom and where the solid gold throne of the dwarven kings gets put in relation to the dinner table. Also with no real magic item economy the players track which ally gets their cast off magic items and whatnot. A lot of play involve wrangling the PCs’ allies and helping them in various ways.

Despite having a big damn castle there’s no real domain management or political intrigue, even if some of the PCs are rulers, aside from “the kingdom is in danger, let’s go save it!” These games tend to be long running with low player turnover so they can end up creating a lot of interesting settling detail over the years.

System Thoughts: As Daztur points out, this seems to fit into the later era of TSR D&D, when PCs are more resilient. It’s sort of the grounded cousin to G&G, and like that style, is usually an evolution of an earlier campaign (although Birthright for 2E starts out in this style or a close cousin to it). Domain management rules and the like are helpful, but apparently not essential. 3E and 4E handicap it by making the party more self-reliant and the economy more magic-item centric.

Paladins & Princesses

Tropes: PCs are generally virtuous and altruistic heroes; even those with a mercenary streak tend to be more like Han Solo than Boba Fett or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Combat tends to be dramatic but low on PC lethality. Exploration is about heroic quests, the thrill of discovery and interaction than logistics and resources. Interaction is a central element of this style, and tends to the melodramatic. Worldbuilding is also key, but focused on story and dramatics rather than ‘realism’ or the elaboration of premises.
System Thoughts: 2E wanted to be this flavor, but was running on a DC&D engine. I’d like to say BECMI can do it if you tweak a few things, but that might be a mix of presentation and wishful thinking. 4E fits it very nicely, with quest rewards and the like, so long as you can deal with some of the darker-edged PC options in the core.

Simulation & Spellcasting

Tropes: This is the style that follows the perceived AD&D tradition of codifying everything. Rules don’t necessarily have to be minutely detailed, but they do need to be comprehensive and capable of handling the interactions and implications of setting elements. There’s a strong push towards “real-world physics + magic” in this style, and magic itself tends to be very rational, reliable, and almost scientific. Worldbuilding is heavy here, but in a ‘hard fantasy’ mode as opposed to a dramatic one.
System Thoughts: You can find the roots of this style in AD&D, with monster ecologies, planar physics and elaborate details on how spells work in various situations. 3E took this element and ran with it once it got out to the players.

Misfits & Mayhem

(aka Warlocks & Warlords. Thanks to neonchameleon for the title, and to a bunch of posters for helping refine this one)
Tropes: The scruffier and somewhat more cynical cousin of P&P, with PCs who are generally well-meaning but often don’t fit into ‘typical’ fantasy molds, either as social outcasts, non-traditional races or classes, or other molds. They don’t have to be outcasts within their own societies—4E really ran with the ‘fantastic world’ at points—but they certainly don’t feel like they belong in the humanocentric milieu of earlier D&D. Adventures tend to be somewhere between P&P and DC&D, with the emphasis on action and multiple elements, often shifting mid-encounter to create a feeling of complication and ‘how do we get out of this?’
System Thoughts: All versions of D&D that run long enough have evolved towards elements of this style, if you have the right supplements. 1E could do it with enough issues of DRAGON; BECMI with the Creature Crucible books; 2E with the right setting supplements (Planescape and Dark Sun especially) and Complete Handbooks, and 3E with Savage Species. 4E baked it more into the core than any other edition.

Original (part I) post here.


Posted by on 12/09/2016 in Uncategorized


It’s About Consistency

Okay, stream-of-consciousness, folks. This is something that’s been percolating for a while, and I want to get it down and share.

Most of us seem to care a lot about which play styles D&D is geared for, the various -isms that come from GNS and other game theories, how many and how big we want D&D’s mechanical widgets to be, where we want D&D to draw inspiration from, how much and what kind of game balance we want, and so on. And I care about those things too!

But I also care about consistency. Which, as I’ve come to realize, is a big part of my love-hate attitude toward D&D.

D&D’s inconsistency hasn’t always been a problem for me. Back during my teenage years, it didn’t bother me that 2e has a different irregular table for each of its six abilities, or that alignment is defined subjectively in one place and objectively in others, or that mages can do virtually anything — up to and including achieving godhood in one case — but can’t master the humble Cure Light Wounds spell, or that there are so many disparate dice-mechanics scattered throughout the rules.

