Monthly Archives: January 2012

Starting Equipment

Here is a method for randomly determining starting equipment by class. This is intended for B/X type D&D (or similar games) and the tables have been engineered so that they work no matter the class.

Cowards may, of course, choose rather than roll.

dH = hit die (e.g., fighter dH = d8, magic-user dH = d4)


Weapons
Roll 2dH twice for beginning weapons; re-roll duplicates if desired.

  1. Hand axe (can be thrown)
  2. Club, cudgel, or truncheon
  3. Sling (ranged)
  4. Dagger (can be thrown)
  5. Quarterstaff
  6. Crossbow (ranged)
  7. Short sword
  8. Long sword
  9. Short bow (ranged)
  10. Mace
  11. Battle axe
  12. Spear (bulky, can be thrown)
  13. Long bow (bulky, ranged)
  14. Halberd or other pole arm (bulky)
  15. Two-handed sword (bulky)

Armor
Roll dH for beginning armor.

  1. No armor
  2. Shield
  3. Leather
  4. Leather & shield
  5. Chain
  6. Chain & shield
  7. Plate
  8. Plate & shield

Equipment
Roll d20 four times; re-roll duplicates if desired.

  1. Holy water
  2. Wolvesbane
  3. Belladonna
  4. Garlic
  5. Small mirror
  6. Mallet & stakes (6)
  7. Small hammer & Iron spikes (12)
  8. Grappling hook & rope (50 feet)
  9. Tinder box & Torches (6)
  10. Lantern & flasks of oil (3)
  11. Ten foot pole
  12. Rations
  13. Tent & bedroll
  14. Fishing gear
  15. Lockpicks
  16. Book, pen, ink
  17. Riding horse, tack, saddlebags
  18. Mule, tack, saddlebags
  19. Canoe & paddle
  20. Ancient super science battery
Batteries will have a limited number of charges. The referee should track charges secretly.


Design Notes

Each PC begins play with:

  • Two sets of travelling clothes
  • Backback
  • Belt pouch
  • Water skin
  • 3 empty sacks (for loot, of course)
  • 2d10 gp
Additional equipment is rolled on the equipment table above (4d20, as specified).
Any class can use any weapon or armor (though armor decreases movement through encumbrance and penalizes actions requiring fine motor control); characters do dH damage.

Using 2dH to select weapons creates a probability curve.

The most common weapons by dH:

  • d4: dagger, followed by slings and quarterstaffs
  • d6: crossbow, followed by quarterstaff and short sword
  • d8: long sword, followed by short sword and short bow

It is only possible for classes with dH = d8 to begin with the heaviest military weapons, or to begin with any bulky weapons.

Armor possibilities by dH:

  • d4: no armor through leather & shield
  • d6: no armor through chain & shield
  • d8: no armor through plate & shield

Also note that in many systems, 10 minus (armor dH roll) = AC. Though not important, this is a pleasant symmetry.

Any character may try to pick locks using a set of lock picks. Non-thieves have a flat 1 in 6 chance, adjusted by dexterity. That is, a character with extraordinary dexterity (13 or higher) has a 2 in 6 chance.

Quick Weapon Observation

I should have included this in my weapon damage by hit die post, but I didn’t think of it then. Check out this simple table of correspondences:

  • Fighter hit die: d8
    Iconic weapon: long sword (d8 damage)
  • Cleric hit die: d6
    Iconic weapon: mace (d6 damage)
  • Magic-user hit die: d4
    Iconic weapon: dagger (d4 damage)

That is, characters playing to type in B/X D&D naturally do hit die damage. The relationship breaks down slightly when ranged weapons are considered. Long bows inflict d8 damage and slings inflict d4 damage, fitting the pattern, but what ranged weapons do clerics use? If it’s a crossbow with a wooden stake, we are in business. In any case, the point here is not that this is an iron-clad rule, merely that it is a tendency.

The thief/rogue actually fits this pattern relatively well too, with dagger/short sword, and d4/d6, respectively. This also reflects the change from the thief (sneaky, bad at combat) to the rogue (stealthy, striker).

