#[ what do you mean i have to write instead of power levelling my crafters ?!?!? ]

[hellsbovnd-archive]

what do you mean in order to be a novelist and make money off my writing i have to pay attention to my original ocs and not waste my days conceptualizing weirdly specific and probably contrived aus in which all of my ffxiv ocs meet

[dlamp-dictator]

Allen Rambles about Code of Brawl

Man... remind me to never talk about having a future Rambling in the works, it’ll instantly fall into draft-hell. But anyway, I’ve been meaning to talk about Arknights in depth for a while now, but I’ve never had much drive to actually finish the damn draft of my initial thoughts a few months ago. I couldn’t tell you why, I just lost the drive to finish the thing. However, with Code of Brawl coming to a close and my thoughts on the event still lingering I think I can use it as jumping off point to actually talk about the game. 

That said, here’s the synopsis.

Arknights is a Tower Defense game for the PC mobile devices placed in the world of Terra, where an infectious disease known as Oripathy ravages the land, slowly turning people to minerals in a slow and painful process. You play as the Doctor, an amnesiac military commander of the Rhodes Island pharmaceutical company who fights against the Infected radicals known as the Reunion. 

That’s about as far as I can go in a single paragraph for main story, but Code of Brawl instead focuses on the eccentric adventures of Pengiun Logistics, side faction of the game that’s a seemingly innocent delivery company with quite the ragtag group in it, consisting of the happy-go-lucky gunner Exusiai, the cold and dismissive swordswoman Texas, the excitable and energetic Sora, and the business-savvy Croissant. All led by the charismatic and multi-talented Emperor. However, as their new intern Bison comes into the fold the group is caught in a series of gang wars and organized crime trying to snuff out the company.

And unlike Fire Emblem Three Houses, that really is the basic plot without me sarcastically building anything up. With that all said, I think I can move on and talk about... 

The Story

The story of Code of Brawl honestly has the best and worst of Arknights writing. I think having a story that focused on a group outside of Rhodes Island was for the better. For all the lore blurbs and archive notes we get, I think Code of Brawl proves just how little Rhodes Island is involved with the world of Terra at large despite it’s apparent reputation as a weird and quirky company with some terrifyingly powerful Operators and lofty ambitions. And while I’m still only on Chapter 4 since I’m grinding out some E2 before moving on, Rhodes Island really does more reacting to random Reunion plans than anything proactive with their goals of curing Oripathy. They feel more like a counter military force to Reunion, and a barely effective on at that given the point of the story I’m at. Code of Brawl, being focused on another group with a more direct conflict and villains, feels a lot more cohesive and interesting, as Penguin Logistics’s goal is to just get Bison through his first day and take out whatever force is harassing them this week. 

Penguin Logistics as a whole is a rather interesting bunch of ruffians and seeing them is gallivant around Lungmen trading blows and bullets with gangsters is a joy to read and see. Seeing some of the inner workings of Lungmen society, seeing a bit of the underbelly, as well as getting to see the cast just have more casual interactions with each other is great. We learn that Sora really is just gay for Texas, and the all of Penguin Logistics has only 3 function braincells with Texas having one and Mostima having the other two.  We get to see that Sora has probably beaten someone to death with her microphone at some point given how willing she is to bar fight. A lot of fun stuff.

And then... there’s Mostima. 

Look, I like this story, I really do, but Mostima really didn’t need to be here as far as the story is concerned. All she does plot-wise is rile up Exusiai, drop some cryptic advice for Bison, shows she knows more powerful than she leads on, and is a bit of a deus ex machina for the end of the plot, and not even by that much. You could had replaced her with Chen, Swire, Hoshigumi, ShiraYuki, or anyone else that would logically be in Lungmen at the time. Hell, ShiraYuki knowing everything a being cryptic about it would at least be in character for her. 

And that’s not to knock Mostima. I actually pulled her in my last ten-pull (didn’t get Waii Fu though, and I’m still salty about that), she’s a pretty good and damn near god-tier once you get her to E2 if some of the guides on her are to be believed, though her kit is a little niche for an AoE caster of her cost. However, as far as the story is concerned she shows a serious issue with Arknights as a whole. That’s its constant need to have half of their characters be mysterious.

Mysterious Characters

So, just to give an example, here is a list of characters in Arknights with a Mysterious Past™. These are characters that either have their archive notes explicitly state their past is unknown, or characters who’s past is implied but but deliberately kept unconfirmed.

With that said...

Mostima

Myrtle

Cuora

Skadi

Specter

Shining

Siege

Projekt Red

Specter

Blue Poison

Lappland

Texas (?)

ShiraYuki

AMIYA

Okay, I’m cheating a little with Texas since she has enough of her past implied, but it’s still technically a mystery as far as the specifics go. But you see my point, right? A lot of characters have a Mysterious Past™, which is a nice shorthand to not go into depth about writing their background. Now, you don’t need to give twenty paragraphs on their backstory, but something would be nice. Keeping things a mystery might be nice for the theory-crafters, but for me it’s annoy as hell to see so many character, so many high-rated that really just have their skills and design to go off of, especially with most the cast overall having a pretty simple background to them that are interesting when you read through the lore blurbs and think about it. Breeze is a former noble that wanted to do more good in the world than throwing money at a problem. Liskarm is a protective friend that joined Rhodes Island to make sure the problematic Franka integrated without problems. Frostleaf is a child soldier that wants to do some good in the world after becoming Infected. Kroos, Beagle, and Fang joined Rhodes Island after getting kicked out of their old jobs. You don’t need to be flashy, but giving answers isn’t an admission of lacking creativity. The hints might be nice for the analysts, but the fans would likely want some answers.

Again, Mostima isn’t a problem, and a lot characters in that list do have some concrete hints about their past. Texas and Lappland are likely a former mafia heiresses and old rivals. Shining was likely a highly skilled mercenary before realizing she could do more good in the world with a healing staff instead of a sword. Siege is likely apart of Londinium royalty, but was either exiled or ran due to political turmoil. But that’s the issue, likely isn’t confirmed. Mostima being a powerful character with a mysterious past just feels like a cop out to me. It’s not bad, but she’s a symptom of what some of the issues of Arknights story is. I’m not asking for AFK Arena-levels of lore, just... an explanation here or there would be nice. 

But anyway that’s my main issue, moving on.

General Gushing

Despite that large critique I have, there’s a lot I love about this story. For simplicity sake, because I’m tired of all the editing, I’ll put it into list form:

Penguin Logistics in general was just a joy to see. Watching them in action and just how laissez-faire they are is hilarious, especially when paired with the straightforward and reserved Bison freaking out over the wackiness. 

Speaking of, Bison made for a very good straight man to balance out all the wild antics of PL. He really kept things from getting too crazy by at least questioning the zaniness, and the point when he finally stops caring and just charges in with a crazy plan of his own just gave me the giddiest of smiles.

Given how they discuss it, PL apparently trade blows with criminals and thugs on a daily basis, and since they’re just a delivery company this implies they likely deliver drugs or other hot cargo the mafia and gangs want... and given Emperor’s personality, that wouldn’t shock me.

Emperor in general is a delight of a character. He’s about as charismatic and wild as his aesthetic makes him look. I would legit whale for him if he ever become an operator.

Learning a little bit about Lungmen culture was fun as well, as little of it as we see. It’s my personal headcanon now that the mafia and general thugs of Lungmen don’t mess with civilians because they’re either a sleeper agent under the Rat King’s protection or they might be a kung fu master in plain clothes like Waai Fu.

Waai Fu and Texas fist fighting in the streets of Lungmen is just hilarious and awesome. I honestly don’t know what that says about either of them. Texas is holding her own against a martial artist with over 10 years of experience barehanded, meanwhile Waai Fu is holding her own against what lore blurbs have implied is the former heiress/hitman of a mafia. All the while drunkards and Texas’s coworkers are egging them on. This is the dumb content I live for.

Save for some of the absolute bullshit of the challenge maps, I found the actual game content to be pretty fair and interesting. The Bullies required good defender placement, a lot of the ranged units focused on targeting the helpful buildings that buffed your characters and increased the operator deployment count, and maps themselves had a few clever chokepoints to work with... At least until they started spamming Fanatics.

Bison actually has a pretty solid kit for a free Operator. He buffs a lot of adjacent units, has a no real weakness, his tools don’t feel niche like Grani or Celycon, overall a great unit. Once I finish E2-ing all my main Operators I might build him next. 

While I have issues with her as a story element, Mostima is a 6-star that has instant utility once you promote her to E2, much like Chen and Siege. This is something I’m relieved to say as a lot of my 6-stars aren’t worth much until you E2 them and I’m still trying to E2 some of my easier units like Cuora and Gavial for Chapter 5 and CC.

That’s really all I have to say on that front. So to close things off...

