A Little Spitballing

So, I've been thinking. I like to stick as much with free RPGs as possible. It's not even a monetary thing because I usually print them or have them printed. It's just a preference. As we all know, the basic rules for 5E are freely available. I printed the player and DM pdfs this weekend and did some home binding. I've been thinking about using just these as the basis for a hypothetical campaign. Stick with the classic classes and races, as presented. Clean and simple, and in only one book (not including house rules and such, see below).

Even though the core books aren't free, I would cull from them certain things, kind of like incorporating articles from Dragon. I would include Feats. I think that between Backgrounds and Feats, it really is possible to take the "Core Four" and create most, if not all, the additional classes, to some degree. I would likely include Colleges for wizards and Domains for clerics, as much for campaign flavor as anything else.

Over at the City of Iron there is an excellent series of posts on race-as-class. Mr Norman takes the dwarf, elf, and halfing from 5E and gives them a very nice B/X twist.

A short post, I know, but it is a brief idea in the description. I may while away some time this afternoon knocking together some class/background/feat combos to represent some of the other classes. If I'm happy with how it is working, I'll post them.

Tinkering with NWPs

I was thinking about Non-Weapon Proficiencies this week. I'm not a fan, as written. We used the shit out of them, but I never really liked them. They are too restrictive/narrow, especially when leveraged against the slots you have available for them. Plus, I was never happy with the idea that there were no clear guidelines on trying something covered by the NWP when your character didn't have the NWP. Finally, there was an odd side-effect of that: your character went from being virtually unable to perform a certain task (NWP), to performing it very reliably (if the relevant stat was high enough), with a single NWP slot expenditure.

So, I had this idea. Not strictly original, but still . . .

• Keep the lists divided by class, as they are.
• There are no additional costs for "cross-class" NWPs.
• Redefine the NWPs to make them broader in application.
• Each additional slot devoted to an NWP beyond the first, grants a +1 to the roll.
• If a task seems reasonable for someone with training, then no roll should normally be required.

The Mechanic

Roll d20+stat mod (from NWP table)+class level (if NWP is from your class list) +/- situational mods

If the modified roll is 20+, the check succeeds. So, it's basically a Target20 type thing.

Here's what I like about it:

1. Your character gets better at NWPs that are important to his class as he levels. He doesn't start out great at it and only improve slightly.
2. If it isn't on your class list you won't be as good at it as a character who should be better at it. I don't like the idea that your fighter can spend slots on Magecraft (even if it is at double cost) and automatically be comparable in that skill to my magic user (assuming your fighter has a high INT).

Untrained Use

There should be certain of the NWPs that aren't usable untrained. The remainder of the NWPs can be used untrained. In this case, if the NWP is on the character's class list, add the relevant stat mod, otherwise, the only mods are situational.

There it is, my big idea.

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.

A Proto-idea

This only just came to me over morning coffee. I don't have time to dwell on it this morning, and it is so nascent I may forget it if I don't record it. So, here goes . . .

Start with the four main classes, cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief. Everyone selects one at character generation like always. But instead of limitless levels, or a cap at 10, 14, or whatever, each basic class only goes to 3rd level. At 4th level you essentially choose a new class.

Here's the thing, though: the new class is a natural progression of the old class. So, someone who starts as a fighter would progress to a "fighting" class. Say, a ranger, or a paladin, or barbarian. There could be a lot of these classes. Progress through three levels of this new class, then change again. Subsequent changes become increasingly restrictive, based on the "class path" up to that point. That isn't to say you couldn't go back to a "branch point" and start along a different path, there would just be some sort of penalties for doing so.

I'm not sure if this would work with OD&D. I like the idea of it, though. Hopefully I'll have time to develop it, and see how it shapes up.

Delving Deeper Barbarian

This is an idea I've been contemplating for a while. It is based on the Barbarian from White Dwarf #4, along with the skill system suggested by the Thief.

