An Old School Critical Hit Table

I have become rather enamored of Swords and Wizardry Continual Light. I've always had a soft spot for S&W, it being my first retro clone. Anyway, I totted up what I think (hope) is a suitable system for critical hits for SWCL, or any other suitably old school iteration of our favorite game.

If damage roll is a natural “6”, roll on critical hit table. If you have no damage bonus, roll d6. If damage bonus (from any/all sources) is +1, roll d8. If +2, roll d10, and if +3 or greater roll d12. If damage bonus is -1, roll d4. If -2, roll d3, and if -3, roll d2.

1    Gain initiative on THIS opponent next round.

2    This opponent is -1 “to-hit” vs you next round.

3    +1 damage from this attack.

4    +1 “to-hit” on this opponent next round.

5    Immediate free attack on this opponent.

6    Starting next round, opponent suffers 1 point of damage at beginning of round.

7    Opponent off balance, loses ability to act next round.

8    Add “to-hit” bonus total to damage from this attack.

9    Opponent prone. -2 AC and must spend next round getting up. Or crawling away.

10  Starting next round, opponent suffers 2 points of damage at beginning of round.

11  Roll additional damage die. If this roll is natural “6”, roll on Critical Table again. Damage                    modifiers do not apply to the additional damage die, nor to an additional roll on this table.

12 Brutal injury. Opponent suffers -1 to any stat of attacker's choice. This damage requires 6 months       to heal naturally. This can be reduced by 2 weeks per casting of Cure Wounds I of per use of               Healing Potion. It may be reduced by one month per casting of Cure Wounds II.

Additional Combat Notes

Magic weapons no longer add their bonus “to-hit”. Instead they add their bonus to the wielder's level. Depending on class and level, this may mean that the character is receiving no bonus “to-hit”. Damage bonus remains unaffected.

Potion of Heroism: +2 bonus to Armor Class and damage rolls for one hour. For purposes of “to-hit” bonuses, the character is considered two levels higher for the duration of the potion's effects.

By the way, I know that one of the knocks against critical hits is the ratio of monster attack rolls vs player attack rolls. I suggest not allowing any monster/opponent with 3 or fewer HD to roll on this table. Effectively that means that no low down goblin is going to kill your 7th level dwarf with one lucky roll. I've seen it happen and it was ugly.

. . . and we're back

I've been nagged lately by an old idea: bringing a little more Chainmail into my D&D. As any of you who have survived my hiatuses (hiati?) know, this has been my Eleanor. I place the blame for its resurgence squarely with the esteemable Mr Simon Bull, of Delving Deeper fame. In the v5 beta of Book I, he has added "Fighting Capability" to the classes. Yet, the rules for using it won't be available until the Book II beta release.

In any event, I've been thinking about it again, and I wanted to "journal" my thoughts, as much for myself as anything else. As always, though, comment and discourse are welcome.

Use the basic 2d6 "to-hit" table from the Man-to-Man section of Chainmail. It is based solely on weapon v. armor. This is to be used with opponents (whether they be PCs or NPCs) of less than Heroic stature.

PCs will attack on this table according to their Fighting Capability (FC). Thus, a third level fighting-man would attack three times. Note that these are not to be spread among multiple foes. This does not represent individual swings of a weapon. Rather it represents the greater likelihood that a more capable combatant will force a decisive outcome. Thus, even though it might be more than one roll, it still represents a single attack.

Certain bonuses will accrue to the "to-hit" roll itself. In this case, the bonus will apply to only one such roll.

Magic weapons are an exception to this. Bonuses from magic weapons modify, for purposes of "to-hit" rolls ONLY, the wielder's hit dice, thus, by extension, the wielders FC. Damage bonuses,where they are indicated v. specific targets, are applied to all successful "to-hit" rolls.

Magic shields reduce an attacker's hit dice similarly, in turn reducing FC (this effectively results in magic shields "blocking" attacks). Magic armor adds its bonus to an attacker's "to-hit" roll. Note that this may make the wearer unassailable without the availability of "to-hit" bonuses. Hero/Superhero/Wizard FC will attack such magically armored foes in Heroic Combat.

Characters with FCs of Hero, Superhero, or Wizard are all capable of Heroic Combat. Any creature above 3 HD is beyond the capacities of a normal man (being 3 HD or less). Such foes are not attacked using the Weapon v. Armor matrix. The target number to hit these foes will be from the Fantasy Combat Table in Chainmail.

