Spear Combat [pits & perils]

or "differentiating weapons when all of them deal the same damage"

Normally I only run my BX-based mutations, no time for anything else. But I am currently searching for a different group to play exclusivelly Pits and Perils. There is a lot to love into that game, but never played it yet. It's a very simple ruleset, but the player-facing rules are maybe too simple for my taste. I have, of course, already customized it: adding armor as AC instead of extra HP was the first step (naked: 7, leather:8, chainmail:9, plate:10, shield +1)

I also feel that the equivalent of health points (hits) are very high for starting characters. A fighter for example starts with 10 hits, which is equivalent to a "level five" monster. 

from the hireling section

Finally, like in plain OD&D, all weapons deal the same damage and have no other mechanical differences beyond "2 handed great weapons deal an extra point of damage on a hit". In this case, all one handed weapons work by rolling 2d6 versus an AC (always 9 in the original) and dealing one hit or two hits on a roll of 12. Fighters add +1 to this roll, and Strong characters add +1 in melee attacks. 

As I never understood the "all weapons are equal" approach I made some differentiations myself:

Daggers: Fighters do not add +1 when using daggers. This makes them a little worse than swords for them, but gives all the other classes a good reason to carry them (the usefulness of any weapon for the minimum encumbrance!). If you are attacking a grappled enemy, you can attack him an extra time per turn with the dagger.

Swords: Using an one-handed sword with two hands allows you to re-roll an attack once per combat. +1 against enemies classified as large (I saw this somewhere and felt good- not sure of where!)

Maces: On a roll of 12+ deal an extra hit. This makes them stastically good against heavy armors. One handed axes can fit here maybe. Crossbows also use this one when compared to bows, though the former take a turn to reload.

2-handed swords/axes: an extra hit on any succesful attack, just as RAW. 

Spears: This one is a little more complicated. Or is it not? You get +1 AC to represent the biggest reach. This benefit is not cumulative with plate armor (to prevent AC bloat) and is negated as soon as you are hit, because you enemy has closed the range on you. If your enemy is that close to you, you must spend one turn to disengage or else they are too close to use the spear against them. If you do, you also recover that extra +1 AC.

Used with a shield, you're harder to hit, so this bonus might last longer. But the fighters only get their +1 when using it two-handed.

On special cases such as charging on a horse, or bracing against a charge, you get the +1 independently of wearing a shield or not, and all damage is doubled.

I've been watching a lot of HEMA fights lately, something that always puts me in a "weapon differentiation" mood, and I am very proud of this rule. I wanted something situational, that didn't put it over or under other weapons, and that represented the fact that when the enemy is over you, you better drop the spear and unsheathe a sword or a dagger, as modern fighters claim. In fact I liked this rule so much that I will port it to my normal game rules (both the current and the old d6 one. I like that variant to much to forget it)

Simultaneous Initiative

The other day I found this by reading my daily OSR stuff, and this paragraph offered me a new wonderful paradigm. I'll just cite:

OD&D has no such thing as Initiative and to my way of thinking it should never use it - EVER!

OD&D uses Parallel Actions; everyone does what they do in a round and then results are applied.

You engage the orc and you are both circling and looking for an opening… roll your attack, oh you hit it for 7!

The orc falls to its knees mortally wounded, in a last effort it swings at you missing and falls face down on the ground in front of you.

The orc got its attack in even though you killed it.

Oh Oh, sometimes things should not happen in a parallel order.

What you can do is apply reasonable results to any situation. Lets say our heroic fighter decides to attack a troop of orcs armed with pole arms. The pole arms should do about the same damage if they get a hit as our hero's sword. Yet our hero has decided to be The Man in this situation and is charging at pole weapons, this is not a good idea. He needs to clear those pole weapons before he gets his attack roll. Thus I would judge that the orcs get to roll their attacks before he gets past their pole weapons and can strike with his sword.

Legend of Shalice (pc-98)

With simultaneous initiative, the problem in my head was at first: "then who declares actions first?" But for some reason, I was enlightened this time: It doesn't matter. You can make it so combatants can re-declare actions based on what their opponent is doing, and then the opponent, add infinitum. Or just say that you can hold action indefinitelly, with some rounds ending with motionless combatants in both sides because they don't want to give an opening. But the truth is that you can probably run games during months before you have to resort to one of those.

Just a good point to remember: If PCs and NPCs power grows parallel to each other the game might keep balance, but with simultaneous initiative, the possibility of mutual kill increases depending on how easy is for both to hit. 

Ecology of Magic Items

twitter: @kaimatten

Where do all the magic items in the magic item tables come from? 

Well, the only way mentioned in BX is through clerics, magic users and elves at name level. Much is left for the GM to decide (how much time, gold and reagents does the item need to be completed) though as a guide, a scroll/potion/item that mimics a spell requires 500 gp and one week per spell level. For other items, there are no instructions: just some examples that can work as guidance:

All right. Now I ask myself: Do all of these items we found in the depths of a labyrinth come from a name-level caster's hand? 
In my view, I always imagined that +1 swords were the forgotten weapons of heroes, imbued with certain powers depending on the battles that their wielder's fought, and that +1 is an extra strength that the sword gained alongside its wielder, or maybe "from" him, as if a part of the warrior's soul had remained in the blade. I wanted to put this in game terms: not so much to add interesting gameplay, as to explore the naturalism of the game world through its most tangible part (procedures!)

Whenever a PC dies, roll 1d20 equal or under his/her level: on a hit, add a +1, a small effect or a bane (+bonus against a specific monster) to any part of your gear. Keep on rolling until you miss. Caster classes can give the object an effect equivalent to a spell of their appropiate level

There are times, though, in which characters don't die to create a magic item. But the moment in which they imbue their essence into an item (knowingly or not) is a moment in which they forfeit personal action in favor of another hero. For example, a warrior who retires and gives his armor to his son. Or a magic user who, for the sake of saving the kingdom, must expeditiously imbue a sword with powers to arm the parting chosen hero. These imbuements do not require significant time, but they require a scene in which they are gifted to their new wielders, alongside an oath, an advice or a farewell.

In this occassions, the creator of the magic item takes a step back from the action. Magic items are never created this way for oneself, but to invest power into another. I think that level drain works nicely for this purpose: too stupid to use for oneself (the level will always be better than the sword effect) and so costly that nobody will ever use it in practice, but will always be available in the theory to explain how a given item might have been created.