For the Future

Like I always say in these Ramblings, I don’t like the idea of people prattling on about being able to “fix” or “rewrite” something has already been made. It always comes across as both arrogant and ignorant to me. However, I think it’s completely fair to make requests and suggestions for the future. ‘

That said, I'd like to continue seeing side stories without Rhodes Island’s involvement. Both to see other factions in their natural element and because, frankly, Rhodes Island always feels a little out of place when involved in other stories, or at least more of a distraction than a good element if chapter 2 and 3 are anything to go by. I think a Black Steel side story would be nice. Jessica, Franka, Liskarm, and Vanille getting into shenanigans in Columbia or something sounds like a fun time. Maybe have the leader/high commander of the organization as a new operator and they’re a really powerful Supporter than can buff the party, like a 6-star version of Sora or something that gives operators insane ASPD buffs... I don’t know, something like that anyway. Ideally something a little less wordy than Code of Brawl at least.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say. Next time... I’ll talk about something else. Maybe discuss a manga or something. 

See you all later.

[tabletoptrinketsbyjj]

Running the Numbers: On Balancing Homebrew Masterwork Weapon Bonuses

Hey folks,

My name is JJ and since March 2017 I’ve been working on this blog of D&D related homebrew content for your looting needs. I’ve gotten lots of positive feedback from people and I’m very appreciative of everyone who has written to me or shared the tables on their own blogs or with friends and gaming groups. I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has taken the time and energy to read through my tables, I know people lead busy lives and homebrew content is everywhere online. What I would like to talk about right now is balance for this blog’s homebrew material and how I decide what to include or not include in the tables and how that might help a DM justify using homebrew my homebrew material in their campaign without breaking the game or providing a wild power imbalance between their players.

To start off, I’d like to say that I have a decent background in RPG games in a variety of different systems with most of my time playing, Pathfinder, D&D 3.5 and 5th Edition. For balance purposes for this blog I have tried to be system neutral, talking about skills, benefits and mechanics in general terms so that the trinkets (Especially magic objects) can be easily worked into D&D, Exalted or Numenera alike. For general bonuses and negatives I have taken language from 5th edition D&D, namely the Advantage/Disadvantage system because I find it simple and straightforward. Since I primarily play D&D 5e now I gear a lot of the wording of objects towards it and d20 systems in general. Although this article can be used to talk about balance in a number of different systems, any specifics are usually aimed at D&D 5e.

While I'd like to talk about all of the different types of trinkets I have on my blog, this post will focus exclusively on Masterwork Weapons. While this concept was standard in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder (And similar ideas can be found in other systems), it does not exist in 5e, which I find disappointing because I like the idea of an exceptionally crafted weapon that is mechanically better than average but weaker than a +1 weapon. To talk about masterwork weapons we should also talk about magic weapons so we have a clear comparison. Magical “+1 weapons” are a staple in D&D and are an easily benchmark for what a “standard” magic weapon looks like. A +1 weapon has four different bonuses that set it above a typical weapon, It grants a +1 on accuracy rolls to hit, a +1 on damage rolls, it counts as magical for bypassing the resistances of enemies and it is much harder to break or damage. When the concept was used in 3.5 and Pathfinder, a masterwork weapon gave a +1 on accuracy rolls to hit. In my interpretation, this means that the value of a masterwork weapon was about ¼ of a +1 weapon and I have tried to keep that in mind while writing. It is no accident that the first four masterwork bonuses are each different aspect of a +1 weapon. While researching what other people have done for their version of a homebrew masterwork weapon in 5e, the common theme I've found seems to be a +1 on damage rolls. Due to the bonded accuracy in 5e, a +1 on accuracy would be to strong and we’ll talk more about this later. A +1 to damage rolls for a price of 100gp (Which is the same price as getting a weapon silver plated) seems like a fair enough trade, especially if masterwork weapons are rare and can only be purchased in large cities or commissioned from master weapon crafters, requiring a side quest or roleplay scene. In short, I found a general consensus that a masterwork quality that grants a +1 on damage rolls is balance and therefore it will serve as the benchmark against which all the other masterwork bonuses are compared against.

Keeping “+1 to damage rolls” in mind as a benchmark for how strong I wanted a masterwork bonus to be, I created and cannibalized more than a dozen options for DM’s to use for introducing masterworks into their own campaigns. I will be going point by point crunching numbers to show how each bonus lines up with one another. For those that want to do your own math, feel free to use https://anydice.com/ or http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php to double check the work. I will be using 1d8 as an example for most damage rolls to make it a little more standard. For context going forward, a d8 has a minimum damage of 1, a maximum damage of 8 and an average damage of 4.5. Please note that with one or two exceptions these benefits only affect the default weapon damage dice themselves, not additional dice such as sneak attack, divine smite or spell effects.

I will be going through one at a time through each Masterwork Bonus I currently have written up and talking about them and showing you how their specific benefit effects damage rolls so you as a DM have a better idea on how strong it actually is. To save space I have cut out the fluff descriptions of the Masterwork Bonuses but they can be read here if you’re interested.

Keep reading for a point by point analysis of the Masterwork Bonuses.

This paragraph outlines the Advantage / Disadvantage system from D&D 5e, because some of the bonuses use it. If you're already familiar go ahead and skip this. When a character is given help from a tool, other character, magic effect, etc. they gain Advantage on the dice roll made to accomplish the task. This means that they roll 2d20’s and pick the higher result to determine the outcome, thereby increasing the overall dice roll, slashing the chances of critical failing and boosting the opportunity to critically succeed. Disadvantage is the opposite, the player rolls twice and has to use the lower result increasing the odds of failing. The real great parts about this system is if a character has advantage and disadvantage, they cancel out and only one roll is made so you cannot get “super advantage”. If the character is gaining advantage or disadvantage from multiple sources he still only rolls twice and picks the higher result. This makes circumstantial bonuses very simple to apply on the spot and prevents players from having to calculate a +1 or +2 from half a dozen different sources at a time. Personally I like it because it’s quick and simple allowing everyone to roll fast and move on, in a game where play time is often hard to schedule. Plus, bonuses and deficits just cause the player to roll more dice in a game where players typically love any excuse to roll dice.

1, Precise: Grants a +1 on attack rolls to hit targets

In many systems a bonus to accuracy rolls can deal more damage than a boost to the actual damage rolls. Logically, more accurate attacks hit more often and all damage resulting from a hit that was only successful because of the +1 accuracy bonus can be considered extra damage. In D&D 5e this would bonus would probably be considered the most powerful due to bonded accuracy (Which you can read more about here) and would probably end up doing more damage than the +1 benchmark, especially if the wielder had class features such as sneak attack that further increased damage on hit.

2, Balanced: Grants a +1 to all damage rolls.

The simplest and most reliable damage dealing bonus. A flat +1 damage increases the minimum, maximum and average amount of damage that can be dealt by the attack by 1, making it a nice choice to quietly provide a small benefit for the player that can be added to the damage roll’s math and otherwise forgotten about. For damage bonuses, an average damage increase of +1 is what we are looking for in terms of power and serves as our benchmark.

3, Spellbound: The weapon is considered magical for the purposes of overcoming resistances, damage reduction and other defenses.

This provides a nice compromise to DM’s who want their players to go up against more varied enemies that might have resistances or immunities to non-magic weapons but who don’t want the players to have a full +1 weapon yet. The weapon’s bonus will only provide a benefit when dealing with a small number of enemies (Like elementals, ghosts or fiends) that have that resistance. On the resistant enemies it effectively doubles damage (Compared to a non-Spellbound weapon whose damage would be halved by the resistant monster) granting the wielder and player the time to shine in combat. Against the majority of low and mid-level enemies such as humanoids and beasts who aren’t resistant to non-magic weapons, the weapon provides no benefit at all and is just as useful as a regular weapon.

4, Impervious: The weapon is five times more durable than normal, never breaks, chips or dulls as a result of casual use and is all but impossible to break or damage as a result of combat, even when targeted by enemies who attempt sundering or weapon breaking techniques.

This allows a player to feel comfortable in the knowledge that their sword isn’t going to explode on a natural 1, leaving them unarmed and useless in combat. Furthermore it encourages players to use the sturdy weapon outside of combat for roleplaying or problem solving reasons. Perhaps a war pick is used to dig a foxhole in rocky terrain, a warhammer is used to break down a door, a quarterstaff is wedged against a door to brace it, or a sword is used in place of a crowbar to pry open a stuck chest. Other than resisting being broken in combat, this bonuses has no real offensive capacity making it a great thing to give to your players with almost zero risk that it will upset the team’s power balance or make them too strong in combat.

5, Relentless: Instead of a single damage die when the wielder successfully hits a target, the player instead rolls two dice that equal the value of the original damage die and add the results together.