Ok, so those are my initial thoughts. Like I said, this is mainly me journaling where I am in this thought process at this time. Who knows where it will go from here.

Combat Prowess and Critical Hits

I have this idea. It involves modelling an increasing fighting capacity beyond the improvements on the "to hit" matrix and improving hit points. I am calling it Combat Prowess. It also goes fist-in-glove with a basic critical hit system. In a nutshell, a critical hit is basically scored on a to-hit roll of a natural "20'. In this case the attack does maximum damage. The Combat Prowess options to follow improve on this.

Combat Prowess
Essentially, Combat Prowess is a pool of points that may be spent to modify attacks in various ways. The options available are limited by level, as is the number of times they may be used in a given turn. The options are:

Most of them are pretty self-explanatory. It is worth noting that any points used apply to only one attack in a given round. That is not to say that points may not be spent on more than one attack, however. So, if you spend 1 point for an additional attack, giving you 2 attacks, you may spend one point on each attack for a +1 to-hit on each. In this case, you would be using a total Prowess of 3 points.

Effect C,  -1 enemy "to hit", applies to a single enemy, but it does apply to all attacks from that enemy.

Effect D, +1 to critical range, improves the critical range. +1 improves the critical range to 19-20, etc. A critical hit will be indicated by any natural roll within the range.

Effect E, Additional attack, grants the combatant an additional attack. Additional attacks are not modified by Prowess unless points are allocated specifically for them.

Effect F, +1d6 on a critical hit, allows an additional d6 to be rolled and added to the damage total in the event of a critical hit. Note that Prowess must be allocated for this effect before the attack is rolled, so it is a bit of a gamble, though the bet may be hedged by also allocating Prowess to Effect D.

Effect G, +1 Initiative, is added as a general bonus in group initiatives. That is, all bonuses from all characters are added together, then divided by the number of characters to arrive at an average Initiative bonus. Of course, in an Individual Initiative situation, it is added directly and unmodified.

Prowess is gained differently for each class. The following table illustrates when each class gains points, which effects they are eligible to employ, and how many points may be allocated to a given effect each turn.

* The number of times a letter appears indicates the number of points that may be allocated to that effect in a given turn. For example, a 7th level fighter has 4 Prowess points, and access to effects B, C, and E. In any given turn he may spend 2 points on A, 4 points on B, 2 points on C, 2 points on D, or any combination not exceeding the total of 4 points.

I hope this isn't too confusing. It is one of those things where I know what I mean by all of it, but it isn't that easy to communicate. My goals here are twofold:

• Higher level fighters should be rightly feared. When a party goes into a brawl with a creature with 6 HD and a d4/d4/2d6 attack routine they are rightly fearful. So, too, should someone be when facing a 6th level fighter.
• I want players of fighter types to have some tactical options during combat. Even though fighters are my favorite class to play, it can turn to drudgery when a drawn out combat turns into a monotonous succession of nothing but "to hit" and damage rolls. To sit quietly waiting for the DM to shift his attention to you and your "turn" is over in all of three seconds is not very satisfying. It often leaves me feeling a bit powerless and at the mercy of the dice.

Lastly, I want to reiterate that I have no group, so these ideas are untested. I'm not a number-cruncher, I eye-ball these sorts of things and just do what "feels" right to me. As always, I welcome comments and feedback, especially from the mathematically inclined, who may have some insights into how these bonuses feather in with the "to hit" matrices and anticipated damage outputs, in the RAW.

Combat Bonuses in OD&D

This is pretty off-the-cuff, so please be kind if you comment.

I was rummaging around in the Howling Tower, Steve Winter's blog. I forget the exact post, but he made the comment that characters from classic fantasy fiction are not defined by their magic weapons. That threw my mind into a spin. I like magic items, in general. A gold piece is a gold piece, and that's great, but nothing screams treasure like magic items. He has a point, though, and it lands squarely on an amorphous unease I've had for some time. I want characters to be competent, even dangerous, intrinsically, not because of a glowing sword. The glowing sword can certainly make them more dangerous. Imagine two thieves plotting to steal something from a fighter with a magic sword. If the sword defines the character, the conversation could go something like this:

"We need to separate him from that damnable sword of his. Should be pretty easy pickins if we can do that."