The main benefit of damage by hit die is to reduce a rather complicated table reference (the weapon damage chart) to an easily memorable rule. This is similar to what Talysman is trying to do (*) with his Liber Zero clone project. Note that this is not a core mechanic, which may have only one kind of resolution mechanism, but may also have a huge number of very specific rules for modifying the target number based on circumstances. Easily memorable elements may use several different resolution mechanisms, but they must not rely on a large corpus of external rules to function.

(*) – In his own words:

one of my personal goals with Liber Zero (quickly becoming the central goal of LZ) is to strip the game down to easily-memorizable elements so that the game can be played without reference to books

See here for more details.

Type V Thoughts

At first I thought that I would have nothing to add to the deluge of reactions to the fifth edition announcement. On reflection, I do have a few things to say.

  1. Consider this my signature on the Jeff Rients Type V petition (following the lead of Grognardling).
  2. Also, this one. I would be first in line to buy a high-quality collectable coffee table compilation book of old modules and adventures. I bet many people would, even those don’t actively play.
  3. Obviously, I would like to see legal PDF sales return (hopefully with higher production values this time around). Personally, I would be even more excited about a print on demand option, which might even be more acceptable to the company, as they might see it contributing less to piracy. However, if old content becomes available, I predict it will be something like a digital-only “D&D Archive” which will require a continuous D&D Insider (or whatever they choose to call it) subscription. That would pull in Grognard dollars without exactly competing with other offerings.
  4. Say a record company owned the rights to the back catalog of The Beatles, Elvis, and The Rolling Stones. Why would they be so stupid as to not market that back catalog? Rights to the old D&D products have the same status within the tabletop RPG community. And the content is already created; only minimal production work would need to be done. Would any record exec seriously argue that some teenager would be less likely to buy the new Gaga album because Johnny Cash material was available? What am I missing here?
  5. I haven’t been following the recent Wizards game design posts that closely, but I have read a few of them. It sounds to me like they want to seriously modularize the rules. That is a good thing, especially if they really emphasize that fiddly subsystems (e.g., skills, feats, psionics) are truly separate. I think there is a chance they might go this way with feats, but I seriously doubt they will remove skills from the core. Based on a realistic appraisal of the overall community of tabletop RPG players, I think the skills doubters (I belong to this group) are a tiny minority.
  6. If I were WotC, I would want the casual, Walmart market. This group, by lucky coincidence, might have the same requirements as those of us that prefer light rules.

Carcosa-Inspired Psion Class

Here is a super-simple class inspired by the Carcosa psionics system.

  • Hit die: d6
  • Level advancement: as cleric
  • Base attack bonus: as thief
  • Power uses per day: level / 2 (round up)
  • May also pay 1d6 HP to use a power
  • Only surprised by sentient beings on a 1 in 6
  • Weapons: any
  • May not use psionic powers if wearing a helmet

Each level, roll for (or select, you cheater) a new psionic talent (re-roll dups):

  1. Clairaudience
  2. Clairvoyance
  3. ESP
  4. Mental Blast
  5. Mind Control
  6. Precognition
  7. Telekinesis
  8. Telepathy
Consult the Carcosa book for power descriptions (or use appropriate magic-user spells).

More thoughts on the entirety of the new Carcosa book coming soon.

Dragon Draft

HD 3-18+, AC as plate, 3 attacks or breath, move 90′, fly 240′, morale 9, # 1

A dragon’s age and power are reflected by hit dice. To determine dragon hit dice randomly, roll 3d6. If the result is all sixes, roll another d6, adding the result to the previous total. Continue this procedure as long as sixes are rolled.

Hit dice also determines the damage inflicted by a dragon’s fiery breath. For example, a 12 hit die dragon will do 12 dice of damage to all in the area of effect (half damage if a save is made). Once a dragon has breathed fire, they must wait 1-3 rounds before they can breath again. Breath weapon damage dice, like standard hit dice, are always d8s. The breath weapon range is equal to the number of hit dice multiplied by 10 feet, and it spreads out like a cone (the dragon has approximate control over the cone width).

