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)

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. 

Gameifying Alignment

I was reading the book of Pits and Perils when something inspired me (it happens a lot with that book). Right above the yellow marker:

"A knight is just a lawful fighter". It came into my mind that a cleric is just a lawful magic user too. And in a way, seeing mages as good and evil clerics makes sense if you imagine it in, for example, Lord of the Rings: Gandalf (and every elf too) feels more a cleric to me than anything else. I feel that anything he does is a version of Light, Bless and Turn; while Sauron and Saruman are tainted with evil and that is why their magic feels "different". I don't know where its the key difference. I heard somewhere that elven magic creates, while the shadow magic cannot create and only corrupts. I leave here this article to further reading when I have some time.

Then I started to think deeper into the alignments: How they are always just ignored (I never payed them any attention myself), and I think that it is because A: they have no mechanical weight beyond certain magic weapon restrictions, so why bother? and B: they are metaphysically complex. After all, in real life is hard to define or tell good from evil sometimes.

But inside a game's rules, we can simplify them enough to make them work and make them mean something. These are some guidelines I've come up with:

* There are three alignments: Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic; which are just another words for Good / Neutral / Evil. Lawful is because it follows "god's" law, or whatever benign force you picture. Chaotic is for vampires, undead, demons, etc; but also any corrupted or tainted person, object, race, etc.

* There are no clerics. Instead, a lawful fighter is a Paladin, and a lawful Magic User is a Cleric, as we know them. I dont know what to call lawful thieves, hobbits, elves, etc; but I assure you they exist.

* Mages can only take spells from the MU list or their aligment list (cleric for lawful mages or reversed clerical spells for Chaotic mages). This makes neutral MUs the boring, academic guys who actually have less spell choices.

* Any lawful character can attempt to turn undead. Holy symbols give a bonus to that, or even allow the action to neutral characters (though neutral characters doing that count as level 1 for turning purposes)

* As being Lawful has an upside, it must have a cost or every character would pick it as an alignment. My best idea is that being lawful makes you start with 1/3 of the money (because you're so selfless, bro). Maybe even you have to give some XP money to charity to level up.

* Being Lawful its a status to be kept. It is weird and awkward to have a Judge GM telling you that you are "behaving bad" on a grey area and taking your alignment from you. I don't know if that is a thing that happens. But there must be ways to become a neutral or even evil in-game. I'll think later about this.

* Being Lawful is something you can become mid-game. I think that a good way could be to have it as a prize: remember all those Lawful monsters on the list, that don't seem to have a use? Well, on a good reaction roll, they will give you missions, related to god's will, cosmic struggle or maybe some humble thing (how does it fit on the lawful plan is up to you to imagine). If you succeed on it, you have a chance to become lawful, possibly based off charisma or wisdom to see if it "opens your eyes" or "converts yourself" to the good side. Rescuing princesses, killing evil monsters, recovering lost scions, restoring hopes: that is what lawful guys do.

* Evil characters can happen too, but they are subject to be specially affected by lawful monsters. Apart from evil spells, maybe they could have some area effect of fear, darkness... who knows, maybe at high levels. This is to be decided later. Chaotic thieves are assassins, while chaotic mages represent warlocks and witches.

* Alignment adds + or - 2 to reaction rolls if faced with the same or opposed alignment (neutral characters do not benefit from this)

* The list of things affected by alignment does not end here: magic weapons restricted to alignment, alignment languages, aligned places, groves, rivers, havens, etc. I am starting to think that understanding and exploiting alignments is one of the most powerful keys of the fantasy genre.

was this a case of clerical turning induced by magic object?