If the sword merely augments the fighter, the thieves' plotting could go something like this:

"We need to catch him away from that shiny sword of his."
"Are you mad? He killed five men with his bare hands just to get the sword."

I prefer a game where the second conversation is the one that happens. Seems easy enough, right? Just keep a tight reign on magic bonuses. Bam! Done.

In my mind it's not that easy. It never is. See, I do want magic weapons to mean something. I want the thieves above to shit themselves at the thought of facing the fighter with his sword. I also want them to know that if they face him without it they are in deep trouble, too. Balance that against the fact that said fighter can't be a total badass and tote a sword that makes him a total badass.

And that's the tricky part. Make the weapon something to be feared, but not something that will throw things completely out of whack when wielded by a character who is rightfully feared. Keeping weapon bonuses low doesn't do it for me. A sword that hits 5% more often isn't exactly fearsome, even though we are assured that a +1 bonus in OD&D is meaningful.  I have an idea, based in principle on Chainmail.

The notion that a +1 bonus is significant comes from Chainmail, where it is indeed significant. However, Chainmail is a considerably different animal than OD&D. A +1 in Chainmail would be applied in one of two ways, depending on the type of combat being prosecuted. In the 20:1 Troop system, magic weapons add an extra die per "+" (in a nutshell, you roll a certain number of d6, scoring a hit on 5-6, or 6, for the most part, and in that system a hit = kill). That's pretty potent, since it gives the opportunity to kill an additional opponent. In the Man-to-Man and Fantasy Combat it adds its "+" to the roll, which is 2d6. Modifying a 2d6 roll by even +1 is much more significant than modifying a d20 roll by +1, especially when fighting creatures that require a 10 or more on 2d6 to hit.

So, here's my thinking: if a character is a big enough badass to deal with "common" threats pretty reliably, then a badass magic weapon is just overkill. The badass fighter could deal with those thieves just fine without the sword. BUT. . . such a weapon in such capable hands allows said fighter to take on foes beyond the ken of normal men.

I am looking at Chainmail for the answer to this conundrum. I have a couple of ideas, but they require looking at the to-hit roll in a different way. In Chainmail, in the Troop and Man-to-Man systems, a hit is synonymous with a kill. When the term was ported to D&D it came to be (mis)understood as a singular "attack". The d20 roll "to-hit" does not represent an attack. It represents the chance that a combatant wounds his opponent. It is necessary to embrace this idea to process my proposals for magic weapons.  I have two proposals:

#1) Any character armed with a magic weapon of any sort rolls an additional number of d20's equal to the "+" of the weapon. The rolls themselves are not modified at all. Each roll that indicates a hit will do d6 damage. 

#2) Only a single attack roll is made, with a number of additional d6 for damage equal to the "+" of the weapon.

Obviously, the second option is more powerful, perhaps too much. I prefer the first option, myself.

This allows an interesting option for magic armor, as well. Using this, I would rule that magic armor negates one damage die per "+" of the armor. If an opponent has only one die of damage, the armor subtracts its "+" from the roll. So, if a character with no magic weapon hits an opponent wearing Plate +2, he rolls his normal d6 for damage and subtracts -2 from the roll. If he had a +1 sword, he would roll a d6 and subtract -1.

I would also rule that characters with a 15+ STR is granted a +1 to the damage roll, but this bonus will not negate any penalty due to magic armor.

So, there it is. Perhaps a bit disjointed, perhaps even confusing. I am a stream-of-consciousness kind of guy.

Firstest with the Mostest

"I didn't really talk like a total hick"

Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest is credited with coining the phrase "Get there firstest with the mostest", when asked to describe his tactics. I suspect he said it a bit more intelligently than that, but since he was a hated Confederate general, and the victors write the history books, his words were written as if spoken by a genuine rube.

At any rate, I think his personal philosophy of battle holds up pretty well in Dungeon Crawl Classics. Allow me to explain.

I was reading a forum post over on the Goodman Games forum. It's about combining DCC and AD&D. The parts that I found of particular interest were concerned with using old 1E modules with DCC and the conversions necessary for such. Module T1: The Village of Hommlet was batted around quite a bit. As I read it, my very first thought was to use the fluff and descriptions, but for anything mechanical, just grab the Libram (my personal nickname for the DCC rulebook). It seems pretty straightforward to me. Hommlet is a shining example of Gygaxian naturalism, so subbing in one set of mechanical details for another shouldn't really be a problem. Plus, both games are founded on a core belief that encounters do not have to be fair or balanced. So, if a DCC version of a monster is too powerful, the characters should just beat feet and look for a way 'round.

