Gaming in the ice age...

[AarronIkarus]

A few years ago I came across some rules for running a campaign in an ice age setting. I'm thinking about giving it a try but am having troubles coming up with reasonable adventures. Character classes would be a bit limited. Thieves wouldn't be around. Wizards and clerics would probably be run as shamans with focuses on different magic/mystic disciplines. Any suggestions?

[Magrus]

Why wouldn't thieves be around? In a situation of extremely hostile weather, you're priorities change. Yes, they wouldn't be searching for gold and gems to steal, but food and clothes would be an entirely different matter. Raiding camps for such things would be a high priority for them. It would end up looking more like a ranger class without the magic though, a "nature theif". One with wilderness lore, the ability to sneak around and hide in the snow, set traps and such maybe.

Fire would be a high priority for both priestly and arcane magic users. Protection from the cold as well.

I'd say you'd end up with more barbarians than in other places.

The thought of using metal armor in such a place would be ridiculous to me. Arctic situation yes, but an ice age? Sticking around to forge metal and actually wearing a suit of it? No. Hide armor I'd say and once your sword or what not breaks or is lost then stone weapons. Possibly the very rare encampment of people with a shaman who makes metal weapons with his magical fire and forge or something.

Ice age to me denotes a land covered in snow and ice, barren except for that, and the creatures struggling to survive on nothing but snow, ice, and each other. It would be a savage race to head to a warmer place. Settling down somewhere would mean a slow death without magical sustenance and protection.

[Math Mannaman]

You may want to look at the 2E Combat and Tactics book, where there is a breakdown of weapons and armor from various historical periods.

Magic Items would probably be very different also.

Something else to consider, for a long-term campaign, is that the Ice age doesn’t necessarily mean cold weather only. During the Ice age the glacial sheets stretched much further south, however there were vast tracts of boreal forests below them, not to mention tropical regions to the south.

This would also be a great setting to introduce Dinosaurs into the beastology. This also could be a time were Dragons rule the earth, and Elves and dwarves are the dominant race. Humans being the newcomers. That would be interesting too.

[Galuf the Dwarf]

Hey Aaron, I was wondering if you considered the somewhat recent 'Frostburn' accessory at all. Though it's more centered around campaigns in the current era of the game world, it also has some flavoring for primitive creatures, such as Neanderthals (including some equipment and prestige classes that they'd use). Has it crossed your mind at all?

[Rob-hin]

A good suggestion by Galuf.
Also, how about books about Volo's Guide to the North for some flavor idea's (though it's actually the northern region of Fearun). Or The North, also about the North of Fearun; Spine of the World and such.

[Magrus]

Something else to consider, for a long-term campaign, is that the Ice age doesn’t necessarily mean cold weather only. During the Ice age the glacial sheets stretched much further south, however there were vast tracts of boreal forests below them, not to mention tropical regions to the south.

That's a good point, I sort of left that out in what I said above. Depending on where you start, you'll either be surrounded by snow and ice and rushing south to find warmth, resources and food or you'll be in the south where everything seems fine. Then you get into those people rushing south hell-bent on reaching safety no matter the cost and coming into your land. Either way, that could be interesting.

In the ice covered area however, I'd make everything more savage. Not necessarily more hostile, some would be willing to accept others into a group for a better chance of survival. However, in a situation where food is scarce and the chances of finding resources for a fire are slim to none, people would be pushed away more often. Animals would become more feral and hunt things they normally wouldn't eat. That mountain lion who would normally shy away from humans and hunt down deer might not have any deer to hunt, and if so, it would start stalking a character instead. Smaller animals would suddenly fall prey to any predater out there if not the sheer lack of sustenance and warmth. Survival of the fittest would be the law rather than good and kindness and groups of people would act upon it.

[Ripe]

Just an idea...

You may use scenario like in Day After Tomorrow movie. You set your game some 100-200 years in the future after the cataclysm so you would have an ice age setting and you may still be able to found items from pre-cataclysm "more civilized" era. Or even better you may set your game at the moment of cataclysm so your PC's must find a way to survive.

[pitfalllarry]

I think that's brilliant, Ripe! The possibilities of finding stuff from before the cataclysmic event are endless. I wonder if it'd be too endless...