This grants the player the ability to roll two dice when they would normally roll one, which will probably increase their level of happiness right there. This is a good benefit for raising the minimum damage the wielder does, and in the event of a critical allows the player to roll a multitude of small dice, further raising the minimum damage dealt. If our 1d8 example die is turned into 2d4 with this, the weapon now has a minimum damage of 2, a maximum damage of 8 and an average damage of 5. This increases the minimum by 1 which is nice but only provides an average damage bonus of +0.5 which is not much, but can allow players to feel like they are getting more from the weapon than they normally would. Since this average damage increase is less than our benchmark +1 damage this makes it a balanced addition to the masterwork bonus list.

6, Superior: The weapon’s damage dice increases by one step to the next largest die.

This is a nice and simple benefit with a clear but small increase in damage potential. If our 1d8 example die is turned into 1d10 with this, the weapon has a minimum damage of 1, a maximum damage of 10 and an average damage of 5.50. This increases the maximum by 2 which allows for slightly bigger hits and provides an average damage bonus of +1. This has a slightly higher than normal damage cap but with the drawback of no increase to the minimum damage. Overall the average damage is increased by +1, the same as our benchmark and thus of comparable balance.

7, Cruel: Whenever the player roll a 1 on a die to calculate the weapon’s damage, they can reroll the die until they receive a result that is not a 1.

Like the flat +1 damage, this bonus was also very common on homebrew sites discussing how to implement a masterwork mechanic. Raising the minimum damage the player can deal on hit is a good things for them, since nobody wants to roll a 1. Applying this to our 1d8 example gives it a minimum damage of 2, a maximum damage of 8 and an average damage of 5. This increases the minimum by 1 which is nice but only provides an average damage bonus of +0.5 which is not much, but can provide the player a great sense of relief and excitement when they do roll a 1 and can reroll it into a much higher number. Since the average damage increase of +0.5 (Which is the same regardless of the size of the die) is less than our benchmark +1 damage this makes it a balanced addition to the masterwork bonus list.

8, Defensive: The weapon grants +1 to the wielder’s armor class / defense value / dodge rating or other system mechanic that decreases the chances of being hit with an attack.

Similar to Precise, making homebrew changes to the accuracy and armor class system can be risky for the mechanical balance of the game. In D&D 5e, a +1 to armor class is a big deal and hard to come by and the potential damage prevented by virtue of being harder to hit can add up. This kind of bonus is meant to evoke the idea or a parrying dagger, sword breaker or boar spear, deflecting attacks and keeping enemies at bay by nature of their design.  Although it doesn’t directly compare to our benchmark +1 damage, a Defensive weapon can be a Godsend to a squishy melee striker like a rogue or bard who would definitely appreciate the increased armor class.  

9, Vicious: Whenever the player roll a 1 or a 2 on a die to calculate the weapon’s damage, they can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2.

D&D 5e players should be familiar with this bonus because it is taken straight from the Great Weapon Fighting style. Due to this, lots of other people have done the math in detail and you can follow this link for nice graphs about the statistics. In short, this bonus on our 1d8 example keeps the minimum damage at 1, a maximum damage of 8 and an average damage of 5.25. That is only an average damage increase of +0.75 which is lower than our benchmark value of +1. It is important to note that the damage changes based size and number of dice and that if the weapon dealt 2d6 damage (Which has an average of 7) was affected by this, the average damage would be 8.33. An improvement of +1.33, which is slightly higher than our +1 benchmark.

10, Brutal: Whenever the player rolls the maximum result on a weapon damage die (I.e. a 6 on a six-sided die.), they can roll that die an additional time and add both results to the total damage dealt. This ability can trigger multiple times per turn but only once per attack.

This is one of the swingy bonuses that either provides either a lot of extra damage or none at all. Based on the concept of “exploding dice” from Shadowrun and some White Wolf systems, if you roll the maximum result, you’ll be rewarded with another die to add to the damage total. I like the idea of having a slim chance to do extra damage since it’s like a mini critical hit. On our example d8 there is a 12.5% chance (One in eight) to trigger the Brutal effect, which adds an average of +4.5 damage (Another d8) to the damage roll. This means that a triggering hit deals a minimum of 2 damage, a maximum of 16 and an average of 9 damage. Although this seems like a lot, remember that the effect only happens on 1 in 8 attacks, so if we take the 4.5 extra damage and average that across of 8 attacks it’s only an average of +0.56 damage per hit. This trend holds steady for different die sizes as larger dice deal more damage but less often and vice versa for smaller dice. A d12 grants an average of +0.54 damage per hit while a d4 grants +0.63. It is important to note that this math is conducted in a vacuum and wielders with the power to reroll damage dice (Especially 1’s and 2’s) can make this bonus more lethal. Though even if on a d8, if the wielder was capable of rerolled all 1’s and 2’s, it would still be 4.5 extra damage once every 6 attacks which is an average increase of +0.75. Since the average increased damage bonus will always be less than our +1 benchmark, I feel like this is a reasonably balanced effect. This can be more fun than a flat +1 to damage because it trades the dependable and boring damage would be represented by a 1d8+1, into an unreliable and therefore exciting 1d8+?, with the possibility on every damage roll of getting an 8 and having your damage explode into high numbers.

11, Mighty: Whenever the wielder scores a critical hit with the weapon, the player can roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time and add the result to the damage dealt by the critical hit. This is in addition to the standard bonus damage of a critical hit.

Drawing on weapons mechanics from D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder this is essentially the idea of an “increased critical multiplier”, which allowed weapons to deal more damage on a critical hit. In terms of damage output on hit, this is similar to Brutal but provides even less average damage per hit because critical hits are rare. In a d20 system where you only critically hit on a 20, you have a 1 in 20 (5%) chance to critical hit on every attack. If you use the example die, you turn the regular critical hit from 2d8 damage (Minimum 2, maximum 16, average 9) into 3d8, (Minimum 3, maximum 24, average 13.5) which does increase the average damage by 4.5 on a critical, but across 20 attacks it averages to +0.225 damage per hit. Comparing that to the benchmark’s +1 damage per hit, this masterwork bonus is very weak but makes up for it with spikes of high damage on critical hits.

X, Inexorable: Whenever the player rolls to determine the weapon’s damage, he may roll the weapon’s damage die twice and choose either result to use.

This bonus allows the player to effectively roll damage twice and choose the higher amount, essentially granting advantage on damage rolls. On our example d8, this bonus keeps the minimum and maximum at 1 and 8 respectively and changes the average to 5.81 damage. Although the minimum and maximum don’t change, the increased average damage by 1.31 per hit, which is slightly higher than our goal of +1. The improvement to damage is magnified by the size and number of dice. On a d12 it grans an increased 1.99 damage per hit and on 2d6 it’s a 2.34 increase. This bonus would also affect the additional damage dice from critical hits making this benefit very powerful.

Inexorable by our +1 damage benchmark is actually too strong to be a Masterwork bonus. To be honest, I added it in here originally to pad the original Masterwork list out to 12 entries so it could be rolled on a d12. Since it doesn’t belong here I have moved it over to the Minor Weapon Enchantments Table (Which was nowhere near ready at the time the Masterwork table was introduced), where it’s magical theme and stronger bonus better fits in.

12, Silvered: The weapon’s business end is covered in a durable layer of alchemically treated silver of incredible quality. Although unnaturally processed, the metal is pure and effective at dealing with undead, lycanthropes and fey creatures. The weapon’s grip also sports discrete bands of intricately worked silver which prevents the wielder’s supernatural enemies from handling the weapon and using it against him.

Silvering weapons is a staple in most RPG games that have monsters that are vulnerable to the metal. This benefit is similar to Spellbound as it really only has any benefit when used against a certain set of enemies and otherwise has no effect on a typical attack. The only change that this blog provides are the silver bands on the grip, preventing monsters from wielding it properly. If your system already has rules for silvered weapons you can just use those instead. See Spellbound for how it compares to the +1 damage benchmark.

13, Tactical: Using an action equivalent to making an attack or casting a spell, the wielder can attempt to perform one of the previously mentioned combat maneuvers. Whenever the wielder could make an attack with the weapon, he can instead perform one of the previously mentioned combat maneuvers... Furthermore, the wielder is able to take advantage of lucky blows and turn them into skillful maneuvers rather than simply powerful attacks. Whenever the wielder lands a critical hit, he can choose to cause it to be considered a normal hit instead and immediately perform one of the previously mentioned maneuvers (With advantage because of the weapon’s design) on the target.