Whenever a PC wants to gift an item charged with power to another, add a +1, a small effect or a bane (+bonus against a specific monster) to it. Caster classes can give the object an effect equivalent to a spell of their appropiate level. Then, you lose a full level: your XP is set to the minimum required for the previous level you have at the moment (If you are at level 8 and have +2000 XP towards level 9, you lose the 2000XP and all the XP needed from level 7 towards level 8)

Other times, magical items are just mundane gifts, with powerful intentions behind, but made by people that have no levels whatsovever. This is the case for the amulets exchanged by lovers. These can work as one-use bonuses: one re-roll, or maybe turning a failed save of any type into a success. These are an equivalent of a person that might be far away, but cares for you. So, how are they done? And how to prevent PCs make gifts amongst themselves all the time? Well, there are some under-used mechanics in OSR that more or less represent bonds to other people. Let's work with that:

Whenever a PC wants to give an amulet to another character, specify when it will trigger. It will grant a re-roll or an automatic success once, or once per level of the user (not sure yet). It will only work in absence of the giver. The giver loses a hireling slot permanently (which in case of an NPC won't matter much, but a PC will think twice before losing any resource permanently, even if its a marginal one. Amulets shared amongst the party will be mostly useless as they dont work if the giver is present)

Of course, all of this variants do not rule out the original path to the creation of magic items. They are just alternative paths. However, the time+money+ingredients way can also cover another case: That one in which a blacksmith or another artisan wants to make a magical version of his usual work. This is how dwarves, despite not having any magical abilities, achieve to make their masterwork or magical items.

All of this rules are probably never to be used. They are irrelevant notes which do not add much to a session. But if something is present and ubiquitous in the world I at least need some mental guidelines to know how a PC can interact with it. These rules main point is to provide a better understanding of the game world logic. 

D&D without damage dice (my own take)

 AKA current houserules, july'23

 Since I read this and this at the Homebrew Homunculus blog, I have been playing that way, barring ocassional spin-offs. It works. I think it also suits my GMing style (if there is such a thing) and combines perfectly with other personal houserules. But as I use the concept, I don't use it exactly as he devised it, nor as I did at first. It is thus necessary that I codify my own formulas and tables in this traveler log for the next pilgrim in need.

First: there are no hit points, only hit dice. 

Magic Users and Hobbits start with one hit die
Fighters and Elves start with two. This makes them relativelly tougher than their original counterparts, which seems very welcome to me.

I don't use more classes (I might cover this decision on another entry in the future)
Constitution bonuses add or take HD from this amount by their modifier (you cannot have less than 1 HD)

Everybody gets 1 HD every level. 

If you're reduced to 0 HD, you get a special save vs death. See below.

Second: 

Saves are more or less unified, and rolled with d6. In order of descending hardness, they are Spells (6+), Death Ray (5+) and Death at 0 HD, which works like this: 

On a 6 you are as fresh as ever, you regain your last HD.
On a 5 you are wounded and might suffer penalties to actions, and cannot roll this save until you recover.
On a 4 you are unconscious and will probably die if abandoned
On a 3 or less, you're dead or as bad as the situation demands.

This last save emulates the uncertainity of the last hit points and your opponent having to hit you, then rolling enough damage to take you down. Though the HD progression by level might be just a little under the BX one, the fact that the "save vs death at 0" increases with levels, just as any other save, makes more than enough for it. 

You might have noticed that Magic Users are just 1 HD behind Fighters during all their career. I don't think it's too bad, either. MUs also need much more XP to raise levels, so this will keep them another HD under them most of the time, and cannot use armor.

Table of save comparison (hasn't changed since the last time I wrote my houserules there)

Third: All weapons take 1 hit on a hit. They have different critical ranges and do different damages on critical hits. But in HHs calculations, he doesn't take into account the fact that monsters were effectivelly using d6 hp per hit dice, so when he compared his damage outputs vs the BX ones, the damage output is below the relative actual damage vs those monsters. I reworked the table taking this into account, using an AC of plate (16) for calibration. Better criticals equal greater damage dice the better AC the opponent has, and I love how organically this system gives so much variables with so little machinery.

"Roll to attack: If you hit, deal 1 hit. If you roll in your weapon's critical range, add your critical damage"

WEAPON CLASSIFICATION

A critical hit normally does an extra hit of damage. Excess damage is transferable to an enemy of equal or worst AC, so if you deal 2 hits to a goblin (with a single hit) you can deal that damage to a nearby goblin, representing how you managed to slay both of them in a single turn.

Daggers and other similar tier weapons crit on a 20 (1/20 of the time). When compared to B/X raw, they actually deal d7 damage. This dagger improvement is one of the greatest changes of the system. In a single attack, it will still kill easily a Magic User, but more rarely a Fighter. 

Swords and other similar one handed weapons crit on a 19+ (this is 1/10 of the times) and they are almost an equivalent to a d9 (a little improvement from the BX d8 longsword)

Greatswords and other similar greatweapons crit on a 18+ (1/7 of the time), which in damage output it means its equivalent to a d10

Unarmed attacks are at -2 to hit and do not normally crit (unless the STR bonuses are applied, see below). For an average STR character, it does an equivalent to a d4. A -4 to hit would put it on par with the 1d2 unarmed damage of the original, but I actually like to improve the output a little.

Edit: Spears work as daggers when using one-handed, and as swords when using two-handed. In both cases they give you +1 AC due to their reach. But once you are hit in melee, your opponents will close range, negating this bonus. When this happens, you also lose all crit possibilities until the distance is kept again. To do so, you must spend one turn to regain the original position. 

HOW STRENGTH FITS IN ALL THIS

HH made criticals deal more damage depending on class (fighters deal x3 damage and other classes x2) but didn't factor strength into the equation. Strength is incredibly powerful in BX, as each modifier increases both the to-hit and damage by one. Normally each extra point of damage is worth about a +2 to hit bonus in power, so each point of strength actually raises the to hit bonus by three. This is also roughly equivalent of increasing the size of a damage die by 1'5 (so a d4 would become a d7, for example) 

I did apply strength like this: For each bonus modifier, you take an extra HD on a critical hit, with the modifier capped at +2 for this reasons. 
I like a lot of things about this rule, the first is that it rewards the strongest guys in the party to use 2-handed weapons, but the benefit is greatly reduced for fighters with average strength, or below average, which makes "gamist" sense and feels genre-appropiate. I also like that the damage output comparison with BX looks very good to me. Even the parts where it departs a little, I like how it does. AC 16 is the point of reference, with extra critical damage mattering more the highest the armor is and viceversa (references provided for 14 and 18)

Enter table:

The three or four numbers in a row mean: damage at str+0 / at str +1 / at str +2 / at str+3 when applicable. Damage is measured in damage dice, converting to hit bonuses into damage equivalents.