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Magrus]Why wouldn't thieves be around? In a situation of extremely hostile weather, you're priorities change. Yes, they wouldn't be searching for gold and gems to steal, but food and clothes would be an entirely different matter. Raiding camps for such things would be a high priority for them. It would end up looking more like a ranger class without the magic though, a "nature theif". One with wilderness lore, the ability to sneak around and hide in the snow, set traps and such maybe.[/QUOTE]

A ranger with the focus on arctic conditions would be acceptable, but as for raiding, that would be a task for the warriors of the tribe. They would be much more suited to the job.

[QUOTE=Magrus]The thought of using metal armor in such a place would be ridiculous to me. Arctic situation yes, but an ice age? Sticking around to forge metal and actually wearing a suit of it? No. Hide armor I'd say and once your sword or what not breaks or is lost then stone weapons. Possibly the very rare encampment of people with a shaman who makes metal weapons with his magical fire and forge or something.[/QUOTE]

Hide and possibly leather armor would be about all you could expect under these conditions. The armor would have to serve dual purpose as protection from the weather as well as enemy attacks.

[QUOTE=Magrus]Ice age to me denotes a land covered in snow and ice, barren except for that, and the creatures struggling to survive on nothing but snow, ice, and each other. It would be a savage race to head to a warmer place. Settling down somewhere would mean a slow death without magical sustenance and protection.[/QUOTE]

"To get a picture of a possible ice age setting, try to think of Siberia. The ground is almost always frozen but there is plant and animal life, albeit not very much of either."

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Math Mannaman]You may want to look at the 2E Combat and Tactics book, where there is a breakdown of weapons and armor from various historical periods.

Magic Items would probably be very different also.

This would also be a great setting to introduce Dinosaurs into the beastology. This also could be a time were Dragons rule the earth, and Elves and dwarves are the dominant race. Humans being the newcomers. That would be interesting too.[/QUOTE]

Some interesting points, especially the one about dragons. I might have to consider that one. The dinosaur bit would be best used, I think, in conjuction with the 1st edition monster manual. The had a pretty good section on that.

I'm not so sure about the magic items being different. Sefinitely less common, but not necessarily different.

Elves and dwarves being the dominant races...now that's an interesting thought. Enter the first age of Middle Earth. Much resource material there....

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Galuf the Dwarf]Hey Aaron, I was wondering if you considered the somewhat recent 'Frostburn' accessory at all. Though it's more centered around campaigns in the current era of the game world, it also has some flavoring for primitive creatures, such as Neanderthals (including some equipment and prestige classes that they'd use). Has it crossed your mind at all?[/QUOTE]


No, it has not, but that is more because I have not heard of it before now. Is that one of the supplements for 3/3.5ed?

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Magrus]That's a good point, I sort of left that out in what I said above. Depending on where you start, you'll either be surrounded by snow and ice and rushing south to find warmth, resources and food or you'll be in the south where everything seems fine. Then you get into those people rushing south hell-bent on reaching safety no matter the cost and coming into your land. Either way, that could be interesting.

In the ice covered area however, I'd make everything more savage. Not necessarily more hostile, some would be willing to accept others into a group for a better chance of survival. However, in a situation where food is scarce and the chances of finding resources for a fire are slim to none, people would be pushed away more often. Animals would become more feral and hunt things they normally wouldn't eat. That mountain lion who would normally shy away from humans and hunt down deer might not have any deer to hunt, and if so, it would start stalking a character instead. Smaller animals would suddenly fall prey to any predater out there if not the sheer lack of sustenance and warmth. Survival of the fittest would be the law rather than good and kindness and groups of people would act upon it.[/QUOTE]



I think you may have the idea that ice ages move quickly. There is no 'suddenly' in an ice age. People wouldn't be 'rushing hell bent for safety' but it is highly possible that tribes may clash ove the hunting rights for various migrating herds. Later in the campaign you might start running into territorial struggles, though.

Coupling some of these ideas with the one about dragons being more common, I think, would be a fantastic start.

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Ripe]Just an idea...

