Guide to Drow

[Cheiromancer]

I'm sorry to say that I'm disappointed by d20's latest offering. I haven't pored over every detail, but the first impressions are disquieting.

For instance, the decay of drow magic items. Sean K Reynolds thinks this is a bad feature, and I'm inclined to agree. It seems to be a way of giving the drow equipment that cannot be acquired by adventurers, and thereby messes up the challenge/treasure relationship. But hey- I can live with that. If a DM doesn't want treasure to decay, it doesn't- if he does, then here are some rules for it. Ok then.

Radiation. Ok, it fits well with the theme that the items decay when taken out of the underdark. How about the restrictions on teleportations? Perhaps it's in there somewhere, and I just overlooked it. But one of the prestige classes gets a kind of shadow walking that is almost as good. Hmmm. A loose end to be tidied up later.

Blue drow on the cover. Well, white people are actually kinda pink- who says that drow have to be midnight black? Anyway it's an artist's interpretation and they look cool.

The Shur. It has a demonic parent. Demons are immune to electricity. The Shur has energy resistance 20 to cold, fire and acid. But not to electricity? Demons are immune to poison, too, but the Shur has no special resistance to this either. Well, a few details like this can be changed if a DM wants more verisimilitude.

The Shaturug. They are "strong and intelligent warriors, leading tribes of orcs or drow house armies to victory." Well, yes, but they have a -4 penalty to Charisma. How are they leaders again?

The Spider Golem. It's made out of an adamantine alloy, but is affected by Transmute Rock to Mud, Transmute Mud to Rock and Stone to Flesh spells as if it were a stone golem. An alloy is a metal, right? So, a discrepancy in the flavor text. A very minor problem.

The feats. Enhanced Spell Resistance grants +4 to SR. Stackable. Well, ok. Maybe the epic handbook (which gives only a +2) is too stingy.

Rapid healing and improved alertness look ok. Speed load- shouldn't it be restricted to hand crossbows? Those heavy ones would take a lot of strength to reload quickly. Applying to all crossbows, no strength pre-requisite, no escalating pre-requisites for stacking it... nope, I don't like it.

Dark Blessing. You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls, damage, initiative, skill checks, and saves? I don't care what funky pre-requisites this is, this is more than a feat- even more than the perq's of a level in a prestige class. It's more like a freakin' template!

Retaliation. Is retaliation too strong? I don't really trust it, and the other feats don't give me any particular reason to think that it is balanced.

Prestige classes. Do adamantine elements disintegrate in sunlight? I thought it was just if they were taken from the underdark. Can artificial limbs wear bracers and rings and such? Need to reread it more carefully- I'm sure it's in there.

But then there's the Soulless. I can't figure out this prestige class. The character gets a dark blessing and then loses their faith? I'm familiar with the concept in Western Spirituality of the "dark night of the soul," so I'm sure I'll be able to figure this one out, just need a little more time. Spells look weak, though there are a number of defensive advantages.

Magic. The poison domain allows one to use the poison spell three times per day as a spell-like ability!? This is a 4th level spell. What kind of domain allows one to use a 4th level spell three times per day at first level? At least the undead domain ability is only a 3rd level spell, and only usable once per day. But still, this seems over the top.

There are other features too, but these are the ones that were first to catch my eye. There's enough places where I say "I don't like that" or "that must be a mistake" that I lose confidence in the other game material. I mean, if I wanted a book that I have to go over with a fine tooth comb I'd buy from WotC! (Just kidding- no offense intended.)

So that's my rant. I bought the guide to the drow the moment I saw it was by d20 press. I never even looked at the preview! But now I feel a little let down.

If you all could help out by posting the things that they liked to this thread, so I can feel cheered up again, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[Morrus]

Thanks, Cheiromancer. I'll send the URL of this thread to Goodman Games, who are the developers of the book.

What, incidentally, is your opinion of the Nat20 produced PDFs as opposed to those produced by other companies and distributed by us? I have noticed that the external offerings seem to sell less than the in-house products, and was wondering if people tended to skip over them as soon as they knew it was an external product?

 

[Gez]

I'll add the half-illithid drow to the list of disappointment. To use such a creature, one has to disregard all the background we have on illithid reproduction (they don't mate and can't produce hybrids; they instead spawn tadpoles that can be inserted as parasite into a host and will mutate the host into a new illithid after having eaten the host's brain from the inside).

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with most of your statement regarding that half-drow/half-illithid. Still, the creature does fit, albeit with some minor tweaking, in the known physiology of where illithids come from.

The Illithiad does indeed say that illithids reproduce in the manner you described (I believe its called ceremorphesis, but I could be mistaken). However, letting an illithid tadpole into the brain of certain creatures can result in either a) the tadpole and the host both dying, since the host cannot be transformed (the Illithiad mentions which races fall into this catagory), or b) the host metamorphosizes into a being that isnt an illithid, but has illithid-like qualities (an illithid-kin, if you will). Urophions, which are illithid/ropers, are an example of such beings. An article in Dragon magazine expanded on the concept, listing a few more such hybrids.

