What to Expect from D&D in 2022

 It is a new year! Annually, Wizards of the Coast tends to release books on a somewhat regular schedule. Typically, we get a new big adventure/campaign book in the fall, and typically some kind of general supplementary book in the spring. However, in recent years, we've seen a bit of a transformation to that pattern - last year we got three autumn releases, with Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Strixhaven as adventure books, as well as Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, which served primarily as a monster book but with a fair number of other features all themed around dragons.

This year, the big thing to anticipate is the return of two classic settings. WotC has not officially confirmed which of these will be coming, but between the Travelers of the Multiverse Unearthed Arcana post and the tease of a sketch for the cover of a book by Hydro74 (who has done special covers for D&D books since Volo's Guide to Monsters) that depicts Boo, the Miniature Giant Space Hamster, things seem to strongly point toward Spelljammer.

(I'll throw in a caveat that Boo is more of a Forgotten Realms character, as the animal companion to Minsc, the fan-favorite Ranger/Mad Man from the Baldur's Gate computer games. But Boo's apparent origins - if he's not actually just a regular hamster - point toward Spelljammer, as in that setting, Gnomish ships are powered by Giant Space Hamsters running on exercise wheels.)

We don't actually have a strong indication as to what the other classic setting we're likely to get will be. Personally, I'd love an updated Planescape book, but I also recognize that they might want to present a more conventional setting given that they're likely to be doing Spelljammer (and they just did Ravenloft). If that's the case, my money is on Dragonlance, thanks in part to the fact that legal disputes with the Hickmans (who created Dragonlance, and also kind of Ravenloft, though I think they didn't hold the rights to that setting) have been settled. I know very little about Dragonlance as a setting, but I do know that a lot of elements in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons tie into that world (including the character of Fizban).

This month will see the release of the Rules Expansion Gift Set, which contains Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and a new book called Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse.

The latter, if I understand it correctly, will see revisions made to the monsters depicted in Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes (and also makes it harder to use "Mordenkainen's" as shorthand for the latter). Not only are we probably going to see the races introduced in those books given the Tasha's treatment, freeing up ability score bonuses (something I 100% support,) but we're also likely to see changes to design of spellcasting monsters and NPCs, which is something that I am very excited to see.

As far as I know, the "of Everything" books are not getting any changes, so I'll be curious to see what they might need to change with the 5.5/6E books coming in 2024. That is still a ways off, of course, but my understanding is that the Monsters of the Multiverse book will be something of a preview for future monster design.

WotC seems to be happy with the anthology adventure books like Candlekeep Mysteries, and I wouldn't be shocked to see a similar book come out some time this year.

I also know that they've been fairly happy with their Magic the Gathering crossovers. These have tended to have something of a cross-promotional element to them - the planes depicted in the three we've gotten so far have all coincided with card sets on those planes coming out the same year (though Strixhaven came out with MTG many months before a Curriculum of Chaos was released). My hope is that if they do another campaign setting book, it'll be for Dominaria, which is the original MTG setting and the one that has the most fleshed-out history and diversity of locations and cultures. This fall will see the release of two sets taking place on Dominaria, one being Dominaria United, which continues the contemporary story, and the other being the Brothers' War, which takes place in the distant past, revisiting the events depicted sort of retrospectively in Antiquities, which was the second ever Magic expansion set.

Dominaria, to be fair, has a less high-concept theme to it than the other Magic settings we've seen - it was designed more to be a catch-all of fantasy tropes. But over nearly 30 years (with, admittedly, only rare visits to it after the designers started the tradition of visiting new planes with each set) the place has gotten a more idiosyncratic identity. I think it just benefits from being the most fully-realized of the MtG settings and thus would make for a great D&D setting.

Regarding adventures, I think that if they want to keep doing Forgotten Realms stuff, they're probably not at risk of running out of possibilities. They haven't yet done much with Neverwinter in 5th Edition, which is one of the major cities of the Sword Coast.

Chris Perkins did also mention at last year's D&D Celebration that they're in development on two brand-new D&D settings (original to D&D, as opposed to those derived from other IPs like Ravnica). The impression I got, though, was that we're unlikely to see these until 2023, if even at all, given that he gave the disclaimer that they're still at a stage where they might pull the plug if the ideas don't come together.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to future announcements. I suspect we might get one around or after the Rules Expansion Gift Set comes out, as there won't be any D&D products to look forward to after those arrive.