I really like the idea of combat maneuvers, tactics and strategies in RPG’s that contain more than just mindlessly attacking the enemy. A frontliner who effective at tripping, disarming or grappling the enemy can be just as, if not more effective than a wizard specializing in battlefield control, because the fighter can do it more often. Unfortunately it can sometimes be hard to justify attempting maneuvers, as it’s often far more efficient to just focus on dealing damage, especially when both take the same type of action. This bonuses grants players an incentive to attempt maneuvers because they automatically gain advantage and gain access to a larger range of said maneuvers. Furthermore they can trade the extra damage from a critical for the chance to disarm / grapple / trip / etc. the target, which can let a player think strategically and provides some new combat options. As a roleplaying experience it can allow for better teamwork, granting a supporting bard a better chance of tripping an enemy, allowing the two handed fighter to attack the prone target at advantage as well as reducing their chance of escaping. This bonus doesn’t deal damage directly so it doesn’t compare to our benchmark +1 damage, but it does grant the wielder a few benefits and options at the cost of making a regular attack or additional critical hit damage.

14, Poisoner’s: Even a bludgeoning weapon that is normally difficult to poison effectively can benefit from the grooves, allowing it to deliver the offending material with ease. The channels are always positioned in such a way that a creature can apply a solid or liquid material (Such as but not limited to: poison, holy water, flammable oil or animal venom) in them without any risk of accidentally poisoning themselves (Even if they are not proficient with poisons) and taking no more time than usual to coat an object with poison. Furthermore, the recessed pathways protect the material from the elements, keeping it from drying or spoiling and after it’s applied, the material remains potent for an additional hour longer than normal before becoming inert. Lastly and most importantly, the virulent trenches are divided and spread out, allowing a single dose of poison to be delivered normally and effectively while still having some leftover in a separate groove. The number of strikes the weapon may make before the poison is rubbed off is increased by one. Alternatively to being spread out, the blighting substance can be confined to a single groove which will deliver its payload in a single concentrated strike which causes the victim to suffer disadvantage on the save against the material, or the PC can roll the poison’s damage twice and choose the higher result. The bearer who applies the poison chooses whether the material will be spread out over multiple strikes or if it will be concentrated into a more lethal hit (And if it applies disadvantage or increased damage) when the material is applied.  

This bonus provides a few benefits in order to allow a lower level PC better make use of expendable items like flammable oil, holy water or poison before magical weapons and stronger spells render them too inefficient to use in combat. The DM should feel free to adjust any parts of this bonus to better fit with the specific poison mechanics of their game. Personally I love the idea of poisons, oils and alchemical coatings appealing as concepts but at low levels they are often too expensive to buy and once you have the money you’re usually better off buying magic items since a large number of enemies are either resistant or immune to poison.

In D&D 5e for example, a vial of “basic poison” can coat up to three slashing or piercing weapon or up to three pieces of ammunition. Applying the poison takes and action and on hit the target must make a fairly easy save (A Con DC of 10, about a 50% chance of failure on average) or suffer as much poison damage as a dagger deals. Once applied, the poison retains its potency for 1 minute before drying. Overall pretty weak but could definitely be useful in many situations, especially ambushes rewarding players who prepare and think ahead. However this vial of three-use poison costs an exorbitant 100 gold pieces, the same value as a suit of scale mail and a greatsword combined. A PC with 100 gold at low levels might get a silvered weapon (Which is also 100 gold), get better quality armor, buy healing potions or adventuring equipment or weak magic items. The 5e Player’s Handbook list’s the cost of a hired mercenary at 2 gold pieces per day, so you could hire a bodyguard to fight for you for 50 days (Or an army of 50 for one day) for the same price as one vial of basic poison. At mid-levels, enemies will pass the save more than not, taking no damage and even if they roll poorly and fail, a dagger’s worth of damage is not a substantial drain on their hit point pool.

If we apply this masterwork quality to a warhammer (Since it uses our d8 example die) in conjunction with 5e’s basic poison we can look at the benefits. Normally you wouldn’t be able to poison the warhammer at all (It deals bludgeoning damage) but now you can and without risk of accidentally harming yourself. Rather than drying out in one minute, the poison will remain potent for 61 minutes, a fantastic improvement, allowing the player to apply it with a greatly reduced chance of it being wasted due to drying out before the next fight begins. The wielder can also choose to spread the material out among multiple grooves, turning a three use-vial into a six-use vial of poison, making it much more cost effective. Alternatively the player could choose to force the victim to suffer disadvantage on the saves to resist the poison or roll the poison damage twice and pick the more lethal result, making the poison more viable at higher levels.  

In short this masterwork bonus provides a number of small benefits and options to allow a PC to make poisons and alchemical weapon applications more fun and a viable strategy that offers the player a range of options, rather than an ineffective money sink. As this weapon does not deal damage directly it is hard to compare against the benchmark. The goal of this masterwork is to increase the damage deal by poisons and similar materials but it is weighed against the fact that the player has to expend gold or resources buying and using the poisons to actually make use of the benefits (As opposed to the benchmark “free” +1 damage on every hit) so it seems balanced to me.

15, Bypassing: A wielder who makes an attack with a weapon with this bonus ignores any and all defensive benefits that an opponent’s shield would normally provide.

This bonus attempts to reflect the real world weapons such as the flail, sica, shotel, and war pick, all designed to get around armor and shields in order to reach the tender flesh of the enemy. Although this benefit does affect accuracy rolls rather than damage, I would compare this more to the Spellbound or Silvered bonus rather than Precise. In my experience as a player, I rarely run into to humanoid enemies wielding shields and typical bestiaries and monster manuals don’t have a lot of shield using enemies. If your PC’s are mostly fighting undead, elementals, beasts and aberrations this bonuses will probably not help them. In the rare instance when they do come across a heavily armored fighter or blackguard paladin or other hard to hit foe, this bonuses will let the wielder bypass some of those defenses and let that wielder shine. Handing out this kind of weapon in a military or war campaign where it would be used regularly, would be comparable to handing out a Silvered weapon in a werewolf heavy campaign. Since it doesn’t deal damage directly I doesn’t compare to the benchmark and you can refer to the Spellbound and Silvered for how this bonus works in play.

16, Resounding: Whenever the player rolls a damage die he must roll a second confirming die of the same sort. If the second die is the same result as the first, the player is considered to have instead rolled the maximum possible result for that type of die instead of the current result.

As the fluff description mentions, getting a resounding blow that triggers the maximum damage is rare. The value of this bonuses is odd to calculate because as the maximum damage output of the die increases, the odds of actually rolling two of the same number to trigger it goes down proportionally. Over the course of 64 successful attacks with our example d8 (every variation of the damage die and confirmation roll), the effect only triggers 8 times (A 12.5% chance) and only 7 of those times actually benefit the wielder since rolling two 8’s is already the maximum amount of damage possible. Over the 64 hits, the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 28, an average increase of 0.44 per hit with most of the damage coming from when the player rolled low and would have done very little damage.

This table is a chart of each result of the 64 hits possible with a d8 Resounding weapon. The leftmost column is the damage roll while the top row is the confirming roll with the middle being the actual damage dealt. The bottom roll is the sum of the total damage from that column which is compared to 36, which is the sum damage total on a non-masterwork d8 over the eight possible hits.

To demonstrate on a smaller die over the course of 16 successful hits on a d4, the effect triggers 4 times (A 25% chance) and the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 6, an average increase of 0.38 per hit. The sum of the total damage on a non-masterwork d4 is 10 over the 4 possible hits.

On a larger die over the course of 144 successful on a d12, the effect triggers 12 times (A 12% chance) and the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 66, an average increase of 0.45 per hit. The sum of the total damage on a non-masterwork d12 is 78 over the 144 possible hits.

In summation, this bonus gives the occasional burst of damage at the cost of providing no benefit most of the time. It grants an average damage increase of 0.45 per hit (on a d8), which is well below our +1 benchmark in terms of balance.

17, Chargebreaker: If the wielder has not moved yet on his turn he can take up a defensive position, which causes his speed to drop to 0 until the end of his turn. While in this stance, the wielder is able to make an attack of opportunity with the readied weapon against an enemy that enters his reach. The bracing stance ends if the wielder moves, attacks or at the start of the wielder’s next turn.

Much like Tactical, this benefit rewards players who think strategically and offers them options in combat, like the ability to plant themselves and defend a key position rather than just rushing the enemy and attacking. This does potentially allow the wielder to make an additional attack per round, possibly doubling the number of attacks they can make. However these extra attacks come at the cost of all of the wielder’s movement during that turn, which can trap him in an inconvenient corner of the battlefield, not be able to move to reach allies, render him unable to retreat or not be able to place himself between the enemy and the more fragile party members. The wielder gains no additional benefit against creatures already within his reach and is potentially worse off against ranged attackers and mobile enemies, since bracing himself means that he is not closing that distance.  

18, Parrying: Using an action equivalent to an attack of opportunity (See Note) the wielder may attempt to parry an incoming melee attack, increasing his armor class or physical defensiveness as if he was properly wielding a shield. The wielder may benefit from the armor class bonus (Typically a +2) even if he is already wielding a shield. —Note: If your system doesn’t use attacks of opportunity use the following rule: Once the wielder parries an attack he is no longer able to do so until the start of his next turn.