Dragons may either breath fire or make up to three physical attacks (these could be bites, claws, tail slams, or any other kind of attack that makes sense in the situation at hand). Each physical attack does one die of damage. The die used should be that closest to the total number of hit dice the dragon possesses. For example, an 8 hit die dragon does d8 damage per hit. A 9 hit die dragon would do either d8 or d10 damage per hit (decide beforehand, determine randomly, or alternate).

Dragons are huge, scaled, lizard-like, fire-breathing monsters of great cunning, greed, and intelligence. Their intelligence, however, is of an alien sort. Being almost entirely self-sufficient, they have little use for society or technology, and are unable to relate (other than superficially) with lesser beings regarding these matters. They seek only treasure, ever growing domain, and occasionally worship. Unlike most creatures, age only adds to a dragon’s power. Surviving wyrmlings become ever more dangerous.

The youngest dragons are pony-sized, and generally grow until they reach the size of an elephant in body (though their length from nose to tail and wing span will be much greater). Though there seems to be no absolute limit on dragon size, the rate of their growth does slow significantly once they have reached that size. In color, their scales are inky black, earthy brown, mouldy green, rocky gray, or bloody crimson (or some combination thereof). Dragons enjoy eating any kind of meat, particularly living meat, though they do not require it for sustenance. A dragon deprived of meat for too long, however, will become surly.

Dragon reproduction is mysterious. They are thought to hatch from eggs, but have never been found in mated pairs and will rarely cooperate. They are by nature agents of chaos, and logic suggests that they would burn themselves out over time. However, this has not happened.

A dragon can be subdued by nonlethal damage. A subdued dragon will turn on their master if they perceive weakness, but will otherwise continue to serve as long as they are fed well and rewarded with treasure (a good rule of thumb would be about half of treasure accumulated). Dragons will also generally challenge their master when they have grown into another hit die, but this will sometimes take longer than their master’s lifespan. Such dragon lords often become petty tyrants, though their rule rarely lasts long due to the inherent instability of the relationship.

Source: Ljubljana Dragon

Design Notes

I think that in later versions of D&D, dragons have come to be somewhat deified. I don’t like this. I think that dragons should be fearsome and terrifying, but I don’t think you should need to be a demigod to challenge one. A young dragon should be something that could be run down by a fourth level fighter with a lance (given some luck), or even found on the first level of a dungeon.

In terms of style, there is a tension between the monstrous dragon and the sleek panther-like dragon. The sleek dragon has come to dominate fantasy art. The monstrous dragon tends to look more like it came from a fairy tale, and is often (though not always) fat. For examples, see the Holmes basic set dragon, the Rankin/Bass Smaug, the animated Flight of Dragons movie, or almost any painting of St. George and the dragon. For examples of the sleek dragon, see current D&D dragons and the work of Jeff Easley. I am interested in portraying a more mythic dragon, though still influenced by Tolkien’s Smaug. None of the gimmicky multicolored D&D chromatic dragons. My dragons all breath fire.

Regarding behavior, I want to emphasize that dragons do not live by the same rules as mortal races. I picture dragons as intelligent, but alien and prone to underestimating others.

Incidentally, I didn’t stick that bit in their about dragons not needing food for sustenance with any particular goal in mind; it just felt right given their embodiment of ever-growing power and danger. This, in concert with the growth of dragons due to increasing hit dice, might however explain why dragons sometimes get stuck underground. I’m not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. Maybe they even originate in the underworld and must reach the surface before they grow too big. Or maybe, like adventurers, they go underground in search of treasure, but sometimes outgrow their entrance.

In OD&D, total hit dice varied by dragon type, but age (and hit points per die) were determined by one d6 roll (1 being very young, 6 being very old). A similar procedure is used by the original Monster Manual, though a d8 is used instead. This is interesting, but odd. It means that given a 10 hit die dragon, there only exist dragons with hit point totals in a multiple of 10. I like the identification of age with hit dice, but rather than vary the HP per hit die (is that done with any other monster?), why not vary the number of hit dice for age? This also scales the attack bonus, which makes sense to me.

