The Collapsing Column Conundrum

In this post I talked about a friend's game where we found ourselves in a room filled with granite columns falling all about us. I was contrasting one of the differences between D&D and Dungeon World. That difference being that in D&D getting "hit" by a column was a matter of losing hit points, while in the fiction-first world of DW, missing a roll to avoid a granite column would likely prove fatal.

I'm in a DW mood again and I found myself pondering this situation again. Even though I'm in a DW head, I think I've stumbled on a more satisfying way to handle this in D&D.

The real crux of problems like this in D&D is remembering that hit points are abstract constructs that represent many facets of a character's ultimate survivability (see this post). In this sense, hit point loss is a narrativist opportunity. Well, D&D isn't a narrativist game, so hmmm.

Here's my idea (finally): In the column room example my character was a fighter (natch, I usually play fighters), with somewhere around 70 hp. The room was quite large and filled with these falling columns. I think another way to handle this would be to say "In order to cross the room, you have to make 3 successful Dex checks (or saving throws, whatever). For every one you fail you take d10 damage."

I think that makes it more narrativist. It models an escalating situation, where every column that you don't "dodge" whittles away at your chances of getting to the other side of the room alive. You're getting more tired, more tensed up. Maybe you're dodging away from one, only to step in the way of another one. In any event, if you do make it to the other side alive, the damage from the failed checks represents the physical and emotional exhaustion of such a harrowing experience.

And if the DM wanted to be extra nasty, for each failed roll impose a -1 penalty to the next roll. That would really ramp up the tension.

. . . 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.

Spell Lists

This is something of an open question and solicitation of opinions.

A very common thing in older editions of D&D is specific spell lists for certain classes. Rangers and Paladins are prime examples. One thing I never really put too much thought into is the limitations of such a list. Does it mean that a spell casting class can only ever use spells on its class list? Maybe the spells on the list are the only ones that can be selected from freely, like when a level is gained. If that is the case, what about researching new spells? Could these be any spell the player wants?

I kind of think they should be limited to only what's on their lists, since a limited list seems to be a balance thing. But, it doesn't make much sense, really, from the character's perspective. If there was some sort of college of magic situation, then it makes more sense. Or maybe a source-of-power sort of thing.

This is pertinent because I am working on a spell using class for Delving Deeper. I want a limited spell list to be one of the balancing factors. So, from a DM perspective I wouldn't want a player of the class to go trying to research Fireball, which isn't on the list for the class. On the other hand, I can understand a player finding a scroll with Fireball on it and saying "I want to copy it into my spellbook", and being pissed if I said no, with no game-world reason for it.

I know this is post is a bit more disjointed than usual. I hope I made enough sense to get my question across so I can get some advice.

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.

Ruminations on OD&D: 3d6 In Order and Level Limits

Now that the Christmas shipping madness has passed I might be able to get some writing done.

I have played with a LOT of people over the years that ignored these two simple guidelines. Of course, it was mostly AD&D 1st/2nd Edition mash-ups, but the principle still applies. I, myself, disdained them for a large chunk of my gaming life. It is only now that I have returned to my gaming "roots" that I really understand their intent. I will go out on a limb and admit that I think they pose a rather ham-fisted solution to a perceived "problem", but nevertheless, I do understand them, and the necessity for them.

They are demographic controls. Especially post-Greyhawk OD&D, with the introduction of Paladins, Thieves, and multiclassing, opened a flood gate of new classes and options that still continues. OD&D doesn't go to great pains to balance classes against each other. It is mostly achieved with the XP tables. Some classes are inherently more powerful, though, than a simple XP increase can account for. (ahem, Paladin, cough cough). So, the problem becomes "how to limit said class". Places strict attribute requirements and require 3d6 rolled in order. To play a Paladin you would have to roll a 17+ on Charisma, not just a 17+ in a group of 6 rolls. Other new classes have lower absolute requirements, but more of them.

So, if you don't have a particular problem with a party full of Rangers, Druids, and the inevitable guy who insists on playing a chaotic good assassin (one who has seen the darkness in his heart and now kills for a good cause), then you may safely ignore 3d6 in order and do it however you please. Seriously, there is no sarcasm in that. Maybe a plethora of supposedly-rare classes all functioing in a single group is not a concern for your game. All I'm saying is, I see the reasoning in it.