The Barbarian

HD as Fighter
Same XP and Attack Column as Cleric
Any weapons, excepting crossbows
Any armor (Chain imposes a -1 penalty to certain skill rolls, Plate imposes a -2)

• +2 bonus to the following saving throws: normal elemental effects (such as desert heat or arctic cold), poison, and disease
• Should a barbarian fail a saving throw vs Fear, he flies into a fit of rage, attacking the cause of the fear with a +2 to-hit and damage. This attack is single-minded, ignoring any other threats. During this rage, the barbarian's AC is increased by 2.
• Barbarians are canny fighters, and difficult to hit. AC is one better, no matter what armor is worn.
• A barbarian's opponents are oft-times unprepared for the suddeness and ferocity of his initial attack. If the barbarian has initiative, his first attack is devastating. Consult the following table:

Level	To-hit bonus	Damage
1-4	+2	Double
5-8	+2	Triple
9+	+3	Quadruple

• Barbarians are very cagey and alert to danger. If awake and alert, they are at -1 to be surprised, and at 6^th level and above, they are never surprised.
• Barbarians are consummate outdoorsmen. As such they possess the following skills:

  Tracking

  
  

  Survival (Finding water, suitable shelter site/materials, fire making)

  Foraging (Hunting*, edible plants)

  Stalking (Hiding and Moving Silently)*

  
  

  *Affected by the armor penalty, if applicable.

  
  These skills are successful on a d6 roll of 3+. However, this only applies to the barbarian's “home environment”. In other environments, they are successful on rolls of 5+.
  
  

More on Magic users

One of the perils of stream-of-conscious writing is that things get left out. I fancy myself some sort of Mozart of the blog, putting out a completed post in a single pass, no editing required. Of course, I know that's total horseshit, but we all have our delusions. Anyway . . .

There are a couple of more setting-centric thoughts about magic users that didn't make it into the recent relevant post.

I envision magic users in my setting as more adventurous than their "standard" brethren. With a more restrictive spell system, with a more limited number of acquisition options, they are forced to venture into the wild places in search of spells. They are also forced to be more pragmatic and seek more mundane solutions to many of their problems. Thus, they are slightly more robust and more capable in a fight.

• They may use any one-handed weapon
• They may wear leather armor, but still may not use shields
• Their hit points are slightly better, adding +2 on the even levels, rather than +1

It seems like there was something else, but now it eludes me. Oh well, there's always another post.

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.

A New Critical Hit Idea

I came up with this idea yesterday. I would really like some feedback, so if you would be so kind as to comment, I will greatly appreciate it.

I don't really like have a to-hit roll of 20 represent a critical hit. It essentially means everyone crits at the same rate. I don't like "confirming" crits, either. I've discussed this in an older post. I think the damage die should be the indicator, but I am against exploding damage dice.

OD&D is about modelling results. With that in mind, I had this idea. If a player rolls max damage, he gets a +1 to-hit on his next attack against that opponent. This represents such a severe flurry of blows that it affords a continuing advantage. Really it represents the potential to do it bring the fight to a swifter conclusion, thus modelling the result of critical success in combat. I also like it because it can only occur as the result of a successful hit, which means that characters and creatures with better to-hit numbers will achieve it more often. It is also a small bonus which is well in-line with the OD&D philosophy of such things.

Please let me know what you think.

Spellbooks and Research in B/X

Ode to Black Dougal has a post about how spellbooks are handled in B/X. In a nutshell, a magic-user or elf may only have a number of spells in their spellbook equal to the number spells they may cast. Thus, a 3rd level magic-user may only have three spells in his spellbook, two 1st level and one 2nd. Further, the only way to add new spells is by researching them yourself and being taught by another caster. No copying from looted spellbooks or copying scrolls.

Being relatively new to the B/X experience, I found this rather jarring. In fact, I mostly glossed over it as a poorly worded passage when I read it. I didn't give it too much thought until I read the blog post. I reread it then and realized that it was worded exactly as intended. In my mind, I immediately houseruled it. I couldn't stop thinking about it, though, and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. I like what it says about magic-users. I would still houserule two aspects, though.

