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.

Random Thoughts

I have several small ideas fluttering around, none of which warrants its own post. However, taken as a whole . . . they are still pretty inconsequential, let's be honest. So, this is one of my "notes to self" posts.

Swords & Wizardry Complete (SWC)

I came up with the Ranger for DD, and started thinking about some more conversions of classes from the supplements. There were some I was willing to drop in pretty much whole, from certain sources. I am happy enough with the Paladin from SWC, as far as Paladins go, so I pulled that out and  . . . well, now I'm sucked into SWC.

I have loved Swords & Wizardry since I first laid eyes on it. Even when I have fixated on the things I don't like about it, I still love the game. SWC is so gonzo to me. It really harkens back to the late 70's, when all the supplements were out, we had Strategic Review, and The Dragon first took flight. There was a crazy mix of ideas, some were brilliant, some not so much. Some were out-right horse shit. They all drove the game in crazy new directions, though. It was like building a soap-box racer. Then deciding it would be great fun to rig a lawn mower engine to it. A cup holder and better seat was next. Then, finally, somebody gets the idea to put wings on the damn thing.

SWC somehow captures that gonzo, free-wheeling, anything goes spirit of those times. Yet, it doesn't implode. Let's face it, not all of those crazy ideas (even the brilliant ones) really worked. Some of them worked great, until they were asked to work with some of the other crazy ideas, then they became an unholy mess. Not so in SWC. It isn't perfect (I'm still less than thrilled that the Fighter's class ability is completely dependent on high stat rolls), but it is easily house ruled.

Thieves

I think there is a problem with the Delving Deeper Thief. It starts off too competent. All of the thief skills succeed 67% of the time. A lot of grumbling is done about the "Greyhawk" thief being almost irrelevant at low levels, and I suppose this alleviates that. I really liked it at first, then it hit me. There is no sense of accomplishment when playing a DD thief. Even with the option of improving his skills, something is lost when you go from succeeding almost all the time to succeeding virtually all the time. Sure, it sucks to have a 10% chance to pick a  lock at 1st level. Yet, there is a growing sense of achievement that comes with earning that 67% chance of doing something, rather than having it handed to you.

Not to mention the old argument about the class being self-justifying, anyway. What could be more self-justifying than making certain activities the purview of a specific class, then setting it up so that characters of that class begin the game with such a high degree of competence?

Ascending Armor Class

When I am in an old school mind-set, nothing rankles me more than AAC. Logically, I know it makes sense. It is easy to use, and it obviates big to-hit charts. This came up for me as I'm sitting here this morning contemplating making a referee screen for SWC. There are three rather large to-hit tables for characters and one for monsters. It would take up quite a bit of space just for those. If I embrace AAC, it would only take up a few lines. Plus it has the advantage of tweaking the bonuses slightly to further differentiate classes' fighting abilities. It still disrupts my old school groove, though.

A New Spin on Magic: Pt 3

An excellent point was brought up in comments on Pt 1, concerning Scribes banking a bunch of scrolls, presumably during downtime. I have thought about it and have some ideas. I want to put them in a new post, though, so the ideas, and comments on them, have their own "home".

Under this idea scrolls are two things: not cheap, and fragile.

Ink is Not Cheap


Encoding scrolls requires special ink. This is an abstract concept, which individual referees may make as detailed as desired. I intend to keep it fairly abstract, as I present it here. It costs 100 gp per level of spell for the ink. Anytime a Scribe is in a town or larger, he may purchase ink simply by player declaration. The player notes how many gold pieces were spent on ink, and that is that. Of course, ink may also be found as treasure, which could be significant at lower levels or further from civilization.

Scrolls Are Fragile


Scrolls may be carried in reasonably durable containers, but they are bulky and make getting the desired scroll in play more difficult. At best, a container could provide a saving throw bonus to any scrolls in it, based on hazard. Unprotected scrolls would be subject to destruction from the most basic of hazards, especially water. Rain, creek/river crossings, or even water based attacks targetting the Scribe (they're not hard to spot) can ruin exposed scrolls. Of course, fire spells disaster for scrolls, as does acid, or anything with that form of attack, such as green slime.