Similar to Precise and Defensive, this is a bonus that deals with armor class and attack rolls. Unlike defensive however, this bonus consumes the wielder’s resources in the form of costing an attack of opportunity to use. A player could use this ability every time he is able to but doing so forcing him to give up on attacking fleeing enemies or striking when they are vulnerable. Furthermore, the benefit only applies to one melee attack per round so the wielder is still just as vulnerable to multiple attacks and ranged attacks. This bonus doesn’t deal damage so it doesn’t compare against the benchmark, but I feel that it provides a benefit to player’s without being overpowered due to its cost and limited use.

19, Strategic: These modifications greatly improve the wielder’s ability to resist trips, feints, grapples, pins, being disarmed, pushed, shoved and other combat maneuvers... Whenever the wielder is targeted by one of the previously mentioned combat maneuvers, he can use an action equivalent to an attack of opportunity (See Note) to grant himself advantage on the roll made to resist the maneuver. —Note: If your system doesn’t use attacks of opportunity use the following rule: Once the wielder uses the weapon to grant himself advantage on the roll made to resist a combat maneuver, he is no longer able to do so until the start of his next turn.

Much like Defensive and Parrying, this bonus deals with making the wielder more resilient when facing combat maneuvers like grappling, tripping and disarming. These tactics can be brutally effective when used against PC’s and can make enemies orders of magnitude more threatening. A monster that can attempt a grapple or trip check with every successful attack can be far more deadly than one that deals an extra 1d6 damage on each hit. Like Parrying, this bonus consumes the wielder’s resources in the form of costing an attack of opportunity to activate which helps to balance out its use. A player could use this ability every time he is able to, but doing so forces him to give up on attacking fleeing enemies or striking when they are vulnerable. This bonus doesn’t deal damage so it doesn’t compare against the benchmark, but I feel that it provides a benefit to player’s without being overpowered due to its cost of an attack of opportunity.

20, Adaptable: When the wielder attacks, he may choose to have the weapon deal either bludgeoning, slashing, piercing or nonlethal / stun damage (See Note). Otherwise the weapon keeps its usual statistics and this does not change anything about the way the weapon operates other than its damage type.

This is probably one of the weakest bonuses on this list and provides more fluff and equipment management ease than anything else similar to Impervious. A PC now only needs to haul around their masterwork weapon and be capable of dealing several type of damage rather than a golf bag of different weapons for different resistant monsters. Like Silvered or Spellbound this would only be beneficial in a small number of situations. Even then, it’s not hard or even that expensive for a fighter to carry a mundane warhammer, longspear and longsword, (Plus one or two ranged weapons) it’s just annoying to have to for purposes of overcoming resistances.

21, Twinned: Whenever the player rolls a damage die he must roll a second confirming die of the same sort. If the second die is the same result as the first, the player adds both dice to the total damage rolled.

This bonus is very similar to Resounding in the form of the confirmation roll for extra damage. Similarly to Resounding, getting a twinned strike that deals the extra damage is rare and the value of this bonuses is odd to calculate because as the maximum damage output of the die increases, the odds of actually rolling two of the same number to trigger it goes down proportionally.

Over the course of 64 successful attacks with our example d8, the effect only triggers 8 times, a 12.5% chance. Over the 64 hits, the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 36, an average increase of 0.56 per hit with most of the damage coming from when the player is doubling their high roll.

This table is a chart of each result of the 64 hits possible with a d8 Twinned weapon. The leftmost column is the damage roll while the top row is the confirming roll with the middle being the actual damage dealt. The bottom roll is the sum of the total damage from that column, which is compared to 36, the sum damage total on a non-masterwork d8 over the eight possible hits.  

To demonstrate on a smaller die, over the course of 16 successful, the effect triggers 4 times (A 25% chance) and the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 10, an average increase of 0.63 per hit. The sum of the total damage on a non-masterwork d4 is 10 over the 4 possible hits.

On a larger die, over the course of 144 successful, the effect only triggers 12 times (A 12% chance) and the total increase in damage resulting from the bonus is 78, an average increase of 0.54 per hit. The sum of the total damage on a non-masterwork d12 is 78 over the 4 possible hits. Although DM’s may have some reservations on seeing the higher scale of this chart, remember that rolling two 12’s to deal 24 damage is 1 in 144 or a 0.69% chance.  

In summation, this bonus gives the occasion burst of damage at the cost of providing no benefit most of the time, with an average damage increase of 0.56 per hit (on a d8), which is well below our +1 benchmark.

22, Quickdraw: The bearer is able to draw the weapon as a free action whenever he rolls initiative as long as he physically capable of doing so… In the first round of combat if a hostile creature comes within the wielder’s reach (Or 20 feet for a ranged weapon) he is able to make an attack of opportunity against that creature but suffers disadvantage on the attack roll. Lastly, drawing and stowing the weapon is considered a free action.

This bonuses is supposed to allow PC’s to be able to evoke the incredible training and reflexes that come from a lifetime of having to react quickly to violent ambushes. For an easy comparison of what I imagine this looking like, take a look at Star Wars or Firefly. Characters like Han Solo or Malcolm Reynolds carry their pistols in a low slung gunslinger’s holsters along their hips and are able to draw and fire within a second. This allows them to even out or even win fights before they have a chance to properly start. For a real life example look at videos of Bob Munden, a real life exhibition shooter has the title "Fastest Man with a Gun Who Ever Lived" bestowed on him by Guinness World Records. This Masterwork bonus enhances the PC’s ability draw the weapon as a natural reflex and instinctively (If not skillfully, hence the disadvantage) lash out at an enemy within reach.  If as a DM you are fond of ambushing your party, they will appreciate a weapon with this kind of bonus.

Damage wise, this bonus grants up to one additional attack at disadvantage per combat which may hit for some extra damage. Depending on the length of the fight, this may exceed the +1 benchmark or add nothing at all.

23, Unforgiving: When the player scores a critical hit with the weapon, he rolls all the dice associated with the damage as normal. After rolling but before damage is dealt to the target, the player may select any single rolled damage die of his choosing and that die will be considered to have rolled the maximum possible result for that type of die instead of the current result. —Note: This affects the weapon’s damage itself AND other sources of additional damage such as sneak attack, divine smite or spell effects.

I have seen this kind of this effect proposed as a variant critical rule for D&D, wherein anytime any PC or creature critically hits, the extra weapon damage dice are simply added in at their maximum result instead of being rolled. As it stands in D&D 5e, a player can score a critical hit and roll low on the dice resulting in a “critical hit” that deals less damage than an average hit. This makes the rare critical hits more potent by guaranteeing a high minimum damage. This bonus is all about raising the minimum damage on a critical hit, so that the wielder never rolls low and experiences a disappointing critical.

In a d20 system where you land a critical hit on a roll of a natural 20, you have a 1 in 20 (5%) chance to critical hit on every attack. If you use the d8 example die, Unforgiving turns the regular critical hit from 2d8 damage (Minimum 2, maximum 16, average 9) into 2d8[Dropping the lowest]+8, (Minimum 9, maximum 16, average 13.81) which does increase the average damage by 4.81 on a critical, but across 20 attacks it averages to +0.24 damage per hit.  Comparing that to the benchmark’s +1 damage per hit, this masterwork bonus is very weak but makes up for it with guaranteed high minimum damage on criticals, making each one a truly powerful blow.

24, Reach: Melee weapons with this bonus add 5 feet to the wielder’s reach when he attacks with it, as well as when determining his reach for opportunity attacks with it. Ammunition, ranged and thrown weapons all add 20 feet to their normal and long distance attack ranges. Melee Reach weapons are cumbersome in close quarters and the wielder suffers disadvantage on attack rolls against targets within 5 feet of himself. Ranged weapons and projectiles...cause the wielder to suffer disadvantage on attack rolls against targets within 10 feet of himself.

Again drawing from D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder here is a weapon quality with a trade off in terms of benefit and drawback. Melee players who play a more mobile, kiting style with an emphasis of never being too close to the enemy will love this bonus. When surrounded by enemies however it forces them to attack at disadvantage or to drop the Reach weapon and fight with an inferior backup weapon. PC’s specializing in ranged combat will be able to hit targets father away but when in tight quarters such as dungeons, caverns or buildings, there may not be the option of being 15 feet away from the target in order not to suffer disadvantage on the attack roll because they’re too close. Even if that is possible, it forces that ranged PC to become more separated from the melee, leaving them open to ambushes, being surrounded or cut off from the rest of the party.

