Category Archives: Rules

Thief Roll

11 Replies

Jack from TOTGAD has an attractive house rule whereby he uses the “hear noise” d6 chance as the system for resolving all thief skills. This seems pretty reasonable to me, especially assuming that the alternative is the fixed percentile progression given in OD&D or B/X. All of the percentile skills start off rather low and slowly increase as levels are gained, with arbitrary differences between the various skills and no option to specialize in one skill over another (unlike the point buy systems of, for example, LotFP or Second Edition AD&D).

Looking at the OD&D thief (in Supplement I: Greyhawk), why does open locks start at 15% and move silently start at 20%? Do we really care about this distinction, given that all the skills start out at roughly the same level and increase at approximately the same rate? The one exception is climb walls, which starts out at 87%. But “always use hear noise” with perhaps one special case for climb walls is still far simpler than the official multiple stat percentile system, with functionally similar outcomes.

The schedule of thief hear noise improvement (from Greyhawk, page 11) is as follows. (Thanks to ODD74 for discussion about interpreting hear noise in the OD&D context.)

OD&D Thief Hear Noise
Level 1–2 3–6 7–10 11–12 13–14
Hear Noise 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6
Effective d6 bonus +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

However, just when I was about to throw in my lot with this method, I realized that it does not allow for the variable degrees of success that I use with the old percentile system. That is, using d6, and without another roll, how do I distinguish between “no progress” and catastrophe? 16% (1 in 6) is too high of a chance for critical failure. In my current approach to thief skills, this is pretty important. Basically, if you fail your thief skill roll, but don’t roll 96 or higher, you don’t obtain your objective, but you can try again. The top 5% is the equivalent of rolling a natural 1 on an attack roll.

According to Greyhawk (page 11), pickpocket or move silently is the most favorable thief skill column, so one could just use that as a general thievery skill similarly to how Jack uses hear noise and preserve the 5% fumble chance.

Reactions

7 Replies

Recently, I wrote about an interception system which allows characters to defend allies by blocking incoming attacks. Interception belongs to a broader category of actions that can be taken out of turn. Each broad class group has it’s own type of reaction. Magic-users may try to disrupt enemy casters with counter-spells and thieves may take opportunistic actions.

Counter-spell. There are many different ways of resolving counter-spells, but the important point here for magic-users is that they don’t need to hold an action to be able to attempt a counter. They get one for free. Whether a counter-spell should require some sort of resource cost (maybe burning a spell?) depends primarily on the magic system. A simple “attack roll” system would work well for trad D&D if you want to decrease the opportunity cost of using a counter-spell (1d20 + half-level + int bonus >= 10 + enemy spell level, for example).

Opportunism. This kind of action may be used for something like an attempt to grab a pouch from the belt of a passing enemy. Perhaps a dexterity check is required for success depending on the action in question. Remember that this is a reaction, not a free action.

Characters may not take more than one reaction per turn, and only primary PCs (not retainers) may use reactions. This rule is to decrease potential complexity and to mitigate any game slow-down caused by extra actions. It is not expected that reactions will be relevant during every combat round.

Clerics, being a species of fighter/mage, could (at character creation time) choose either the intercept or counter-spell reaction type. Intercept would be more appropriate for crusader style clerics, whereas counter-spell might be useful to a witch hunter.

Interception

3 Replies

To throw yourself in the path of an attack directed toward another character, make an attack roll. If this intercept roll hits an armor class as good as the attack roll being intercepted, the interceptor becomes the new target of the attack and moves between the attacker and the original target. The decision to intercept must be made prior to the attack roll.

Fighters may perform one intercept reaction per combat turn. Characters of other classes may only perform an intercept if they hold their action. Retainers directed to intercept attacks may be required to pass a morale check.

I want to add a sentence about how intercepts can only be attempted if they make sense logically, or are supported by the fiction (or whatever), but don’t have quite the proper language down yet.

