[bx?] Very variable weapon damage: Sword VS Mace

Enter rule sketch:

All weapons do d6 damage. But fighters, and only fighters, can use certain weapons to their full extent.

For example, swords allow a second attack if the first one hits. This way, swords are better against enemies with light armor or none, and they get exponentially better as the fighting man or woman accumulates attack bonus.

The table below shows the equivalent damage per attack in percentage (where a 100% would be a d6 sword that always hits) and which damage die would deal that amount in a single attack. Notice that it behaves as a common longsword a little above leather armor, and drops a little on plate and shield (17 ac)

On the other side of the ring, we have the mace. Maces, on the hands of fighters, deal double damage on natural 20s. This increment will be hardly noticed against low acs unless the occassional lucky shot, but against highly armored foes, and those who are above your hitting range and require 20s, you will deal much more damage per hit. See below:

 

 

Mace keeps being a d7 (a little better than the d6 it is normally) until plate armor, at which it exponentially rises. I have also calculated the effect of a +1 damage in both cases. For the full effect of a +1 strength (+1 to hit and +1 damage) see the +1 damage at the next best ac. The equivalence to the normal bonus is flawless (+3 numbers in the die as it should). 

And now, my opinion: 

All weapons being equalled one to other both in damage and to hit makes no sense. "b-b-but a dagger can slit your throat just as a broadswooord". NO. If you are so retarded as to not find the flaw on that argument you deserve to be thrown into the roman colosseum with a broomstick.

All weapons being differentiated by their damage dice makes a little to introduce the concept of good and bad weapons. But it fails in the gamist aspect, not as much as it is unrealistic, but because it annuls any meaningful choice in weaponry: the d8 longsword is the best on one hand, and then there is the greatsword. End. "b-but an axe can be used to chop a door". Well, yes. But how are they going to chop it if NOBODY PICKS THE AXE, BECAUSE THE LONGSWORD DOES D8?

All weapons having a VS ARMOR table is wonderful. It comes with problems on its own, of course. Referencing the table is one, and also is when monsters are adjudicated an armor type based on their numerical value instead of their armor type in game. But at least comes close to what it should be the ideal: give weapons small nuances in combat that makes them a valid choice to be carried, even if in a completely marginal case and even if their bonus is almost always negligible (in fact, marginal differences would be the best in my opinion)

My approach here described is just an idea, but fails in the execution as the mace gets too good at 20+ and does it too far from plate armor, which the sword damages very competently anyways. The choice would be viable if the Plate Armor spot was around 18 AC instead. But still, I spent a lot of work tonight on calculating this shit. Let's call it a day, and who knows, this study might be useful at some point.

[osr] shields shall be activated, part II, re-rewritten

One more iteration on the concept of Activated Shields. A much simpler method than the previous entry, in which the shield d20 roll replaced the current AC. 

The rule is:

Shields don't provide any passive AC bonus. Instead, they block a succesful hit on a roll of 6 on a d6 (before damage is rolled). This makes their relative AC be better or worse depending on the armor worn (as they are going to "work" more on lower ACs), according to this table.

 

AC (ascending)	% to be hit at +0 bonus	1/6 blocked by the shield	+ ac equivalent (+1 in d&d)
2	95	15'8	3'17
3	90	15	3
4	85	14'1	2'87
5	80	13'3	2'66
6	75	12'5	2'5
7	70	11'6	2'33
8	65	10'8	2'17
9	60	10	2
Unarmored (10)	55	9'16	1'83
11	50	8'3	1'66
Leather armor (12)	45	7'5	1'50
13	40	6'6	1'33
Chainmail (14)	35	5'8	1'17
15	30	5	1
Plate Armor (16)	25	4'1	0'83
17	20	3'3	0'66
18	15	2'5	0'5
19	10	1'7	0'33

 As you see, this makes shields be a liiiitle better on leather and chainmail, not enough to make a big difference, but its a little treat to those fighting man who don't get plate as soon as they can. I want to open the possibility of using less armor in order to open more encumbrance. Not sure if this little boost would be enough.