Due to strength being so important, I have ruled that PCs can attempt to raise one of their scores by +1 every level up, if they roll over their actual score on 1d20. More on this here.

Fourth: Monster conversion is done by converting all their HD into their number of Hits. Monsters with HP added to their HD just take an extra hit. Their damage dice is converted to a similar weapon if possible (dealing 1d4/1d6 is equal to dagger, for example) or with some creative solutions: A T-Rex dealing 6d6 damage now deals 6 HD damage on a hit, and 7 on a critical hit (as they are d6s, they work as dagger so he crits on a 20 only). 

Monsters may not be able to spread their extra damage amongst the party if they are not martially trained or their type of attack is not suited to. 

Monsters that attack in group do not get a save vs death at 0 if you don't want to, but their leaders or named NPCs might.

The original table from which the above's was calculated. Here for posterity:

fuck, man, I'm so sleepy. I am going to publish this, I am forgetting some small things but this is the core of it

Prime Requisites, or Ability Scores are not important

"In the OSR, ability scores are not important. They are deliberately so because it would be bad design to put too much weight on attributes you roll randomly"

This is something I read a lot on the internet, when skimming blogs and forums up and down, reading things about my favorite games. And I want to make an argument against it, because it's not really true.

They are not big in protagonismt on OD&D's "mechanical" side. Their uses on proper gameplay are but hinted; a numerical descriptor of the character so you can imagine it better, and for the GM to be used as he sees fit. But they are decisive on a crucial part: the prime requirements. 

A correct ability score can allow or veto a class. Not only that, it can put two characters of the same class at disadvantage, by allowing one to advance faster than the other: having the correct score on the correct ability allows you to progress a % faster . It's not like its a dealbreaker, but if you think about it, what's the point on it?

I guess its because it felt genre appropiate: You want to incentivize strong fighters in your game. You want to incentivize intelligent wizards. But if that is the reason, it feels like the lamest way to push that. If your low STR fighter cannot hit hard in melee and relies more on the bow, it's not too bad. But that the same low STR fighter receives less XP its a dissociated mechanic. It doesn't exist to reinforce the world or a reality, it is just an empty punishment. 

It's not really 3d6 in order if you must reduce attributes with that point buy, and get the appropiate one (providing that you can pay the amount of attributes in a 2:1 proportion) just to not play a gimped character. 

If its for being genre appropiate, I can think on much better ways. For example, allowing one re-roll, and just telling fighters that strength will help them performing their class role (even if its by a small +1 to hit). 

The ability score could also be dismissed, and, if its something needed by the class, just implement it in the class. For example, in the case of strength again, just get rid of it. Then declare "being strong" as a fighter base ability. Yes, I know its sounds so bad, but I am assuming you need strong fighters because genre fidelity.

Another method is what I am doing at the moment: I don't do XP increases for anyone: the prime attribute must be useful by itself, or not exist. Strength already powers up your attacks, so it is a good thing to have by itself. So, I allow characters to increase their prime requisites during the game: every level up, roll 1d20: if you roll equal or over your desired prime requisite, you can raise it by +1. 

This makes fighters a little more strong, mages a little more intelligent, hobbits a little more dexterous. I could probably extend this to any chosen ability instead of choosing the prime requisite, but as the specific abilities are what help the characters to fill their class roles, they would naturally gravitate towards STR, INT and DEX, probably.

Instead of using requisites as a dissociated punishment, I use them as an associated reward (that still creates the genre appropiate tropes). I feel that its also nicer for a fighter to feel he might get that precious +1 someday than to accept that it is gone from his hands in the very moment the character is created.

But enough with prime requisites, I want to go further. In OD&D at least the scores were not so important beyond that. I cannot talk about AD&D because I am not familiar with it. But B/X's strength modifiers are TERRIFYING

When talking about damage output in D&D, a +1 to damage is roughly equal in power to a +2 to hit. This means that every strength modifier you get, your fighter is getting a +3 to hit. 
And this means that a level 1 fighter with +1 strenght is attacking as a fighter as high as 8 levels higher than him.

It's not that its bad, but it is certainly a lot for a game in which ability scores do not really matter.

Imagine being that special guy who rolls a +2 or a +3. 

Constitution can also be a very desequilibrating attribute, but also Dexterity with the AC and Missile fire adjustments. Both are great examples on how a great roll or a couple of them can put your character several levels above their capabilities. 

Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma are not as decisive, I guess, though it can be because I dont usually feature much hirelings in my games and players do not seem to care about getting more than one or two, though I can see how a maxed out charisma can be exploited through encounter checks. There is not much more to add but for encouraging you, dear reader: should you be thinking on implementing a houserule (such as relying on "roll under" ability checks for something) and the idea of putting too much weight on the scores is holding you back, don't hold. They are already heavier than they look. 

 

Dungeon Floor Level 1: The nameless city

Pitch: There is this ruined city up a forgotten road, where the rumors say there is a tower that is only visible at night, but vanishes during the day. They say it was the work of a famous magician that lived there when the settlement was alive. It will surely be ripe of magical trinkets, wonders, treasure and dangers.

The PCs won't find the tower unless they delve during the night, and their vision will be greatly improved if they choose a moonlit one. This might increase the paranoia of lycanthropes or vampires amongst the players, but there is not a single one of such. YET. Still working on the tower levels.

KEY: 

1. This house has no roof and it's full of reeds. They hide a small pool with magical propierties: Whenever the moon shines on it, the water glows with moonlike light, until the next day. Anything soaked on that water will glow as a torch as long as its wet. 1 in 6 chance there is a treant bathing in the water.

2. Five hobbits are housed here. They are adventurers who come for loot just like you did. Three have bows, two have daggers. They will give information about a random room (d20 + d6) for free. They will expect something in return for any other help. 120 sp are hidden under a pile of rags. The door is totally blocked and they get in through the window.

3. Door to the city. The trees right in front of you can be crossed, but it takes a full turn to get through the naked, twisted branches. This works the same on any other tree concentrations. If you spend a turn trying to burn it with a torch, it catches fire on a roll of 2 in 6. The whole tree will be on fire on 1d6 turns. 

4. This tower is completely empty, no floors or inner walls. There is however a nest of killer bees, and the entrance is partially hidden under some wooden beams

5. An old temple is so overrun with trees that it has almost eaten all the usable space on it. Eight acolytes still worship a female idol, with the classic emerald eyes that are worth 300 sp each. Their leader is a 4th level cleric.

6. Six snakes (spitting cobras). Will attack if the PCs open any furniture or stay for more than three turns.

7. 158 sp hidden on a cupboard. There is a window partially blocked by a tree.