5.5, Class by Class: Sorcerers

 The distinction between Sorcerers and Wizards in fantasy fiction is a pretty complicated one (indeed, Warlocks and Witches get thrown into the mix there as well). Ironically, Marvel's Sorcerer Supreme, Doctor Strange, is very clearly a Wizard if we're using D&D terms, as he attained his magical ability through research and training, whereas a figure like Scarlet Witch is closer to D&D's Sorcerer, as her powers were imbued into her. Indeed, in The Falcon and the Winter Solder, they land on the definition that a Wizard is a Sorcerer with a hat.

Well, D&D makes the distinction pretty clear. Wizards involve training and Sorcerers effectively have superpowers. Actually, one of the things I find kind of interesting is that you can pretty easily take the lore of a Warlock and re-skin the Sorcerer that way without breaking much - if you made a deal with a powerful entity to imbue you with powerful magic, that could explain your Sorcerous powers (indeed, I've been considering if I ever play my Great Old One Warlock again possibly rerolling him as an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer).

But that connection between the Sorcerer and the Wizard is an important one because of the myriad similarities between the two classes. Both have zero armor proficiencies. Both have d6 hit dice. Both are pure spellcasters, and there is a very broad overlap in the spells they can learn. They both pretty much play similar roles within the party... to an extent.

The thing is, the Sorcerer is much more limited when it comes to their spells. Wizards have a huge number of available spells, and while a Sorcerer gets some of the iconic ones, they don't have quite the large toolbox that is available to their scholarly counterpart. But that might be something of a guardrail for the class, because of all pure spellcasters, Sorcerers get the fewest spells known - only fifteen. Warlocks also technically have 15 spells known, but their Mystic Arcanum feature means they effectively get to know four more (and many invocations allow them to cast additional spells as well).

So, a Sorcerer can't actually learn more than one spell of every spell level. And unlike Wizards, they can't swap them out at any point.

As I see it, and as I've seen it described by designers at WotC, is that Sorcerers are built to be more combat-focused spellcasters. While a Wizard brings broad utility in their spells (though they can still launch a fireball when they want to,) the Sorcerer is supposed to be the master of blasting foes with devastating magic.

And I think that you see a kind of philosophical distinction in the design of the Sorcerer from the Wizard. The Wizard's most important class feature is its spell list (well, and its spellbook). And the class doesn't actually get much else in the way of features. Sorcerers, however, get to complexity of Sorcery Points and Metamagic.

Now, I haven't really gotten into what I would change here. I actually played a Sorcerer up to level 7 in Adventurer's League, but that was years ago at this point, and so despite a Sorcerer being my third character I ever played, I actually feel less qualified to really see what needs shoring up.

But let's try anyway.

One thing we saw in the Tasha's subclasses is that they're playing around with adding subclass spells to Sorcerers. Honestly, I think this is always a welcome feature. Even if a subclass has spells that are niche, it's nice to know that that character will always have them when they come up. Given how few spells Sorcerers get to learn normally, adding ten additional ones through the subclass is extremely welcome. I also think it's interesting how the Clockwork and Psionic spells can be swapped out in a pretty generous manner. And then the Aberrant Mind gets to do unusual things with its Psionic Spells, which is cool.

I think some of the Metamagic options should be slightly adjusted to better reflect what players think they do - specifically, Careful Spell. This lets you choose allies to automatically succeed on saving throws against your spells, but it doesn't work like the Evocation Wizard's Sculpt Spell feature - the latter allows you to safely drop a fireball in the middle of your party and anyone you designate will be completely unaffected. Unless the friendlies you hit with the Fireball using Careful spell are level 7 Rogues or Monks, it's not going to actually prevent them from taking any damage.

Now, let's talk subclasses.

There are only two subclass options in the PHB for the Sorcerer. I don't know that either of them really feels like the "iconic" one.

Wild Magic Sorcerers, I have very mixed feelings about. On one hand, putting that much chaos into the game can be very fun. On the other hand, there was a story going around on social media about a campaign that suffered a TPK in the first ten minutes after the Sorcerer used Detect Magic while meeting the suspicious Rogue, rolled a 1 on the check for the Wild Magic Surge, and then rolled the result that dropped a fireball on themselves, hitting the whole party for enough damage to kill them all.