So, all that sounds fine, up to now. But . . . Hommlet is a 1st level module. What about using more potent modules, like White Plume Mountain? DCC tops out at 10th level. So, Gods forbid the party should ever enter the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Can you imagine a 10th level fighter with d8 hit dice strolling through the G series? Sure you can, but not very far through it, right?

Which really starts bringing this post full circle. I realized something wonderful about DCC combat. It is fast and deadly. Yes, the characters don't walk around with triple-digit hit points. Their damage potential though is off the charts compared to any other form of D&D, except maybe 4th with its semi-mystical "Powers".

A DCC Hill Giant has AC16 and an attack bonus of +15, doing 2d8+8.They average a crit about every 5 rounds, have 8d10 HP, and roll a d24 for attacks. Yikes! Oh, and their crit table is a thing of terror. So, what about our fighter? Well, he'll have 10d12 HP, not the d10 of AD&D, so that's a start. He can attack up to three times a round. One of those is with a d14, but that is mitigated by the attack die. His attack die will grant him a minimum of +5 to-hit and damage each round. It could be as high as +14, and remember: the single roll applies to all attacks and damage for the round. So, if he gets a +14, and assuming he hits all three times (a very safe assumption with a +14 to-hit also), he will do at least 45 points of damage. That is if none of the attacks crits and all his damage rolls come up 1's. Which brings us to crits. Our fighter's threat range is 17-20, which translates into a 20% chance for a crit each turn, or one every five turns, like his giant opponent. A 10th level fighters crits are the stuff of nightmares.

What does all this mean? It means lots and lots of blood and gore flying around from the start. It means that when the fight is joined the warriors need to wade in and handle business real quick. I haven't studied the monsters yet, but I suspect that each level is challenged similarly. So, the monsters are stone cold killers, more than capable of meting out enough damage to ruin a character in short order. But the characters are also capable of raining down death. A sound plan, when there's time to formulate one will be beneficial, and in some situations crucial. Along with an exit strategy. Always know which way to run. Survival is a matter of who hits hardest and fastest, or avoids getting hit at all.

BtPG Overkill™ Table

It may have occurred to some of you that the amount of hp available to characters is quite small. I think that plays well with the combat system as a whole, plus it really fits with a grim-n-gritty S&S feel. Not to mention it speeds up combat. Now, before anyone gets ready to comment on that, let me say that this combat needs a little speed. Most opponents in combat are only going to score a point of damage 16% of the time. This is offset by tossing a few dice at the problem, but still, if everyone ran around with 30 or 40 hp it would take forever.

Still and all, I never intended it to stay "dead at 0" for PCs. I've always loved the way WFRP handled hit points, death, and critical hits. For as long as I have been trying to develop a complete game from Chainmail, I've been trying to implement a similar system. So, here it is, with a snappy name and all. Note that in most cases, the positive and negative mods will wash, or at least get close to it. I really wanted it to basically be a crap-shoot once a character is reduced to this point. He is at the mercy of the Fates.

I've updated the pdf to include this table. It is accessible from the link I provided in the previous post.

The Overkill™ Table

Whenever a player or important NPC is reduced to 0 hp they are essentially at the mercy of their attacker. Any active defense they can muster is wholly inadequate and my well be met with scorn and ridicule.

The following Overkill™ conditions are immediately in effect:

Defense Type is reduced by one category

The character no longer gains any benefit from DEX

Each time he suffers damage while at 0 hp, roll on the following table:

Roll Effect

0 > Invigorated Character's hp reset to 1hp and Overkill™ conditions no longer apply

1 Providence The character narrowly avoids a fatal blow.

2 Scarred The character is scarred permanently. There is a 50-50 chance of a +1 or -1 to CHAR.

3 Hobbled The character's DEX is reduced by -1. This may be either healed magically or through one complete month of rest.

4 Crippled As Hobbled, but may only be healed magically.

5 Dead The character is killed instantly.

6 + Ruined The character is not only killed, but his body is utterly ruined as far as any sort of resurrection is concerned.

