Mucking with gender in D&D

"I want to know if he's male, female, or elf."

That's one of those phrases that came out in a D&D game this summer. Its stuck with me, because I was realizing I've wanted to do something different with gender in D&D for a while now.

Back around 2007, Z, T, and I started a 3.5 campaign and we did some collaborative world building. Basically, we decided that your character choice let you make world decisions. I'm almost 100% certain that one of my examples was if you play an elf, you get do decide how elves work. They might be come crazy hermaphrodites or smurf-gendered folk, but you're playing the elf so you get to decide. No one really ran with that back then.

While there are stories of great elf queens or princes (I'm thinking Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, and 13th Age), elves have also often been portrayed as a bit more androgynous. Certainly the joke about Varsuvius from Order of the Stick is one of indeterminate gender. In a different way, the drow are strongly segregated into male and female sexes, but do muck up gender roles by having females dominant over males. So while gendered elves are the norm, they've got a bit of room for some non-binary gender or sex types and are still a bit transgressive in their canonical portrayals.

Likewise, dwarves have a bit of some odd gender and sex to them. Namely, it used to be the case (joke? bad joke?) that dwarven women had beards and were indistinguishable from male dwarves. This leads to a smurf type of situation, since the prototypical dwarf is a bearded male wielding an axe or hammer. Now a days, there are some nice illustrations of plenty of beardless female dwarves. Did we lost anything in downplaying the 'joke' version of dwarves though (I think we did gain quite a bit by doing it at least)?

In first edition, we saw different ability score maximums for male and female characters (generally with females having less strength potential). But we also saw gender play into some races like the Bariaur of 2nd edition Planescape. Males and females had different class options and distinct abilities. While a little odd, I'd like that brought back in a new version of Planescape. Even though the sexes and their gender roles are more "traditional" it's kinda nice to see and explore that in a way that is codified by the rules (a bit indie in style there, eh?). In 4th edition, the Feywild book presented hamadryads (female only) and satyrs (male only). I don't recall it explicitly mentioning how these fey races procreate, but it was also an interesting take on traditional gender roles (and a hold-over from earlier editions). I understand that some people might be upset by having some races enforce traditional sex and gender roles. And these are "hard-coded" in the rules: its your home-brew or variant to allow a male dryad or female satyr. But you can't have transgression if there isn't a norm to rebel against.

Rarely, we get races which are not gendered per se, but become gendered in play. Warforged or Rogue Modrons (or Shardminds?) don't have a gender, but some might adapt a male or female gender for themselves (letting players grasp onto something, I suppose. Or at least draw boobs on constructs). A few races don't show gender dimorphism or don't have strong gender roles, like thri-kreen, making the idea of gender generally irrelevant for those races. Then there's the ubiquitous boobs on dragonborn, which probably just shows the puerile mores of a few years back: how else would you know a lady dragonborn is a lady?

We shouldn't forget the iconic girdle of masculinity/femininity either and other sex-swap curses. Interesting to note that they are curses and reversible.

Also, half-elves (and half-orcs, along with half-ogres, muls, and planetouched) show that interspecies breeding happens. So sex is largely identical across many major races.

One last aside, the Fading Suns game has a vulcan/romulan or elf/drow pair of races, the Obun and Ukari. At least for the Obun, hermaphroditism (the easily graspable, two genitals kind, I believe) was featured in their chapter of their race book. Nice.

Up to now, gender/sex has basically been a joke at best in D&D. Or at least heteronormative sex and gender have been the norm. But it's easy to see why. Obviously, the gender studies crowd has taken of and gotten some of their jargon to take hold among educated college types in general. I think most people who went to college have a passing familiarity with a theory of gender-sex that distinguishes gender or gender-roles from biological sex and sexual orientation. Beyond that, I'm not sure much of the jargon or theory has caught on or is really particularly useful/needed in daily life for most people. But issues of gender in character actually are rather peripheral to slaying monsters and finding treasure. Save the princess (or prince) doesn't come into play quite as much in most D&D games (which aren't Conan d20 with its temptress class).