Oops, I Meant to Grab the Other One


Finally, a large number of scrolls will make it increasingly difficult to grab just the right one. Of course, this being old-school play, clever players will describe in detail how the scrolls are tabbed and organized. Yet, in the heat of the moment there should always be some chance of grabbing the wrong scroll. I think that's how it should be handled, too. Not with some sort of fixed amount of time to fish it out, but with a chance to grab the desired scroll. That can then be modified by how they're carried and organized.

Limit the Number of Spells per Scroll


This would be based on level. Say, something like the maximum number of levels spells they can put on one scroll is equal to their level? That keeps the other limits above in play, but isn't too restrictive. Besides, with the fragility of the medium, would a Scribe put too many spells on one scroll anyway? All your eggs in one basket and all that.

These are just some ideas to offset players taking a week or so of game time to craft a library of spells. I'd like to hear others.

And Another Thing


In a similar vein, I think beginning Scribe characters should be allowed to start with one scroll of each spell they know.

A new Spin on Magic Pt 2

Encoding Scrolls


Scribes may only encode a limited number of scrolls per day. Use the Number of Spells by Level, from Table 9: Magic-User Advancement (pg 13). It requires 30 minutes per spell level to encode the spells.

At lower levels the maximum number of spells per day obviously doesn't jive with how long it actually takes to encode the scroll. I apologize if this seems jarring. The plain truth is that if it is represented as taking the entire day to encode the spell slots available, then the class is screwed. It would take an entire day for a 1st level Scribe to encode a Sleep scroll, one turn to use it, then another day to encode another one. Yuck. The other side of it was to just make it a flat number of minutes per spell level and leave it at that. Scribes would be overpowered like that. The same 1st level Scribe could spend the same day encoding Sleep, except he would have a brace of Sleep scrolls at the end of the day. This is my compromise, which I narrate by saying that as the Scribe advances, his mental discipline and ability to concentrate and encode for longer periods of time.

By the way, the player can pretty much call the spells in his spellbook whatever he wants. As long as it is known that Silver Tongued Devil is actually Charm Person everybody will be happy.

Pronouncing Scrolls
This is pretty much the easy part.  Unless it is an invented spell, the spells are the same as in S&W Core. Some may not be particularly suited to scroll work, that is left to individual referees to determine. In any event, spells that are pronounced from scrolls have the same range, duration, etc. They are cast at the level of the Scribe who encoded them.

Other Considerations

• Scribes may not cast spells directly from their spellbooks. The information in the book describes how to encapsulate magical power in a scroll. It is not actually a spell. Likewise, spells encoded to scrolls may not be transcribed into the Scribe's spellbook.
• Scribes begin with 3 or 4 spells in their spellbooks. Any other spells must be acquired through play. They do not automatically add spells as they gain levels.
• All other class information, such as HD, XP, and so forth, is identical to the Magic-User.

That's it for now. I'm sure you noticed that I didn't address clerical magic. I'm not sure how it fits into this paradigm. I'm thinking on it, though. I'm also thinking of something similar, except with potions. I've run into some potential issues with that one already, and it's still in the conceptual stages. I think it could be neat if I can work it out, though.

A New Spin on Magic Pt 1

First things first. This is not a "new" magic system. Been there, done that. It's a fun exercise, but this is different. I'm trying to describe a new way of looking at the mechanics. It's still the same system under the hood. I'm still using Spells Usable per Day, for example, just putting a different spin on it.

One more thing: this is written with Swords & Wizardry Core, 4th Printing in mind, although it is usable with any similar rules set.

Anyway, here goes . . .

Magic-users are called Scribes. Scribes know the ancient languages of magic, called the Eldritch Tongues, and use them to encode magical power and intent into scrolls.  This is the only way magic is practiced. Technically speaking, anyone who knows at least one of the Eldritch Tongues can write spells to scrolls (known as encoding), and cast spells written to scrolls (known as pronouncing). The reality of such an endeavor is an entirely different matter.

The Eldritch Tongues

The Eldritch Tongues are all dead languages. They are very difficult to learn due to their intricate nature. Many subtle nuances of inflection and tone are required to control magical energies. The written language required to communicate such intricacies demands the utmost dedication from one who would master it. Scribes sacrifice the youth of their lives to just such an undertaking. Mastery of the lost languages of magic is not for the dabbler or casual student.