Below this lines, you can see the same table but for a shield roll that prvented hits 1/3 of the time (5 or 6 on a d6)

AC (ascending)	% to be hit at +0 bonus	2/6 blocked by the shield	+ ac equivalent (+1 in d&d)
2	95	31'6	6'33
3	90	30	6
4	85	28'2	5'66
5	80	26'6	5'33
6	75	25	5
7	70	23'2	4'66
8	65	21'6	4'33
9	60	20	4
Unarmored (10)	55	18'33	3'66
11	50	16'6	3'33
Leather armor (12)	45	15	3
13	40	13'3	2'66
Chainmail (14)	35	11'6	2'33
15	30	10	2
Plate Armor (16)	25	8'3	1'66
17	20	6'6	1'33
18	15	5	1
19	10	2'5	0'66

As you can see, the relative AC of a shield is greatly improved from the original. It is remarkable that with this rule, they can a priori block natural 20s.

The point in which shields will really shine with this rule is when fighting monsters with high attack bonuses. A fighter in plate armor and a shield, for example, when fighting a red dragon with +8 attack bonus, would defend with an equivalent AC of 9 (17 -8).

By this rules, the 16 AC plate would become an 8, and then get the bonus from the shield: +2'17 for the 1/6th version and +4'33 for the 1/3 version; making it a factual AC of 10'17 and 12'33 respectivelly.

Not sure if implement this or on how. I like that the increment in AC can make up for the fact that I want to drop the attribute scores (and with it, the Con bonuses) and it seems appropiate that the con bonuses are more important at higher levels, just as when the monsters attack bonuses are higher and raise the effectivity of the shield. So in a way, the 1/3 version of the shield might not be as OP as it looks in comparison.

On the other hand, there is something so easy on giving normal shields 1/6 of effectivity, and have magical shields (that would be +1 as per the original rules) to work at 1/3.

Non-fighters have also the choice of using shields at a reduced armor rate. Be it taking the 1/6 instead of the 1/3, or using them at disadvantage (roll 2d6, keep lowest). I'm a bit reticent to hard-coded restrictions, and though it may sound ridiculous, the game feels more "real" to me if that kind of things are just severely handicapped instead.

The great downside of the shield roll is that it, of course, adds another roll. On its defence, I'd say that it only comes up on a succesful enemy hit. Personally in my current "D6 D&D rules" I pair it with my variant of Homebrew Homunculus D&D without damage dice, and with the damage rolls gone, I don't find the shield rolls tedious at all.

[osr] shields shall be activated

Have the summer end rains already blessed your part of the world? I can feel them approaching in timid peeks; barely passing through the ranks of their mortal enemy, the ch3m7rails. Welcome to your comfy mood blog where we sometimes post and discuss rpg houserulings. 

I was working on a chart tonight. In my d6 pool d&d there is one rule that proved to be very cool: the shield roll. Shields basically do not add to your AC, but instead block an attack 1/3 of the time (roll a 5+ on a d6)

This means they mean much more protection than the small +1 (5%) they add to AC in B/X. But the increase is not good on itself: its a matter of taste. The good part is that it's relative importance increases as you wear less armor: the percentage of blows stopped increases as you are easier to hit. 

For example, a PC in plate armor can be hit on a 6 (17% chance), so the shield drops the chance by a third (by about 6%). The same PC in light armor is hit on a 5 or a 6 (33% chance) so the shield drops the chance by 11%. At AC four (no armor) and three (no armor and yet a level 1 fighter) the shield will be useful in 17% and 22% of the attacks received, respectivelly.

I made a chart that ports the system to B/X like this: Instead of adding a +1 to your AC, the shield can be activated once you have been hit (before damage). Roll a d20 when you do it: your AC becomes that number against that specific attack.
These are the chances against a monster with no attack bonus. Took a little time to calculate the percentages manually with the Windows Calculator, then I translated it to AC:

As you can see, the relative protection of the shield increases greatly, from their simple +1 ac on the original; being much greater in the lighter armors, but never too big as to make them useless. A fighter in leather and shield has 16 AC! just as if he wore plate. However, a one in plate and shield is just 18 AC, just one pip over his original equivalent, which I like because it mimics how plate armor got diminishing returns from the shield in real life.