Things seem different now. The new PH has some more inclusive language, about considering your character of any gender or sex or orientation or whatnot. People may quibble that the wording didn't go far enough, or is flawed in one way or another. Because things are basically presented as male or female. But change is happening. Pathfinder apparently has a transgender character as their new iconic shaman. A few other books might touch on the subject or introduce less traditional views of sex and gender. But there are some other interesting things to explore in any D&D game if you're willing to get creative and make some changes for a particular campaign.

Though the term hermaphrodite is nebulous and dispreferred these days and there's many different ways of classifying intersex people today, the race of both genitals could make for some interesting stories. In the musings here, I'm going to focus on sex types here and leave implications for gender. This obviously ignores all varieties of intersexuality that happen in the real world in favor of standardized non-binary sexes in a fantasy game. A few interesting options might be (wikipedia as our guide):

• True or Simultaneous Hermaphrodites. This race would have both sets of genitals at the same time. This might be apt for plant-based races (ala treants and treefolk, not so much dryads). But if adapted to elves or gnomes, it could also make for some interesting stories.
• Sequential Hermaphrodites. These are beings of one sex which can change their sex. They might start out as one or the other, they might change more often. You can easily envision dopplegangers or changelings in this way, but it'd be an interesting take on elves or dragons as well. Why would an elf change sex? Does it add to or take away from any innate magical power? Is one sex more highly regarded than the other? Is the change permanent or reversible? Do all the types of that race (e.g. high, wood, dark elves) believe the same thing or even have the same biology?
• Pseudohermaphrodites. This is the case of the hyena, where females look dramatically similar to males. You can imagine this being the case with dwarves easily, and races like lizardfolk or dragonborn may be trivially pseudohermaphrodites if there are no obvious differences between the sexes. For pseudohermaphrodites, even the genitals are, superficially at least, similar. Obviously something to consider with Gnolls as well.

These are just some of the obvious ways that you might change gender and sex elements in a fantasy (or sci-fi) setting. Elves, dwarves, dragons, treants, and gnolls aren't the only races you might apply this sort of thing to anyway. The standard humanoids (Kobolds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Orcs, and Ogres) could easily be some type of hermaphrodite (kobolds, with their ties to dragons, might be key on the list here). They're generally portrayed as all male (when's the last time the random orcs you fought were female, really?). It could make for an interesting setting element, depending on how you play up these races. In fact, as the DM, it may be easier to introduce some non-binary sex and gender types here than in the PC races.

Finally, its worth remembering that the actual player characters are special. I like how 13th Age brings that to the front of the line with the One Unique Thing idea. So if someone wants to play a male dryad, that's really cool. How did it happen? What do the other dryads think? There are so many story possibilities. Just like what if your male drow is a priest of Lolth, or homosexual, or finds (intentionally or accidentally) that girdle of masculinity/femininity? A basic spell like Alter Self might really make some of these categories more fluid, if you want.

This sort of thing isn't for everyone. In fact, it might make some people really uncomfortable. But I'm really considering that dragons and kobolds and gnolls might warrant some of this treatment in my games, if only to help distinguish them from the other types of humanoids and let me play with these categories as a DM.

5th Edition: W(h)ither Creativity?

While I haven't gotten a chance to play some 5th Edition yet, one aspect of it that bothers me a bit is the the lack of explicit creative thinking instructions that we see in the game. I call this "sheet blinders".

This is something that I've noticed when running 4th edition. Your powers list some very specific things you can do. Much to my shame, when running a one-shot 4e game years ago, a friend of mine was still thinking in older D&D mode (or non-D&D mode?) and asked to push an enemy through a window. My response was something along the lines of: "Use one of the powers on your sheet. Do you have one that pushes?"

I think it's the same thing when I play some games with folk back home and people instinctively reach for the d20 and roll perception before the DM has a chance to describe the situation. The book or your sheet explicitly says its an option, so you better do it. And you don't always think beyond the options listed on your sheet.

While I've ragged on cantrips before, I really feel this in cantrips and some of the cantrip-like powers. Look at druidcraft, prestidigitation, and thaumaturgy. They give you a relatively fixed set of options that you can do, with a bit of leeway in "harmless sensory effects". But the tinker rock gnome has the same problem. They can craft one of three little mechanical devices. Can they instead create small clockwork traps? Can ray of frost freeze things? Can I light a candle with flame bolt? Even 13th Age, which has some options of giving the wizard an array of cantrips that do things based on your spells prepared has them only do harmless effects, but what about useful ones?