Traditionally, in both OD&D and B/X, breath weapon damage is non-random. It does automatic damage equal to the dragon’s remaining HP. I changed this because I like uncertainty, I like to roll dice, and I don’t like to expose monster health meters.

The rules for dragons take up an inordinate amount of space in pretty much all the editions I have looked at. Despite that, I still feel like my draft is a bit too wordy. Three paragraphs of rules and four of flavor. Any tips or suggestions are welcome (as always).

Nomenclatura

I have always considered naming things to be a hard and important task in tabletop RPGs, on both sides of the screen. Much of the flavor of a game setting is communicated via the names, especially for homebrew settings that don’t have extensive canonical literature with illustrations. Probably the largest effect of gaming on the non-gaming parts of my life has been the constant mining of everything I encounter for names. Novels, street signs, captcha forms, anything. Even when I was not actively gaming, I still kept lists of names. Dada’s little baby namer has also been a frequently used resource.

If you had any doubt about the power of naming in the real world, you need to look no further than our own little echo chamber.  Giving concepts like sandbox, megadungeon, agency, railroading, and tent-pole easily remembered names gives them power. Half of software engineering is probably built around managing complexity through abstraction and naming.

The power of the true name can also be the basis of magic in folklore and fantasy. Le Guin’s A Wizard of Earthsea is probably the most influential source of this trope in mainstream fantasy, but it also shows up in Cook’s The Black Company and Rothfuss’ recent The Name of the Wind.

Good naming for tabletop RPGs follows different principles from other media, mostly because the names are often communicated verbally rather than visually. Names that are too complicated will probably not stick. Also, players tend to have notoriously short attention spans for setting detail. One solution to this that can work with some groups is to allow players to name some things as they come into contact with them or if they are connected in some way with a PC’s background.

I just finished reading The Black Company, and I have to say I am quite taken with the simple naming style. Names include Croaker, Silent, Goblin, One-eye, and Elmo. I think this style would work wonderfully for D&D; it doesn’t take itself too seriously (if you try to make something sound self-consciously serious, I guarantee some other player will satirize it), and such names are easy to remember.

Despite all this, the name of one of my longest-played characters (an elf wizard in second edition) was lifted whole-cloth from one of R. A. Salvatore’s lesser-known non-D&D books (The Woods Out Back): Kelsenellenelvial Gil’Ravadry, or Kelsey for short. In my defence, I can only say that at least I didn’t name him Drizzt.


Magic item: Nomenmancer’s Wand

(2d4 charges)

The nomenmancer’s wand is a slender rod several hands long crafted of an unknown metal. If examined closely, it is clear that the wand’s form is like that of very elongated tetrahedron (a four-sided solid with triangular faces, one of which is the base). Tiny runes, symbols and characters cover the three long sides, fading into nothingness as they approach the tip.

The wand stores true names.

The wielder of the wand gains a +10 bonus to saving throws versus spells cast by any specific entities whose names are so stored.

The wand may also be used as a stylus to prepare a scroll of command. Such a scroll functions as the charm person spell, but only for the entity in question. No saving throw is allowed initially, though saves may be attempted later (based on intelligence) as per the charm person spell description. Creating such a scroll discharges the name. Command scrolls may be used by any class, much like protection scrolls.

Any entity that becomes aware their name is stored in a nomenmancer’s wand will stop at nothing to recover it.

Methods for recharging the wand have been lost to the mists of time.

Dungeoneer’s Best Friend Part 2: Mules

Revisitation: a series of posts that each feature a quote from a classic source along with a short discussion. Quotes that make me question some previous assumption I had about the game or that seem to lead to otherwise unexpected consequences will be preferred.

This quote comes from the monster entry for the common mule in Moldvay Basic (page B39):

If the DM permits it, mules can be taken into dungeons. A mule can carry a normal load of 2000 coins (or 4000 coins at most, with its move reduced to 60’/turn).

That’s 200-400 extra pounds of equipment or treasure.

Some other benefits:

  • No XP sponge (the mule does not get a share of XP).
  • Minimal chance of theft or rebellion (unlike some retainers).
  • Monster detection system. Presumably one could get the same benefit from a trained war dog, but a mule might be less likely to die in combat partway through the expedition, since it is probably not going to be an active aggressor.
  • Mules are still used by the US Air Force in Afghanistan.