Scribes may use their "Max. Number of Languages" (pg7) to select Eldritch Tongues. Their are eight Eldritch Tongues, so no Scribe will know them all without some form of magical aid. However, knowing only one is enough to encode scrolls, and pronounce any scroll encoded in the selected tongue. Knowing a variety of tongues is useful for pronouncing scrolls discovered in musty libraries and lost temples. Such broad knowledge gives the scribe versatility.

Other classes may select one Eldritch Tongue at character creation. It requires four of their available language slots to do so. Such a character may pronounce any scroll encoded in the tongue they know. They may also encode scrolls in their chosen tongue, however time and material costs are both doubled. It is worth noting that locating spells to encode could be problematic (see Spellbooks below).

Table: The Eldritch Tongues (use d8 to randomize scrolls found in treasure)
(1) Ohlish
(2) Turlian
(3) Vesh
(4) K'Kiri
(5) Molesti
(6) Gazeeri
(7) Banarrian
(8) Hullish

It is possible that certain tongues are better suited to some spells than others. This is left for individual referees to determine.

Spellbooks


Scribes maintain books of spells, from which to encode their scrolls. They are very protective and secretive about their spellbooks. They never allow other scribes to "thumb through" their spellbooks. They do not share spells. Rarely, and for great cost, will they sell one of their spells. Those strictures apply to other scribes. Scribes will never, under any circumstances, allow spells or spellbooks be in the possession of non-scribes. They will not sell, trade, or otherwise sanction such. If they come to know of a non-scribe in possession of spells or a spellbook they will pursue any avenue necessary to recover it.

The scribe must have the spellbook at hand in order to encode a scroll. The spell formula are far too complicated to memorize fully. A scribe without a spellbook is completely unable to encode scrolls. Spellbooks are also written in the Eldritch Tongues, so any spellbook found as treasure must be written a tongue known to the scribe to be of use.

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?

More S&W Complete Fighters

On first blush I was pretty happy with the changes made to the Fighter class in Complete. Then I really gave it a good look.

This iteration of the Fighting Man has two new class features that are supposed to set him apart from the other classes. They are his ability to Parry and exclusive use of Strength bonuses on to-hit and damage rolls. He also has the ability to make one attack per level vs opponents of one HD or less.

One thing I find myself guilty of when designing something is considering the best-case as the baseline. I don't mean to, but it happens. Then, I start thinking some idea I've had is unbalancing or too powerful. That seems to be the case to me with this Fighter. A lot is made of being the only class able to take advantage of Strength bonuses, and those bonuses apply to missile fire, as well, making the Fighter a formidable and deadly archer. Such a Fighter can enjoy a bonus of +3 to-hit and damage with a missile weapon, if his stats are high enough.

That's a tall order, though, and for Fighters without such stats, there are essentially no class abilities. In order to enjoy the benefits of the Strength modifiers on to-hit and damage rolls, the character must have a Strength of at least 13. This would allow a +1 to-hit, no modifier to damage. When rolling straight 3d6 for stats there is a 26% chance the roll will be 13 or more. The damage bonus doesn't come in until the Strength score is at least 16, where the damage bonus is +1. A roll of 16 or better occurs only 5% of the time. The maximum benefit, +2 to-hit/+3 damage, comes with an 18 Strength, which happens less than .5% of the time. Those probabilities don't account for rolling in order. I'm no statistician, and I don't know if I have ever had to roll in order, so it isn't worth considering, really. Then, of course for the deadly archer mentioned, the Dexterity roll has to be 13+, as well. The Parry ability is dependent on a Dexterity of 14+, 16% of the time. I have no idea what the percentage is of getting a 13+ on Strength and 14+ on Dexterity with the same character, but I'm sure it's brutal.

Part of the attraction of the OSR, for me, is that I don't need to feel like characters with a highest stat of 13 and the rest between 9 and 11 are unplayable. Remember the quote from the AD&D? The one about characters needing at least 15s in at least 2 stats to be considered playable.

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

PHB, pg 9

I don't want that. Exceptional should, by definition, be the exception. If the entire party is sporting at least two stats of 15+, where's the "exceptional"? Oh, sure, compared to everyone else in the world, maybe. But only if they are NPCs, and NPCs that aren't retired adventurers, because they would have to possess such scores as well.

So, while those bonuses looked good on paper, they are too problematic for me. I believe that a Fighter's class abilities should be just that, class abilities, not stat abilities. They should scale with his level, just like all the other classes. Lastly, they should be exclusive to the class, not allowed to so-called "subclasses" like paladins and rangers. I think I'll be incorporating my personal Fighter class for my megadungeon. If I ever get a group to play it.