Modifiers

• + CON
• + Armor (0 thru 6)
• + HD (not counting additional hp)
• – Damage suffered this round
• – Weapon Type (0 thru 6)
• – HD of opponent delivering Overkill™ attack

Chainmail (Yes, again)

It's all in the approach. Most people considering a Chainmail/D&D experience approach it from the perspective of adding Chainmail combat to D&D. What about taking the approach of adding certain D&D elements to Chainmail. There is a philosophy amongst the OSR that it is easier to house rule things in, rather than yank them out.

That being the case, the first thing that needs to be done is to clarify and clean up the Chainmail elements we will be using, namely combat, magic, how magic items function, and monster stats/descriptions. Secondly, the elements from D&D that will be needed have to be identified and retooled to conform to Chainmail. That's a bit of a two-sided sword. Most of D&D is written with the assumption that the reader owns and is familiar with Chainmail. So, some of the work is done. Unfortunately, the veil between Chainmail and D&D is rather nebulous and the voice of the rules slips back and forth without warning.

I've contemplated this on here before, but it never really gained critical mass because I just couldn't get my mind around how to integrate Chainmail's wargame combat into D&D's roleplay arena. Then I found these guidelines at Howling Tower (thanks, Steve). This was a major hurdle for me, and now that it is out of the way, maybe I can move forward. As always, I'll keep you posted.

What Are We Talking About, Really?

The Ultimate Duality?

My Gamer ADD has been in a fairly tight orbit lately. It has moved between titles, but stayed relatively close to the old school standard. Go Me!

So, I saw a couple of posts at Howling Tower concerning Chainmail combat, which is a favorite windmill for me to tilt at. The posts are excellent, if Chainmail combat is your thing. They definitely rekindled my desire to make it work.

Something new struck me about the whole thing, though. Chainmail is a set of wargaming rules, as we all know. Yet, the "rules" in them for roleplaying are incredibly sparse. In other words, roleplaying was a wide open frontier in those days. In fact, the only real rules were for combat and spell casting. Granted, some more guidelines for character advancement/development are desirable, but that's not the point.

The point is quite simple: D&D grew from wargaming roots and took a lot of heat from second-generation games for being too combat focused. Later editions, specifically 3.x and 4E, went to great lengths to sever the wargame ties and include rules for roleplaying. I find it ironic that the wargame that D&D came from imposes the least restrictions on roleplaying, and offers no rules governing the activity. The later editions that claimed to bring more support for roleplaying to the table actually added metric shitloads of tactical combat rules, and very strictly laid out the rules by which role playing could occur and be DMed.

I'm not trying to start an edition war or piss anybody off, and I sincerely apologize if I have. I'm not here to judge anyone's edition preference. I'm just saying that I find it amusing that the wargame that started it all offered some of the fastest combat and least adjudicated roleplaying of any edition. The wargame version of protoD&D was the least focused on combat of any edition. I find this duality fascinating, and made doubly so by the fact that it has been staring us in the face for 40 years. Amazing.

The Horns of a Dilemma

Well, my friends, the fickle winds of my ADD are shifting yet again. I hate this. I've been in a serious LBB mood and groove (and who knows, it may yet prevail), but I've heard the siren-song of S&W WhiteBox again. I love that game, with one exception: fighters. I know, I know, you've been down this path with me before. My apologies if this post seems like so much old news. In truth, I'm just trying to write my feelings as a way of resolving this dilemma.

I'm definitely committed to the original three classes. My mood hasn't swung so wildly as to embrace the nth classes. My main bone of contention is the fact that in the LBBs the Fighting-Man's main class ability is being able to employ magic swords. They are, bar none, the uber-weapon of LBB D&D, and it is a real boon to be able to take full advantage of them. However, it is a class benefit that is dependent on possessing the item in question. Two 9th level Magic-Users are pretty much equal, because their class ability, magic use, is tied directly to level. Two 9th level Fighting-Men, one with an uber-blade and one with a lesser, unintelligent, blade are much less fairly matched.

I suppose there could be an argument that the M-U relies on his spellbooks and should he lose them, he is in the same boat as the F-M who has no enchanted sword. But, the M-U can make copies of his spellbooks, and by the time he reaches 5th or 6th level, he should definitely have done so. Fighting-Men can't make copies of their swords. Also, spells to add to a spellbook are much easier to come by, in the form of scrolls, than magic blades. 