You may use scenario like in Day After Tomorrow movie. You set your game some 100-200 years in the future after the cataclysm so you would have an ice age setting and you may still be able to found items from pre-cataclysm "more civilized" era. Or even better you may set your game at the moment of cataclysm so your PC's must find a way to survive.[/QUOTE]



Ooohhh! Now ther'e's an idea! Sort of a combination of Shadow Run/Gamma World/ Dungeons & Dragons. Oh, the possibilities...

[Galuf the Dwarf]

[QUOTE=AarronIkarus]No, it has not, but that is more because I have not heard of it before now. Is that one of the supplements for 3/3.5ed?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's 3.5 Edition, and came out last September. Highly suggested for 3rd/3.5 games.

[Magrus]

I think you may have the idea that ice ages move quickly. There is no 'suddenly' in an ice age. People wouldn't be 'rushing hell bent for safety' but it is highly possible that tribes may clash ove the hunting rights for various migrating herds. Later in the campaign you might start running into territorial struggles, though.

Coupling some of these ideas with the one about dragons being more common, I think, would be a fantastic start.

No, I just thought of the idea of a group of character's being dropped into one would get that reaction. The thought of some sudden, magical occurence creating an ice age would create a very chaotic and interesting campaign IMO. Not only the character's but everything in the area would be forced to move, constantly to survive. You wouldn't be able to just strut into a town and say "can I have more arrows and a new suit of armor?". You'd have to weigh each and every resource, and camping for a week to heal your wounds could mean you lose track of your food source which is running south for warmer weather as well.

That, more than anything would set you in a situation where the weather is your worst enemy, and all other conditions are just annoyances and distractions. It would be a twist on the normal "move here, kill, loot, go back to town when done" situation. Your goals would be much different and force the character's to act accordingly.

A ranger with the focus on arctic conditions would be acceptable, but as for raiding, that would be a task for the warriors of the tribe. They would be much more suited to the job.

Why not rogues? They would need expert trackers and scouts. Ranger's can fit that role, but nothing like the rogue. Most hunting groups, even army troops, didn't they used to have one or two people specifically trained in how to track, trap, stalk and kill in the wild while the rest were passable at all of that and more focused on the actual fighting involved at the end of the chase?

I think a rogue with a shift in class skills would be perfect. They thrive in leather armor and with a bow and knife. Rather than a whole tribe of warriors in plate mail and swords. These people would now be king in a barren wasteland where hunting is a necessity. A group of them hunting could sneak up to a herd of elk or something of the sort, fell twice their number of the animals before the herd panicked and dissapeared out of reach with sneak attacks from bows. Then they have the food they need to supply the tribe for weeks. A group of warriors wouldn't be as efficient as that IMO. One well place arrow from hiding by a rogue can do significantly more damage than a warrior can. Hunting is all about stalking and the one-hit kill. If a group of 10 rogue's went out to hunt elk, and got off 2-3 arrows each before the herd was out of range, they might nail 15-30 elk and kill each one they hit. Warriors might hit them with their arrows, but need to hit each one a few times and only come back with 5-8 elk.

Raiding would be a priority, and the flip-side, prevention of raids. Rogue's would allow you to do both with setting and disarming traps laid around camps. Sneaking up to scout out a territory and a settlement and seeing whether they have the resources you need and then directing the ranger's and barbarian's who followed at a safe distance behind them where to enter, hit and exit. Not to mention, those on watch to prevent being taken by surprise. The rogue's abilities would be more useful for general survival than ever I'd think.

To get a picture of a possible ice age setting, try to think of Siberia. The ground is almost always frozen but there is plant and animal life, albeit not very much of either.

True, and realistically, with limited resources spread between everyone, chances are you would end up with nothing without fighting for those limited resources, or sheer luck. A herd of elk would stick together, and a tribe of humans would follow that herd as their lives depended on that food source. Another group who stumble upon this herd, and start hunting those elk threaten the lives of everyone within that tribe and would start a conflict for survival. When that tribe finds a few skeletons of the elk which were killed with arrows that weren't theirs and campfires, chances are they would hunt down that group for taking "their" food source without permission.