Against monsters with actual attack bonuses (which is the norm) this shield boost diminishes gradually, but still getting on a median an extra AC point (around +2) at chainmail levels, with marginal benefits the greater the armor and the greater the monsters, but not reaching total zero. This way, the decision on wether or not to use one is always present.

YMMV about if the increased AC is a good thing or not. To compensate for it, I'd limit the shield activations to one per turn, which will only be relevant against monsters with multiple attacks or against multiple enemies.

[BX/OD&D] Towards a single save

 In my game of Trow Fortess, I don't use the five saves. I only use a d6 pool and two saving throw types (plus an special one at zero hp)

The types are the Easy (Death Ray, Poison and Paralyzation) and the Difficult (Spells including wands, Triggering Traps and Dragon Breath). Their chances by level are based on BX's Death Ray and Spells saves, respectivelly; and there is nothing in between (full spread of chances here)

I am thinking on trying OD&D at some point; but getting back to the classic 5-saving throw system and consulting charts is not appealing to me anymore (It's specially painful to check saves for monsters and having them referred to like "as fighter 4" instead of a fucking number). If you follow this blog, you know I usually take an effort to eliminate rules and charts that I feel are redundant, or just do not offer enough reasons in exchange for their cost.

So I started wondering if I could keep a single save number that scaled with level; and then, with advantage or disadvantage mechanics, cover my two save types mathematically faithfully. The answer is yes:

The two rows above are the fighter's saving throw progression for his best (death ray) and worst (spells) saves. These numbers are the same for OD&D and BX, saving me time because I had already done that calculations.

The third row is the Spells saving throw, rolled with advantage (2d20 keep best). As you can see, and without counting the unimportant normal man's saves, it follows the Death Ray saving chances with a maximum deviation of a 5% at level 10. This allows me with a clear conscience to use the spells save as the baseline single save, use it for the hard saves (spells, traps and dragon breath) then giving advantage for the easy saves (death ray, paralization, poison)

(PD: Lets ignore the fact that elf saves fuck this proportion completelly)

The fourth row is the opposite: disadvantage (2d20 keep worst) on the Death Ray numbers. The mathematical probabilites deviate from the original Spells' ones a little more, and the psychological act of rolling an easy save with disadvantage feels worse than rolling the hard one with advantage, so the previous method feels much better in both senses.

Hurt and Fatigued

No way there is this in B/X and never saw or used it!!! not the action of running, of course, but the concept of exhaustion and its effects. I find very cool that they are very intense, in contrast for the fact that they appear in such marginal cases: 30 rounds of combat running are A LOT. It could probably be written as "characters are exhausted after running for 1 turn", as 1 turn encompasses 60 rounds, and running is probably better modelled on "turn based time". If combat is taken place, it makes strange to have a pursuit ongoing.

Picture is from the OSE srd, which is an awesome tool to search for monster stats or any kind of Basic D&D information in the cellphone. Consulting B/X specifies that exhaustion prevents you from running further (which was kept ambiguous on the above bullet points) and that exhausted characters always deal at least 1 damage on a succesful hit.

I like the idea of worn out PCs that are not in conditions to fight. D&D uses hp as a measure of stamina, too, so they could have modeled fatigue through HP loss. But this way is more tangible, factually it introduces a status effect.

