[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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT #1: (afterthoughts the next morning)

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.

[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

Underground Doctors (a monster)

 

"The ones in the left and the right are doctors. They are healing the one in the middle, who was sick and had blood. The doctors have put an eye on the wound and have healed it" said my three year old daughter explaining her work.

I can't help but wonder. How many fights has the doctor on the right been on to be so toppled with eyes? What is the mysterious ball that the left doctor is holding in his/her arms?

MAGENTA SLIMES A.K.A. UNDERGROUND DOCTORS (Slime, Neutral), stats as B/X

Armor class: 9
Hit Dice: 2* (for each 1 rolled when finding HP, the doctor gets an extra HD and an extra eye)
Move: 120' (40')
Attacks: 1 strike, 1d6
No Appearing: 1-6 (2-12). On a group of 6 or more, there will be a leader with 1+d6 eyes.
Save as Fighter 1
Morale: 8

These slimes are around 1 to 2 feet tall, but their constitution is sturdy: dense as solid mud. They do not have a mouth and are for the most part quite silent, but at the same time they are highly intelligent, able to roughly understand the PCs if they use gestures. They form small "clans" on caves, where they settle around a "cave of eyes": a location where their shaman has some kind of plantation where 1d6 (artificial?) eyes are sprout from the moist rock, and many more are in the process.

They are not violent but are territorial and may attack to keep invaders away from their lair, or just as part of their martial training. They will do hit and run attacks, covered by surprise, and then run away hoping their victims get the message and turn back. If things go bad, they trust their shaman to bring them back to health with their Eye Healing.

When the shaman puts one eye from his?/her? harvest into a fatal wound, it closes and the treated slime regains 1d6 hp instantly. One or two shamans, who carry a blue ball as if it was a symbol of their position, are always present on a lair (2 in 6 chance to be on a wandering monster group). The shaman will not attack at first, but wait and run away towards the cave and fetch some eyes if he sees that a fellow member has fallen. A PC that has been dropped to 0 hp or less can be treated with eye healing, but will only regain HP on a roll of 6; and the eye won't catch functionally into the body. Eyes will also lose their propierties if carried for more than one day.

The defining act of a shaman is developing the ability to plant eyes in stone. This is done through a (very slow) variation of the Stone to flesh / Stone to mud spells, applied to small portions of rock. This means that in case of need, they can de-petrify any being that has been turned to stone, though it will take a full day's work for a shaman, or half of it if aided ritually by the whole tribe. If attempted on a statue, it will just turn into mud.

This ability makes them relativelly unafraid of stone-turning monsters, to the point that they will try to capture cockatrices and use them as guards at strategic points, or even as a mount for the smaller slimes. Feeding the cockatrices will be a task itself, as the slimes do not need to hunt for themselves (they absorb minerals or something through osmotic exchange). But having to feed their pets might send the young slimes into bushcraft missions, to get mushrooms, carrion or loot the PCs rations.

 

I knew I had this cockatrice drawing somewhere! In my game, cockatrices are as large as a coyote. Is it hard to believe that a smaller bird can have 5 HD.

 

The blue ball also stores an alchemical compound able to cast an equivalent of "Resist fire" on an area once per day (Unharmed by non-magical heat or fire, gain a +2 bonus to saving throws versus fire-based magic or breath attacks: damage is reduced by 1 point per damage die rolled to a minimum of 1). This allows the tribe to colonize underground places otherwise blocked by magma, and gives them an edge when confronting nearby fire-based monsters.

Design notes: I wasn't sure if allowing PCs to be healed by eye therapy was a good idea, so I leaned for the middle path and made it a difficult chance. What I love about this fuckers is that they are level 2 monsters as an encounter, but together as a tribe can overcome many troubles present in their ecosystem: Magma, fire breath, petrifying attacks, gangs of goblinoids or other thugs, accessing high passages on the wings of a cockatrice, etc. Their defense is built around their intelligence, their drive to tame nature and teamwork as a society. They have reasons to be violent or friendly depending on the situation; and can be very useful some day if befriended.

Slot Machine Level Up

The new level up method I am testing right now in this new campaign (We had only one session for now, so there is no feedback yet). Found in my old notes, probably inspired by this post. I call it the slot machine level up.

 

Instead of having your classic charts (for example the fighter's one above) I cut the requirements approximately into a third, rounding down to compensate the fact that I don't use prime requirement reductions.

level 1: 0
level 2: 600
level 3: 1200
level 4: 2500
level 5: 5000
level 6: 10000
level 7: 20000
level 8: 40000
level 9: 80000
level 10: 120000
level 11: 160000
level 12: 200000
level 13: 240000
level 14: 280000

Once a PC goes back to town with XP enough to get a new level, they do a training roll: a 2 in 6 chance to level up. No matter if you fail or pass, your XP amount is set to 0 after the roll.
This, in my humble mathematical knowledge, gives PCs stastically the same advantage rate as in the original (1 in 3 chance, with one third of the XP), but has a handful of things I like:

- Making uneven advancement for different PCs, because I like when there are PCs of different levels on a party as it makes for interesting hierarchy dynamics.

- Random payoffs have an addictive component. The feeling of "maybe I could level up at the end of this session" is something I think is cool.

- The amount of XP you have to track is small as it restarts from zero every time you level up. This has not any advantage beyond the psychological sensation of not tracking a big amount of numbers, but psychological shit is important. We live on the mind after all.

art by Diego Sanches

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. 

 

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. 

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