I like the intelligent sword rules, though. What I'm considering is reducing the frequency of swords with powers. In Monsters & Treasure there is a 50% chance that any sword will have enough intelligence to have powers. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Cut that back to a pretty small base percentage
• Modify by each "plus"
• Change the alignment roll to make most swords Neutral
• Determine powers pretty much as written
• Determine if sword has a Purpose (if Lawful or Chaotic)
• Determine Ego of sword, based on Intelligence, Alignment, Powers, and Purpose

 Intelligent swords and their bearers must arrive at some sort of "understanding" if the Powers of the sword are to be utilized. 

Now, with the role of intelligent swords somewhat more limited, I want to give the Fighting-Man some true class abilities. I came up with some a while back, but I think it's too much, really. So, let me think this through.

D&D combat, and by extension, S&W:WB, models results. It isn't concerned with the blow-by-blow. It grew out of wargaming rules, where the important questions to be answered from combat are: 

1. Who's still standing?
2. Who's still effective?

Chainmail's method for representing more capable troop types was to give them the relative ability to render more enemies ineffective at the end of a combat. It did this by allowing so-called "Hero" types to roll more HD in combat, which represented their chance at causing an injury, which would reduce an enemy's effectiveness.

Now, if we accept that D&D combat is abstract and that a to-hit roll does not represent a single swing of the weapon, we can understand what it does represent. The to-hit roll represents the chance, during a given round, of a combatant to have an impact on his enemy's effectiveness, or more importantly, his ability to continue to prosecute the fight. So, I think it should follow naturally from that understanding that a more seasoned and capable combatant would have more opportunities to adversely effect his foe.

So, here is where all this has led me: Fighting-Men get an extra attack each turn at 4th level and again at 8th. I know there are those old-school players who don't hold with multiple attacks per round, and I used to be one of them. However, in keeping with the abstract nature of combat as a whole, I don't necessarily consider this as additional, discrete, attacks, anymore than the one attack is a single swing of the weapon. To me it merely represents greater competence and a heightened ability to force your opponent from the fight. These "attacks" are nothing more than opportunities to injure your opponent, whether that comes in the form of one "attack", two, or three.

What do you guys think? Does that make sense when it is reasoned out like this?

Time and Movement in Combat

As I've said before, I started gaming with wargames. Wargames have very strictly defined rules, including rules for time. OD&D has pretty strict rules for time, too, but they are a little loosely presented. I've never been comfortable with the one-minute combat round. Combat is supposed to be abstract enough to encompass multiple swings and feints and parries in that minute. Yet, paradoxically enough, in that abstract melee, time is supposed to be very closely tracked.

There are two reasons to track time:

1. Timing (duh): Seriously, the timing of disparate movements so that their individual effects on the battle as a whole can be understood. If you have a unit of cavalry attempting to sneak around a small grove of trees and make a flank attack, it is vital to understand the state of the battle when they complete their movement and launch their attack. It is also important to understand when effects become active and when they no longer apply.
2. Movement: It can be important to know how far a character/creature can move in a specified amount of time. Or, more to the point, how long it takes a character/creature to cover a given amount of space.

I've never been happy with the idea that a combat can last 10 minutes or more. That is a lot of work to swing a weapon weighing 8 lbs or more, virtually continuously. The lack of fatigue rules makes it worse.

I think time and movement should be abstracted the way the rest of combat is. For time, I am thinking about randomly determining elapsed time. Maybe roll d4, +1 per HD of opponents in excess of characters' level. So, a 2nd level fighting-man, a 1st level fighting-man, and a 2nd level magic-user engage a group of 7 orcs. At the conclusion of the battle, roll d4+2 to determine how long the battle lasted.

Wandering monsters being attracted to the noise of a battle can be checked after a certain number of exchanges in the fight. I would likely just judge the progress of the battle. If the battle seems to be dragging, I would avoid wandering monsters like a plague. If they would add some spice to the session, I'd roll for them.

Movement
When you take away time, you take away movement. At least in the sense of covering distance in time. I like the idea of Arenas from Old School Hack. I can see them having a place in a more abstract time keeping scheme. It's a fairly simple concept and I think it really lends itself to exciting, swashbuckling combat. More importantly, movement in the system doesn't rely on accurate time keeping.

Thoughts? Comments?