A Question of Experience

I forget what I was doing, but the other day I directly compared the Fighter and Magic-User advancement schemes. We old schoolers were raised on the concept that magic-users start out weak and end up as the most powerful characters in the game. A quick glance at the table I've compiled reveals why this is. In almost every version of D&D, and the clones based on those versions, it requires fewer experience points to reach 9th level for a magic-user. In some cases, substantially less. In the LBBs, AD&D, and S&W Core a magic-user is well on his way to 11th level when the fighter crosses the threshold into 9th.

	9th Level
Source	Fighter	Magic-User
LBB	240,000	100,000
B/X	240,000	300,000
RC	240,000	450,000
AD&D	250,000	135,000
S&W WhiteBox	256,000	320,000
S&W Core	256,000	135,000
S&W Complete	256,000	100,000
BFRP	240,000	300,000
Labyrinth Lord	240,001	310,001
Advanced Edition Companion	240,001	310,001
Castles & Crusades	272,001	340,001
OSRIC	250,000	140,000

I'm unclear on the reasoning for this. The best answer I can come up with is that different designers/writers have different ideas on how magic-users should progress. They were all apparently pretty happy with the fighter's requirements from the beginning.

I simply can not fathom why the requirements for the magic-user were so lax in the LBB. Something to do with hit dice and a lack of armor, maybe? The only direct-damage spells they have in those books are Fireball and Lightning Bolt. Other than those, magic-user spells are utility, buffs, or just "magicky". So, maybe that's it. An OD&D magic-user winning the footrace to 9th level doesn't have nearly the impact it does when spells like Cloukill and Ice Storm are up for grabs. Not to mention that magic-users from those editions are well on their way to 11th level by the time the Fighter drags his sorry ass to 9th. That opens the door to Death Spell and Disintegrate (neither of which are available in the LBBs).

I guess that explains why it was that way in the LBBs, and by extension AD&D and clones based on those. It seems that other editions/clones woke up to the fact that with access to spell levels 7-9, not to mention many additional spells in levels 1-6, and that there are many more direct-damage spells. Magic-Users under those rules are much more potent and their progression to the strata that grants access to the newer spells should be slowed, otherwise they will definitely come to dominate the campaign, as well as the campaign world.

Armor and Spellcasters

I want to pose an open question to my readership. How do you handle spellcasters, particularly those casting magic-user spells, wearing armor? This problem can rear its ugly head in a couple of situations.

Classes gaining the ability to cast magic-user spells, such as the ranger;
Elves, multi-classed, and dual classed characters.

Personally, I don't care for the hand-wave of "enchanted armor is ok". I believe, and referee this way, that it is the encumbrance of the armor that is the culprit. There are movements required in spell casting that can be rather nuanced.

Fighters are practically born in armor. It isn't simply a matter of becoming accustomed to the weight. It is also a matter of learning to move, to perform mundane tasks, such as feeding oneself. Armor is surprising articulated, but it is still a heap of metal obstructing and interfering with joint function and range of movement. Fighters devote a lifetime to learning the subtleties of operating in armor.

Anyone not committing that level of dedication can't hope to do more than walk across a room. The intricacies of spell casting are far beyond their capacity while armored. Furthermore, even if eschewing spell casting, and attempting to don the armor to survive a pending attack, they will be woefully unable to take any advantage of the armor. Absorbing, deflecting, and blunting blows have not been their priorities, and simply encasing oneself in steel isn't enough to call oneself "armored".

So, for my money, no one can cast magic spells while armored. Even if their class allows "Any Armor and Shield". My only possible exception to this would be to allow Rangers to cast while wearing Leather armor. Maybe. If I was feeling really generous.

So, how about it? How do you guys deal with this?

The Hazards of House Rules

Preamble
In this post I am talking about my feelings on house rules. I am in a bit of a purist mood right now. What follows isn't a judgement or indictment of anyone else's style of playing or refereeing. I'm just examining my own feelings about this topic. It is not meant to be taken personally.

On with the show . . .

As you probably know, I was busily working on my house rules not long ago. Mr. Finch was kind enough to provide us with document files of S&W WhiteBox and Core, to allow us to seamlessly insert our idiosyncrasies into his most excellent games. So, I decided to take that route.