Same for demi-human level limits. This is the one I was really directing the "ham-fisted" remark at. This one is dirt simple. Who wants to play a dwarf when you top out at level 6? Well, somebody who really wants to play a dwarf. Who wants to role play a dwarf. Oddly enough, I've been in that boat where humans are concerned. I've played in games with virtually no restrictions on what I could do with my character.

In the group I played with most often, we rolled 4d6, dropped the lowest and re-rolled 1's. Arranged to taste. no racial level limits, any race could multiclass. If we wanted to be a certain class but didn't have the stats for it, the DM would tell us to put the best number we had on the stat and he would raise it to the minimum.We weren't middle schoolers min-maxing, mind you. We were just very player/character focused. As a group we shared DMing and we all wanted each other to play whatever we wanted. We didn't want to force anyone into a class/race they didn't want just so we could be in line with the rules. Ironically enough, I was typically the only guy playing a straight-up human fighter.

It seemed that with our high-brow way of thinking, we believed that we, as players, had to have maximum freedom to "design" the character we wanted to play or else it wouldn't be fun. We never explored the possibility of finding the fun in a character that we "found" through random generation. I think we missed more than we gained.

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.

Ruminations on OD&D: Hit Points

There is a thread over on OD&D Discussion concerning how hit points are rolled. Essentially, there are four methods (I think):

• Keep a running, static total, adding the roll of each hit die as it is gained;
• Reroll all hit dice at each level, keeping the new total if it is higher;
• Reroll all hit dice at some predetermined point each day, such as after a night's sleep;
• Reroll all hit dice at the beginning of each combat

I like the "reroll" methods. I've always hated getting hosed on some shit-ass HD rolls. Plus, as a referee, I don't like feeling like it is absolutely vital that I hand out max hp at 1st level. It's a minor annoyance, but sometimes they are the most annoying.

Anyway, this segues into something I have been ruminating on. There are a lot of rationalizations for certain OD&D rules. We all know the ones about hit points representing fatigue, favor of the gods, and luck. While damage represents being taxed to your limits, minor scrapes and bruises, exhaustion, etc.

A big part of OD&D is resource management. Hit points are a key resource to be managed. But, if they represent the things we rationalize them to represent, and damage is per its rationalization, I believe the healing rules are way out of whack. At the healing rates as written a single attack, with a lucky (unlucky?) damage roll could take almost a week to heal. A week to get over being tired and a few minor scrapes and close calls.

I'm sure at this point this may seem like I've kit-bashed two posts. Maybe I have, I don't know. I'm just wondering how to tie in rerolling hit points either each day or each combat would work in conjunction with some "accelerated" healing rules. Like maybe throw the running damage total right out the window, along with the running hit point total, and start fresh each combat/encounter. Would it seriously unbalance things? Would it rob the game of part of its drama, like when your hit points are really low and you're trying to tip-toe out of the dungeon and back to town?

So maybe the "reroll every morning" is the better way. So, how would that work with pre-existing damage? Is it only your max hit points that are affected?

At any rate, I need to rethink healing in light of what damage is supposed to represent. I think getting a certain amount, maybe a percentage of current max, at the end of a combat would work. That could represent the "fatigue loss" being recovered once the character has a chance to collect his breath. One thing's for sure (at least as anything is "for sure" in my head) is that I don't want the book keeping that goes with calling hit point damage fatigue, and keeping track of "wounds" separately. Akrasia's house rules feature that, and while I love the idea on paper, I don't want to deal with it at the table.

I welcome any and all thoughts on this subject. 

A Couple of Thoughts on Magic-Users

Just a couple of random things that fit together better than into their own posts.

When it comes to agonizing over the concept of "which spell to memorize", I tend to forget one simple concept: the magic-user has his spell book with him. When slots are limited, memorize the spell(s) that are most likely to be needed in the thick of things. If a situation arises that requires a more utilitarian spell, such as Knock, or Comprehend Languages, the magic-user can simply "swap out" by studying his spell book. Of course, this does absolutely no good if he has used his available slot(s). Likewise, once the utility spell is memorized and cast, that slot is used for the day. So, the dilemma of when to cast that precious spell remains. . .