I would say that mules compare favorably to hired porters.

Unlike most other game components, mules are primarily about encumbrance. Their function is to carry things. If you are not using encumbrance rules, don’t be surprised if your players ignore mules. I have never been satisfied with the old coin-based encumbrance system, or more “realistic” systems that sum weight carried (realistic is in scare quotes because such sums don’t take into consideration awkward items or how the weight is distributed, which is just as, if not more, important than the absolute quantity carried). Luckily, the LotFP encumbrance system (free Rules & Magic book, pages 38-40) covers mounts and pack animals as well, though there is no dedicated encumbrance record sheet for animals yet (something I hope to rectify soon — it’s on my list of things to do).

Dragon #48 (“Carrying a heavy load? Let a mule do it for You!”) suggests that mule training should require time and resources:

Players can train mules in uninhabited caves and ruined fortifications, offending their sensibilities until the animals are used to odd smells, dank dungeons, and strange noises. All of this takes time — up to several months if you want a really good mule — but the players can hire someone else to do the job so that they remain free to go adventuring while the mule is being trained.

The article goes on to say that a druid could do this through magic more quickly. As long as an adventuring party is not asking their mule to do anything ridiculous, I don’t think I would require special training.

If that’s not enough, you can go read the 121 post (at the time of this writing) Dragonsfoot thread on mules, from which some of these observations were drawn.


Image from Wikipedia

Traveller Rising


I’m more of a fantasy person than a sci-fi person, and I didn’t even know about Traveller until some time in 2011. But references to it kept popping up on the blogs and forums I frequent, so I knew I needed to check it out at some point. At first I was going to pick up a set of the original Traveller 3 LBBs (little black books) from the old boxed set; unlike OD&D, the price for an original set is not that high. Then I found that classic traveller was recently reprinted as a collection, Books 0-8, at a very reasonable price. As you can see from the picture, the book is printed in landscape rather than portrait (I think it might be a literal reprinting of the digest originals).

I got interested in Traveller because it seems to embody its own little niche in RPG system design. From where I’m sitting, there are three three main paradigms in tabletop RPGs:

  1. Class and level based (D&D)
  2. Skill based (World of Darkness)
  3. Life-path with little mechanical advancement (Traveller)

GURPS is also skill based, no? GURPS is older than WoD, so I should probably list that as the exemplar of skill based RPGs, but I’ve not played it myself. Maybe new-fangled story games are a fourth  paradigm (games that have mechanics built around narrative control), but I’m really not familiar enough with them to say. Am I missing anything important? Would anybody draw the category lines differently?

The influence of the life-path leg seems to be rising in the OSR. Just days after ordering Books 0-8, I came across the announcement of a development forum for Shot & Sorcery, a LotFP take on historical weird fantasy heavily inspired by Traveller. And James Maliszewski released Thousand Suns in December (it has some relation to Traveller, right?). Joseph Browning (of Sorcery & Super Science) is working on Worlds Apart: A Fantasy Role-Playing Game of Exploration and Trade (which is perhaps nearing release).

Some other relevant, though older, links:

I have this lingering idea of equivalency between levels 1 through 14 in D&D (the range in B/X) and the character generation procedure in Traveller. That would give a new meaning to the idea that “character background is what happens during play”. And the main body of a Traveller game would be roughly equivalent to domain and stronghold play in D&D.

It seems like level 15+ D&D could go in one of two directions: this kind of domain play or demigods/immortals (see this post from Zak and skip to the paragraph about Thor).

Dungeoneer’s Best Friend Part 1: Dogs

Revisitation: a series of posts that each feature a quote from a classic source along with a short discussion. Quotes that make me question some previous assumption I had about the game or that seem to lead to otherwise unexpected consequences will be preferred.

This quote comes from the 1977 Monster Manual:

Dog, War: These are simply large dogs which are trained to fight. They are loyal to their masters and ferocious in attack. They are typically protected by light studded leather armor and a spiked collar. The number appearing depends on their masters.