1. Allow magic-users and elves to modify their spellbook limit by their INT modifier. Allow a total number of additional spells equal to the INT modifier, not to exceed caster level. So, a 1st level caster with an INT of 16 could have one additional 1st level spell. When he reached 2nd level, he could add another 1st level spell, or have two 2nd level spells. These additional spell must still be acquired, they are not freely granted. This does not grant any additional casting ability, either.
2. Looted spellbooks may be used to aid spell research. Per X51, spell research requires 1000 gp and 2 weeks per spell level. It further specifies that this time must be "spent out of campaign". If a looted spellbook is available to reference, this time may be concurrent with adventuring. The other research rules still apply. The spell-caster player must notify the referee when the character is performing his research, such as while other characters are seeking rumors, negotiating with potential hirelings, etc.

Damage by Class

This will be another pre-work rush job.

I am on a less-is-more kick again. My B/X reading led me back to Delving Deeper and I have been having some minimalist house rule ideas (a seeming oxymoron).

Here's the skinny: attacks come in one of three "modes"

• Weapon/Shield -1 AC
• Two Weapons  Roll 2 damage dice, keep the one you want
• Two-handed/Heavy Weapon  +1 to-hit

Furthermore, Fighters use a d6+1 for damage, regardless of weapon. Clerics and thieves use a d6, and magic-users use a d6-1. Anyone can use any weapon, but only Fighters can employ magic weapons to their fullest.

That's it for now. More to follow.

Rambling On About House Rules

I've recently began a complete reading of Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. I'm not sure if it was DCC's relationship to that set of rules, or maybe just the fact that I never played or refereed them. It is quite difficult to do any sort of OSR-related reading and not run headlong into a B/X lovefest. So, I am working with just that, thinking about how a dungeon, wilderness, and/or entire campaign would have been in 1981, with those rules. I may post about that this weekend, as well, since I have been so remiss this past month.

Anyway, an inevitable aspect of any sort of webispheric study of original rules is that subject of house rules. There is a school of thought that if one is going to actually game with original rules, whether LBB, B/X, BECMI, or even Traveller, the rules should be used as-written. Even if only briefly, simply for the sake of the experience. I've seen a lot of words spent on the notion that if a person changes some certain aspect of B/X then they aren't playing B/X anymore. The logic then goes "so what's the point of calling yourself playing B/X in the first place? Use the rules as written, as intended."

This really started me thinking about the very nature of house rules. Here is my conclusion: I submit to you that ALL forms/version/editions of OD&D/AD&D/D&D, including the retroclones (free and pay) are nothing more than house rules. The early versions admitted such outright by calling themselves guidelines. It was only later that they began calling themselves "rules". Here is how I arrived at this conclusion:

The LBBs sprang from Chainmail. That, as we know, was a set of rules for medieval miniature battles. It was based on real-world, historical, actions. It is quite easy to determine, even if anecdotally, how far a medieval soldier could expect to travel in a given amount of time. Their morale was also simply a matter of assigning an algorithm to historical evidence. Things were abstracted, but the abstractions were based on actual, historical, evidence.

Then came the desire to include fantastic elements in the Chainmail games. Mr. Gygax and Arneson had to decide how a fireball worked, how a unit of orcs or dwarves compared to a unit of human soldiers. There is nothing historical to go by, so they tinkered until they found what worked best for them. Isn't that the very essence of a house rule? So, by my reckoning, since every single edition or version is built on the LBBs, at least philosophically, they are all house rules.

This isn't particularly important, since most of us play our games our way, and aren't subject to internet-based fanatical puritanism. I just found it an interesting thought to ponder on, and wanted to share it.

Combat Prowess for Fighters

This will be quick, before I head out to work. It is intended for any sort of OD&D fighter, whether it is LBB, B/X, or any of the retroclones.