Hit dice as attack bonus

6 Replies
Costume design for the Opera "Prince Igor" by Alexander Borodin

Ivan Bilibin, costume design (source)

When I recently played in Evan’s Uz campaign, he had hit dice do double duty as attack bonus. Uz is based on Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox, which, like OD&D, only uses the d6 for hit dice (modulating the difference between classes using bonuses as described here). The elegance of this approach impressed me. Only one number is required for both hit points and offensive ability. And it generalizes to monsters, though you might want to cap the bonus depending on the campaign power curve (max +10 seems pretty reasonable to me).

I don’t remember exactly how he did it, but this is how I might do something similar. Fighters find their attack bonus by adding their hit dice expression together. For example, a fighter with HD 5+1 has a +6 attack bonus. All other classes ignore the bonus part of the hit dice expression and just use the base HD. So, a cleric with 4+1 hit dice attacks with +4. Tougher classes always have more hit dice than weaker classes, which is also how attack bonuses should work.

This is what the attack bonuses would look like given the recently posted rationalized hit dice progression (hit dice are in parentheses):

LEVEL HIGH MEDIUM LOW
1 +2 (1d6+1) +1 (1d6) +1 (1d6)
2 +3 (2d6+1) +2 (2d6) +1 (1d6+1)
3 +4 (3d6+1) +2 (2d6+1) +2 (2d6)
4 +5 (4d6+1) +3 (3d6) +2 (2d6+1)
5 +6 (5d6+1) +4 (4d6) +3 (3d6)
6 +7 (6d6+1) +4 (4d6+1) +3 (3d6+1)
7 +8 (7d6+1) +5 (5d6) +4 (4d6)
8 +9 (8d6+1) +6 (6d6) +4 (4d6+1)
9 +10 (9d6+1) +6 (6d6+1) +5 (5d6)
10 +11 (10d6+1) +7 (7d6) +5 (5d6+1)

Another way to look at this rule would be that all classes use base hit dice as attack bonus, but fighters get an additional +1. Or, one could just use the additive hit dice for all classes, which makes things simpler (no special case for the fighter) at the cost of decreasing the relative power of the fighter slightly.

Using this system necessitates running with ascending AC. I have actually been considering switching to ascending AC off and on for a while now anyways. This attack bonus system is probably simpler and easier to understand than my attack ranks system, and it does away with another table (usually a good thing).

2d6 casting again

13 Replies
Nicholas Roerich - Snakes facing

Nicholas Roerich – Snakes facing (source)

On monday, I got to test out the petition system for cleric magic that uses a 2d6 casting roll. Here are my findings. I think they apply to other 2d6 casting systems that I have considered in the past as well.

Overall, I was pleased, but I would like to simplify the presentation somehow (the fourfold categorization did not seem immediately obvious to the players). I think there also needs to be some sort of exhaustion mechanic built in. There were no problems during the session exactly, but magic did feel a bit to accessible, especially compared to the party magic-user. Thus, I think I’m going to modify the 2 and 3-4-5 ranges to apply a cumulative penalty. So:

Spurned (further attempting this petition is at -1)

Becomes something like:

Spurned (failure, cumulative -1)

This is similar to a previous idea I had for accumulating arcane stress. It’s also related to this other recent post about another cleric magic system, which allocated “disfavor” points for successfully casting spells. I think the arcane stress post had the right of it by only causing cumulative penalties on lower rolls, as disfavor arising from success seems slightly strange.