But then WotC and the d20 standardization came along, I discovered internet forums, and I left home for college. I started to notice, even after the d20 standardization, all the little inconsistencies — both thematic and mechanical.

Take the spell discussion that sparked this post, for example. It seems that prior to and after 4e, D&D is torn between two ideals: One, where every caster class has a specific role/niche, and each spell is a special trick that a single class can access (Raise Dead, Reincarnate). And two, where casters may be able to fill multiple roles/niches depending on spell access, and each spell is a universal trick that different classes access differently (detect magic, protection from evil, endure elements). But neither ideal is attained; D&D sort of has roles/niches, and has kinda-thematic classes.

Anyhow. Yes, consistency can make the game more playable and internally…well, consistent. But even on a purely gut level, I just want things to be consistent. Even minor inconsistencies that don’t really affect much irritate my sensibilities. Take 3e creature sizes, for example. They’ve got all kinds of inconsistencies that don’t affect all that much, but nevertheless get under my skin.

I guess it was inevitable that D&D developed so many inconsistencies over the years; it doesn’t have a single author, or even a small team of authors. Hundreds (thousands?) of game writers working over decades of time can’t help but result in some chaos.

I think that’s a big part of 4e’s appeal to me; letting go of a lot of D&D’s classical quirks also means gaining a lot of consistency. There are still inconsistencies in 4e — sword mages and Remove Disease, anyone? — but they don’t verily leap out at me in droves. Defenses rather than saves, special spells/powers for every class and clear roles/niches, and so on. 4e is pretty damned close to the consistency I want out of D&D.

Oddly though, my desire for consistency doesn’t demand 4e-style consistency. I’m currently writing a heartbreaker based mostly on 3e!

Because I can’t go back. I guess I’m still in love with D&D, because I haven’t gone searching for other games, but I can’t unsee its inconsistencies. Yeah, I can have fun playing just about anything with the right group…but rules matter too, and consistency matters to me. I suppose it’s just something that I have to live with.

If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading! Do you feel the same about consistency, in gaming and other aspects of life? Do you feel the opposite way about consistency? Do you know of a fantasy ttrpg that might fulfill my taste?

Leave a comment

Posted by on 26/06/2016 in Uncategorized


Hearthstone 101: Building and Playing Your Deck

Hello, fellow traveler! I’m GreatWyrm on BattleNet (#1807), and I’ve been playing HS since season 4 (July 2014). This is my follow-up blog to HearthStone 101: Tips for Beginners. Here I’m going to get into the basic strategy and tactics you need to know to get a head start in this great game:

Tactical Resources

Before we get into deck-building, it’s helpful to explain a game fundamental: At its root, HS is a game of resource-management. You begin each match with 30 life, a hand of 3-5 cards, and 1 cumulative mana per turn. If you can use these resources better than your opponent uses his, you win the match!

Life: Most beginners instinctively avoid life-loss at all costs, but this is a faulty instinct. Your life total is a resource that you can use to win…so long as it doesn’t reach 0, of course. The obvious example of this is Lifetap, which allows a warlock to spend his life to gain a benefit. (And Lifetap is in the running for best hero power!) Because life-loss has no consequence until a hero reaches 0, many deck strategies include spending it in order to win.

Cards: You begin each match with 3-5 cards, and gain 1 more per turn. Card (dis)advantage is how many cards you have in your hand compared to your opponent. If you have more, you have the advantage; if you have fewer, you have the disadvantage. Certain cards, like Arcane Intellect, increase your card advantage. (One card spent to gain two = +1 cards.) Other cards, like Novice Engineer, are said to be ‘card neutral.’ (One card spent, one card gained.)

Tempo: Each turn, you gain 1 mana, plus the mana you had last turn. Tempo is how efficiently you use that mana compared to your opponent. For example, say your opponent has just used his first turn to play a Murloc Raider. On your first turn, you then kill the Raider with an Elven Archer. You’ve foiled everything that your opponent did on his turn, and put your own minion into play; you’ve gained tempo!

Deck-Building: Have a Strategy!

Before you start throwing cards into your deck, you should have a strategy in mind. The five basic deck strategies are:

Aggro: This strategy is very straightforward, minion-centric, and luck-dependent. An aggro deck seeks to win via elimination of the life resource; it floods the early board with small minions, and uses them to bring the opponent’s life to 0 before he can effectively react. The aggro strategy is popular among beginners because luck favors the underdog, aggro decks are cheap to make, easy to play, and quick to win or lose.