In this entry, war dogs have an AC of 6, 2 + 2 HD, and do 2d4 damage (that’s right, better than an AD&D broad sword). In fact, they are pretty badass. And as far as I can tell, there is nothing anywhere in the rules proper prior to second edition suggesting that dogs are standard dungeoneering animals. This first Monster Manual entry is pretty clearly intended as an opponent, down to the “number appearing” language. (Incidentally, I love that bit about the spiked collar. Every war dog should have one.)

They are not in the 3 LBBs. They are not in Holmes. They are not in Moldvay Basic or Cook/Marsh Expert. I’m not all that familiar with BECMI, but it doesn’t look like dogs show up in the Rules Cyclopedia, so I’m guessing they are not in Mentzer either. A pair of war dogs is one of the items that can be found in a Robe of Useful Items (AD&D DMG page 153). Some dogs do show up in the 1978 PHB on page 36 under livestock:

Dog, guard 25 g.p.
Dog, hunting 17 g.p.

Now, a guard dog or hunting dog seems like a far cry from armored dungeoneering war dog to me, but I can see how a player might see that entry in the PHB and then say “cool, what are the stats on those?” and come upon the war dog entry in the Monster Manual (which, arguably, is the closest fit superficially).

War dogs don’t show up in the equipment lists until second edition PHB (which also contains rules for training animals in the chapter on proficiencies). Second edition prices:

Guard 25 gp
Hunting 17 gp
War 20 gp

So much for the official TSR rules. I am sort of fascinated with when this trope developed, but really it is neither here nor there. What if we don’t care too much about the old rules and just want some guidance for using dogs?

More recently, Daniel Proctor (of Labyrinth Lord) wrote a special supplement, Dogs in the Dungeon (discussed in this forum thread). A post in that same thread alerted me to the fact that this topic was treated twice in Dragon, once in issue 103 (pages 26 – 28, for first edition) and once in issue 237 (pages 18 – 22, for second edition). From that article in issue 103 (in 1985):

Dogs can be useful allies or formidable opponents, depending respectively on the inventiveness of the players and the intelligence and imagination of the DM; with their keen senses, even the smallest dogs are the bane of thieves — PCs and NPCs alike — and a war dog is more than equal to the average hired swordsman or first-level fighter. Many other uses will doubtless suggest themselves to the thoughtful referee or player. Dogs may be employed as scouts, guards, or hunters, and are almost as useful and much less demanding than hirelings or henchmen.

So at least by that time, using dogs essentially as retainers seems to have been a common idea. And from the article in issue 237:

This article provides a method for designing canine NPCs. Included are numerous skills and gaming suggestions to turn man’s best friend into a furry adventuring companion.

The article goes on to (I kid you not) define a specialized set of canine ability scores (intelligence, aggressiveness, strength) and a skill system for dog training (some example skills: mounted heel, resist instinct, and stay). I find the complexity of some of these systems somewhat baffling. Did anyone ever really think it would be a good idea to have a specialized skill system for dogs?

Turning the focus to the blogosphere. Noisms has created a number of variant dogs with various specialized uses. For example: the basilisk hound, a dog selectively bred for blindness to hunt basilisks, the ghost hound, trained to bark at invisible intruders, and orc mastiffs which are “terror weapons for rooting out and killing orc females and children”.

Or, if you want you dungeon dogs to be a bit more rooted in the real world, here is a guide to the proper breed to bring along.

And the whole thing arguably reaches its apotheosis in Zak’s d100 war dog table. Sample: Brindlecoated linklurcher. Will carry a lit torch in its teeth.


Molossian Hound (personal photo, from the British Museum)

2011 Fiction Readings

Following my post on RPG material, here is some fiction that I read in 2011 which has some relation to gaming. I read a lot of other stuff, mostly economic history & literature, but most of that is not really on topic. This list is incomplete and in no particular order. Maybe I’ll keep a better list in 2012. Also, I didn’t read much fantasy (or fiction generally) prior to the summer, because that is when I started to get back into D&D. I find that I enjoy fantasy literature much more when I am gaming, because it becomes less of a pure aesthetic experience and more of an idea mine (I have found the same thing to be true of television and movies).

