"You know, he'd be a pretty good warrior if he had a better head for numbers."

RANDOM COMMENTARY

While reading the last of these, a supplement published by WotC during the early days of 3rd Edition, I was struck by the following piece of advice for the neophyte DM:

This advice is not given as a "one true way" of doing things. It's instead offered on a platter of several different ways of mixing things up and structuring encounters and adventures in way that makes things just a little bit tougher for the PCs than they would normally be.

But if you're ever looking for a concrete example of the difference between the design ethos of 3rd Edition and the design ethos of 4th Edition, that quote isn't a bad place to start. Because any 4th Edition designer would consider that quote to be anathema: It violates two of the core principles of 4th Edition gaming ("all characters should participate in all encounters" and "strategic resource management is bad").

A couple of days ago I mentioned in the comments that, in my opinion, "the narrow range of options that results from this design ethos is bland and boring". It was particularly because that comment was fresh in my mind that this quote jumped out at me while I was reading. It's a perfect example of the type of gameplay that was unceremoniously stripped out of 4th Edition.

THE BIG SLEEP FALLACY

Every so often I'll discuss plot holes in movies. Sometimes I'm critiquing a movie I liked. Other times I'm excorciating a movie I hated.

For example, last month I posted a lengthy essay discussing (among other things) some significant problems with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Another example would be the plethora of plot holes Peter Jackson created in The Two Towers. (Gratuitous examples include teleporting ents, the elven legion from Lothlorien that teleports to Helm's Deep, and Faramir's strangely psychic ability to know events taking place in Rohan on the same day that they occur.)

And frequently, during the ensuing discussions, someone will trot out what I've come to refer to as the Big Sleep Fallacy.

The Big Sleep is a classic movie starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. It's a noir detective story based on Raymond Chandler's novel of the same name and Chandler also wrote the screenplay. It's widely considered to be one of the best movies ever made. It's also remembered as having an incredibly convoluted plot. The most notable example of this is that one of the murders in the film is never explained. When asked about it later, Chandler himself couldn't identify the murderer. It's a huge gaping plot hole.

And the Big Sleep Fallacy looks like this: "The Big Sleep was a great movie. The Big Sleep has a famous plot hole. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with having plot holes."

Err... No. If you think that makes sense, I'm afraid you're in dire need of a remedial logic class.

If you want to go for the weaker conclusion that "movies can have plot holes and still be good", then you're in decent shape. But with the stronger conclusion you're assuming the unstated premise that "great movies are without flaw". And even if you can swallow such a patently ridiculous premise, you've now introduced an ancillary conclusion that "plot holes aren't flaws"... which also appears to be patently ridiculous.

You can also scent the fundamental error here by noting that The Big Sleep is specifically noteworthy for having such a significant plot hole while still being considered a great movie. In other words, that type of thing is unusual and therefore merits mention. If great movies routinely had gaping plot holes lying around, then the appearance of one in The Big Sleep wouldn't be of notable significance.

... and that's my rant for the day.

D&D WEIRDNESS

The spell control undead: "This spell enables to you to command undead creatures for a short period of time."

The spell command undead: "This spell allows you some degree of control over an undead creature."

... yeah, that's not confusing at all.

The spell command undead, by the way, is a really great exploit that I rarely see people talking about. It's a 2nd-level spell that lasts for 1 day per level and has no saving throw when used against mindless undead.

To put this in perspective, a cloud giant skeleton is a CR 7 creature with 110 hp and dealing 4d6+18 on a successful hit.

Even more significantly, however, command undead -- unlike the 7th-level control undead -- has no HD limit. And since it's a 2nd-level spell, it can be put in a wand.

This spell can be very easily used to turn that undead-infested tomb the DM was planning to hit you with into nothing more than a recruiting ground.

By design, command undead is supposed to be the undead equivalent of charm person. But the longer duration (charm person is only 1 hour/ per level), lack of saving throw, and more powerful effect when dealing with mindless undead make it unduly powerful.

SEPTEMBER 2008: 

PART 1 - PART 2 - PART 3

RETURN TO THE ALEXANDRIAN - SUBSCRIBE