Fighter receive points, which I am calling Combat Prowess. They gain one point at each odd-numbered level, including 1st. Each round they may allocate these points to any of the following, in any combination:

• +1 to-hit, to a single attack
• +1 damage, to a single attack
• +1 initiative
• -1 AC

That's it. If you've read this blog for any length of time, you've surely noted my near manic desire to keep the "lowly" fighter relevant into higher levels. I still like some of my earlier ideas, while my fondness for others has waned. I like this approach because it is simple, it doesn't give away the farm, and it allows (forces?) the player to make tactical decisions each round.

As an aside, I would suggest having the player work out a "standard" use of his CP points, to help keep things moving during quick combat encounters.

Old World Backgrounds for LotFP

In my earlier go-round with this notion of setting LotFP in the Old world I concocted some rudimentary ideas for implementing a modified form of the backgrounds/careers. Yesterday I came up with a different way. This post will cover backgrounds.

The general concept is that the character's life has had three broadly-defined "phases". Their background, which predisposed them to a certain career path. This is randomly determined, since none of us choose where we are born or how we are raised. Secondly is the character's first career, chosen by the player, from a list based upon the background. Finally, is the adventuring class, again, chosen by the player.

Background

Roll randomly (d12) for background, based on race:

	Race
Background	Human	Dwarf	Elf	Halfling
Warrior	1-3	1-4	1-3	1-2
Ranger	4-6	5-6	4-6	3-6
Rogue	7-9	7-9	7-8	7-10
Academic	10-12	10-12	9-12	11-12

Description and Benefits

The player selects two benefits from the options listed.

Warrior
Leads to careers that focus on combat, whether melee or missile.

+1 attack bonus with melee weapon
+1 damage with melee weapon
+1 attack bonus with missile weapon
+1 damage with missile weapon

Ranger
Background as some sort of woodsman.

+1 attack bonus with missile weapon
+1 Bushcraft
+1 Stealth
+1 Searching

Rogue
Tomb robbers, charlatans, and outright thieves.

+1 Stealth
+1 Tinkering
+1 Finding Traps
+1 Searching 

Academic
A background leading to careers that are cerebral in nature or require special knowledge.

+1 Languages
+1 Craft (Specific)
+1 Lore (Specific)
+1 Entertain

Craft, Lore, and Entertain are three new, fairly self-explanatory skills.

Next post will go into the careers, and (hopefully, ADD permitting) I'll close out with Advancements.

DD Ranger

Ok, here's a first draft of a Ranger for Delving Deeper. I based it on the Thief, which I like a lot. Without further ado . . .

Same HD, XP, and attacks as Fighter
No shields
Only Leather or Chain armor (Chain imposes a -1 penalty to certain skill rolls)
No scaling damage bonus (one of my house rules)

Skills @d6 3+
All function only in natural environments.

• Tracking (includes hiding ranger's own tracks)
• Navigation
• Survival (Finding water, suitable shelter site/materials, fire making)
• Foraging (Hunting, edible plants)
• Herbal Healing (as Lay on Hands IF access to herbs)
• Stalking (hiding and Moving Silently)

Favored Terrain
All Rangers perform best in terrain they are most familiar with. The terrains correspond to those found in the Wilderness Encounter tables (pages 19 and 24 of the Referee's Guide). They are Swamp, Woods, Plains, Crags, Desert, Arctic, and Jungle. Personally, I don't think Town is appropriate, though Necropolis might be, for some sort of undead-stalking ranger.

The ranger benefits from operating in his favored terrain as follows:

• Rolls d8 for skill rolls, still needing 3+
• Damage +1 every odd-numbered level vs creatures listed under favored terrain in encounter table (does not include PC races)
• Knowledgeable about creatures inhabiting favored terrain (per encounter table), also includes natural flora and fauna
• Only Surprised on rolls of 6

Given reasonable exposure to new terrain types (which may include experience with similar terrain at the Referee's discretion), the ranger may add a new terrain to his list of favored terrains at levels 3, 6, 9, and 12. Alternatively, the ranger may elect to improve his skills in an already mastered favored terrain. In that case he may move "up" a die type. 