Rothfuss – The Name of the Wind
When I was in high school, I loved Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time. When I started reading The Wheel of Time, five books were out. When book six game out, I reread the first five. Ditto when book seven came out. Then I resolved that I would not start any new big-volume fantasy series until it was at least nominally complete. I have mostly stuck with that resolution (it has also kept me from reading A Song of Ice and Fire past the second book), but I suppose I broke it for The Name of the Wind. I enjoyed this book. Kvothe is an excellent example of a bard (a class I usually loathe). He manages to conform to most of the bard tropes (even supports himself in wizard’s school with his lute playing) while not seeming like a cliché (though there is quite a bit of Elric/antihero influence too). Kvothe is something of a wish fulfillment character, which lends a slightly adolescent feeling to the whole thing. The magic based on naming reminds me pleasantly of Earthsea, the faerie realm feels mythic rather than mundane, and I’m interested in seeing where he goes with the Chandrian (though I’m not convinced he has a plan; I think he might be making it up volume by volume). I think it is suggestive that Rothfuss names The Last Unicorn as the best book he has ever read.
Rothfuss – The Wise Man’s Fear
The sequel to The Name of the Wind. This one, however, I found much less successful. It was a 300 page (if that) story in a 1000 page package. It carried forth several of the good points from The Name of the Wind, but did not develop enough for me. It also contains a pseudo-asian culture which seems to exist for the sole purpose of justifying mercenaries skilled in martial arts (who of course end up training the main character).
Lovecraft – The Whisperer in Darkness
Needs no introduction.
Beagle – The Last Unicorn
Surprisingly close to the cartoon movie (which I greatly enjoyed when I was much younger; despite the fact that it was clearly intended for kids, it was quite melancholic). It is in places more whimsical than the movie, but there are some timeless scenes, like Mommy Fortuna’s carnival.
Smith – The Return of the Sorcerer (collected stories)
I am relatively new to Smith, despite the fact that I lived about 45 minutes away from Auburn (in California) all through my teens (Smith was known as “The Bard of Auburn” because he lived there through most of his writing). Many of his stories do seem to capture the atmosphere of the Sierra Nevada foothills while also being otherworldly.
Howard – The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian (Del Rey collection)
I originally avoided Conan due to how campy he seemed (I blame all the pop culture spin-offs). The original Howard stories are excellent. My favorite aspect of the setting is how it seems to reflect the real world but avoid the “these are the fantasy vikings, these are the fantasy chinese” problem that seems to infect many fantasy settings.
Anderson – The Broken Sword
Absolutely gorgeous writing. I have a half-written post about this, so I’ll just say it masterfully blends Norse myth and other fantastic elements. The elf, dwarf, and troll lands are models for what I would love to see in a D&D setting. And there are no pointless heroics here. I would probably place this in any top 5 “Appendix N” list.
Leiber – Swords and Deviltry
The first of the Lankhmar books. Enjoyable, and clearly one of the early influences for classic D&D. Not a novel, but a collection of short stories. I am coming to appreciate short stories more now. I used to avoid them in favor of novels. At least one Leiber probably deserves to be in a top 5 “Appendix N” list also.
Leiber – Swords Against Death
As above.
Vance – The Dying Earth
I contend that it is impossible to really understand the implied setting aspects of classic D&D without reading The Dying Earth stories. And it’s not just the magic. The setting (true points of light in the darkness) and the characters (pragmatic and completely amoral) are just as important.
Vance – The Eyes of the Overworld
This novel gives us one of the inspirations for the thief class in Cugel the Clever (the other main influence being The Gray Mouser, as far as I know). His selfishness and the absurdity of his actions are epic. Kafka is one of my favorite authors, and I felt his influence strongly here. 
Vance – Cugel’s Saga
As the other Vance works. I didn’t like this one quite as much as The Eyes of the Overworld, but it is still a classic. These three selections were all contained in the Orb omnibus edition Tales of the Dying Earth (I still have Rhialto the Marvellous to read).
Cook – The Black Company
Loved it. Posted about it recently.