8. There is a lush jungle into this room. Plants seem to vanish like smoke when touched, but instantly reform. It is, obviously, an illusion. You can see an overture into the wall that can be accessed through a stairs and that leads to a small bridge/balcony. You cannot see, however, a box with 350 sp plainly put on the floor, because the illusion covers it.

9. This stairs lead to the top of the tower, Anyone fighting somebody who is downstairs has +1 to hit and +1 AC.

10. This is the floor over room (17) and it is accessed trough it. The door at north actually gets you in room (17) but I draw like that, so read it first. Anyways, room (10): A rope leads up into a darkened tower. If the players try to climb it, it will ring the bell of the old church instead (the rope leads only to the bell, which is worth 150 gp if somebody can transport it). The bell faint ring will last for fifteen minutes at least, and while its sounding, all nearby illusions will vanish. Also, four orcs from the guarding point at (14) will come to check who is touching shit at the bell tower. 

11. This bars can be bent just as a stuck door,  so you can access the sewer.

12. There are two guardians at each side of the door to room (13). They carry naginatas and no armor, just robes and a chinese-type wide hat that hides their eyes, no matter how near the PCs get. They have a very faint blueish hue. They are illusory, and its creator wasn't good at rendering eyes. They seem to breathe, but they won't talk or move otherwise. This encounter seemed stupid to me when I created it, but it's the one that my players struggled more with. They haven't made up their minds to cross that door, that is completelly unlocked.

13. There is nothing in this room of value, looks like an old granary.  However, there is very worn out illusion (each character has a 3 in 6 chance to actually notice it)  of a kid holding a woman's hand. Both walk through an illusory wheat field, and the woman holds the rein of an illusory horse.

14. Eight orcs guard the bridge: four have bows and are atop of the bridge itself. Other four have spears and wait beside the stairs.

15. The bridge leads into this tower, but orcs will avoid it. It has a spider crab on the roof, will fall over anyone entering the room by that entrance.

16. This is a mezzanine over room 15. You can see the spider from here. There are also some books on the shelves: searching for secret stuff will give you a magical book about birds that projects a faint flying hawk 40 cm over the pages when opened. Worth 200 sp to the right customer.

17. This was a church in better times. It is raining inside this room, but it doesn't actually soak you, because it's illusory. The old stairs are destroyed, but a rope will get you to the first floor (10). Use dex or str checks if you feel like it.

18. A stuck iron door will get you into the city through the sewers. Outside, there is a peaceful, rocky grassland.

19. A poisonous pink flower grows in here. 2 in 6 chance every turn for anyone to get sleepy: save or fall asleep to eventual death unless woken up. There is an iron door that will easy open, and will take you into the city.

20. Three lizard geckos live in this tower. They can access (21) easily by climbing, but PCs cannot do so. Its 10 meters high,

21. Stairs get into this inner balcony from the street. You find the body of a half- eaten adventurer. A silver dagger can be found with its point buried deep into the wooden floor. 

South of this tower, there is a bunch of trees that difficult access. It is scratched on the paper because my PCs burnt it.

22. This room is empty

23. A hobbit is hidden here, conveniently guarded by a door blocked by branches. He is devoted to paint the illusory tower every night, with a brush, a palette and a canvas. He is obsessed with the idea to capture its fleetingness, and its ethereal beauty. He is too hard on himself and his previous works (2d6 pictures stashed in a side of the room) but will trade them for any food supplies, or anything that can be made into pigments or a canvas. It's not related to hobbits at room (2). The window at south lets you watch all the panorama, with the tower in front of you. But you cannot see the orcs under it's shade. The hobbit will warn you they are there, though.

24. This room can be accessed by the bridge in the north wall. There is a trapdoor at the floor leading into (23). The wood around it is rotten and anyone approaching has a 2 in 6 chance to fall into said room. The fall will give you a penalty of -2 to hit and lower your MV by one unless you pass your save.

25. This part of the wall is easy to climb from the outside, but is is guarded by a treant. This is probably too big for the players to face but there he is. It should be obvious and scary

26. This room is accessed through the sewers. It contains a human corpse with 30 gp

27. Access to the tower. The ground floor of the tower has no walls, only columns. Amongst the darkness, there are some stairs hidden that lead to the first floor. There are also 9 orcs with spears and daggers and their leader (double HP, magical shield +1, spear and sword) 

28. Two orc lookouts will shoot with their bows to anyone that gets into their range, and blow the alarm horn if you manage to escape the first shots. Accessing this building is difficult because there are overgrown trees in the way.

29. Two more orcs with spears and daggers guard a big stash: 100 gp and 800 sp

WANDERING MONSTER CHECKS

1 in 6 chance of encounter for every turn the PCs are on the street, or 3 in 6 per rest assuming they rest in the city and make watch through a window or something. The first time the result is rolled, use the first noted encounter. All the other times, use the second.

1. A flock of blue illusory birds passing right through you // 1d6 Orcs

2. 1d4 Spider Crabs

3. Illusory princess, walking towards room 17, then dissapears // 1d6 Acolytes

4. 1d6 Antelopes

5. A Trader (human) // 1d6 Killer Bees

6. A small treant (5HD). Will not attack unless PCs scare him with fire, harm him or any plant on the city.

Gridless Movement

 I thought I had already written this one. But before I forget I do it now:

I am spanish. I do not use feet, yards or pounds in my real life, neither do my players. The translations of those words (pies, yardas y libras) sounds weird in our conversations and I wont use them ever on a game. So, for movement, I use squares instead. In the end, one square is universally equal to 10 feet. So, when I see this extract of BX rules, I assume that an unencumbered human can walk 12 squares on a normal turn, and 4 during combat:

The plot gets thicker: I don't use gridded paper for dungeons, and if I do it's only for aesthetic reasons. I don't measure walking distances. Players can spend a turn getting into a new room, doing something meaningful into the room they are now, or walking a significant chunk of a corridor. So in the end I am using the square unit even if I do not track squares (unless I could do it on a very specific situation that calls for it).

The only other time when movement rates are meaningful is when there are enemies, pursued and persecutors. An enemy that can move 6 squares in combat will catch a PC that can move only 4. To prevent this deterministic fate, rules allow to distract monsters with food, gold, burning oil, or turning into a random direction if there is any (50% chance the monster catches them anyways).

To sever my dependency from this procedures, I'd implemented a randomized MV that works more or less inside the spectre of the old one:

PCs have a MV value equal to the squares they can walk in combat (so, following the table above, it ranges from 4 to 1). When running, or when measuring the normal move is meaningful, they move MV+d6 squares (that is a maximum of 100 to 50 feet, more or less similar to the 120' - 30' range above). The math doesnt suit much but I dont care, the speed is still proportional to encumbrance and that is what matters. 