[monstersdownthepath]

Spiritual Spotlight: Phlegyas, the Consort of Atheists

True Neutral Psychopomp Usher of Atheists, Legacies, and Reincarnation

Domains: Artifice, Earth, Knowledge, Repose Subdomains*: Industry, Petrification, Memory, Psychopomp

Concordance of Rivals, pg. 16

Obedience: Spend an hour creating something from the dead, such as by making jewelry or clothing from hair, flesh, bones, or teeth. Alternately, mummify or embalm a corpse. Benefit: Gain a +2 insight bonus on saving throws against Divine magic.

(*IMPORTANT NOTE: The Subdomains are my best guess; Subdomains are not listed in Concordance of Rivals.)

Macabre! I hope you’ve got a good explanation for your party about why you’re being a ghoulish scavenger, but personally I’ve yet to be in a party where there were no scavenger types. It seems that every group of people has at least one person who takes handfuls of teeth or other trophies from their kills, but that may just be a bigger signifier about what kinds of people that I hang out with than a true analysis of this Obedience.

It’s an easy Obedience to do if you can quell your party’s fears about your chosen medium for your arts and crafts, because as an adventurer, you’re not likely to have a shortage of usable parts. Hell, just ONE complete body has enough materials to carry you through several days or even weeks of this Obedience because you can just perform some scrimshaw on the larger bones before using the smaller ones as pieces for a larger work. For people who want a bit more oomph in their crafting, I’m not 100% certain on Pharasma and the Usher’s tolerance of using the dead as crafting material for your own Construct minions, but ‘creating something from the dead’ lends itself to some pretty broad interpretations. You can, technically, use them to make Wondrous Items like weaving their leather into a Bag of Holding, even. Crafting magic items takes way more than 1 hour to do, obviously, so you can really only combine this Obedience with your crafting during downtime... Unless they’re potions, in which case they take a mere 2 hours if they cost less than 250gp.

That counts, right? All else fails, though, a Sack Of Rats can be used here. Just pull one out, clonk it dead, and preserve that tiny corpse.

And while my mind is on it, this Obedience couples phenomenally with the Harvest Parts, Grisly Ornament, and Monstrous Crafter feats.

Also, the benefit is great. A blanket +2 on saves versus Divine spells from any source and any alignment? Sign me up! Unfortunately, it doesn’t really protect you from spell-like abilities, and the bonus by itself is rather small, but it’s always nice to have just an always-on bit of extra protection you don’t need to think about. Like Mage Armor!

Boons are gained slowly, gained at levels 12, 16, and 20. Servants of the Monitors, though, can enter the Proctor Prestige Class as early as level 8. If entered as early as possible, you can earn your Boons at levels 10, 14, and 16. You MUST take the Monitor Obedience feat, NOT Deific Obedience. Monitors grant only a single set of Boons.

Boon 1: Creator's Whispers. Gain Crafter's Fortune 3/day, Object Reading 2/day, or Detect Anxieties 1/day.

Crafter’s Fortune and Object Reading aren’t too useful in the day-to-day, lets get that out of the way. Fortune grants a target a +5 bonus to the next Craft check they make, which is GREAT for people in your party who actually create things (like you, potentially), but you don’t need it 3/day unless everyone is making stuff. You can also use it in tandem with the Fabricate spell, of course, but in general you likely won’t need it more than once a day.

Object Reading has its niche uses in a Whodunnit mystery or tracking down the owner of a particular item, allowing you to quickly gather information of whose hands the target has passed, but the +10 Appraise check is actually only worth +1 fact, giving you a minimum of +2 facts... which is all you probably need anyway. It’s up to you whether or not that means this ability is useful, but know that the +10 means that a mere 2 or 3 points in Appraise makes it impossible to fail your reading.

Which leaves Detect Anxieties, which works as Detect Thoughts, but instead of the infinitely more useful analysis of the victim’s surface thoughts, you instead learn of whatever anxieties and fears are plaguing its mind. While still potentially useful, this translates in-game to only providing a paltry +2 to Intimidation checks, which I think should be significantly higher. Perhaps you could also get bonuses to other skill checks if you choose to sooth their anxieties rather than exploiting them?

That being said, it’s a useful spell for scanning hallways and rooms for concealed enemies, and its ability to pass through the same materials Detect Thoughts can means you can peer into some rooms without opening the doors and get a general feel of the room’s mood. All three of these spells, however, remain pretty niche, making it difficult to pick which one to take each day.

Boon 2: Evader of Consequence. You can cast Reincarnate or Mindwipe 1/day as a spell-like ability. You must select which when you perform the obedience for that day. 

Mindwipe slaps a target with 2 temporary negative levels if they fail their save, with the side-effect of instantly wiping out the target’s two highest-level spells or spell slots, as well as erasing the knowledge of two of their highest-level spells known. It’s an alright spell in the hands of players, shaving -10 HP off the enemy and hitting them with a -2 penalty to every roll they make, and eating two of the caster’s most powerful tools in one go can cripple whatever trump card they had in their pocket.

Unfortunately, it’s negated entirely by a save, and a Will save at that. It’s going to be difficult to actually have it land on a caster for its full effect, but at the very least you can still aim it at the enemy frontline to debuff them for a few days.

That being said, Reincarnation is an interesting choice. Normally costing 1,000gp to cast, you pay nothing for this power. It requires only a small portion of a dead body to use and creates a new one in the prime of their youth, allowing the caster to bypass the usual “no old age” restriction of life-granting magic, allowing it to bring back people living way past their time. Also, since Reincarnate works on bodies less than a week old, you can just keep preparing Mindwipe until someone dies!

The true power of this Boon, however, is that it’s essentially a free Raise Dead that needs only a pinch of corpse dust to work, provided you’re feeling lucky on the slot machine of potential races to come back as. Some... complications may arise if they reincarnate as a race that doesn’t mesh well with their build, but the fact you get the spell for free means that you can just keep trying day after day if you need to. On a morbid note, this means you’ll never really be at a loss for parts for your Obedience! ... Or food, I suppose.

Boon 3: Though Only Breath. After completing your Obedience, choose one Craft, Perform, or Profession skill. Until you next perform your Obedience, you gain a +10 insight bonus on checks to create something permanent with your chosen skill, such as carving a statue, writing a play, or drafting meaningful legislature. A check result of 40 or higher indicates that the object you create is of such astonishing quality that it will remain in the public consciousness for generations to come. This bonus does not apply to checks made to earn money.

I hope you’re the party craftsman, because come level 16, everything you do has a chance of becoming something famous and beautiful. Note that, while this ability cannot be used to craft scrolls or potions, using it to craft magical items is perfectly valid. ALSO NOTE, though, that this affects your Craft check, not your Spellcraft check, so allocate your skill points accordingly. Spellcraft allows you to construct any magical item, but specific Craft checks are needed for things like working leather, carving stone, etc.

On the plus side, golems and other magical Constructs often require specific Craft checks to build rather than just relying on Spellcraft, allowing you to craft mechanical minions with greater accuracy than ever before. If your items cost less than 1000gp to create you can get them finished in one day, allowing you to swap your bonuses to another one if need be.

Two things about this Boon are cute: The first is that you can also use it to bolster Perform or Profession, and the second is the final portion, in which an especially impressive construction will endure “in the public consciousness for generations to come,” implying that whatever you make will either be so astonishingly breathtaking or so unbelievably horrifying that people won’t be able to stop thinking about it for centuries. Amusing as that is when making something that costs less than 1000gp, it’s still apparently noteworthy enough to have whispers of it passed from parent to child.

This makes spreading propaganda pathetically easy, by the way. Since Profession checks can be just about anything, you can go buck wild with Profession (Lawmaker) or Profession (Mayor) or Profession (Novelist)! ... Or, as my DM pointed out, a futuristic setting could have you use your Profession (Blogger) or Profession (Instagram Influencer) clout to shape the public zeitgeist. Even if they don’t like you or your ideas, they’ll be talking about you, possibly until long after you’re gone.

Even if you can’t change the world, but you can sure as hell leave your mark in it.

You can read more about her here.

[femslashrevolution]

On the personal as normal; on the normal as political

This post is part of Femslash Revolution’s I Am Femslash series, sharing voices of F/F creators from all walks of life. The views represented within are those of the author only.

A few months ago I had a conversation about pubic hair, with a lover of mine. Your bush is super hot, my lover said. I’m blushing, I said. Then she asked: was my decision not to shave a political one, or just a “this is fckn sexy” one? And at that last question—I wasn’t sure what it was, or why it was happening, but something reared up in me. Some looming, rebellious objection. It wasn’t my lover’s fault; she is a thoughtful and considerate communicator, and had done nothing wrong. And it was strange, to feel as I did; because it wasn’t as if I was new to the idea of female body hair being a site of political dissension. I’m thirty-five years old; I was hassled by my schoolfriends in middle school for not shaving my legs and hassled by my girlfriend in high school and my Womyn’s Center mates in college for shaving them. Patti Smith’s Easter, with its iconographic pit hair has pride of place on my record shelf. I have done my time in the trenches of feminist debate, and when I was younger I spent my fair share of time agonizing over which personal grooming strategy made me “the best feminist." 