So, for example, a ranger whose favored terrain is Woods gains 3rd level. The only other terrain the character has adventured in has been Desert, and he has no intention of returning. The player elects instead to improve his skills in Woods and will now roll d10 (still needing 3+). 

Note that this only improves the abilities listed under Skills, the Damage and Surprise rolls remain unchanged.

That's it. It's a pretty rough write-up, I know, and it is entirely possible I've missed some things. Please let me know if you notice anything I left out or unclear, along with any other thoughts/comments.

A D6 Follow-on Question

This is specifically for anyone that knows both D6 and Burning Wheel.

Instead of setting a TN and adding up all the d6's, what about a system like that in Burning Wheel? A static target number and each d6 that rolls over is a success, with a certain number of successes being needed to complete the task at hand. I like this premise, because it scales between normal "human" capacities, to more heroic capabilities, and up to god-like capabilities. If you're familiar with Burning Wheel, this makes sense, if not, it is beyond the scope of this post to fully explain the system.

I know there are some variations that are similar to this, but I want to hear from people that are experienced with this sort of house rule.

Magical Efficacy

This idea can be used with any flavor of OD&D.

I've pontificated at length about options for fighters. I'm a fighter guy. However, I also desire some tactical flexibility for magic-users. Not only as a referee, but also as a player. Straight-up OD&D magic is fairly dull. The only tactical decisions to be made are which spells to memorize and which one to use in a given situation. Pretty static choices, with little room for "seat of the pants" magic. Here is a propositionto allow a little more "situational thinking" to enter into things.

The idea is really simple. If a magic-user has memorized the same spell twice, he can cast the spell double. That is, he uses both memorizations of the spell in a single casting. The results are thus:

• Range/Duration/Area of Effect/Number Affected are all increased by 50%
• Damage is increased by +1 per spell level
• Saving Throw is made at -2

If a given spell does not have a particular listed above, then, obviously, there is no benefit to that parameter. In other words, a spell that is Instantaneous doesn't suddenly have a duration, or one with a range of Touch can't suddenly be hurled across the room.

At first glance this may seem over-powered, modifying all the parameters. I haven't playtested this idea, but I don't think it will prove overpowered for a couple of reason:

• Very few OD&D spells have all of the parameters listed, so it will be a truly rare occurrence that all of the modifiers will be in effect.
• There is an inherent synergy in OD&D that will cause on to carefully consider double-casting. Think about wanting to hurl a doubled Fireball so you can ramp up the damage. The blast radius also increases, though, so you have to carefully consider the volume of space you're in and the proximity of allies. Also consider that any allies that do get caught in the blast will be saving at -2.
• There is also . . .

The Risk

A wise man once said "Pimpin' ain't easy" and neither is commanding the fickle forces of magic. If a caster wishes to double-cast, the player must make a d20 roll. He must roll under his current level + INT bonus. This roll is modified by adding the spell's level. For example:

An 8th level magic-user, with an INT 16, wishes to double-cast the ubiquitous Fireball. He must roll 6 or less (8 (Caster level) + 1 (INT bonus) - 3 (Spell Level) on d20.

If the roll is failed, the spell is still cast. The hazard is that in releasing that much magical energy in a single burst, the caster will be injured. If the roll is failed, the caster suffers damage equal to the d20 roll minus what was needed, divided by 2 (round up).

Let's suppose the caster from our example had rolled a 13. The spell still goes off, but he is injured during the casting. He will suffer 4 points of damage (13 (d20 roll) - 6 (target number) = 7 divided by 2 = 3.5 (round up)).

And there you have it. An on-the-fly tactical option that makes magic users a little more unpredictable and dangerous, but not without potential consequences.

Delving Deeper House Rules - Addendum

I forgot to mention a few things in my haste to post.