[AarronIkarus]

[QUOTE=Magrus]No, I just thought of the idea of a group of character's being dropped into one would get that reaction. The thought of some sudden, magical occurence creating an ice age would create a very chaotic and interesting campaign IMO. Not only the character's but everything in the area would be forced to move, constantly to survive. You wouldn't be able to just strut into a town and say "can I have more arrows and a new suit of armor?". You'd have to weigh each and every resource, and camping for a week to heal your wounds could mean you lose track of your food source which is running south for warmer weather as well.[/QUOTE]

That would be a possibility. I was thinking more along the lines of a tribal culture similar to the migrations during our own last ice age. A magical ice age opens up a whole new set of possibilities.




[QUOTE=Magrus]Why not rogues? They would need expert trackers and scouts. Ranger's can fit that role, but nothing like the rogue. Most hunting groups, even army troops, didn't they used to have one or two people specifically trained in how to track, trap, stalk and kill in the wild while the rest were passable at all of that and more focused on the actual fighting involved at the end of the chase?

I think a rogue with a shift in class skills would be perfect. They thrive in leather armor and with a bow and knife. Rather than a whole tribe of warriors in plate mail and swords. These people would now be king in a barren wasteland where hunting is a necessity. A group of them hunting could sneak up to a herd of elk or something of the sort, fell twice their number of the animals before the herd panicked and dissapeared out of reach with sneak attacks from bows. Then they have the food they need to supply the tribe for weeks. A group of warriors wouldn't be as efficient as that IMO. One well place arrow from hiding by a rogue can do significantly more damage than a warrior can. Hunting is all about stalking and the one-hit kill. If a group of 10 rogue's went out to hunt elk, and got off 2-3 arrows each before the herd was out of range, they might nail 15-30 elk and kill each one they hit. Warriors might hit them with their arrows, but need to hit each one a few times and only come back with 5-8 elk.[/QUOTE]

It sounds to me like you are describing the skills of a ranger rather than a rogue. I don't know how they run them in the later editions, but in 1st ed rangers did have some access to thief/rogue skills. They would also be more suited to the tracking as they are trained to deal with the natural world where rogues are more attuned to the urban environment, IMO.

[QUOTE=Magrus]Raiding would be a priority, and the flip-side, prevention of raids. Rogue's would allow you to do both with setting and disarming traps laid around camps. Sneaking up to scout out a territory and a settlement and seeing whether they have the resources you need and then directing the ranger's and barbarian's who followed at a safe distance behind them where to enter, hit and exit. Not to mention, those on watch to prevent being taken by surprise. The rogue's abilities would be more useful for general survival than ever I'd think.[/QUOTE]

Here you have a point. Perhaps a scout class with a mix of ranger and rogue abilities/skills/feats. That would be workable.



[QUOTE=Magrus]True, and realistically, with limited resources spread between everyone, chances are you would end up with nothing without fighting for those limited resources, or sheer luck. A herd of elk would stick together, and a tribe of humans would follow that herd as their lives depended on that food source. Another group who stumble upon this herd, and start hunting those elk threaten the lives of everyone within that tribe and would start a conflict for survival. When that tribe finds a few skeletons of the elk which were killed with arrows that weren't theirs and campfires, chances are they would hunt down that group for taking "their" food source without permission.[/QUOTE]

This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. I have read a series of books about the migrations of the first Americans but can't think of the author's name right now. They ran into that situation many times.


And the campaign begins...

[thekyngdoms]

Frost and Fur is also worth a look. It came out at the same time as Frostburn and is very much along the same lines, with some alternative ideas.

[Edit: I should have mentioned, Frost and Fur also has some stuff on Ice Age Culture, amongst others.]

[Magrus]

It sounds to me like you are describing the skills of a ranger rather than a rogue. I don't know how they run them in the later editions, but in 1st ed rangers did have some access to thief/rogue skills. They would also be more suited to the tracking as they are trained to deal with the natural world where rogues are more attuned to the urban environment, IMO.

True, they have access to hide and sneak. Yet a rogue isn't limited to urban environments. What about your typical brigand's who ambush traveler's and caravan's? Yes, they have the strong fighter types to ensure they get what they want. They also have the sneaky, cunning person running around scouting things out, laying traps and such.