 But the truth is that these days, twenty years on, my selective hair removal—I shave my legs and my pits, but not my bush—feels, to me, neither politically motivated nor even particularly intentional. Instead it feels normal. It’s one of the myriad little habits that makes feel at home in my body, in that deeply comfortable and worn-in sense of "at home” that comes from being able to walk around one’s apartment barefoot, in the dark, while thinking about the last scene in one’s novel rather than where one is placing one’s feet. It’s a level of at-home-ness; of ownership and normalcy, that means conscious thought is superfluous. And though I acknowledge the usefulness, in many contexts, of interrogating received wisdom and assumptions about what constitutes “womanly” or “hygienic” female behavior, I would argue that in this world—this world which, today more than ever, teaches women never to be at home in our bodies, never to be comfortable in our bodies, never to stop thinking about our bodies and feeling guilt and shame about our bodies—that there is value to carving out spaces of normalcy, as well: space for us to breathe into all our inconsistent and idiosyncratic ways. 

What does all this have to do with femslash? Glad you asked. 

I am no longer a fandom newbie, but neither am I a long-time veteran of the wars. I wandered wide-eyed into fandom in my late 20s, already a full-grown adult: a near-lesbian in a foundering long-term relationship with a man, I was also a crafter and feminist and compulsive reader of literary fiction; and I was looking, with mercenary intensity, for writing which explicitly portrayed the kind of sexual complexity with which I was struggling in my personal life, and which I was pointedly not finding in published fiction. I knew zilch about fandom traditions or fandom political histories; all those fandom battles which old-timers were already heartily sick of fighting. I just knew: god! Here were people writing about sex (between men) so viscerally compellingly that even I could understand the appeal: I, who have always felt vaguely repulsed by men’s society and men’s bodies—even, inconveniently, the bodies of men I loved.

And even though my lack of fandom context led to me doing and saying some things in those early days that were, in retrospect, kind of embarrassingly naïve and lacking in nuance, I’m glad that I was ignorant of the larger fandom dynamics around lady/lady sex writing (or hey, around lady/lady writing at all [or hey, around writing about women, full stop]). Because my ignorance meant that when I discovered an entire new-to-me, female-dominated community writing complicated, explicit sex scenes, full of longing and messy exploration and bodily fluids, I could blunder right into writing about women conflictedly fucking other women; conflictedly fighting with other women; conflictedly forgiving other women and reconnecting with other women and betraying other women and taking care of other women and bittersweetly remembering other women. Because why wouldn’t I write about that? That was, to my fandom-naïve eye, the normal thing to do in this subculture into which I’d wandered. 

 Unsurprisingly, this provoked some interesting reactions.

Due in part to my ignorance when I came on the scene, I’ve since had a lot of interactions and internal debates, and witnessed a lot of fandom dust-ups, about those three things: writing female characters; and writing female characters in relationship to other female characters; and writing female characters fucking other female characters. (I have also written a lot about this, as well.) Some of these interactions have involved talking about why folks write queer women characters. More of them have revolved around why folks don’t; or don’t like to; or don’t think it’s a fair thing to ask; or don’t like it when I do. Common objections I’ve heard to writing and reading women fucking women include: there are fewer female characters in source media (or they’re not as interesting), so finding them and developing investment in them requires more work; f/f writing doesn’t get as much attention, and it is disheartening to choose political correctness over reader response; writing female bodies while living in a female body in a culture that hates female bodies is more emotionally difficult/traumatic; female bodies are gross; the mainstream hypersexualization of lesbians means that is it anywhere from uncomfortable to morally wrong to write sex among women, especially kinky sex; mainstream objectification of female bodies means it is anywhere from uncomfortable to morally wrong to write sex involving women, especially kinky sex; the omnipresence of sexist tropes in media mean that it is anywhere from uncomfortable to morally wrong to write female characters as anything less than morally exemplary, which is boring; the omnipresence of homophobic tropes in media mean that it is anywhere from uncomfortable to morally wrong to write a story that deviates from the anti-trope script (e.g. “happy lesbians with well-balanced relationships”), which is boring; fandom space is supposed to be escapist and fun, and including female sexuality is too close to home to be enjoyable; fandom space is supposed to be escapist and fun, and expecting hobbyists to be warriors in the army of capital-r Representation is obnoxious; fandom space is dominated by young women, and expecting them to be warriors in the army of capital-R Representation is sexist when we don’t hold middle-aged male media creators to the same standard. 

I could write an essay about each of these, some of which are really complex points with some merit. But I think one thing that stands out, from a majority of my interactions on this issue through the years, is the perception that the act of writing relationships among women is inherently political, in a way that the act of writing about relationships among men is not. 

The $64,000 question: do I agree with this?

Are electrons particles, or waves?

I mean, let’s get this out of the way: if writing about women is political, then writing about men is political, too. Masculinity is constructed as the default flavor of humanity in our society, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t bear critical examination, nor does it mean that the actions of men aren’t informed by their socialization, or that everyone’s perceptions of men aren’t informed by power structures. Nor does it mean that men are immune from the toxic effects of life in a heteronormative patriarchy. If we as writers experience a focus on men to be a relaxing break from the stifling responsibility of depicting oppression, that is (a) pretty understandable, since that’s the myth of the (white cis hetero) male experience that’s sold to us from birth, but also (b) probably in need of some interrogation, since it doesn’t actually reflect anyone’s lived reality. Not even the lived reality of dude-bros who roll their eyes at the words “heteronormative” and “patriarchy”; and ESPECIALLY not the lived reality of queer men, who are, let’s remember, real people with a real history and a real present of active oppression due to their orientation. 

As to the question of queer women: was I right or wrong, in my fandom-naïve days, to assume that writing sex and relationships among women is essentially the same as writing those things among men? 

Yes. That is, I think I was right, and also wrong.

In a 1995 essay, Paula Rust enumerates many of the widely divergent and in some cases mutually incompatible interpretations of the oft-quoted second-wave feminist slogan “The personal is political”:

The personal reflects the political status quo (with the implication that the personal should be examined to provide insight into the political); the personal serves the political status quo; one can make personal choices in response to or protest against the political status quo; one’s personal life influences one’s personal politics or determines the limits of one’s understanding of the political status quo; the personal is a personal political statement; personal choices can influence the political status quo; one’s personal choices reveal or reflect one’s personal politics; one should make personal choices that are consistent with one’s personal politics; personal life and personal politics are indistinguishable; personal life and personal politics are unrelated.

If we adapt Rust’s terminology slightly to accommodate the act of reading and writing fiction, so that “the personal” becomes something more like “individualized character depictions,” then I think this passage becomes a useful tool in breaking down how we think about reading and writing women versus how we think about reading and writing men. It seems to me that often, when we are reading and writing about men (especially cis white men who are canonically assumed to be straight even if they fuck in fanfic), our attitudes tend to hang out in the spectrum ranging from, on the more nuanced end, “choices about individualized character depictions can be made in response to or protest against the status quo” to, on the less nuanced end, “individualized character depictions and personal politics are unrelated.” Since straight white men are the default, depicting them doesn’t feel primarily political. It feels normal. Things that happen to straight white male characters seem not to carry the burdensome weight of responsibility and representation that plagues female characters, especially queer female characters or female characters of color. The unspoken logic here posits that the things that happen to men, just happen! The traits men have are just traits! Men can be evaluated as individuals, because there is nothing to distract from that individuality. No matter that whiteness/straightness/maleness is not actually nothing, only an invisible something; and never mind that the completeness of the divorce between individualized character depictions and greater political realities is to a large extent illusory. The fact remains that that’s often the in-the-moment experience of reading and writing about male characters: they can exist as individuals, because their maleness is the norm. 

By contrast, when we are reading and writing about women (especially queer women and women of color), our default assumptions tend to range from “individualized character depictions can influence the political status quo” to “individualized character depictions and personal politics are indistinguishable.” It is burdensome to write about queer women because we feel that every individualized queer woman character we write, in her body and her actions, must both bear the brunt of, and actively resist, all that baggage listed above. She must subvert (on a meta level) and/or stand against (on an in-story level) the tide of mainstream objectification, of lesbian hypersexualization, of sexist and homophobic tropes, of poor treatment and shoddy development at the hands of media creators, and on and on. Everything that happens to her or doesn’t happen to her, every physical trait and every mental tic, is massively overdetermined, because we feel that to write about queer women is to body forth our own personal politics into the world—and, more than that, to transform the landscape of queer female representation entire. 

OBVIOUSLY, as a writer and reader this is neither fun nor possible! No character can do this. 