When in combat, you can do it like this too, why not. But I prefer rolling 1d6 equal or under your MV: If you pass, you engage, disengage, outrace, etc. your opponent, who must also do the same to make you negate this advantage. A failure means you waste your turn, while a success allows you to perform your normal action for the turn. For contests amongst or against monters with 6 or more MV (moving 60' or more in combat) use 5 as their MV.

This methods work equally great with or without a grid, as you can count the squares or just compare rolls against an enemy while the GM narrates accordingly. This will also give you a chance to flee any monster indefinitelly as long as the dice gods allow you.

Monster Lairs, Monster Treasure

I have been playing with BX's procedural dungeon generation, and it's really fun. Creating a dungeon level is such a wonderful way to spend a spring night. But there was a detail that I could not figure out about the monster lairs: Treasure was only to be found in monster lairs, yet the dungeon generation seemed to work with the smaller number of monsters only (and they don't have any assigned "% in lair" attribute like in other editions). Finally, by reading an unvaluable Delta's article this very night, I understood that there was nothing to be understood: there is an ambiguity in the rules that seems to be resolved by assuming that all monsters in the dungeon have an "% in lair" of 100%; or, which is the same, all dungeon encounters are balanced towards their own treasure by using their largest number appearing. 

Of course, it might be strange that you open a door in a dungeon and you find there 30 men guarding their #A treasure. So, maybe, it could be a good idea to assume that they have made a lair in that section of the dungeon, and they are tactically and organically disposed along a space of otherwise empty rooms. 

And now that this is settled, I want to expose my conundrum with treasure types. I already spoke about how I use the averages and make two rolls to make a small variance and decide the predominant shape of it. I found recently an anonymous chart that had done a similar work, also translating the magic item chances to d6:

I still want to find another way. Maybe is just habit, or something in me likes to find the formula that obsoletes the chart. Because, in the end, the three factors (amount of riches, amount of jewelry among the riches and amount of magic items) are kind of proportional and it feels natural to tie them to something in the monster. One OSR game for kids, DAGGER, uses monster's HD + 1d6 against this table: 1-3 no treasure, 4-5 coin purse, 6-7 sack of treasure, 8-9 treasure chest. Dungeon World did the same thing but with the monster's damage die instead:

This example looks so bad because the list is totally off from what you would expect in a D&D's treasure, even at high rolls. But serves to illustrate the concept. Probably for a BX variant the best chance would be tying it to HD; always remembering that many monsters do not carry treasure not even in their lairs. Then, adding explicative notes in monster description for special cases: Dragons always have more treasure, as do Men's lairs, to a crazy extreme. Take a look at Delta's table and be astonished:

I went to my faithful tome of Pits and Perils (Not a clone of any D&D edition, its its own thing, but similar enough to make style comparisons) and here are the notes:

Treasure types are divided into four (I, II, III and IV) in respect to treasure amount. Each one decuplicates the previous one. Those are at the same time divided into type A treasures (natural treasures such as monster body parts or spider webs that take X turns to be harvested, more info on the monster's description) and type B treasures (your classic coins and gems)

With every type increase, also the jewelry and magic item chance increase (also the magic item quality). With the table as it is, there is only the chance of 1 magic item per monster, but it is trivial to hack this to give it more variance: instead of 2, 3 and 4 in 6 chance for types II, III and IV, you roll 2, 3 or 4 six sided dice, with each roll of 1 being one item.

The four types approach is also tempting. I like that the details of treasure are provided in the monster description too, both in amount and in nature. But maybe not even those four types are needed: I think that treasure amount could be written in the monster stats as: 

Treasure: Y/N?

If yes, check how much by making a roll based on monster's HD. If there is an arterisk, check description for specifics (add or take money, items, magic...)

There is also a very different approach, which is the one that I am using at the moment. I took it from this very interesting piece by a mysterious author called Lungfungus. I actually went to print and bind that book alongside The Implied OD&D Setting by Wayne Rossi because I love to have that kind of books at home. 

The concept I am testing is to standarize the average treasure amount of a treasure room in a level 1 dungeon, taking into account monster, trap, empty and special rooms (I give special rooms 1 in 6 chance of treasure, just like an empty one). Using my own parameters, I calculated that this number is 292 gp per room containing treasure. This number is the same, no matter if the room has a monster, a trap, or neither. Then I randomize the amount with a table, ensuring that in average, the result is still 292 gp; 

1 - 25% treasure

2 - 50% treasure

3 - 75 % treasure

4 - 100 % treasure

5 - 150% treasure

6 - 200% treasure

(for example, in a d6 table, the average result will go towards 292 or any other set number, as long as all the percentages sum 600%, as 600 split between 6 results makes for the 100%)

Multiply the given number for the dungeon level you are currently at, to make it grow proportionally to danger. This progression is the same used in AD&D.

This method has the particularity that makes all monsters equal towards treasure, unless you specifically decide against it. So, for example, by giving them individual treasure. This also makes monster-guarded treasure equal in size to trap-guarded or non-guarded one. It is not as crazy as it sounds, if you picture it as that the particular monster that put it in there doesn't feel the need to be guarding it 24h, 365 days a year. The box is already on a deadly dungeon, and he might be lurking around as a wandering monster, or waiting in another room. 

An idea for vancian magic

"Everytime you cast a spell, instead of losing the spell you just casted, you cross out any other spell of the same or higher level instead; unless that was your last available one, in which case, you lose that spell"

It doesn't really fix my quest for the perfect magic system, but it feels like an improvement towards the original: Now you can use the same spell more than once per day, which is how you would expect magic to work in any fantasy setting (except, of course, Dying Earth, from which vancian magic is taken). If I see a wizard casting a fireball, I would prepare against another fireball and try to close range with him as much as possible, so he cannot cast another one on me without hurting himself. In the D&D world, however, you are completely safe from another fireball, as you are sure he cannot even prepare the same spell twice.

Also I like that you can explain it as making the spell you cast becoming more and more present in your brain the more you cast it; the obsession feeding on the other possibilities you had prepared (the rest of the spells)

The problem I perceive is more "conceptual" than "gamist". But, on that side, it allows you to prepare a lot of absurd spells and burn them away once you feel that you are probably not using them that day. That, while using the ones you need without being unnecesarily stingy. I also like that it doesn't change the game at Magic User's level 1, but can be a gamechanger at level 3 or higher: Each new spell gives you much more possibilities on every rest.