I was wondering if the same penalties could be applied to when monster or PCs are worn out by combat (and this is the purpose of this entry). Written in B/X format, the idea to be tested would be:

"Whenever a PC or Monster has his HP dropped to a number equal to its HD or less, he is badly wounded, and incurs in exhaustion effects"

This means that, stastically, fighters and dwarves would be wounded after taking more damage than elves or magic users (because their 1d8 HDs have more HP on them)

This also means, of course, that some monsters can be badly hurt before they are dead. I like this for many reasons:
- It makes for an organic place to call for a morale check, and different monsters allow for many different psychological approaches to being close to death/defeat (though making morale checks at 50% hp also makes sense, as to prevent this state)
- It serves as an alternate way to subdue dragons
- Its a way to reveal to the players that the monster is about to go down, without telling them the actual HP
- Maybe some monsters can have special attacks that only happens in this point
- Differentiates living monsters from undead or animated monsters, which have no point in having a "wounded" status.
- The higher HD a monster has, the higher the chance that becomes wounded at some moment during combat; which feels appropiate in genre.

Assuming healing at 1d3 hp per day rate, this means that high level PCs will be wounded more days than low level ones. This might be a little weird but narrativelly it makes sense as it is implied they sustained more damage to arrive to this situation. I imagine it sort of when Zoro or Goku are incapacitated after a great battle.

In my game, as I don't use hp (only HD) I must homebrew some proportions, remembering that fighters and monsters, with 1d8 hp per hd, will on a median be put in "wounded" status at 2/9ths of their health.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The whole concept is interesting to pair with the "Roll the Body" type saves; or save versus death at 0 hp. From AxianSpice:
 

"When you reach 0 hp, you drop down and you might be dead. You make a final Save versus Death when (if) someone checks on you. You pass it, you're back on your feet with 1 hp and still have a chance to make it back from the dungeon. This type of rule can be found, for example, in Dungeon Crawl Classics. If you're left there, you're dead, eaten by monsters or just bled out"

I like it in part because it gives back the survability that the debuffs take from characters. In part, also, because I like that with little effort it gives you the whole spectre of possible status without any extra bookkeeping:

Full power
Wounded
Unconscious
Unknown state
Dead

Reaction Checkz: d&d is a storygamee

I wrote a couple of times about how the virtue of D&D consists in that it can be played on "autopilot" relying solely on procedures, if the GM is mindblocked and doesn't want to think of anything, assuming only the role of arbiter. 

But of course I   L I E D   L O L . The influence of the GM is never nor should be zero. Even a fully scripted random encounter of goblins requires the GM to describe the goblins, and every word, attitude, tactic, dialogue, apathy or emphasis he puts into it is shaping the encounter in some way. Let's say that if narrative games have a GM involvement of 100%, OSR games can assume the same 100% or drop it real low, but never below a 10% 

 

 

One thing that always requires some sort of interpretation is the Reaction Checks. Let's grab my B/X book and see what it has to say on the matter:

Outcomes applied to every monster and situation are better taken in an oracular way rather than a literal one. For example, it's hard to believe that a single bandit will attack a party of six. If a (2): immediate attack would be rolled, I think I'd have the bandit to pretend to be a friend, until an opportunity of a profitous strike arises; during the night or until he can be alone with one of the PCs. The monster is determined to attack, but the attack is just not immediate.

No intelligent monster would make such a temerary charge, and If he does, you have to invent some story to back it up. For example: the bandit is a small boy who has mistaken you for a rival gang of bandits that kidnapped his sister and put her in a brothel until she pays her father's game debt (hmmm... interesting plot hook. Taken straight from Samurai Champloo)

What about a (3-5): possible attack? what makes it possible? I am rolling to find out things, I don't want more uncertainity!!!!!!!!!!!. I treat this result more or less like a 2. Monster attacks if the attack is feasible. Else, it will take hostile actions without entering combat (stalk pray from afar, call for reinforcements, get between the PCs and what the PCs need, talk shit about them in the village) 

The worst is when you get the (6-8): monster confused. What the fuck. The bandits are all smoking an elven joint, tripping balls? What do I do is different for each monster. The key is that monsters are at least aware of the PCs. This can mean that they will be watched upon for as long as they remain in this domain, or be held responsible of any mess happening. If the monster is civilised, will approach and ask why are you in this lands; and your answer might decide further reactions (and reaction rolls). 

If the monster ts horrible, it might cause a morale check for retainers, or cause unrest on any non-combatants. A swarm of stirges or the sight of a roc will cause a morale check on the horses. A pack of wolves met during the day will surely check on you again during the night.