Midrange: As the name implies, this strategy is the midpoint between aggro and the following strategy (control). Against aggro, midrange plays like control; against control, midrange plays like aggro. This tactical variety makes the midrange strategy the favorite of many players.

Control: This is the slowest, the least minion-centric, and the most tactical strategy. A control deck seeks to win via the card resource; it eliminates early- and mid-game threats with tactical use of spells and minions, slowly building card advantage. When the opponent has played out his hand, the control deck then uses a big minion or two to win the match. Control is my own personal favorite strategy.

Tempo: A tempo deck seeks to win via tempo, by using card synergy to use its mana more efficiently than the opponent. For example, a tempo deck might play a Cogmaster on turn 1 (T1), followed by a Mechwarper and a Clockwork Gnome on T2, resulting in 3 damage and 3 minions by T2! Tempo decks win by creating a ‘snowball effect,’ where card synergy creates a quickly mounting threat which keeps the opponent on the defensive until his life hits 0. However, because card synergies are somewhat luck-dependent and can be interrupted, this strategy requires good deck-building skill and can be inconsistent in play.

Combo: Not to be confused with the rogue’s unique card mechanic, which is actually an example of card synergy, the combo strategy uses combinations of specific cards to spectacular effect. For example, a druid might play Force of Nature followed by Savage Roar, winning the game in one dramatic turn by dealing 14+ damage all at once! This strategy is even more skill- and luck-dependent than the tempo strategy: Building a good combo deck is difficult, and in play it tends to either win hard or lose hard.

Deck-Building: Pick the Right Cards!

When deck-building, it helps to keep a few things in mind:

Stats: When picking minions, pay attention to its attack and health (its stats). The best value minions give you more than twice their mana cost in stats: The Acidic Swamp Ooze gives you 5 stats for 2 mana, the Chillwind Yeti gives you 9 stats for 4 mana, the Boulderfist Ogre gives you 13 stats for 6 mana, and so on. If a minion gives you fewer stats than this, it should have text to make up for its lower stats.

Balance Attack and Health: Many beginners are tempted to think that attack is more valuable than health, but this is not necessarily so. Some players favor slightly high health or slightly high attack, but a balance of attack and health is usually best. For example, the Chillwind Yeti is preferable to the Oasis Snapjaw because the latter can kill hardly anything, while the War Golem is preferable to the Core Hound because the latter is so easy to kill. Keep in mind, stats are relative to a card’s cost; a 2 attack would be perfectly acceptable for a 1- or 2-drop, and a 5 health would be completely adequate for a 4- or 5-drop. But not so for a 4- and a 7-drop, respectively!

Don’t Let Them Have Nice Things: As a beginner, you don’t have nice things, so don’t let your opponent have nice things either! Many beginners are tempted to simply fill their decks with their best minions, and then try to duke it out in play. While I’m sure there’s a deck out there that can win this way, HS is designed with the following concepts in mind, and learning them will help you win:

  • Removal: Cards, usually spells, which allow you to kill enemy minions are known as ‘removals.’ Virtually every deck benefits from removal; aggro decks use just a couple of removals to eliminate enemy taunts, while control decks use many removals to efficiently remove enemy minions. Fireball is the classic example of a removal card, while minions such as the Elven Archer include removal effects.
  • Hard Removal: While ‘removal’ refers to effects that merely deal damage, ‘hard removal’ refers to effects which kill or incapacitate minions regardless of their stats. Hard removals are especially important to control decks, whose big minions often can’t be easily eliminated any other way, and vice versa. Assassinate is the classic example of a hard removal card, while spells like Polymorph also qualify, and minions like the Big Game Hunter include hard removal effects.
  • Silencers: Though not as powerful as removals, cards which silence enemy minions can be very handy. You can turn a Piloted Shredder into a plain 4/3, Cairne Bloodhoof into a Yeti, Gruul into a War Golem, and so on. Silence effects waste your opponent’s mana, make his minions more manageable, and puts your own minion on the board. (Assuming you’re using Ironbeak Owls or Spellbreakers.) In other words, silencers gain you tempo much like removals do!