On one hand, that's hilarious. But on the other hand, it's a subclass that is prone to friendly fire. Again, I'm torn here - part of me thinks that the chaos makes for a madcap and unpredictable game. But on the other hand, you're potentially bringing a real hinderance to the party. (Basically, DMs should be very generous with NPCs who can resurrect characters if this sort of thing happens).

Draconic Bloodline makes a lot of sense as a Sorcerous origin, and I think there are just a couple nitpicks I'd make regarding it, like how I think the level 6 feature should just give you resistance to the appropriate damage type instead of making you spend resources for it. This is just one of those subclasses that needs another pass from a modern design perspective.

Now, again, I think every class should get a minimum of three subclasses in the PHB. And I think that the answer for Sorcerers is obvious - the Storm Sorcerer. This is iconic and classic. The subclass could use a few tweaks, to be sure, but I think its fundamentals are awesome, and I love its level 18 Wind Soul feature. The one thing I'd ask for this, though, is actually some greater flexibility in spells. Currently, I believe that every cantrip that does lightning or thunder damage only does so within melee range (Lightning Lure has a 15-foot range, but it only does damage if it successfully drags the target into melee range). A ranged lightning cantrip doesn't seem like it would be too hard to make.

And again, I'd like to see the subclass bonus spells like what were given to Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul sorcerers become a regular feature for all Sorcerer subclasses.

5.5, Class by Class: Rogue

 As far as archetypes go, the Rogue is one of the deep classics of fantasy RPGs. The sneaky, or at least underhanded scrapper, the Rogue takes a unique approach to combat. While other classes get various ways to affect their damage - and basically all other weapon-based classes get a second attack when they hit level 5 - Rogues focus on the massive, explosive strike: the Sneak Attack.

But there's another major theme to Rogues that is less combat-specific. They're the "expert." While they share a bit of this with Bards, Rogues have a theme based around being really good at ability checks. They get four class proficiencies, in contrast with the two most classes get, and then they get things like Expertise and the insane Reliable Talent to make them unassailable in their capabilities.

Notably, Rogues also get an additional Ability Score Increase (Fighters get two) compared to other classes, but given that most Rogues really only have to focus on Dexterity as an ability score, they might be the class that is most capable of picking up feats.

I've played a Rogue briefly in The House of Lament, though in terms of combat, we did a rather small amount of that - indeed, in the mad rush to the end of the adventure, rather than fighting each group of monsters, the Monk and I instead took the dolls holding the ghosts of two children whom we were trying to save and just rushed to get out the door as soon as possible (while it made for a truly insane combat, it did work). Still, I don't know that I've had a ton of personal experience in really getting the true sense of how the class feels.

I did have a Rogue in my original campaign, though it has been a long time since we played that.

Still, on paper, the Rogue manages to feel very different from the other classes. There are scenarios where they get totally screwed - such as if a Rogue got poisoned, and thus would never be able to get Sneak Attack - but they have some fun tools at their disposal.

And damage-wise, they're quite strong if they can consistently get that Sneak Attack in. I did a little napkin math calculation a month or two ago and realized that, if they use a bonus action for two-weapon fighting, or if they have a feat like Crossbow Expert, they might have the highest damage potential of any weapon-based class (not that they get an extra sneak attack, but the other attack makes it far more likely that one of their hits gets it).

I think that maybe the only thing that I feel strongly enough needs adjustment is the level at which they get their second subclass feature. After level 3, you don't get another subclass feature until level 9, which feels like a long time to wait. Artificers are getting their third subclass feature at that point. Swapping some things around, such as perhaps their second Expertise feature, which comes at level 6, might let them get a little more uniqueness.

Now, let's talk subclasses.

Rogues get three pretty solid (conceptually) subclasses in the PHB. The Thief and the Assassin, I think, manage to actually give us two "quintessential" archetypes for the Rogue, with, I would say, equal claim to being the "classic" archetype for the class.

The Thief has some early-entry oddities that might need to be ironed out. Personally, I find any of the "you get advantage on an ability check if you move slowly" features feel odd, in large part due to the fact that ability checks are generally more of an out-of-combat thing. Yes, a Rogue does often make Stealth checks (the one that thieves get advantage on) in the middle of a fight, but it seems like this is only obliquely telling you "if you're not in initiative, you always have advantage on Stealth checks."

I might also redesign Second Story Work to simply give the Rogue a climb speed, which seems in keeping with more recent subclass design. Use Magic Device and Thief's Reflexes are both strong abilities that I don't really have any problem with.