Maybe other editions didn't call out as many imaginative possibilities like this either: I'll have to do some comparisons. But I think the designers missed an opportunity when the Dragonborn and Tiefling descriptions (or the uncommon races sidebar) didn't suggest variants: If you don't like the concept of Dragonborn or Tieflings as major races in your game, you could still let players play them as unique characters. Maybe half-dragons or half-fiends could have a place in your story (Inu Yasha style?) as rare or unique individuals when the description of the race as a whole doesn't fit? That's one little side-bar from the 4th edition Dark Sun setting that I think would have been well placed in the new PH.

I hope the new DMG has some of this advice stuck in it, but I suppose I can see listing very specific minor effects as a way of keeping things saner in organized play. I just hate that it might lead someone to say "no, your cantrip can't do that" rather than "yeah, but its not quite powerful enough to do all of that." Which is sad, because last summer with the playtest rules, I loved the creativity of players trying to tip bookcases over on enemies when they went Against the Cult of the Reptile God. All the talk of OSR games and such, that's one of the key elements that I want to get back into D&D. Somehow I didn't feel like that level of creativity was absent in Fading Suns or Vampire or other storytelling/indie games, but maybe the lack of creativity is one of the elements that made 4e feel a bit more like a videogame than a tabletop RPG.

That said, even if the DMG doesn't tackle this, it seems like something that a little foresight and planning can help alleviate: just tell players to think outside the box (and the bullet points in power descriptions).

5th Edition Wizards: I might learn to stop worrying and love the wizard

So the new 5th edition wizard has been stuck in my craw for a while. Basically since forever. But I finally sat down with the wizard and really took a look: it might not be as bad or nonsensical as I thought. I feel like the 5th Edition wizard has lost his position as king of magic a bit. But maybe its not quite as bad as I thought.

First, in terms of number of spells they can prepare: they seem to get Int Modifier + level. This is on par with Clerics or Druids who get Wis Modifier + level + domain / circle of the land spells. That's 10 more spells prepared for the cleric or druid than the wizard. Wizards don't even get one bonus spell of their specialty or anything. However. In older editions of D&D, clerics did get bonus spells for wisdom while wizards got squat. So this isn't necessarily something unique. Plus wizards do get a ritual casting bonus: they can cast spells in their books as rituals, others can only cast spells they have prepared. So the wizard does potentially have up to 17 rituals in addition to what they have prepared. Not a huge bonus, but its something. And easy to over look.

Second, wizards don't get those nifty bonus spells for their specialty. So an Enchanter can prep 100% necromancy spells. But looking at the School of magic features, most of them actually do refer specifically to the specialty school. Not all of them mind you, so Enchanters get some stupid spell-like power, and evokers get a bad/useless potent cantrip feature that seems to affect all their attack cantrips, and necromancers all gain power from killing their enemies (though they get a little more for using Necromancy spells). But. Many of these powers are thematic (if not useful/awesome) and do key off casting spells of their specialty. So there is some incentive for a wizard to prep a few important spells of their school.

Now, there's still some issues. I think a lot of spells (and other powers) are assertive in their writing, and this might limit people's choices. For example, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, and Druidcraft all have a little set of bullet points which spell out pretty well all the things the spells can do. Maybe that helps with organized play and many DMs might let more creative things happen, but by the book those spells are pretty lame/limited. Ray of Frost focuses on the damage it does and slowing enemies, but I really hope that if a dungeon has a wet floor ray of frost could freeze it. I also really hope that the DMG has guidelines for adjudicating cantrips.

What I'm saying is maybe the sky isn't falling. Though it isn't as easy to adapt old settings or do some more radical homebrew as second edition and earlier.

Al-Qadim 5th Edition Patch: Proficiencies

The proficiency system of 5th edition is one that I only half like. I think I might prefer 13th age better, just because everyone won't see perception on their list and ask to constantly roll it. However, the system isn't bad. Its a little grainy, but it should work for Al-Qadim. We have a nice list of skills. This is pretty listy, so its after the jump:

Al-Qadim 5th Edition Patch: Barbers, Corsairs, Desert Riders, and the Rest

Continuing my thoughts on updating Al-Qadim to 5th edition (see here, here, and here):  The Hakima and the Sha'ir seem to be the most class-like of the Al-Qadim kits. But what about all the rest? Well, there is a really quick/dirty Al-Qadim conversion for the basic rules out there already.