EDIT: As you can see on the comments, I have been mistaken all my D&D life, and MUs can prepare spells twice (nowhere mentioned explicitly on BX but I was just assuming they couldn't). This is why its cool to have a blog, I'd still play like that if I hadn't talked about it here. STILL I think my idea is useful to allow casters to spam the same spell multiple times, while still giving them variety of spells at the same time. Are they too OP? maybe. 

BXraw: Fighter VS Halfling

Are Halflings just better than Fighters? They share the same XP and Attack progression. Armor for halflings is only limited by the availability of halfling sized gear (which depends on the setting, I guess) Let's put the advantages of each one towards the other:

FIGHTERS:

- Can use 2-handed weapons (that lose initiative anyways). Use of the d8 longsword is ambiguous, though I'd rule that halflings can only use short swords. If not using the variable weapon damage, this point is ruled obsolete. 

- They can use all magical swords that happen to be not short. 

- Use d8 for hit points instead of d6 (that is 1 puny point on average per level, Fighters can even roll badly and lose that edge)

- One prime attribute (str) instead of two (str and dex) which is irrelevant if you roll the minimum DEX or you happen to ignore prime attributes (like I do)

- No level cap (which has no relevance until level 8)

HALFLINGS:

- Saving throws equal to a fighter seven levels above you

- Shooting arrows or ranged weapons at +1. That is attacking like a fighter one level above you at all times (sometimes two levels)

- Armor class enhanced by 2 versus enemies larger than humans. This is a surprisingly large spectrum in a game like D&D, from bears to basilisks to ogres to dragons

- When using individual initiative they get a +1

- 90% chance of dissappearing in woods or underbrush

- 1 in 3 chance of hiding in normal light when there are shadows or covers present, as long as they remain still. 

- The non-despicable advantage of being lightweight. It is much easier to take out of the dungeon an unconscious or deceased halfling, load it in your own horse and head towards a local temple, than doing the same with a grown up man. This can be an important thing depending on how you rule encumbrance.

This all started because I was running a game following strict RAW rules, then went looking into the book to check if there were any strength or encumbrance caps for hobbits and I found nothing. I started reading to check how the fact that you are a 90 cm person is portrayed in the context of combat and such, and I realized that there is no real downsides at all. Suddently I found it so weird.  

My last houserules are too complex to be summarized like NOW!, but basically I run them as thieves with better saving throws (like a fighter four levels above), with STR capped at 12, and encumbrance based on STR. I intend to make a full post about them soon. Just remember that 12 dwarves picked up a hobbit once because they needed a thief to go into the dragon's lair. 

Art taken from Pits & Perils by James and Robyn George. 

On Rules-lite or Rules light

 

stephanie grunwald - drive by night

After reading both Prince and Noisms take on rules-lite games, I wanted to write my own article on the subject. To make it clearer, I won't adress their points in here, I already did on their comments, suffice to say that while I enjoyed their reading, my point of view is tangential. 

I have collected tons of One-Page rpgs, starting back in 2012. I don't like all of them, of course, but as a design fanatic, I often like how they have resolved a certain mechanic (like alignment in Jung Guns), or how they have evoked a certain feeeling with a paragraph or a layout (Raygun Gothic, Travel Journal of Short Tales). It is true that they are often highly unplayable.

As Prince attests, many of them fall back on D&D to cover their gaps. Many more are innocent attempts at fixing D&D forever or just novel ideas that sound awesome in the author's head but have no sense on the page, and much less on the table (I love those. I have made a bunch of those too). Others (more and more everytime) are just made to look nice, with little care of the actual rules, probably because their author doesn't even think on playing it.

As I see it, the problem with rules-light games is not about they having little space or little rules. The problem is that they usually cut off the wrong rules. 

As I pointed out on previous articles, the core rules of a game are those that create and push the game's biorhythm, as opposed to its conflict resolution rules. 

The core rules of D&D are XP for gold, the dungeon generation rules that create rooms with gold alongside rooms with monsters, monsters and gold, dangers and traps, and the "level up" boon-unlocking dynamic for characters and dungeons. You play to level up, and adventure happens in the process. Using a d20 to hit or 2d6 vs an adjusted TN can have interesting effects, but won't change the game's nature in the slightest bit. 

Most published games, even rules-heavy ones, don't even have core rules. They just have conflict resolution rules. And that is frustrating because that is not gameable. They have lore bricks instead, and you must make a mission-based game with whatever you can assemble from it. Rules-light games often go the same road, working on innovative, clean or personal resolution rules (usually chargen+combat+equipment) and vague or absent procedures to conduct the game.

No, Maze Rats tables may be a great oracle, but are not a game procedure. It does have rough guidelines, though, on how do dungeons, cities and wildernesses look, and at least mentions the use of wandering monsters. But having XP per session + extra XP for abstractly overcoming a difficult challenge, the game can or cannot feature dungeons or loot of any kind. In fact the game can be about anything. Which seems liberating yet also kind of aimless: players must set their own drives, in a world they don't really know yet. But I am sure it works in the end.

Knave doesn't even have that. I think it was maybe conceived as an alternate chargen/combat/spells for D&D and was considered a full game by some at some point. In any case, OSR-related games have an advantage: the more a game gets closer to the OSR purity, the better it can use its resources: falling back on D&D to fill the gaps or using published modules. I think Searchers of the Unknown was built for the latter in mind too. 

But it would be unfair to accuse rules-light games of this sin, when big games do commit it constantly. Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example, is written in two big tomes (player guide and referee guide) and somehow forgets to fit any setting, a bestiary, procedures for generating monsters, dungeons, adventure sites or adventure of any kind. It offers some advice on the tone the author wants to convey, but the advice feels short and falls on a void. 

World of Dungeons: Turbo Breakers, being three pages long, achieves to include useful gameable setting elements (the rifts, a countdown to the Cloud of Woe, an archmage called Kai Shira Kai, a Bestiary and a guide to create monsters, etc). 

Into the Odd: One page version, on a single page, allows you to run a dungeon without any preparation, filled with monsters, social encounters and traps; and teaches you to make a similar one by altering the tables therein. If you put simple advancement rules (maybe +1 to an attribute if you roll over it, and +1 to hp for each dungeon completed) and you have enough depth to make a long campaign using that rules alone. 

And as a word of advice: for people who has already read some Lovecraft enough to be familiar with the setting, will find the same or more useful stuff in the 4-page Cthulhu Dark and its companions than in the classic Chaosium tomes, all ripe with an astounding amount of nothing. You will still have to come up with an adventure yourself, but at least you will save time and effort.