Armor and Dexterity

Armor modifies the chance of success of all forms of combat and most of the thiefly talents, based on its weight. Light -1, Medium -2, Heavy -3. Characters with a Dexterity of 15+ may ignore one point of the penalty. Additionally, Fighters may ignore one point when engaged in combat. Thieves may ignore one point in pursuit of thiefly activities.

Thiefly talents and the non-thief

Any class may attempt the thiefly talents, except for backstabbing, deciphering treasure maps and magic-user scrolls. The roll to succeed is still 3+, but the non-thief must roll on d4. (Note: I know this is still a 50% chance of success, on the surface. However, when you consider the non-thief classes, the fighter and cleric typically go about armored, thus they won't be able to succeed most of the time, unless the character in question has a DEX of 15+. That leaves magic-users. If you consider the manual dexterity required by their art, coupled with their implied intelligence, they should have some chance when trying their hand at illicit activities.) It is possible that failure by a non-thief is more hazardous than failure by a true thief.

Clerics

Clerics begin knowing the Sword and Shield fighting style.

Delving Deeper

During my lull in activity the free pdf of Delving Deeper finally came out. I had been waiting for it for a long time, since I am such a fan of the LBBs. I have to say, it does not disappoint. I should qualify that: if you want a good, true clone of the LBBs, it does not disappoint. It doesn't make any truly radical digressions from the source material. It merely makes it more understandable and usable by beginners.

Anyway, this isn't intended as a review. The pdfs can be downloaded free here, so go grab them and see for yourself. They are awesome. One thing, though: these are "no art" pdfs, which in a strange way fits with the nostalgia of the early edition experience. Sure there was artwork in the LBBs but it was akin to studyhall doodling and rarely bore any correlation to the topic discussed on the page it occupied. I tended to ignore it for the most part, and the no-art of DD plays right into that.

Some House Rules

These are some ideas that have been rattling around my brain for a few weeks. Getting DD made me want to get them written up (however roughly). I'm going to share them here. I've done countless OD&D house rules, but these strike me as different. These are more subtle and (I think) more in line with OD&D power levels. Please let me now what you think. Obviously they can be used with any version of OD&D.

General

Stat Determination

Roll 3d6, assign where desired. Repeat for remaining stats.

Hit Points

Re-rolled at each level. If the new roll doesn't exceed the previous total, keep the previous total. Note that this is per level, and so applies even when a +1 or +2 is indicated on the class table.

Classes

Fighters

Fighters begin knowing two fighting styles. They add an additional style at levels 3 and 6. There is no benefit to taking a style more than once.

Fighters add +1 to all damaged caused. This increases by +1 at 4th level and again at 8th level.

Clerics

Clerics add +1 to their rolls to turn undead if their WIS is 15+.

Magic-users

Magic-users with an INT of 15+ have a +1 bonus which may be used in two ways.

It may be subtracted from a targets Saving Throw;

It may be used to increase a level-dependent variable of a cast spell. For example, a 5th level magic-user could cast a Fireball that does 6d6 damage.

The bonus may only be applied once per spell cast. So in the above example, he could cast a 6d6 Fireball, or a standard 5d6 Fireball, but force his target to subtract -1 from his Saving Throw roll.

Thieves

Each time a thief adds a new hit die, he also improves in his illicit skills. At levels 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12 the player selects one of the eight thiefly skills listed on page 14 of the Adventurer's Handbook. He now rolls a d8 when using that kill. The roll needed to succeed is still 3+.

Combat

Fighting Styles

There are four fighting styles a character may be proficient in:

Sword and Shield

Two Weapon

Two-handed Weapon

Missile

Sword and Shield is the standard. Note that it refers to any one-handed weapon and not just swords. This style allows the combatant to subtract his shield's bonus from his opponents to-hit roll.

Usable by Fighters and Clerics.

Two-weapon refers to the skill with wielding a weapon in each hand. The player rolls 2d20 when attacking and keeps the more favorable result. Note that only one of the attack rolls actually counts, even if they are both good enough to hit.