But I'm not thrilled with it since it just converts each kit to a background basically, including the crazy sha'ir which then seems to indicate you must link that background to the wizard class. In my opinion, not the role of a background. There is an interesting take on the Elemental mage: basically ditch the sorcerer having elemental provinces, then only the one wizard option gets a list of allowed/banned spells. And you don't worry about what bards and the like do. Hmm...

Fortunately, many 2nd edition kits make perfectly good backgrounds (and there's an accent explosion happen for no good reason!):

• Áskar - Folk Hero
• Corsair - Sailor/Pirate
• Pragmatist, Ethoist, Moralist - Acolyte
• Sa'lúk - Charlatan, Criminal/Spy, Urchin
• Mystic - Hermit
• Outland Warrior, Outland Priest, Askar - Outlander
• Mamlúk - Soldier
• Beggar-Thief - Urchin
• Merchant Rogue - Guild Artisan/Merchant (Merchant version, obviously)
• Rawun - Entertainer

The remaining backgrounds in the book can easily be renamed

• Noble/Knight - Emír
• Guild Artisan/Guild Merchant - Artisan (Artisan Version)
• Sage - Fine, could be renamed Faqíh

That leaves a few kits:

• Desert Rider
• Fáris
• Mercenary Barbarian
• Elemental Mage
• Sorcerer
• Sha'ír
• Barber
• Holy-Slayer
• Matrúd
• Káhin
• Hákima

Some of these can just become their own backgrounds: Desert Rider, Faris (Holy Warrior), Mercenary Barbarian (renamed just Mercenary?), and Matrud (Outcast) seem quite amenable to background treatment.

Something like the Káhin can probably just be a new name for the Druid. The Holy-Slayer is pretty much just an Assassin (perhaps replace poison with a favored weapon specialty?).

The Barber might make a nice Rogue archetype on the surface, but Rogues don't specialize till third level, and you'd presumably want that barber focus from the get-go (rogues still can do a thief or assassin things before they specialize, they don't do the barbering stuff so much). So barber is a bit better as a background too.

I've already mused on the Sha'ir and Hakima and think they'll do well as sorcerous origins for the sorcerer class.

That just leaves the Sorcerer, Elemental Mage, and those other wizard kits from the complete Sha'ir's handbook. None of the wizard kits really seem to be much of a background, and more like wizard traditions. So it makes sense to add in a few other backgrounds to support these intelligence-based things a wizard would be doing: Vizier or Qádi (Judge) and the like. Hidden Mage is another background that comes to mind for someone who is or has been keeping their identity as an Elemental Mage secret.

Now, going the other way, there's a few classes that didn't exist in Al-Qadim originally. Barbarians  work fine as outlanders or mercenaries. Unenlightened tribes from the deserts, islands, or ruined kingdoms make prime sources of Barbarians. Monks don't fit as well, but might be Fakírs or other ascetic priest types. Adding an ascetic or Fakír background might be useful, but they might also be Mystics of Nog. Druids, already mentioned above, can be Káhins or Idol priests of the ruined kingdoms (making Idol Priest a nice variant of Acolyte).

So the new backgrounds to add/adapt:

• Desert Rider
• Fáris
• Mercenary
• Barber
• Matrúd (Outcast)
• Vizier
• Qádi (Judge)
• Fakír (Ascetic)
• Idol Priest
• Hidden Mage

Now. This does seem like a lot of backgrounds. But it's also pretty comprehensive and, while variety might be a little overwhelming for new players, it is also a nice collection of character seeds. I think its worthwhile when playing a setting which might be a little more exotic than what most of us are used to. There are, however, so few skills and tools in 5th Edition and languages are less important in Al-Qadim, so I'm not quite sure if it'll be easy to craft about 20 backgrounds. And is it worthwhile to try to add a new skill or tool that's iconic for the setting?

Planescape 5th Edition Patch: Initial Thoughts

Planescape, unlike Al-Qadim, seems a bit easier to convert to 5th edition largely because of the lack of iconic class variants and unique magic system(s). But there are a few things that need to be converted.