Please let that sink in. No character can do this. No character is so well-written that she is going to transcend the Oppression Soup in which we all swim; and even if she did, she would not be enough transform the landscape of queer female representation into an egalitarian wonderland. We can stop hitching our wagons to that star because it’s not going to happen. Good news! We are not failures because we fall short of this demonstrably impossible metric! Similarly: my friends and I can install low-flow shower heads in every bathroom in every apartment we move into, from now until our deaths, but we are still not going to offset the effect of Nestlé extracting 36 million gallons of water per year from our national forests to bottle and sell at a profit. Or again: my personal choice to make my own clothes, though potentially politically meaningful to me as an individual, is never going to counteract the coercive power of a global fashion industry that earns $3 trillion a year peddling the lie that women who are larger than a size 10, or who don’t have expendable income to keep up with the latest trends, are not employable, fuckable, or worth taking seriously. This is not to say that making my own clothes can’t be politically meaningful for me personally. Nor is it to say that I am incapable of meaningful political action: I can help to take on these oppressive and exploitative industries via mass organizing: public actions, legal challenges, legislative lobbying, investigative exposés, mass boycotts. But there is absolutely nothing that I alone can do, with my body or my apartment or my novel, that will dismantle these power structures. 

For one thing, this is not how institutional oppression works. Yes, the ramifications of oppressive power structures can manifest in intimate details of one’s life, and it does well to be conscious of that. But the causality doesn’t work in reverse: identifying and purging artefacts of oppression from the intimate details of one’s life, while potentially personally meaningful or satisfying, won’t meaningfully reduce the overall strength of the originating oppressive power structures in society at large. I cannot take down the fashion industry by making my own clothes. I cannot save the world from Nestlé by installing low-flow shower heads. I cannot dismantle sexism and heteronormativity by writing a queer female character who carries perfectly on her shoulders the representation of every oppression she suffers, and perfectly represents my personal authorial politics—or, indeed, by writing a host of such characters, and sharing them with a few thousand people on the internet. This needs to stop being the expectation, or even the ideal. To hold the queer female character to such a standard is to make of her even more of an unattainable exception to human existence than she already is: for none of us can stand in for All Women, or All Queers, or All Queer Women; and none of us should be asked to do so. 

For another thing, this is not how fiction works. Fiction doesn’t convince through intellectual perfection. Fiction convinces through building empathy and voluntary identification in readers for characters who may or may not be wildly different from them, and may or may not be placed in radically different situations than they have ever found themselves in, but whom they the readers, on some basic human level, nonetheless recognize. Crafting an individual character who inspires that kind of gut-level recognition is difficult if the author is assembling them primarily as anti-oppression talisman rather than a flawed and complicit individual; or if the author is undermining the voluntary nature of the reader’s identification by making the character, Ayn Rand-style, a prostelytizing mouthpiece for the author’s own philosophy. I think this is part of what people mean, when they object that writing women, or queer women, or women of color, feels “too political”: the strictures of talisman-creation undermine the ability to foster empathy for a real-seeming individual. But this is not a problem with writing queer women! It’s a problem with the unrealistic expectations we’ve placed on ourselves around doing so. 

I mean, for my money, the way to craft characters who do inspire this gut-level sense of recognition is to draw on one’s own experiences—one’s own passions and one’s own struggles—while also refraining from providing neat and tidy solutions to which real people (and hence characters in the moment) do not have access. People are messy; we have to be able to let our characters be messy. To paraphrase John Waters, who surely knows whereof he speaks: we have to let our characters make US uncomfortable. We have to let them make us feel queasy and ambivalent sometimes, just as we sometimes make ourselves feel that way. We have to let ourselves discover things through the journey of writing and reading that we did not know when we started out. 

Does this mean there is no point in research, no point in educating ourselves about over-used tropes and the history and current reality of queer representation, no point in critiquing media that perpetuates these tropes? Of course it doesn’t mean that. The goal—my goal, anyway—is to write characters who ring true to life, who come off as real people, with real struggles. And in order to do that, a writer needs to be familiar with the toxic and un-lifelike nonsense that gets endlessly recycled in media. It’s helpful to know, for example, that the “lesbian dies, goes mad, or returns to the heterosexual fold at novel’s end” trope was originally imposed on lesbian pulp writers as a condition of publication if they wanted to avoid obscenity charges: here is an example that’s, VERY clearly, not an artefact of lesbian reality but an artificial and homophobic narrative imposed from without. I think it’s valid to make the point that maybe, in this year of our apocalypse 2017, we have reached a point where this narrative should be largely avoided. 

But you know: there are a lot of artificial and homophobic narratives. And there are even more narratives that, while not intrinsically artificial or homophobic, have so often been twisted that way as to be forever tainted by suspicion and pain. And that suspicion and pain twist back into real lived experience in ways that can be complicated and unpredictable. If our culture is a house, then so many of its walls are built of tainted narratives, and so many of its other walls are built up against those tainted walls, that it’s very difficult to dismantle the structure, or determine what’s sound and what’s not. As a real-life queer woman, I have never met an anti-oppression talisman, but I have met plenty of queer women who have made me uncomfortable—myself at the top of my own list. Though I squirm at the “lesbian goes crazy” novel ending, I have known many queer women, myself included, who struggle with mental illness (as well as many who don’t). Though I have noped out of media for egregious and self-serving use of the “lesbian was just waiting for the right man” trope, I myself am a near-lesbian who once fell in love with a man, and I know others who have done the same (as well as many who haven’t). Though I share the frustration over the assumption that bisexual characters are universally flighty and commitment-averse, I also know several flighty and promiscuous bisexuals (and many bisexuals who are neither, and many flighty and promiscuous straight folks). Though I cringe a little at depictions of alcoholism and drug abuse in queer female culture, I am myself a queer woman with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. In a cringe-y catch-22, I am deeply uncomfortable with both the demonization of the working-class butch/femme subculture by the middle and upper classes of lesbian society AND ALSO with the degree of forcibly normative gender expectations I personally have encountered in butch/femme environments… so I decided to go ahead and write a whole novel about that, despite the fact that I might avoid someone else’s treatment of the same subject matter. 

The pattern here is hopefully obvious: even drawing from the pool of my own personal lived stories, many verge on or overlap with narratives that are often toxic in their execution. So what are we to do? Does all this add up to a wash, a free pass for the continuation of any tired and harmful trope imaginable? No. It adds up to a call for a nuanced and subjective calculus around analyzing works of art: an acknowledgement that some versions of Narrative X or Character Y will spark that sense of recognition or that shock of injury for audience members, and others won’t, and others will for some audience members but not for others, and all of that is valid to talk about. And it also adds up to a call for writers of queer female characters—especially those of us who are queer and/or female ourselves—to allow ourselves the freedom to write individualized queer women who, though they may not body forth our personal politics, make us familiarly uncomfortable. Characters with whom we are intimate. 

Characters with whom we feel at home. 

Taking a larger view, I think that we need to close the gap between our reading and writing of men, especially straight white men (“individualized character depictions and personal politics are unrelated”) and our reading and writing of women, especially queer women and women of color (“individualized character depictions and personal politics are indistinguishable”). Both sides need to shift. Neither extreme is true, and we are doing a disservice to all our characters, and our works, if we disregard the nuance that lives between them. But more intensely, and more specifically, I would argue that where queer female characters are concerned we need to work toward an attitude that—however partially and strategically—begins to uncouple “individual character representation” from “personal authorial politics,” and does so with the express goal of allowing these characters normality. Weird, inconsistent, flawed, complicated, mundane normality. We need to let go of the intimidating and paralyzing attitude that queerness and femaleness raise the political stakes in such a way that mundane fuckups, either on the part of the author or the character, are no longer allowed. 

To extend the analogies from earlier: if we have the water pressure to support it, we should install low-flow showerheads, not because we can thereby compensate for the evils of Nestlé, but to save on our water bills. And if we have the time and inclination we might make our own clothes, not because it will magically deliver us from the perils of the beauty industry, because it it a mode of self-expression that is also personally empowering. And if we can, we should write and read complex, flawed queer female characters, and support others who write and read them, because to do so enables us—real-life queer women, and people who know real-life queer women, and even people who might be intimidated or repulsed by real-life queer women—to feel that real-life queer women, in all their flawed and problematic glory, are more human; more at home; more recognized. Closer to the range of the normal. 

None of these things is going to save the world, and we don’t need them to. They are important and life-sustaining anyway. 

(The author can be found online as havingbeenbreathedout on Tumblr and breathedout on AO3. She can be found offline on the wide open beaches and labyrinthine interstates of sunny southern California, where she lives the social-justice nonprofit life and also enjoys Bloomsbury history, kissing girls, poolside cocktails, early-morning yoga, and crying about fiction with her live-in editor/BFF/queerplatonic life partner fizzygins.)