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

Posted by on 20/09/2015 in Uncategorized


HearthStone 101: Tips for Beginners

Hello, fellow traveler! I’m GreatWyrm on BattleNet (#1807), and I’ve been playing HS since season 4 (July 2014). I love this game, but it can be trying for beginners, so I’m writing this blog to answer some commonly asked questions. If you’re looking for skill-building tips, check out Hearthstone 101: How to Build and Play Your Deck. Otherwise, read on:

Is HS really Free-to-Play, or is it actually Pay-to-Win? Yes and no, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit. There are three factors to winning and losing in HS: Luck, skill, and card quality. The more factors you can influence, the more you’ll win.

So while spending money gets you better cards faster — and Blizzard is obviously hoping that you will spend money on HS — doing so won’t make or break your win rate. I myself don’t spent a dime on HS other than to buy adventures, and I win often enough to do my daily quests, win tavern brawls, buy a pack every few days, and have fun in the process. I can do this because a skilled player can win with nothing but basic cards, and an unskilled player can lose even with every card in the game.

Now if you’re the hyper-competetive sort, and you need to hit legendary rank within a month of beginning to have fun, then yeah, you’re going to have to dump money into HS. But otherwise, you can absolutely play and win without paying a dime!

Which class is best for beginners? It’s no accident that Jaina is the first tutorial hero; Fireblast is a simple and effective hero power, the basic mage cards are the best basics in the game, and these two facts make it easy to make many styles of mage decks. If you like ‘aggro’ decks, Rexxar and Gul’dan make good beginner choices, and if you like ‘control’ decks, Anduin is a reasonable choice. All classes have fun and effective cards, but sadly many of them are non-basic and thus require time and/or money to play effectively.

What’s the best way to win, or ‘grind’ for gold? Blizzard has given us many fun ways to earn gold, but before I continue let me say this: As soon as earning gold begins to feel like a grind, something’s wrong. When this happens, either change your attitude, your strategy, or take a break from HS. Games are supposed to be fun, and if you’re not having fun, something’s wrong! With that said, here are a few pointers:

  • Complete all of the unique quests that you can; they’re there to give beginners a much-needed boost!
  • Win a tavern brawl every week. This is the only game mode which guarantees you one (and only one) pack for winning a match! Tavern brawls begin on Wednesday, and end on the following Monday.
  • Sign on to check your quests every day, even if you don’t actually play. If your quest requires winning with a hero you don’t have a good deck for, swap it out. If you’re lucky, you’ll get one that doesn’t require winning at all!
  • Win 30 times every day, in casual, ranked, or brawl mode. You’ll gain 10 gold for every 3 wins, to a maximum of 100 gold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Posted by on 20/09/2015 in Uncategorized


Alignments: D&D 3.5th Edition

Player’s Handbook, page 103

In the temple of Pelor is an ancient tome. When the temple recruits adventurers for its most sensitive and important quests, each one who wants to participate must kiss the book. Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power, and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned. Only those who are good can kiss the tome without harm and are trusted with the temple’s most important work. Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos.

Devils in human guise stalk the land, tempting people toward evil. Holy clerics use the power of good to protect worshipers. Devotees of evil gods bring ruin on innocents to win the favor of their deities, while trusting that rewards await them in the afterlife. Crusading paladins fearlessly confront evildoers, knowing that this short life is nothing worth clinging to. Warlords turn to whichever supernatural power will help them conquer, and proxies for good and evil gods promise rewards in return for the warlords’ oaths of obedience.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.

Choose an alignment for your character, using his or her race and class as a guide. Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that your character’s alignment has changed to match her actions.

Typical Alignments

Creatures and members of classes shown in italic type on Table 6–1 are always of the indicated alignment. Except for paladins, they are born into that alignment. It is inherent, part of their nature. Usually, a creature with an inherent alignment has some connection (through ancestry, history, or magic) to the Outer Planes or is a magical beast.

For other creatures, races, and classes, the indicated alignment on Table 6–1 is the typical or most common one. Normal sentient creatures can be of any alignment. They may have inherent tendencies toward a particular alignment, but individuals can vary from this norm. Depending on the type of creature, these tendencies may be stronger or weaker. For example, kobolds and beholders are usually lawful evil, but kobolds display more variation in alignment than beholders because their inborn alignment tendency isn’t as strong. Also, sentient creatures have cultural tendencies that usually reinforce alignment tendencies. For example, orcs tend to be chaotic evil, and their culture tends to produce chaotic evil members. A human raised among orcs is more likely than normal to be chaotic evil, while an orc raised among humans is less likely to be so.