Races. Obviously the original boxed set has distinct races. Races seem like relatively quick, if not easy, conversions though. Aasimar, Bariur, Genasi, Githzerai, & Rogue Modron. A friend did this with the playtest rules, but apparently advantage doesn't necessarily convert all those +1 or +2 bonuses well. I'm thinking being able to add proficiency bonus to some saves, a skill proficiency, or occasionally a double proficiency bonus might be reasonable. Some of these might show up in the DMG too.

Factions. These are a big deal. Its been suggested that factions translate to backgrounds. Well, maybe factions could be translated as backgrounds is a better way to put it. I'm not sure I like this idea though. Sure, its nice and easy (and someone else did all the work!) but this eliminates a layer of depth in the setting. A friend suggested that factions ought to have bonds and flaws and beliefs. I like this too. Inspiration seems to be quite similar to the belief points of the Planewalker's handbook. But one aspect of Inspiration points is they can be given to your friends when they need them. Belief points from a Guvner don't seem to fit when transferred to a barmy chaosman or member of the revolutionary league. Or the Fated: they can't give. At all. But that might be a conceit you need to ignore, or else you just bar factioneers from giving inspiration to their antagonistic peers. That would be a simple flaw:

Now, why not factions as backgrounds? It just feels like you lose something by not being able to use nobles and urchins and charlatans, but also you have absolutely no diversity of skills if you wanted to run a one-faction game. A few factions will be difficult to convert if you give them a special benefit, but I think it could be done. So factions maybe just as an extra layer (just as in the original boxed set) with a namer benefit, belief, and flaw. Maybe the advanced abilities could be converted if players need them.

Proficiencies. The basic set seem good, but I can see a little argument for adding a bit. I'm not quite sure what it would be though. The basic boxed set doesn't add any new proficiencies or some other second edition equivalent. The Planewalkers Handbook adds Chaos Shaping, Planar Sense, Planar Survival, Planology, Portal Feel, Spell Recovery, and Planar Direction Sense. The question is do all of these just fall into Arcana? You want to say no, but you're not sure. Chaos Shaping seems pretty unique but not all that useful. Planology lets you use a Celestial Etherscope, so that might be cool as a tool proficiency. Then there's all the languages... If we're back to having oodles of languages, I might consider giving out bonus languages based on intelligence again. It'd be cool if Plane Lore might be a unique still in addition to Arcana perhaps, and one tool (Celestial Etherscope) could help make things a little more Planescape. More than that though... Seems too much. If each plane has a "lore" type skill then each PC could have the lore based on their home plane. Then Intelligence could give a lore or a language? That seems too fiddly though.

All sorts of undecided on proficiencies here.

Spells and Magic. Most of magic works fine as is, though I'm not sure about the whole "lose power on different planes" thing. For wizards and clerics, it seems harsh. It might be better to have the penalties happen only at the extremes. When a cleric is in a rival deity's realm, not just on a different plane, perhaps. You can probably leverage the dis/advantage mechanic for augmented and diminished spells if you want. Another option is to say you can't spend your highest level spell slots on diminished magic, which seems nicer than saying you lose spell slots automatically or your spell slots themselves are diminished when casting the spell (i.e. your 4th level slot becomes a 1st level slot when you're 3 planes away from your deity, instead you can only use your 1st level slots).

Augmentation/diminishment gives an interesting option for magic items: you can give out more and limit their usefulness. A weapon that only gains its enchantment on Baator all of a sudden becomes a little more interesting (Thanks for the notion, Z.).

It would be cool to keep the augmented/diminished spells and items in the game somehow, but the original 2nd edition material is a bit... extensive. Or overly specific. Rare and memorable seems like a better option at the moment. But a few options aren't bad.

Adapting a handful of basic spells from 2nd edition stuff would also be easy and nice additions. Warp Sense seems like a great option. Surelock has some relatives, and could be adapted with a at higher levels set of options perhaps. Protection from Prime, Portal Alarm, Portal Beacon, Know Faction, Avoid Planar Effects... they'll fit on a page or two. Perfect.