Now, Assassins - they start off extremely (maybe too) strong at level 3, but the level 9 and level 13 subclass features are... just nothing. I mean, literally they are the sort of thing that I think any character should be able to do. The features essentially tell you "hey, remember that you can do these skill checks." So, these need to be totally tossed out and redesigned. As I see it, the Assassin should be a slightly more combat-focused Rogue - not that they're going to be standing toe-to-toe with their enemies like the Swashbuckler, but I think having ways to enhance the damage they do in some way would be cool.

One thing there's not a lot of in 5E is "bleed" damage. An assassin, in my mind, would use hindering attacks that make it harder for their targets to ultimately survive. So, I think you could maybe design something where, when you deal your sneak attack damage, the target gets a wound that will keep bleeding, perhaps requiring a Con save to stop the bleeding.

Another option would be to build out a more robust poison damage system, though I hesitate to suggest this given the absurd number of creatures in 5E that are immune to poison damage (including but not limited to basically all fiends and all undead).

Meanwhile, the Arcane Trickster is, I think, pretty good as-is. It has an identity that is sufficiently distinct from the other two, and is mechanically pretty sound.

Part of me actually wants to suggest the Swashbuckler could fit within the PHB - Rogues don't all have to be sneaky, and this would be a way to show that. I don't know if they'd have room for four subclasses in the PHB, but on the other hand, if they can do more than four for Clerics and Wizards, why not for other classes?

DS3 "Paladin" Build

 So, I intended this character when I created him to be a pure-strength build that invested heavily in Vitality so that, if possible, I could wear Havel's Armor, use his shield, and wield a giant weapon.

Then I discovered Faith.

My Sorcerer was a sort of revelation to me - while it doesn't make the game trivial, it's a very different play style. Now, I'm not playing a pure caster here - I do have 50 Strength. But combining Strength and Faith makes for some powerful and versatile combinations.

While my +10 Heavy Greataxe is still used sometimes, I've taken to just using a +5 Dragonslayer Greataxe (which you get by trading in the soul of the Dragonslayer Armor). This thing scales slightly worse than the Heavy Greataxe, but the base damage is higher and on top of that, you get some Lightning damage that then scales with Faith. So, the total attack rating here is larger, and the mixed damage I think helps with some bosses. The downside is that it can't be buffed with miracles like Lightning Blade, so I actually wonder if that spell and the Heavy Greataxe come to higher damage overall.

I've currently got 35 Faith, and am working on getting it to 40.

One thing I'm hoping I can pull off is being able to be somewhat effective at range. My Sorcerer managed to take down the Nameless King by basically staying the hell away from him, and I'm hoping I can do something similar with Dorhy's Gnawing (or however that's spelled). So far, I haven't had as much luck, though I realized that I had forgotten to equip a Miracle-boosting ring, on top of the fact that my Faith is just over half what the Sorcerer's Intelligence was when I finished that fight.

Still, I think I'm only level 100 or so at this point, meaning that it actually doesn't cost an enormous amount to level up, so I could potentially get up there.

One thing I realized was a mistake is that I gave the two Dark Braille Divine Tomes to Irina, when I should have saved them until after I rescued Karla, as apparently Eygon will take Irina out of Firelink Shrine if you do so and you'll have to kill him to get her back. Good and evil in this game are certainly open to interpretation, but I think I'd prefer to not cause any drama. So I'm not entirely sure if I can get Dark Blade anymore without triggering that event.

Using an Ember to fight the pyromancer invader in Ariandel, I summoned a fellow player for Elfriede and actually managed to one-shot her (the other player snuck in for several backstabs). It's a cool fight, so it's a little sad to be done with it so soon, but on the other hand, I have zero compunctions about using anything the game gives me to make the fights easier.

Anyway, this means that this character and my Sorcerer are tied for bosses killed, with the Sorcerer taking down Nameless King and the paladin taking down the Twin Princes. I have yet to attempt the Demon Prince, though I am closing in on my original Dex (/Strength) character.

One thing I felt very happy to discover on my Sorcerer was the shortcuts toward the end of the Painted World - when you go into the wooded hills that lead up to the basement of the chapel, there are these rotted trees you can push over to make a bridge (two of them, and the second one allows you to only have to fight one Follower knight before going into the basement with all the bug-people,) and I don't think I realized that on my first run, which made that whole area feel like a huge marathon.