The problem with that half-illithid/half-drow, is that drow are either one of the races that dies when they try to make them illithids, or are transformed into normal illithids (sorry, I cant remember which). Even so though, this doesn`t make the listed creature totally unusable. The Dragon article I mentioned talked about a svirfneblin/illithid being. Svirfneblin (deep gnomes) usually just die when illithid tadpoles try to go through ceremorphesis with them, but the article said that by using a specific psionic power during the process (something about channeling planar energy, which in that case was from the (then Demi-)Plane of Shadow), allowed the ceremorphesis to succeed, and gave the creature new powers. Its feasible that a similar process was used during the creation of the half-drow/half-illithid creatures.

Again, I didn`t think that creature was such a hot idea either, but with just a bit of tweaking, it does fit the standard mold for illithid reproduction...albeit a weird aspect of it.

 

[Morrus]

I'll add the half-illithid drow to the list of disappointment. To use such a creature, one has to disregard all the background we have on illithid reproduction (they don't mate and can't produce hybrids; they instead spawn tadpoles that can be inserted as parasite into a host and will mutate the host into a new illithid after having eaten the host's brain from the inside).

You do realise that his is a different take on drow/illithids etc.? It may have similarities with old official stuff, but that's it. If you only want the "official" versions, you're best off sticking to WotC material.

This book is for people who like drow and mindflayers, but who want a different version of them to the version that every player is completely familiar with. They're sililar enough to maintain their identities, but different enough that it's still possible to suprprise the players.

 

[Lizard]

I'll add the half-illithid drow to the list of disappointment. To use such a creature, one has to disregard all the background we have on illithid reproduction (they don't mate and can't produce hybrids; they instead spawn tadpoles that can be inserted as parasite into a host and will mutate the host into a new illithid after having eaten the host's brain from the inside).

I haven't see the product in question, but please remember this:

a)There are no illithids in D20. The word is not OGC. If someone used it in a product to refer to mind flayers, WOTC might get testy.

b)There is, therefore, no 'illithid culture' in D20. That kind of information is not in the SRD, and, since the mind flayers are wholly original to WOTC/TSR (albeit by way of Lovecraft), no one can plead that they're just using existing mythology.
D20 products *cannot* use the distinctive cultures for either Drow or Mind Flayers as created by TSR/WOTC. That's the rule.

 

[HellHound]

I also have to throw my hat in the ring here.

As one of the writers of the upcoming "Unveiled Masters: The Essential Guide to Mindflayers" (from Paradigm Concepts), I say it is time to discard our artificially implanted memories of Mind Flayers being called Illithids, of them evolving from tadpoles and everything else that we have been taught by the strange sorceries of the Monster Manual that did not make it into the SRD!

Mind Flayers reproduce in many fashions, none of them pleasant, and their strange, flesh-crafted cross-breeds are terrors indeed.

 

[Gez]

You do realise that his is a different take on drow/illithids etc.? It may have similarities with old official stuff, but that's it. If you only want the "official" versions, you're best off sticking to WotC material.

I don't want to stick to WotC materials; however I like when I get some consistency.

For example, I appreciate the sneaky way in which Mongoose Publishing stay compatible with these "unmentionnable lore" without infringing the licenses: for example, in their Slayer's Guide to Troglodytes, they make references to the deity of troglodytes as the "Lizard-Toad". Never use the name Laogzed, but as Laogzed is described as looking like a foul crossbreed of lizard and toad, we can use the material they give with minimal hassle.

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with Gez here. Its one thing to say that you need to stick to WotC`s ground rules, but just staying consistent is always appreciated, especially (in my opinion) where complex creatures like Mind Flayers are concerned.

That said, the message from Hell Hound has left me feeling a bit suspicious about what we`re going to be seeing from Paradigm Concept`s new guide. I understand that there`s a lot of things about our favorite brain eaters that can`t be touched by a d20 company, but speaking as a fan, Id prefer to see that information built around (as Gez said, a la Mongoose`s example) rather than just rewritten.

Just my two cents.

 

[HellHound]

100% Thread Hijack!

Now, the distinction between Mind Flayers and Trogs is significant. Mainly because TSR -DID- write a very big book about Flayers and they -DIDN'T- write a big book about Trogs. Thus, you can write a book about Troglodytes without breaking canon too many times.

But now, try to write a full book about Mind Flayers without actually "touching" on the subjects from the Illithiad, and still claim it's a complete book. So, you can't talk about life-cycle, society, etc...

But the good news is we didn't actually stray THAT far from canon in the book in question. But some amount of moving away from the old TSR canon is to be expected in d20 products, and should be encouraged instead of scorned. Let the DMs CHOOSE which option they prefer, instead of just slapping an "incompatable" sticker upon the newer options.

Personally, the Illithiad COULDN'T be used in my games when it came out. Because in 1982, I had written three full campaigns that were mind flayer-based (and had run them all by 1988). In these campaigns I had detailed Mind Flayer society, ecology, genetics, personas and so on. And NONE of it matched the "canon". So I chose to keep to my view of these underdark terrors.

And witht he quality of non-canon materials coming out now, I think it's time to sit back and read them and to choose which route to take from there.