So, to sum up:

• Convert a 9 races:Aasimar, Bariur, Genasi (x4), Githzerai, Rogue Modron, & Tiefling
• Convert 16 faction benefits and restrictions.
• Consider adding a skill and tool; if languages are important give bonus languages (old school style).
• Convert a couple spells. Consider how augmented/diminished spells and items might work.

Voilà!

Al-Qadim 5th Edition Patch: Sha'ir

Still a bit frustrated with adapting things for 5th edition. While in my Hakima musings, I said that the ha'ir and warlock were an obvious match, on closer inspection this isn't really true.

Thematically, the Sha'ir had lots of powers related to genies: identifying their works, calling upon them for aid, imprisoning them, and traveling to their realms. The warlock, however, tends to have powers that curse, blast, and befuddle their enemies and expand their senses. The Sha'ir had no powers of his own except for dealing with genies: he gained power from his minor genie servant. The Warlock is granted lots of these curse, blast, and befuddlement powers that might not be the most potent, but are easier to regain than wizard or sorcerer slots.

So, on the surface, it looks like the warlock is a great match for the Sha'ir: reflavor the Fiend to the Efreet, add in the three other elemental genies (Djinn, Marid, and Dao) and you're set! But does it really make sense for a Sha'ir to be hexing people or calling up his pact weapon? So its not just their spell list, but also the invocations, patron, and pact boons that are a bit iffy. I'm now less sure they're such a great match. Which isn't to say considering an Efreet to be a the Fiend a warlock makes a pact with isn't a great option, just that it doesn't seem to do the Sha'ir idea well.

Other options then... The wizard is exactly what the Sha'ir was not in 2nd edition. A Sha'ir tradition just doesn't seem like a great option, particularly since unlike a Sorcerer's origin feature, the wizard's tradition isn't selected right away. So it can't be used to make the sort of small but radical change to the class that I'm considering for the Hakima.

Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers just seem like a no-go right from the beginning. The bard has inspiration, song of rest, jack of all trades, and the like and this is before they choose a college at 3rd level. So meh. Likewise it's hard to imagine building a Sha'ir out of the fighter or rogue (despite Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster), to say nothing of the barbarian or the monk.

This, oddly, brings us back to the Sorcerer. Could there be a Sha'ir origin for the sorcerer? The third edition adaptation for the Sha'ir used the sorcerer as a frame and tacked the Gen servant onto it. Why do I keep coming back to this class that I don't like? I guess it has the fewest backed-in assumptions. Plus a first-level choice point that will let me really mess with the class without being too athematic.

So a Sha'ir is born, not made. He is a charisma-based caster who uses his sorcery points and spell slots to cast spells fetched by his gen servant. I might be able to dig it. It still leaves open the similar yet slightly more sinister genie pacts for the warlock. I guess it would look something like this:

First level...
 - Know Find Familiar, but it only summons a Gen familiar. Can cast Find Familiar as a ritual as well.
 - Reduce your spells known by 1/2 (Round up, Find Familiar doesn't count for this purpose).
 - You can send your gen to temporarily add a spell to your list of spells known. You lose it when you take a short or long rest, send the gen for another spell, or your gen is incapacitated (do familiars get incapacitated?). Give the gen an appropriate chance to find spells. Spend a sorcery point for advantage on that check and/or to have it happen sooner.
 - You gain double proficiency bonus when doing social checks with genies or identifying their works.

At later levels...
 - Consider giving an ability to summon the Jann for aide, bind genies, travel to their realms, be lent another spell from a genie, etc. These powers are actually kinda wonky and long-winded in the 2nd edition stuff, but maybe they could be simplified. Alternately, a few bonus spells, perhaps limited to affecting genies might do (Banishment, Contact Other Plane, Dispel Evil and Good, Legend Lore, Plannar Binding, Plannar Ally, Plane Shift, Glibness, Imprisonment).

Makes total sense now.

So the Sha'ir would basically be a sorcerer with even fewer spells known, but one really flexible spell known. They could gain spells from other class lists though maybe arcane classes would be easier than divine ones. I'm digging the idea so far. This also puts some of the really thematic options into the Sorcerer. I think Ghul Lord is the next clear contender for a sorcerous origin (hopefully clearer than warlock = sha'ir). Hopefully I won't spot some crap that makes this a poor match.