Then, I had the idea for Kalagris. I decided that I may as well rewrite class descriptions, racial descriptions, and so on, to directly reflect that setting. Somewhere during that process it occurred to me that I would enjoy finding and inserting art that I wanted to see, so I did that. At that point, I figured I may as well give it a name of my choosing. I fired up the GIMP and whipped up a cover. Then, reality hit me like an icy fish-slap:

This wasn't D&D anymore. Not in any form or fashion. I had changed too much. Of course, that isn't a deadly sin. It isn't even particularly a sin. Unless, that is, you truly want to be playing D&D. By the way, for my purposes here, S&W and D&D are pretty much interchangeable. Refer to this for insight into how that works.

I was changing things that ultimately made D&D into another game, one that addressed my unique desires. There's nothing wrong with that, it is done all the time and always has been. The word of the rules not only encourages it, the sparsity of the rules demands it. Back in my day, any referee that didn't house rule must have an underdeveloped imagination.

Then, of course, there's the argument that anyone playing Original D&D isn't really playing D&D at all. It demands so many house rules that it becomes specific to the table it's played on almost immediately, and thus, ceases being D&D. This was one of the reasons for AD&D in the first place; to get people all playing from the same book.

Whatever. I'm not against house rules, but I think there are only a few reasons to do them:

1) When there is something missing from the rules. If there is a situation that arises consistently, like exactly how much control a magic-user has over the subject of a Charm Person, it needs a house rule to keep it consistent.
2) To create a mechanical tie to the campaign world. Things like changing how magic works, or adding backgrounds that grant certain skills/abilities/bonuses fit into this category.
3) To clearly state any variants or alternative rules that may, or may not, be permissible.
4) Ignoring certain aspects, such as demi-human level limits.

Of those, #2 is the trickiest and has the most potential to turn a game into some bastard hybrid. There are certain things that are the very essence and charm of D&D. Love these or hate them, they are D&D. Things like Vancian magic, hit points, armor making you harder to hit, these are D&D and without them, you are playing something else. Which isn't really a problem . . .

Unless you want to be playing D&D. D&D is an experience, a shared experience. The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts. It is full of clunky systems, numerous subsystems, and arbitrary balancers. Yet, at the end of a session, it is also fun, sometimes moving, and most often memorable. It is D&D and it is what I want to be playing.

An Embarrassment of Riches

I'm like a kid in a candy store (a really old kid). I am just all tore up over which system to devote my attention to. They are all awesome in their own right, and for their own reasons.

First up is D&D. Most especially Greyhawk. Like I've said, RPGs for me started with my best friend John's hand-copies of the LBBs. But, we very quickly acquired an actual xerox (it's what we called copies back then) of Greyhawk. In those days it was probably more expensive to copy those 70 pages than it would have been to order it, but we could copy it a few pages at a time. So, Greyhawk was the first D&D book that I "owned", and I spent hours studying every single page (when it wasn't with John). I love the original AD&D PHB cover, but nothing says D&D to me like the Greyhawk cover, and contents. The image of each page, taken as a whole, is burned into my brain, indelible and iconic. When I see those pages, my heart yearns for the old adventures like a hound straining at the leash.

When I found Swords & Wizardry, it was like finding D&D all over again. I really should qualify that just a bit. WhiteBox specifically gave me that feeling. It still does. When I look at the cover (the Pete Mullen piece with the giants raining pain down on a colorful little party), I get that Christmas morning thrill I got when D&D was new and each thought of it was pinch-me-I-must-be-dreaming. Even though they are very nearly identical, I never get that rush from Core, for some reason.

Then there's S&W Complete. This one ties me up in knots. I want to play D&D from the D&D books, the LBBs plus Greyhawk and a smattering of Eldritch Wizardry (best Supplement name ever, bar none). I wouldn't have noticed if Blackmoor had never been published. Sorry, no disrespect intended. Just not a fan of Assassins, Monks, aquatic adventuring, or toady temples. Complete has everything I want in my D&D (plus a dash of what I don't) all between two covers.

Lastly, there is my Crucible house rules document. I'll get back to it one day. Maybe. I was going too far with it, and when I finished it wouldn't really be D&D anymore. I'm going to do a post on just what went astray with that project later this week.