I'm curious to see how I'll feel returning to Bloodborne. I think the fact that I've actually beaten all the (non-Chalice Dungeon) bosses makes me feel somewhat warmer toward that game, though I also love the aesthetics of it. I really hope we get a sequel some day, and perhaps allow for more "spellcasting" play styles - though I think the simpler stat system is welcome.

That said, while I'm very excited for Elden Ring, I think it would be cool if FromSoft would experiment a bit more with look and tone... which, to be fair, I think they did with Sekiro. I guess I'd love to see their take on futuristic sci fi within the genre.

5.5, Class by Class: Ranger

 It occurred to me only after I started this series of posts that the title's misleading, or will be when we actually get the new core rulebooks in 2024. That's still two years off, but given the warping of time in these plague years, who knows how soon that will feel? (I'd love to hope that we'll be fully beyond the plague at that point, but I find pessimists only get good surprises).

Anyway, the Ranger has suffered for much of 5E, though I think it might be unwarranted. More recent Ranger subclasses have had a fair amount of power, while the Tasha's changes (with one exception, and sadly it's the one that seems intended to buff the class) have done a lot to take idiosyncratic abilities and make them more broadly applicable.

To be honest, I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I love the flavor idea of picking a favored enemy and favored terrain, but on the other, you have central class features that are sometimes totally worthless.

On my own Ranger, I swapped out Natural Explorer for the new feature, Deft Explorer perhaps a little early, meaning that we actually now had a chance to get lost while exploring Chult (we've since arrived in Omu, though that campaign has sort of fallen off since then). But the bonuses to movement and generally useful abilities are really welcome.

Enshrining these new features as the core Ranger might do a lot to spark a reevaluation of the class. I think the Beast Master changes that came with them are similarly welcome, but demand fresh eyes given the reputation that the class and particularly that subclass had earned in its early years.

As I see it, the Ranger has to answer an important question: why am I playing this and not a Fighter with a bow?

Of course, Rangers aren't even strictly ranged characters (mine is a Strength-based dual-wielder, though I wouldn't recommend that build).

But Rangers are kind of caught in the middle of two themes that are each represented more clearly with a different class - the nature-based character (Druid) and the martial warrior (Fighter). You could argue that Paladins are in a similar position, but there are some really unique mechanics they have that set them apart.

One of the issues at play, I think, is that D&D's combat mechanics are deeper than its exploration and social encounter mechanics. You basically just have ability checks in the latter two cases. I don't know that convoluting those systems is the right way to make the game work better, but I think what it does mean is that combat features for classes are very important. The Tasha's era rules give Rangers some clearer bonuses that can be used in combat, which I think is a good choice.

Now, I've already written about Favored Foe, but I think it bears reexamination. This replacement for Favored Enemy is intended to give a broadly-applicable damage bonus, but its design is profoundly conservative. Dealing damage only once a turn, being non-transferrable, and still requiring concentration means that you're almost always better off just casting Hunter's Mark once you hit level 2. And other spells will start to outpace even Hunter's Mark, which you'll want to use your concentration on.

I like the idea of dealing extra damage to special foes - embodying the "hunter" feeling of the class. But I think there needs to be a smoother application.

I don't really want to get into homebrewing my own solutions here - I'm mainly just anticipating what will change - but I think it would be very much in keeping with the general flavor of the Ranger to do something that involves preparing for one's foes.

I think you first give them something at level 1 that makes them a little better at tracking - maybe just giving them all advantage on Survival checks to track creatures and then Intelligence checks of any kind to identify creatures. Then, at a later level, though pretty early on, like 6, you give them the ability to, at the end of a long rest (or even the end of a short rest,) pick a creature type and adjust their fighting techniques to deal with that sort of foe - which is reflected in giving them a bonus to their damage when they hit said foes with their attacks equal to their Wisdom modifier.

Depending on their stats, this might be a small or large bonus, but even an extra 5 damage on each attack is not that much more than what a Paladin or Barbarian gets to tack on - and the counterbalance to it is that they need to declare that creature type ahead of time. Yes, this puts them at the mercy of DMs who like to pull switcheroos and unexpected monsters at them, but it would be a very tangible reward for doing their due diligence.

Ok, now let's talk subclasses.