So yes, rules light doesnt have to mean depth-light. I actually think they are a good paradigm for designers to learn and test things: the shorter a game is to write, the faster you can test it and re-shape it as needed. Minimalism has no inherent value on itself, but there is a limit on how complex you can make a ruleset without it becoming unwieldy. As I like to see it: the more minimal your rules are in one aspect, the more you can complicate the game in another. For example, getting some minimal rules for combat allows me to make extensive and fussy rules for handling horses without overloading players with information. This way you can add simplicity and complexity to things depending on how you want to portray them on the game you have in mind. 

Recently I put down the advancement rules for Monks and Mummies, one of my many chimeras. I found out that it was actually the hardest part of the game to come up with, and possibly the most important. Now that I know what the game is about, I think I can put the rest together """easily""". The rest of the game is sort of falling into place by itself. And thinking about this ruleslite things this days I have realized that it might not fit in one page, but I can see all the concept fitting on four or five. Let's see. 

How I do Treasure Types

 

This is the B/X table for generating monster treasure. I assume that Gygax intended to use it when you are generating dungeons, at home, chilling alone with a cup of tea: It has a ton of rolls to do. Some of them are even PERCENTILE. 

I found myself having to generate treasure a lot of times during the game. Also I strongly dislike having so many types of coin: I only use silver (the standard) and gold coins (armor and other specific things are still keeping their gold prices). Copper is a nuisance and electrum can go fuck itself. I don't even want to know what the fuck it is, but it is surely something I don't want everywhere around on my fantasy world. 

I spent a lot of time calculating the averages of each treasure type. Someday I found out casually that they were already calculated for me, right at the preceding page:

To give it a little randomization, multiply the result according to this table. Note that I use silver standard, so that is the value in silver for me.

1 - 25% treasure
2 - 50% treasure
3 - 75 % treasure
4 - 100 % treasure
5 - 150% treasure
6 - 200% treasure

The numbers add to 600%, divided by six results so its 100%. This means that stastically the treasure amount doesn't change.

Then I roll 1d6 in this other table: The treasure is composed mostly of..:

1 - Gold coins (value as 10 silver coin each)
2 - Gems and jewelry. Depending on my mood this can be a single jewel or a myriad of small gems
3 - Valuable but small items (books, weapons)
4 - Valuable but bulky items (armor, statues, art)
5 - Silver coins
6 - Silver coins

For bigger treasures I divide the treasure into 2, 3 or 4 roughly equal parts and roll separately for each part.

Magical items are rolled normally but I approximate the results with d6. Not because I cannot roll percentile, but is a question of principles (for example, a Type A treasure with a 30% chance of magic treasure becomes 33% chance: 2 in 6). Percentile rolls feel ugly in D&D and the exact numbers are arbitrary after all.

EDIT: for convenience, I also calculated the averages of unguarded treasure rooms per dungeon level:

level 1: 158 gp

level 2 or 3: 483 gp

level 4 or 5: 1553 gp

level 6 or 7: 3205 gp

level 8+: 6256 gp

Average value of 1 gem: 194 gp 

Average value of 1 jewel: 1050gp

Avoid the balance

twitter: pixelartjourney

I've realized that I am really averse to game balance. I can understand the importance of it in some kind of games (computer or strategy games, for example, need all their factions to be balanced so they all remain viable) but I think that its a concept that is erroneously ported to tabletop rpgs causing only confusion and evil. 

I love unbalance in character creation. There is a dogma in the OSR that you cannot put too much mechanical weight on ability scores, because they are randomly generated. But that is not really aligned to B/X at all! 

A simple +1 in strength is +1 to hit AND damage! if we consider the classic conversion of every damage +1 becoming a +2 to-hit bonus, this means that a slightly stronger level 1 fighter hits as hard as a level 4 one. And that is just a +1. Providing you sell your INT or WIS to increase your prime attribute to +1, you will then be in disadvantage to the guy who rolled that +1 and did the same to reach +2 or +3

What about dexterity? it modifies both ranged to hit and AC. Getting a good dexterity sure makes a difference; so does a good constitution. Even rolling your first HD for hit points can make for a big difference: 1d8 hp can make you a 1 hp loser or a 8 hp guy that can withstand carelessly a sword thrust. 

The very "starting money" roll can decide if you start with the best armor in the game or just a shield. 

I like when some characters are stronger than others. Its okay. I think that the perceived importance of balance is that it allows everyone to have something to contribute equally at the table. But this is actually a mirage. The labor of GMs and games is not to give every character equal power: that would not even be possible, if we get deeper into that: Who's got more power? the character that can fight very well or the one that has a red hat? Well, you can say that fighting is more important, but that really depends on the setting. Maybe the campaign has no perspective of fights, but instead features a tribe of minotaurs that are hypnotized everytime they see something red. We cannot know. 

And that is ok too.

You can balance the thief vs the fighter, but for it to be meaningful, you have to make a campaign where there is as much important fights as there are locked doors to be picked. And, at that point, that presumed balance is shown to be a mantained illusion.

I made this houserules sometime ago, where all classes are dismantled and the weight is put on the ability scores, and they work. A high roll in constitution at the start makes you as capable of a level X fighter, both in attack bonus and health. A high roll in dexterity makes you a very competent thief. The only thing that remained tied to level was saves and XP necessary to level up. And some of the lowest rollers were just normal fighters and thieves and wizards. And everybody was ok with it. It is true that attributes could be raised over time with a roll-under mechanic, so the highest attributes were harder to raise, but that is more about a feeling of justice than about balance. 

When we played the Street Gang game, there was characters that were terribly unbalanced with others in combat, as there were some who picked a lot of useless skills (it was part of the fun). But balance, as everything does, also tends to sprout itself from its opposite. In an imbalanced party, balance appears very quickly: For example, the one that tends to fight better, also tends to fight more, thus, putting him or herself at risk much more than the ones that fight worse. This makes him much more likely to die fighting than a non-combatant in the long run.

In the same way, a thief is much more likely to be caught pick-pocketing than a character that doesn't know how to pickpocket in the first place: the skill is a skill and a curse, because an adventurer party is not composed by isolated peoples: it is ideally a group in which everyone pools their abilities together. There is balance in asking the tank to lead the way, or in refusing to accept a part in a plan if you feel that you don't have enough HP, skill, etc to succeed at it; and you propose a different approach instead.

Merry wasn't balanced at all with Legolas, yet both of them played an equally important part in their adventure. Legolas killed a lot of people in the battle of the Pelennor Fields, yet the one kill that Merry achieves alongside Eowen is the one we all remember better. It is not about giving your PCs the same firepower, be it real firepower, magic or thieving firepower. It is about putting them on an equally compelling situation and giving them the freedom to act as they see fit, inside their capabilities. You cannot fight the orcs as well as an elf archer? well, maybe you can try to negotiate with the ents. You don't need levels on anything for that! 