Now that we understand the riches, here's the embarrassment. With the exception of Crucible, I can't focus on one of these for any meaningful amount of time because one leads me into another. I'll be studying the LBBs and find something confusing, so look in WhiteBox to see if it offers more clarity. As soon as I see that cover . . . BAM! . . . Then I start thinking about adding a class or two, so I think I'll just lift them from Complete . . . BOOM! . . . So, I'm flipping through Complete when I want to see how Greyhawk handled the Thief's progression . . . and the cycle is back at start. What a fantastic fix to find oneself in.

S&W Complete Fighters

I've been trolling some S&W Complete forums, and a common thread (pardon the pun) has concerned Fighters. There are a lot of questions concerning the ability of Fighters to fight defensively:

Parry: Fighters with a Dexterity score of 14 or better can fight on thedefensive, parrying enemy blows and dodging attacks, as shown on thetable below.

I bring this up here because the threads I'm seeing are several months old and I don't want to necro. I do want to address this, though, since I have some thoughts on it.

The concern has been whether this ability continuously functions or if it is some sort of tactical option. The main crux of it is that Fighters are the only class to enjoy bonuses "to-hit" and damage, so should they be able to take advantage of a high DEX ability in addition to high STR bonuses in a given round.

There have been several ways of handling this question put forward. The most harsh, for the Fighter, is an either/or situation. Parry was defined in many games as a full-round defense which improved AC by -4. The other end of the scale was that the ability is always "on" and is fully functional with the STR bonuses. The most common middle ground answer was to render it as a tactical decision, that is the player would choose which bonus to take advantage of round-per-round.

Personally, being the Fighter-phile that I am, I say both bonuses are always in effect. The either/or option completely invalidates this as a class ability. Any class can Parry, at the expense of their attack, so that negates this as a "class ability". Sure, the Fighter does it better than anyone else, most likely, but so what. I also don't really like the tactical option approach. It weakens the ability. Does any other class have to choose which action to apply a bonus to? If a bow wielding character is attacked hand-to-hand in the same round he fires his bow, is the player forced to choose to apply his DEX bonus to either the missile attack -or- AC? No.

I think the problem is that people are looking in the wrong place for the answer. They are fixating on the word "can" in the above quote:

"can fight on the defensive,"

Which to them, can equals optionally. If looked at in that way, sure, I can see it. Can would imply "if they so choose".

However, I think the operative word is fight. Fight, meaning attack. They can (as in "have the ability to") fight (attack), while maintaining a sound defensive aspect to their tactics.

Besides which, it is obvious that an effort has been made to give the Fighter unique class abilities to make them desirable, mechanically. And that's a Good Thing.

Swords & Wizardry Complete

As you know, my love for D&D has been rekindled of late. Also obvious to readers is the fact that I am enamored of S&W. I got the pdf a few weeks ago, but was only recently able to get it printed. I'm one of those that doesn't enjoy full-scale reading on a computer monitor. So, I've only just starting perusing this little gem.

I should make it clear right now: this is not a review. I'm not shooting for a degree of objectivity with the goal of helping you make your purchasing decisions. These are just my thoughts. Carry on . . .

So far I've read the character classes and races. Remember all the stuff I said about three classes in a previous post? It's still partially true, but not as much as it was. There is something about the flavor text with each class that softened my perspective somewhat. The paladin's restrictions on companions' alignment still makes it more of an NPC class to me, I still think the monk is out of place, and druids and rangers aren't dungeoneering classes, in my opinion. Otherwise, I liked what I read.

Oh, and did I mention that Fighters rock? Of course I didn't. Well, they certainly do. Fighters are my favorite class (and I've played them all in 35 years of D&D), even though it is very disheartening to be the biggest badass fighter on the continent, decked out in the finest armor in generations, swinging a truly brutal weapon, and smacking the big bad monster for a max damage hit of 24 points, only to have a thief backstab it for 60 points. Or the magic-user hit it with a lucky 10d Fireball for 50 points.

Not so in Complete. For one thing, Fighters, and only Fighters, get combat bonuses for Strength. Fighters means only Fighters. Paladins and Rangers need not apply, not for this or any other Fighter-specific class feature. Features like multiple attacks (wherein the Fighter can make one attack per level if all foes are 1 HD or less), and Parry (where the Fighter gets a bonus to AC based on DEX, with a separate scheme from the normal stat bonus). There is also the aforementioned Fighter-centric bonuses to the "to-hit" and damage rolls, which apply (and stack with the DEX bonus) to missile weapon use. Ahhhh, Fighters with a bow can be played as formidable archers. At last.