Table 6–1: Creature, Race, and Class Alignments

Lawful Good: Archons, Gold Dragons, Lammasus, Dwarves, Paladins.

Neutral Good: Guardinals, Gnomes, Centaurs, Giant Eagles, Pseudodragons.

Chaotic Good: Eladrins, Copper Dragons, Unicorns, Elves, Rangers.

Lawful Neutral: Monks, Wizards, Formians, Azers.

Neutral: Animals, Halflings, Humans, Lizardfolk, Druids.

Chaotic Neutral: Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Bards, Rogues.

Lawful Evil: Devils, Blue Dragons, Beholders, Ogre Mages, Hobgoblins, Kobolds.

Neutral Evil: Drow, Goblins, Allips, Ettercaps, Devourers.

Chaotic Evil: Demons, Red Dragons, Vampires, Troglodytes, Gnolls, Ogres, Orcs.

Good vs. Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, as with the paladin who attempts to live up to her ideals or the evil cleric who causes pain and terror to emulate his god. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Law vs. Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful-chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

The Nine Alignments

Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful–chaotic axis with the good–evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, “Benefactor”: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is neutral good.

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron’s tax collectors, is chaotic good.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral characters acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil — after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, “Fee Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Gimble, a bard who wanders the land living by his wits, is chaotic neutral.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds.

Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is lawful evil.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 134

Changing Alignment

A character can have a change of heart that leads to the adoption of a different alignment. Alignments aren’t commitments, except in specific cases (such as for paladins and clerics). Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment. Here are two examples of how a change of alignment can be handled.

  • A player creates a new character, a rogue named Garrett. The player decides he wants Garrett to be neutral good and writes that on Garrett’s character sheet. By the second playing session of Garrett’s career, however, it’s clear that the player isn’t playing Garrett as a good-aligned character at all. Garrett likes to steal minor valuables from others (although not his friends) and does not care about helping people or stopping evil. Garrett is a neutral character, and the player made a mistake when declaring Garrett’s alignment because he hadn’t yet really decided how he wanted to play him. The DM tells the player to erase “good” on Garrett’s character sheet, making his alignment simply “neutral.” No big deal.
  • An NPC traveling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil their plans. He has been evil all his life, and he has lived among others who acted as he did. As he fights alongside the good-aligned PC adventurers, however, he sees how they work together and help each other. He begins to envy them their camaraderie. Finally, he watches as the paladin PC gives his life to save not only his friends, but an entire town that was poised on the brink of destruction at the hands of an evil sorcerer. Everyone is deeply moved, including the evil NPC, and the town celebrates and honors the paladin’s self-sacrifice. The townfolk hail the adventurers as heroes. The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but he is well on his way to becoming chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs. If the PCs had not acted so gallantly, he might not have changed his ways. If they turn on the NPC when they learn of his past, he may turn back to evil.
  • Most characters incur no game penalty for changing alignment, but you should keep a few points in mind.

    You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.” Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.

    Alignment Changes Is Gradual: Changes in alignment should not be drastic. usually, a character changes alignment only one step at a time–from lawful evil to lawful neutral, for example, and not directly to neutral good. A character on her way to adopting another alignment might have other alignments during the transition to the final alignment.

    Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time. Changes of heart are rarely sudden (although they can be). What you want to avoid is a player changing her character’s alignment to evil to use an evil artifact properly and then changing it right back when she’s done. Alignments aren’t garments you can take off and put on casually. Require an interval of at least a week of game time between alignment changes.

    Indecisiveness Indicates Neutrality: Wishy-washy characters should just be neutral. If a character changes alignment over and over again during a campaign, what’s really happened is that the character hasn’t made a choice, and thus she is neutral.

    Exceptions: There are exceptions to all of the above. For instance, it’s possible (although unlikely) that the most horrible neutral evil villain has a sudden and dramatic change of heart and immediately becomes neutral good.

    Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 138

    Alignment of Power Centers

    The alignment of the ruler or rulers of a community need not conform to the alignment of all or even the majority of the residents, although this is usually the case. In any case, the alignment of the power center strongly shapes the residents’ daily lives. Due to their generally organized and organizing nature, most power centers are lawful.

    To randomly determine the alignment of a power center, roll d% and refer to the table below. How a power center of a given alignment acts, or how it is perceived by the community, is discussed following the table.

    Power Center Alignment

    d% Alignment

    01-35 Lawful Good

    36-39 Neutral Good

    40-41 Chaotic Good

    42-61 Lawful Neutral

    62-63 True Neutral

    64 Chaotic Neutral

    65-90 Lawful Evil

    91-98 Neutral Evil

    99-100 Chaotic Evil

    Lawful Good: A community with a lawful good power center usually has a codified set of laws, and most people willingly obey those laws.

    Neutral Good: A neutral good power center rarely influences the residents of the community other than to help them when they are in need.

    Chaotic Good: This sort of power center influences the community by helping the needy and opposing restrictions on freedom.

    Lawful Neutral: A community with a lawful neutral power center has a codified set of laws that are followed to the letter. Those in power usually insist that visitors (as well as residents) obey all local rules and regulations.

    True Neutral: This sort of power center rarely influences the community. Those in power prefer to pursue their private goals.

    Chaotic Neutral: This sort of power center is unpredictable, influencing the community in different way at different times.

    Lawful Evil: A community with a lawful evil power center usually has a codified set of laws, which most people obey out of fear of harsh punishment.

    Neutral Evil: The residents of a community with a neutral evil power center are usually oppressed and subjugated, facing a dire future.

    Chaotic Evil: The residents of a community with a chaotic evil power center live in abject fear because of the unpredictable and horrific situations continually placed upon them.

    Conflicting Power Centers

    If a community has more than one power center, and two or more of the power centers have opposing alignments (either good vs. evil or law vs. chaos), they conflict in some way. Such conflict is not always open, and sometimes the conflicting power centers grudgingly get along.

    For example, a small city contains a powerful chaotic good wizards’ guild but is ruled by a lawful good aristocrat. The wizards are sometimes exasperated by the strict laws imposed by the aristocrat ruler and occasionally break or circumvent them when it serves their (well-intentioned) purposes. Most of the time, though, a representative from the guild takes their concerns and disagreements to the aristocrat, who attempts to equitably resolve any problems.

    Another example: A large city contains a powerful lawful evil fighter, a lawful good temple, and a chaotic evil aristocrat. The selfish aristocrat is concerned only with his own gain and his debauched desires. The fighter gathers a small legion of warriors, hoping to oust the aristocrat and take control of the city herself. Meanwhile, the clerics of the powerful temple help the citizenry as well as they can, never directly confronting the aristocrat but aiding and abetting those who suffer at his hands.

    Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 269

    Intelligent Item Alignment

    Any item with intelligence has an alignment. Note that intelligent weapons already have alignments, either stated or by implication. (A weapon made to kill chaotic outsiders would hardly be chaotic itself; it would be lawful.) If you’re generating a random intelligent weapon, that weapon’s alignment must fit with any alignment-oriented special abilities it has (such as the holy special ability).

    Any character whose alignment does not correspond to that of the item (except as noted by the asterisks on the table) gains one negative level is he or she so much as picks up the item. Although this negative level never results in actual level loss, it remains as long as the item is in hand and cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells). This negative level is cumulative with any other penalties the item might already place on inappropriate wielders. Items with Ego scores (see below) of 20 to 29 bestow two negative levels. Items with Ego scores of 30 or higher bestow three negative levels.

    Intelligent Item Alignment

    d% Alignment of Item

    01-05 Chaotic Good

    06-15 Chaotic Neutral*

    16-20 Chaotic Evil

    21-25 Neutral Evil*

    26-30 Lawful Evil

    31-55 Lawful Good

    56-60 Lawful Neutral*

    61-80 Neutral Good*

    81-100 Neutral

    *The item can also be used by any character whose alignment corresponds to the nonneutral portion of the item’s alignment (in other words, chaotic, evil, good, or lawful). Thus, any chaotic character (CG, CN, CE) can use an item with chaotic neutral alignment.

    Leave a comment

    Posted by on 23/08/2015 in Uncategorized