Rolling (9-11): No attack, monster leaves is easier to do, the monster is just doing their own thing and is for the most part oblivious to the PCs. You will have to come up with things though, if the PCs decide to engage the encounter themselves, and you will have to come up in the spot of what are they doing. Trow encounters of this kind (my setting's humans) are often hunting parties (they can also be hostile encounters if they decide that the PCs are disturbing the setup by flushing the prey or confusing the dogs). A single Trow is usually a messenger or in a quest of his own. A beast is not hungry enough to pursue the PCs, but some beasts can provide rations and valuables such as furs, and PCs might attempt to hunt them. Curiously, it should be better than the "uncertain" result, but the "monster leaves" clause can make it harder for the PCs to ask help from the encountered monster, as it's implied it is busy.


An (12): enthusiastic friendship feels very forced in many occasions. There are two nice opposite versions of this encounter that don't involve a monster acting like a drunk man hugging everyone in a party: an NPC in need, who could use some help; or au contraire, one that is able and willing to help the PCs with their current situation. Sometimes both. This is when you let your vision guide you. Good NPCs come up from this situations; like a moustache man in my game, who helped the party find a bridge in the middle of the night so they could sleep at the inn, then later got a name and appeared on further adventures in the city.

As you see, when a reaction check is made, suddently a lot of improvisation is called up. Some choices imply new doubts (is the bandit acting alone? does he have friends waiting for him? does he want gold or will be fine by stealing a horse and run?) which can at the end be solved by making more oracle rolls (roll whatever, high is good, low is bad. I do that a lot of times)

I went to the newer editions to see how Reaction Checks improved over time; and by that I mean AD&D 1e and 2e. I want to point my finger into two important things I've found.

AD&D 1e breaks the table into 2 more unnecesary steps, but interestingly puts morale into the mix, that can be interesting in situations of numerical disadvantage. But still it doesn't strike me well that the bravery of a bandit makes him more prone to attack a party of six in spite of being obviously in the wrong side of the match. If used in a sensible manner instead of a naturalistic way, morale will just be part of the oracular machine:If the bandit passes morale, he is the little boy rescuing the sister. If he fails, is a scoundrel who will try to pass as a friend.

Meanwhile AD&D 2e makes the table to be a 2d10 one and depend on the PCs disposition towards the monster, which is very interesting to me. But there is something that bugs me a little; if anybody learned on 2e can explain. If Charisma modifier is to be added to the roll, shouldn't the numbers go in reverse? I mean, with the 20 being in the "Friendly" outcomes, and the 2 or less be in the "Hostile" ones.

The monographic entry about ELVES and how I run them (system neutral?)

 You found elves! number appearing? roll in this table:

1. Average elf (1HD, no armor, short bows, with the bow expertise feat granting an extra 1d6 on attacks) They can climb trees very fast.

2. two elves

3. three elves

4. druid (level=1d6, 1d3 spells, with heal and speak with plants being the most common. Speak with plants is the key to gather Sleep Powder from a specific flower: they carry 1d6-3 uses of it. Blowing onto the powder works as a sleep spell. Possible treasure to be found in elven lairs)

5. veteran hunter (no armor, level 1+1d6)

6. Roll twice. On a repeated result or another 6, raise the level of everyone by one

Elves make their lairs in deep forests, and whenever they are on that terrain, they always have advantage to surprise rolls. When on real combat, they will always try to shoot from the treetops: anyone trying to shoot them from below does it at -4 due to the height difference and concealment. Looking for a hidden elf in a tree works as looking for secret doors (5+ on a d6) with advantage if they make any noise, so is a good idea to trick them into talk even if just to locate their silhouettes.

This means that elves are pretty though encounters for their size. I've actually made them more OP each time I use them, because as a GM I enjoy monsters that are hard to kill but offer plenty space for retreat, negotiation, roleplay and using spells and other dirty tricks. As a side note, I am trying to reserve fair combat for "enraged" or "dumb" monsters like golems, but I hate when the PCs resolve and encounter with civilised humanoids and I find out a posteriori that I made them not use tactics at all.