I may port over my cleric rework from my Crucible house rules. I'm not a huge fan of the class, never have been, so I don't have much "respectful" nostalgia for the cleric of the LBBs (or their clones).

The races are pretty much what you would expect from the S&W take on the LBB races. Perfectly serviceable for a more-or-less vanilla sandbox (such as the original Judge's Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy, which I am salivating to use).

That's it for now. I'll post more perspectives as I continue reading. Any of my fellow gamers that have S&W Complete should feel free to comment with their perceptions on this edition of the S&W ruleset.

A Form of Hero Questing

I am very enamored of the down-and-dirty, low fantasy feel evoked by the LBBs and S&W WhiteBox. At the same time, I freely admit that I love Supplement I: Greyhawk, and S&W Complete (which incorporates much of that tome in addition to various bits of Supplements II & III).

One of the things I love most about the LBB's and WB are the bare-bones spell list. To me, nothing screams "High Fantasy" quite as loudly as high-level wizards tossing around reality-warping spells like Reverse Gravity, Summon Demon, Mass Charm, Meteor Swarm, and, of course, Wish. One of the things I love most about Greyhawk, and S&W Complete, is that it includes those spells. Dichotomy, thy name is mine. Welcome to my world.

Anyway, I want a way to include such high fantasy tropes without turning my game into high fantasy. So, I had this idea. All the spells, as well as magic items, in the LBBs/WB are more normally available. The magic items are still uncommon, some even rare. The spells and items from the supplements are the subjects of specific quests to find them. If your magic-user wants a spell to stop time, he will have to do research, not on the spell itself, but on the finished spell as written by some ancient, powerful magic-user. If your paladin wants a holy sword, it will come at the end of some epic quest.

I can hear you now, "So what? This kind of stuff is common business with any good referee", and you're right. I'm proposing something slightly different than the norm, though.

Since spells above 6th level for magic-users (5th for clerics) and certain magic items have the capacity to alter reality and change the world, those seeking them should be subject to change, too. It is a common theme that those seeking power are not only changed by the power, they are even more changed by the quest for power. Literature if replete with stories of heroes sacrificing their humanity, health, sanity, and their very souls in their quest for power. That power can take many forms and need not be inherently selfish in nature. But the desire, need, and effort for it require a heroic effort to attain.

There should not be Vorpal Blades in a simple treasure hoard, even if it is an ancient red dragon. A wizard shouldn't find a scroll with Delayed Blast Fireball among the other scraps of parchment in a lost library. These things should be the object of epic quests. The kind of quest that regularly causes the character to make tough decisions and sacrifices. The kind of quest that routinely begs the question "Is it worth (this sacrifice)?", until the character has come too far and given up too much to turn back. It is at that most beautiful moment, when the character becomes resigned to the Fate his choices have laid for him, at that perfect moment of clarity, that epic heroes are born.

My House Rules

My house rules are on hiatus. This is indefinite, I may get back to them (gamer ADD is still ADD, after all), or I may not. I have the LBBs, so I have decided to simply use them. I'll expound on this further in my next post. I'm splitting the two posts for clarity.

Updated House Rules

I have uploaded an updated version of my house ruled Swords & Wizardry. I changed the name to Crucible Fantasy Roleplay. This update includes a full-color cover, changes to the art, additions to art, initiative section, basic "To-Hit" tables, weapon damage tables, and damage and healing. As always, comments are encouraged and welcome.

Alternate 1976

I read a blog post somewhere (sorry, I forget where) about a guy who was planning a campaign with a product cut-off of mid-'76. Nothing published after that was to be allowed. Anything prior was fair game, which included all of the Strategic Reviews and some other things I didn't recognize.

I love that idea. I've spent the better part of my 35 years gaming trying to recapture the first 3 years. I've tried it with different versions of D&D, different games altogether, and other methods too numerous to mention. There was a pure joy in the game then, and that is the kind of lightning that is hard to get in a bottle. I've tried to go back to the Little Brown Books, but with the stream-of-conscious writing compounded by being spread across six books, it is frustrating.