I haven't read any of Jack Vance's work. I have certain impressions from quotes and excerpts, though. I'm not sure how "accurate" these impressions are, and I'm not claiming any of this is particularly original or mine, but they are just my thoughts based on the impressions:

 Each spell is almost like some alien life form that the magic-user must literally force into his mind. When someone sees a spell without the benefit of Read Magic it can look like anything from mad gibberish, to poetry, to doodles, to a blank page. When read with the benefit of Read Magic, however, it is seen as literally writhing on the page, pulsing and squirming with arcane intent. It is entirely alien to the mind of the caster and his brain must be forced to contain it, forced by sheer effort of will. That is what memorizing a spell is all about.

It isn't easy or pleasant to watch, either. The effects vary with caster level and spell level. The more advanced the caster, and more basic the spell, the less dramatic the process. A 10th level magic-user studying Sleep is hardly noticed. The closer the caster gets to the limit of his abilities, the more dramatic. The process can be downright frightening to behold. "Study" could appear as any of the following:

• Weeping blood as their eyes are forced to take in the eldritch horror;
• Sweating profusely, literally pouring from the magic-user;
• Laughing maniacally and/or speaking gibberish;
• Hair falling out;
• Eyes blackening, as if charred;
• Hair standing on end;
• Grasping his spell book for dear life, eyes opened unnaturally wide, bulging and bloodshot, hair flying back as if a hurricane was issuing from the spell book.

That is just a few ideas off the top of my head as I write this. None of this should have a direct mechanical effect, it is more for dressing. Some of these could have in-play consequences, but they shouldn't become the center point of a session. 

All of these realizations have shown me that Vancian magic isn't nearly as limiting or vanilla as I had thought.

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.

Hit Points and the One Minute Combat Round

I was watching Troy this afternoon. It led me to the following train of thought.

Many aspects of OD&D (and, by extension, the more modern titles based on it) are much maligned. Of course, on of the hot-button issues is hit points. It has been discussed ad infinitum what hit points actually represent, as well as what their loss represents.

Another aspect that isn't particularly maligned, but is probably one of the most house-ruled is the one-minute combat round. It is quite often said to be completely unrealistic that combatants could swing swords at each other for five or six minutes straight, or longer. There is another aspect to the hit point/combat round that had completely eluded me until I was watching the movie.

It was the big showdown between Achilles and Hector. They swung, they dodged, they dipped, dodged, and dove. Hector tripped over a rock. Achilles narrowly avoided a sucking chest wound. Obviously, all of this was wearing down their hit points. I may have even posted about it before. I know I did a movie-hit point post, but I can't remember the movie and I'm too lazy to go back through my posts, so there. Anyway . . .

I'm currently hip deep in Delving Deeper, a most excellent OD&D clone, and freely available here. It finally clicked with me that there is a distinct correlation between the rather modest number of hit points and the one-minute round. An 8th level fighter is a fearsome opponent in OD&D, but still only has, on average, 28 hit points, lacking any adjustments. With a CON bonus, he would have a whopping 36 hit points. He could conceivably be smacked down, by a comparable opponent, in 6-8 rounds.

My point here is that I think the one-minute combat round started getting a little hoary when hit point inflation started taking hold. An 8th level fighter with an 18 CON would have the aforementioned 36 HP in OD&D. The same fighter in B/X would have, on average, 60 HP (8 x 4.5 per d8) + (8 x 3 CON bonus). in AD&D the same fighter would have 76 hit points on average. That's more than double the OD&D fighter.

Now, I know somebody out there is saying "But what about variable weapon damage and monsters' attack schemes?" Sure, an AD&D fighter faces more damage potentially than the OD&D fighter, but I seriously do not believe the damage threat doubled right along with hit points. So, it is my contention that the one-minute combat round is perfectly acceptable in OD&D, where there just aren't enough hit points to drag fights out for too long.