The long-maligned Beast Master is, I would think, actually not too bad now with the Tasha's changes. Letting the creature really scale with your level and being able to easily summon it again if it goes down in a fight would really open the subclass' power up. Vex in Critical Role's first campaign was often reluctant to bring her bear, Trinket, into battle, because lorewise, he was a beloved pet and companion. Rangers all have a little magic to them, so I see no contradiction in flavor to the idea that the beastly companion is bound to the Ranger in such a way that its soul can always return to the Ranger.

The Hunter, conceptually, is a pretty good idea (though the name is profoundly generic and feels like it's just another name for Ranger). I see the Hunter's focus as being more on the martial side of things.

To me, though, the problem is that by making the Hunter choose between the various options at its subclass feature levels what seems like a variety of badass fighting techniques becomes a sort of thin repertoire of subclass features. Thus, I think what I might propose is actually letting the Hunter get all of those features, but to instead give them a limited use of them. This is, I'll admit, pretty close to just making them Battle Master Fighters, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But I've also argued that each class needs at least three subclass options. What archetype feels like it should be at the Ranger's core?

This might just be my own biases speaking, but I think the Ranger is the best class to represent your Solomon Kane-style monster-hunters. (Though I will say that Geralt of Rivia is 100% an Eldritch Knight Fighter). I think the Monster Slayer subclass from Xanathar's Guide to Everything is clearly meant to evoke that feeling, and seems like a good fit for a somewhat more gothic take on the Ranger.

Something they've been pretty inconsistent about is whether subclasses get their own spells. The Xanathar's ones all do, as do the Tasha's ones, though the Drakewarden does not. I think subclass spells are pretty much always a good thing (we're going to talk about Warlocks when we get to them,) and I'd like to see every subclass get some thematic spells.

I think that the subclasses could use some revisions, of course, but I also think that putting a little more power into the base class could do a lot to lighten the load on the subclasses as well.

One last note: in the PHB, they suggest Strength as a primary stat for melee Rangers. They should not. Without access to heavy armor, a Ranger will already need at least 14 Dexterity, and then as a melee class they'll want high Constitution. And then they'll need good Strength and Wisdom for their spells? Just recommend that they take a pair of scimitars or shortswords and go with finesse weapons.

Gaming Goals in 2022

 Time has been warped by the pandemic. 2020 seemed to last a decade, and 2021 went by at ludicrous speed. I was thinking about my Ravnica game, which is actually coming close to being two years running at this point, and mistakenly thought we were about to hit the one-year mark.

Games, be they video games or tabletop RPGs, have been an anchor for me in these times. When vaccines finally became available, my Sunday D&D game started to meet in person again, and things were sort of going in that direction, though Omicron's intense communicability has raised questions on that front - in fact, for the first time, one of our group actually got it. (I've actually been a bit under the weather lately myself and have been isolating while I wait for test results to come back, which have taken longer than usual thanks I'm sure to the high demand).

Still, we can be thankful that we live in an era of the internet as that allows us to play these games remotely, even if I really prefer being in person (though logistics are a bit simpler when you don't have to cross Los Angeles to play).

I don't expect my Ravnica campaign will have finished by the end of the year, given the existing pacing, but I think there's a possibility we could hit tier 4 - something I've been excited for and dreading in equal parts. I am resolved that this campaign will not only let players hit level 20, but also that they actually get to play at the level cap for a reasonable time to actually get to use all those features.

There are a lot of things I need to get through, story-wise. I have some players' personal quests to resolve, and of course once they're done with the current guild bad guy, we still have the Boros, Orzhov, Selesyna, Gruul, and Dimir villains to handle before we take things truly interplanar.

From a player perspective, I'm very excited to finally play my Artificer, a character I've been wanting to play for a very long time. (And if he dies, I think I'm just going to roll up another, probably.)

I am hoping that at some point in 2022 it'll become more possible to get a PS5. I'm a little torn - I know that Microsoft bought Bethesda, and thus there's a possibility that future Elder Scrolls games might be Xbox-exclusive, so it remains to be seen where we really go with this. I'd like to play Elden Ring, and I don't want to find myself in the situation like Breath of the Wild where I only have the biggest game for the system on the previous generation console (though as I've said, I feel a bit like the kid in the Emperor's New Clothes when it comes specifically to BotW - I mean, it's fine, but I think it tosses out a lot of what I like about Zelda and brings in a lot of things I don't like about "open world" games).