Enter Swords & Wizardry. As I have said before, I love S&W. So, I started thinking about simply turning back my gaming clock to 1976, like the other guy did. That started me to thinking. I could just get the Gray Book, which is a usable compilation and organizing of the six books, and really get back to my roots. Then, I realized, I would have to do a lot of house ruling to get the game to where I wanted it (see my personal S&W on my googledocs for some of my house rules). I was torn. You see, my house rules are extensive and when I'm done, they will almost amount to a new game. Definitely not the game I was playing in '76.

So, what to do? The purist route with Gray Book and minimal house rules? Or, my personal S&W, with extensive house rules based on 35 years in the hobby?

My decision is to use my rules (which I'm calling Crucible, btw, changed from The Book of Orange), with any supplements, such as magazines or non-TSR stuff, cut off at October 1976.

As you can see, I house ruled my options. . .

S&W Character Sheet

I have uploaded a Swords & Wizardry character sheet to my Google Docs (link at bottom of blog). It is in PocketMod format. It is based on one I found for Labyrinth Lord, and modified slightly. So, there it is, then . . .

The Book of Orange

I have uploaded the first installment of my personal Swords & Wizardry, which I am calling The Book of Orange, in honor of a friend. It is on my GoogleDocs page, link at the bottom of this blog. It is not intended for sale or distribution. It is made available for evaluation and comment only. The first installment consists of my take on classes, with pretty radical changes to the Cleric and Magic-User, plus other not so radical changes. My take on the dwarf and elf is there, along with alignment. Finally, there is a Magic chapter. It is an extensively re-imagined magic system, but still compatible with existing spell lists. I invite anyone interested to read over it and offer any constructive comments.

Alignment and the Cosmology of Kalagris

     There are three alignments in the Kalagris campaign: Law, Chaos, and Unaligned. The great ideological conflict of the world isn't concerned with Good and Evil. Chaos is literally destroying the world piece by piece. While good vs evil is important at a personal level, at the cosmic level, it comes in second. Far more pressing is where your character stands in the Law vs Chaos struggle.

     No one in the world, not ancient elven scribes or the most erudit human philosophers, understands the true nature of what is happening to the world. As horrific as it may be, it is a natural part of the process of birth-death-rebirth. Ultimately, it is natural. To the people living through it, it is something else entirely.

     It is the ultimate confrontation between Law and Chaos. That is where the line is drawn: are you aligned with the powers of Law, and thus the continued, ordered existence of Kalagris, or are you aligned with Chaos, bent on the unravelling of the world and all within it? This polarity means that people may find themselves allied with strange bedfellows. There are plenty of people and organizations that resist Chaos. Some do so to protect their own evil existence, some do so out of a sense of duty. Yet, when it comes time to take arms, they stand shoulder to shoulder. They can sort out their “personal” problems another time.

The Alignments

Law

     Essentially, those aligned with Law stand against the forces of Chaos. It is important to understand that they stand against Chaos. It is not merely a philosophical choice, it is a plan of action. In principle virtually everyone on Kalagris is Lawful in word, but the Law-aligned are Lawful in deed, taking the fight to the enemy, actively resisting the Chaos Gods and their agents.

Neutrality

     Like Law, this isn't a simple withdrawal from the struggle, it is a sincere belief that one has no place in that struggle. Merely declining to become involved isn't enough. Truly neutral characters are extremely rare.

     Druids

     Druids are among the only true neutral people on Kalagris. They have a sense that the Chaos Encroachment (as they call it) is a part of some cosmic cycle. They believe (mistakenly) that the Maelstrom is a machination of the Chaos Gods. According to their conclusions, it is simply time for the Chaos Gods to be ascendant. Being a part of the natural cosmic cycle, it is beyond the reach of anyone on Kalagris to interfere. This includes agents of Chaos seeking to call down the Maelstrom (it should advance at its own pace), or seeking some personal gain in the name of the Encroachment.

Chaos

     Those aligned with Chaos are believed to be mad by virtually everyone else on Kalagris. Some welcome and embrace the Maelstrom to varying degrees, believing in the powers of Chaos in a very literally sense. There are some that believe in it in a more philosophical sense, viewing the tenets of Chaos figuratively, believing it represents their freedom. Finally, there are those who follow the Chaos Gods, slaves to their whims. In spite of the varied nature of those aligned with Chaos, they are universally met with distrust, at best. In some provinces a known Chaotic alignment is grounds for a summary execution.