An elven lair consists in sparse cozy shelters carefully hidden into the treetops, and the rest of the hex and the adjacent six (if suitable) are hunting grounds. Elven life revolves indefectivelly around hunting by means of their short bows, though they also carry daggers carved from horns and bones, which they call "fangs". They can prey on many things appearing on your random monster table for the area; including shit like tiger beetles or giant scolopendras. I don't imagine owlbears being edible but they are probably prized for their skins. But of course, it is a great idea to make space for the antelope and the boar, always present on b/x bestiary. Elves cook their food and make campfires to do so if they believe they won't attract too much attention (this is a good example of a good surprise roll against elves).

As opposed to Trow, whom are more proclive to hunt big game par force (that is, succintly, using dogs and coordinate tactics to pursue a catch until its tired and presents battle) elves use stealth. Trow use hunting parties as a social event, and a way to introduce young boys to the customs of riding and battle (I'd love to write an entry about that specific topic soon, cross fingers), while their elven counterparts often hunt alone, and rarely in groups bigger than three. They never use dogs (and rarely have pets that cannot fly or at least climb).

It's not just that they are hard to detect: Elves hardly ever talk, not even amongst them. When PCs arrive into elven territory, they might receive a silent warning in the shape of arrows shot in the ground before them, with the shooters well hidden in the foliage above. If that doesn't work (as always happens with PCs) they might shot a sack that can be pierced, or try to wound someone, to make the whole party turn their back (that's like their neutral reaction roll on their territory). They don't want their sacred groves profaned with bonfires and their buck deers flushed by the noisy trow. Or they are just appalled by the idea of two marching kobolds breaking the peace with constant jokes and laughters.

They do not understand why other races talk so much, like there was so many things to be said. Though they might seem serious and stupid, they do have sense of humor and keep normal relationships, but they somehow manage to do it talking much less and using a lot of implied acts, which are amplified by their surrounding lack of speech.

If required to, they will try to use a single word; two in case of need. Four consecutive words or more are considered a poem for them (and they do write four word poems. This is not an exageration); but they never use verbs in any form. For some metagamist reason, they are unable to use them or appreciate them and so, their speech sounds always precarious to trow and kobolds.



Elves are plant-like in apparence, and dress in pelts; as heavy and hooded as the climate requires. Their color is a greyish green and their hair looks like leafs. This has no more biological effects beyond that, though poison seems to affect them less virulently (bonus in saving throws vs poison) And, of course, there is the fact that a tree will grow from their corpse once they die. This trees are sacred and elves will protect them violently, with at most an awkward explanation. This tree is believed to hold the soul of the deceased for an indefinite time after his death, and the tribe's druids can partially communicate with them. Many times, elves who are about to die decide to wait for death right outside the limits of their forest; knowing that this will cause a subtle inertia for new groves to expand towards their gravetree.

Though elves are individualistic in nature, when a decision involves the whole tribe they tend to value the words of the elders: A veteran hunter that is now a potter by the river, or a venerable druid (clasically a woman). In addition, the opinion or the blessing of the departed elders, now in tree form, is also sought through the druid's abilities.

A silent elf sitting on a branch could be doing anything from sleeping, contemplating nature, listening for prey, thinking or practising meditation, all in the same unassuming position. By doing the latter, they believe that they weaken their illusory miconceptions and are innately guided to their place in the nature cycle, like the other animals do.

Elves are to be a playable race (though not used them as such yet). I've used ambiguous mechanical terms in this entry, but applied to my Trow Fortress rules, their dexterity must be high, so I will make it so they must allocate their best score onto it, and instead of getting regular HD increases as fighter, they can at certain levels increase their dexterity or magic by +1, no roll required. This will help them get into their presumed roles as veterans. As a side effect, some elves can max out dexterity and become elven monks (expertise: combat without weapons) and even have some magic buffs, related or unrelated to combat. But that is something to be written another day. I hope you liked my take on indian-dryads.