On the MTG front, I'm excited for the upcoming sets in terms of flavor, though of course their mechanical themes leave a lot yet to be explored. I have a love-hate relationship with Arena's approach to building your card library - it's great to be able to get rare and mythic rare cards with relative ease, but it also means that basically everyone is always running tournament-level decks, leaving it very hard to eke out a few wins with more thematic, fun decks.

Of course, my relationship with WoW has shifted a bit in the last year. There is, of course, the flood of horrifying news about how a company behind such great games was such a cesspit of abuse. And then, a separate issue, there's just a sort of fatigue I have with WoW. I'd hoped Shadowlands would be a Legion-like reinvigoration of the game, but while it started very strong, I think the pandemic-induced delays have made its rougher edges show that much more.

Naturally, my biggest hope is that 2022 will see us better able to peek out from our caves and game with one another.

More Altoholism in Dark Souls 3

 While my sorcerer has been stuck on the Twin Princes (he's also on the Demon Prince, though that I've only attempted a couple times and then sort of went "uh, just... later") I've been futzing around with some other characters.

I have a Strength-based character who I'm now trying to level Faith in (after he hit 50 Strength) in the hopes of getting what I'm told is the very powerful "paladin" build. My initial intent for that character was to go with pure physical stats, getting his vitality strong enough to actually wear some of the insane heavy armor sets and use a great shield, but we'll see.

The Greataxe, which I just spent my first titanite slab to get to +10, has actually proven to be a very fun weapon. (I also finally took the heavy infusion for it, which I probably should have done earlier). I'd intended to go with the Fume Ultra Greatsword, which is cool, but so insanely heavy (even compared to the Greataxe) and I'm not sure I love its actual move set. In fact, with the heavy infusion, it looks like the Greataxe outdoes it in terms of damage at my Strength level, so I'm not sure it's worth going for.

I managed to take down Aldrich in maybe five or so attempts - I'd been acting too aggressively (I think a habit learned from the Sorcerer) and once I started acting a little more defensively I got a kill - though I died to his arrow-rain as I got the final hit in, which meant that I got teleported to the Dancer's room and then immediately died. Luckily, I was able to warp back to Aldrich's bonfire (I guess you don't actually have to light them when you kill the boss) and grab the souls.

And then I one-shot the Dancer of the Boreal Valley, which had me feeling pretty confident. Unfortunately, I failed to learn the lesson from Aldrich and went in too aggressively on Oceiros, so I finally lost the ember there (also, Oceiros' first phase on my sorcerer was trivial, so I didn't really think much about dodging his spells).

I also dusted off an old Herald character I'd created years ago but who had stalled out in the Undead Settlement. I've now just got Deacons of the Deep to take down and then she can be on to Farron Keep, though I snuck ahead to pick up Lightning Spear.

I then found out that if you buy any dark miracles from Irina, Eygon will take her out of Firelink Shrine and you need to kill him to bring her back. And... you know, I sort of felt like I was the bad guy (even if "Dark" is not necessarily evil in these games).

This character is intended to be a true paladin build, so I actually could use Eygon's massive hammer, but only after a lot of leveling. This character's still using the Deep Battle Axe, which is a great thing to find early in the game but also is so good that I basically use it on every character. I'm hoping I can get my stats to a point where the Saint's Bident will outpace it, as I haven't really played with a weapon that has such massive reach. Still, after the whole Eygon incident I felt kind of bummed playing that character, hence returning to my Strength guy.

He's now on the Dragonslayer Armor, which I've only ever fought using a summoned ally, and have never died to. So, part of me wants to continue that trend, though another says that maybe I should see how that fight is "as intended."

I also realized that the elevator up to DSA is way easier to reach if you just use the Dancer bonfire rather than trying to get to it from the Lothric Castle one.

Anyway, the game's fun. I still think Bloodborne remains my favorite of the games in this genre I've played, and I wish that Bloodborne were as extensive as Dark Souls 3 in terms of scope. I wonder if we'll ever get a direct sequel to Bloodborne. Elden Ring looks fantastic, but it seems to really be in keeping with the Demon's Souls/Dark Souls aesthetic, and I liked that Bloodborne took that gameplay to an entirely different kind of setting.

Part of me wants to see FromSoft do a futuristic sci-fi souls-like game, but we'll see. I guess I should try Sekiro, though I've heard that that's even harder than DS3, and I'd be happy to see DS3 be the absolute cap on difficulty.