Usable by Fighters only.

Two-handed Weapon is the use of a larger, heavier version of a standard weapon, which requires two hands to wield properly. When such a weapon hits, rolls 2d6 for damage and keep the better result. Any weapon may have two-handed variant which may be used with this style.

Usable by Fighters only.

Missile refers to any thrown or mechanically propelled weapon. Proficiency in this style confers a +1 to-hit and damage.

Usable by Fighters and Thieves.

Armor

Armor is considered either Light, Medium, or Heavy for rules purposes. The Armor Classes are Light 7, Medium 5, Heavy 3. Construction material is irrelevant in determining AC, thus you can have Heavy Leather that is AC3. Construction material may be considered where specific types of damage are concerned, such as an electrical attack against someone in chainmail. These will need to be considered on a per case basis.

Magical armor subtracts its bonus from the enemy's to-hit roll. The armor class itself remains fixed.

Old World Careers in LotFP

I've had this simmering in the back of my head a couple of days now, and here is where I am with it. The Basic Career Classes represent broad-stroke background influences. They'll give a direct mechanical plug into the game. Specific basic careers will give benefits in more specific situations. Obviously, you'll need access to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for this to make sense. So, here we go . . .

Warrior         +1 to-hit regardless of class. This is a one-time bonus.
Ranger          +1 to Bushcraft
Rogue           +1 Additional skill point at 1st level
Academic     +1 to Language skill

I'll admit, these don't seem completely balanced to me. The Warrior is the most useful, especially for characters that aren't going to be fighters. The Rogue career would allow the specialist to place his bonus wherever desired, while the Ranger and Academic get very specific bonuses, which will only come into play in specific situations. Unfortunately, I couldn't really think of another way without getting into either stat bonuses, which would be too much for a background system, or adding skills just so the background system would have something to work on, which is rather self-serving. Ultimately, what that means to me is that the Basic Career Class should be randomly determined. Roll on the following table:

                      Human     Dwarf       Elf       Halfling
Warrior            1-3          1-4         1-3        1-3
Ranger             4-6          5-7         4-7        4-7
Rogue              7-9          8-10       8-9        8-10
Academic       10-12      11-12     10-12    11-12

The iconic Dwarf Trollslayer

When considering this table, bear in mind that this table does not limit or direct the player's choice of class in any way. This merely states the likelihood of the character having pursued a particular career prior to play. A player with a dwarf character who rolls Academic on this table could explain it by saying his character's family is a long line of craftsmen. for example.

As for the specific careers, they can be randomly determined, but I think the player should choose. The choice should be guided by common sense. The further removed from the character's class, the more the player should do to explain the choice. I would be very tempted to not attach any particular mechanics to them. Leave the player to find ways to use the specific career in play.

So, there it is. I tried to keep it mechanically simple. I just wanted a way to hook the characters into the setting. I'm interested in hearing any thoughts, but most especially from anyone that is into LotFP and the Old World.

An Idea Briefly Described

I have only a very narrow window in time to shove this through, so it will be rather spartan.

I was thinking of porting the career system from Barbarians of Lemuria to OD&D. I'm not sure right now about the acquisition rate. I'm thinking maybe 2 at first level with a bonus based on prime requisite. Then perhaps a point for improvement every three levels, and an opportunity to add a completely new one every 5 levels.

The mechanic for it would be roll 3d6 vs the relevant attribute (roll under), based on the attempt. That way creative players can seek inventive ways to play to their characters' strengths. For example, the Huntsman career should grant some benefit in a survival situation, which may logically depend on CON, but a player could accurately argue that INT is as important. Later, when trying to stalk some prey, the same player could make further use of the career, this time relying on DEX.

The way I see it right now, each point in the career subtracts one from the roll. Unusual circumstances could force the player to roll 4d6, and keep the lower or higher of the three, depending on whether the circumstances were beneficial or detrimental, respectively.