The worst kind of balance is like in 4e/5e and other modern games, when the balance is done blatantly around combat. I understand that you do that in a game that is solely about combat, but D&D is much more than that. You can argue that it is about retrieving treasure. But beyind that, it is about living adventures in a strange fantasy world. By balancing around combat, you are letting combat swallow the whole.

I remember some idea I had for running Searchers of the Unknown. I didn't knew why I liked it then, but I know why now. That game has no classes (just one: adventurer) or attributes whatsoever: the only difference among characters was the amount of HP rolled and your name. I devised some d6 table like this:

6: You start with 4000 XP (level 3). You are also cursed. The first time you get a natural 20 you will miss the roll instead.

5: You are a veteran: start with 2000 XP (level 2)

3-4: You start as normal

1-2: You are a kid: start with 1000 negative XP. You need to get those to get to level 1, and you have -2 hp until then. In exchange, you can once per life turn any roll into a success. 

I never ran SotU in the end, but it gives you an idea on how a little imbalance can be used to create nice dynamics on a game. What does it give that a character is more powerful than the rest? they are a team after all. Somebody being stronger is beneficial to every single one of them, because they can have powerful Aragorn who leads them and assumes greater risks in behalf of everyone. And at the same time, the same high capacity of their member can take the PCs into places too dangerous believing that their tank can carry them, until the tank dies or is wounded and they must carry their body back to the surface, through a zone that is 2 levels beyond them.

Note that the automatic success and the curse will only function once: they are secondary: ornamental complements to the real reason: this creates much more interesting in-game dynamics, assigns natural roles and draws much more potent images in the player's mind than just "you are 4 very similar fighters". 

If, for the contrary, they have a weakling on the group, they can still play around it searching for non-combat approaches, interacting with the game world, taking risks and try to improve with time, and even use their one-time roll in an epic moment, representing the victory of their raw innoncence. Because thats how a good "imbalance" is done: limiting an aspect of the character, but not in a way that stripes the game of the fun. If possible, do the opposite. 

B/X Monk

Monks are humans who train their body, mind and spirit for the sake of beating other punks improving themselves, and their belief that those trainings are complementary. Not really skilled in the arts of combat as war, like a Fighting man would, but can sometimes outperform them on certain conditions. Their prime requisite, if you really need that (I don't use them) is Wisdom.

Thry cannot use armor; save for certain special armors specially suited to their arts which consist mainly on a set of bracers, shin guards and pauldrons (+1 to +2 AC, depending on the quality). Their AC will go up as they level, anyways, representing the monk getting better at avoiding hits.

Monks have a d6 Hit Dice and XP/Attack/Saves as Cleric, and do 1d4 damage when unarmed. When they use small weapons (those that would normally deal 1d4) they deal 1d6 instead.

Monks can use any weapons, but can use their Counterattack ability only when unarmed, or using nunchucks or staves (the latter makes you drop initiative as per the Variable Weapon Damage B/X rules, but allows you +1 attack bonus on counterattacks). Other monkish weapons can appear in the monk's path, but these are the only ones which are available at the start.

SPECIAL MONK WEAPONS take the form of an improvement of the punch, typically gloves, claws or cestus. They give you +1 to hit when unarmed and do not improve damage. Its easier that way.

COUNTERATTACK is conceptually based in the Final Fantasy monk: When attacked in melee, an monk that hasn't spent his turn, be it because the enemy has the initiative or because he has chosen to held his action, can preemptivelly attack first. On a succesful hit, deal damage as usual, and the enemy attack is also deflected.

You can see the enemy roll before you choose to counterattack, and you can counterattack infinite times per turn, providing you dont die, get stunned, trip or something like that.

This is also an additional defense that complements their low AC at first levels (though only versus melee attacks) and could be a risky form of crowd control. It's the classic kung-fu scene in which Bruce Lee defends himself against a lot of mobsters.

Using a dagger won't give you any bonus, but your enemy might get scared of you. Even goblins know that punch damage is likely to be non-lethal at the discrection of the GM, but a knife is another story

SECRET TECHNIQUES can only be used when unarmed (no nunchucks no staves this time). These are abstracted by giving you one extra die from the plethora of the common dice sets (d4 to d20): when an attack is succesful and you do damage, you can roll a secret technique and add its damage to it, then the die is expended. These are only refreshed at downtime, or very slowly during the adventure: Whenever you rest, you roll all your exhausted dice: if any of them shows a 1, you recover it.

Level Progression

Level 1: 

Counterattack, 

Technique: 1d4 (some sort of high kick, maybe)

You can double your normal movement per turn by passing a petrification save; on a fail you must still move the normal amount.

Level 2: 

Technique: 1d6

AC +1

Level 3: 

Awareness (only surprised on a 1)

You take half damage from missiles and dragon breath effects, and can save for no damage at all.

Level 4:

AC +1

Your unarmed base damage becomes 1d6

Level 5:

Your fists can harm enchanted creatures at -2 (reduce this penalty for each Wisdom modifier)

Technique: 1d8

Level 6:

AC +1

You get access to a spell: Magic Missile, Mirror Image, Levitate, or any appropiate spell your GM gives to you. You can cast it at will by passing a save vs spells, with a failure being that you spend your turn for no effect. I'm not sure about this one and I think I should make an actual spell list for the monk.

Level 7:

Technique: 1d10

If you are lawful, you can turn undead

If you are chaotic, you can make enemies of less your hd save vs death when they are hit.

If you are neutral, it's a good time for you to choose your alignment

Level 8:

+1 AC (you have armor as chainmail by now)

Maybe another spell

Level 9: 

Technique: You get the other 1d10 (the one with the tens). You can use this die to damage or to heal yourself at anytime by the amount rolled.

At this point you can make a dojo and attract followers as cleric

Level 10:

+1 AC

You can increase any attribute score by +2 (in order to get those cool bonuses. STR, DEX or WIS are probably the ones you want)

Level 11: 

Technique: 1d12

Level 12:

+1 AC. Immunity to Geas and Quest spells 

Your base unarmed damage is now 1d8

Level 13: 

Technique: 1d20. You can at this point try to take down really big monsters with a single punch

Level 14:

+1 AC. Your naked AC is equivalent to a knight in shield and full plate

Level 15: 

Technique: You get an additional 1d20, or an 1d30 if you can provide one.

Level 16:

+1 AC

and unarmed you might deal less damage per turn, but you can use your asploding techniques at any moment