Your typical "barbarian tribe" would disdain thieves in a normal situation. However, in light of an extremely harsh environment they would resort to things they normally wouldn't do. To me, it just makes sense for a tribe to have a mix of the barbarians, for when conflict is unavoidable, ranger's, for fighting when stealth is needed, and rogue's for the constant scout and recon position. Sure, the ranger can sneak around and get information, but that guy up in the tree near camp, a rogue would have a better chance of being that person and spotting incoming danger. Also, the flipside, if during a raid, they would be the BEST choice to send in, take out sentries, scout around and come back and let the fighter's know how to go in and clean up.

Not to mention the hunting thing again. Sure, a ranger could sneak up into place and launch an attack from hiding. Yet, the rogue has the training to kill in one blow that a fighter or ranger doesn't. A skilled team of rogue's firing a volley of arrows into a herd of animal's has a much higher chance of killing then straight off than a group of fighter's or even ranger's with that skill.

I mean, looking back at history, you have your "primitive tribes", who had their warrior's. Yet they also had their cunning traps set up for unwary invader's. Spike pits, treesnare's, etc. The sentries put in place who would spot people from far off, harry them and funnel them right into those traps and never be seen during it. Then you'd have those who forgo the traps, and fell intruder's with a well placed arrow from out of nowhere. There would be your rogue. The ranger can spot enemies, sneak around and fight. Yet, he doesn't have the training to craft and set traps, or perform those special sneak attacks, regardless of whether he hits an enemy from an ambush or not.

Who's to say whether or not a rogue needs to be trained to climb walls and rooftops, pick locks, and steal rubies. He could just as well climb trees, sneak into a camp, steal food and run back to his tribe. Or weapons so his companion's can then attack with impunity to enemies who have been stalking their herd of deer or what not.

It's all up to you, being your campaign, I just don't see why a rogue should be limited to a city. A rogue is a rogue, whether in a desert, arctic setting, or in the middle of a huge city. He just picks skills more applicable to his setting. You won't need a rogue to appraise things in certain conditions, because they will be stealing simply for survival, not greed. It doesn't make him any less valuable, on the contrary. That one person who can sneak in and do a job silently, rather than risk the lives of the tribes barbarian guardian's in a fight for the resources they need becomes all the more valuable.

[Aegis]

Actually, Magrus, you're giving far more credit to Rogue's than they deserve in this particular setting.

When you think about it, the dominant physical class would be Barbarian, and they have a built in ability to not be damaged by Sneak Attacks (Can't recall which level they get that, off the top of my head).

In addition, Rnager's are ideal for scouting in wilderness, more so than Rogues, because they get the camoflauge feat, which grants them bonus's to hiding in natural terrain. Not to mention Ranger's also get the favoured enemy feat, which allows for plus's to damage, saves, to-hits, and even some skills. Add to the fact that a Ranger can get free feats in regards to fighting at range, or fighting with two-weapons. All these things far out-weigh the sneak attack bonus that a rogue gets, especially when considering that Rogue might not even be able to sneak attack one of it's opponents.

Oh, one last bonus rangers have over Rogues in this sort of environment: Wild Empathy. This makes dealing with savage animals that much easier. This is on top of Woodland stride, which essentially makes difficult terrain not a concern for rangers, as well as Endurance and lastly, animal companion.

[Magrus]

Those are good points I completely forgot.

I still think the trap setting ability would be wrong to dismiss. All, or if not, close to it, societies and groups of people have had those that specialize in security and defending their territories. I mean, even now, you have people that make their living building security systems for houses and cars you know? No other class in the game has that ability, along with the sheer amount of skill choices.

I mean, just like the tribe may only have one shaman for spiritual and healing needs, they still have that ONE figure, who happens to be a very important part of the tribe. For that specific reason you know? Even if you have your ranger and barbarians geared towards wilderness survival with the skills to do a lot of what a rogue can do. Those people are still the fighter's of the tribe. With a focus on skills for fighting. They may have a small ability in how to climb trees and to hide and spot things.

Yet, I'd say, if the tribe had a specialist in scouting and putting up perimeter defences, and the opposite of that, it would be a rogue. Even if the tribe only has one or two of them for just that reason. Your war band head scout, and your trapmaking sentinal. That just makes sense to me in how a tribe would work.