Here is an adjusted cleric magic roll:

Petition Roll
2d6 Result
2 or less Abandoned (specific petition unavailable, any abjuration ends, cumulative -1)
3, 4, 5 Spurned (failure, cumulative -1)
6, 7, 8 Ignored (failure, may try again next turn)
9, 10, 11 Answered (standard success)
12 or more Rewarded (double effect, demons or undead destroyed, etc)

And a magic-user version:

Sorcery Roll
2d6 Result
2 or less Catastrophe (chaos surge/mutation/backfire, spell lost, cumulative -1)
3, 4, 5 Miscast (failure, chaos leak, cumulative -1)
6, 7, 8 Delayed (goes off at the end of all actions, may be interrupted)
9, 10, 11 Success
12 or more Puissant success (extended duration, full damage, or something similar)

Cumulative penalties go away and spells may be re-prepared after characters return to civilization and rest for a night, along with appropriate prayer or study.

The differences between cleric petitions and sorcery are as follows. Cleric magic need not be prepared, but is limited to the powers granted by a particular order or patron. It also is more ritualistic, and with the exception of a few limited combat effects (such as turn undead or hold person) requires at least an exploration turn (and often a full day) to attempt. Sorcery, on the other hand, requires preparation, but the set of effects to choose from is limited only by spells known. Sorcery is also more directly potent and more dangerous (potentially causing chaos leaks, mutations, backfires, and all kinds of nastiness). Both kinds of magic become harder to use as failures accumulate, which is important for the resource management aspect of game play.

Solipsistic hexes

11 Replies
Landscape by Nicholas Roerich

Landscape by Nicholas Roerich (source)

Starting from the idea of distance may not be the most productive way to approach either running or mapping the wilderness. This is counterintuitive, because measurement and mapping are so tightly linked conceptually. However, a graph of locations with adjacency (sometimes called a point-crawl recently) seems like too much abstraction. As an attempt to navigate between these two extremes, consider the following system, which I have been using in my Vaults of Pahvelorn game.

Hexes don’t have any determinate size at all. They are abstractions built around three things: sites, travel time, and landmarks. Sites are the locations (towns, dungeons, towers, ancient battlefields, etc) within a hex that can be visited. Sites are either obvious or hidden. One day of travel allows visiting any obvious site within the current hex or within an adjacent hex (this is “moving through hexes” mode). A day may also be spent to search the current hex (which provides a chance of finding a hidden site). Or, to rephrase it in more game-oriented terms, players get one “move” per wilderness turn, which can either be moving to an obvious location within one step or searching the current hex for hidden locations.

Travel time is probably the most controversial aspect of this scheme. One day per hex, irrespective of anything else. Travelling to an adjacent hex allows characters to interact with any of the obvious features of that hex (such as stopping in a town). Exploring a hex provides a 1 in 6 chance to find one of the hidden sites. Any site found is determined randomly, unless the characters are looking for something specific, in which case chance might be weighted in that direction based on if the characters know something about the location they are looking for (“the tomb is by a stream”). A hidden site is treated as obvious if a knowledgeable guide or accurate map is available. The relative locations of sites within a hex are usually not important, and are determined randomly or arbitrarily as needed.

Landmarks, in addition to large obvious features of the current hex, include large obvious features of adjacent hexes. This provides players with information so that they can make meaningful choices about where to go. Most of the time, characters should be able to tell the basic terrain type of all adjacent hexes, though occasionally local terrain will prevent this (such as wandering at the bottom of canyons, or journeying through a very dense forest). This should be clear by context, and limitations are often easy to overcome (such as by climbing a tree).

Each day spent in the wilderness necessitates a random encounter check, as does each night. This is a 1 in 6 chance, but can be adjusted per-hex (based on terrain type or general danger level). It is perfectly functional to stick with the 1 in 6 chance in general, for simplicity’s sake. If an encounter is indicated, I sometimes roll another d6 to see if more than one encounter might occur (a 6 on the second die) or if the encounter will involve more than one NPC group (a 1 on the second die). In the second case, “more than one NPC group” means that the PCs encounter two other groups that are already engaged in an encounter themselves. The exact probabilities for the rarer occurrences are not important as long as they are impartially determined and remain uncommon.

Exploring off the beaten path carries with it the risk of getting lost. There is no chance of getting lost when following a known route, such as a road, but in other cases the chance is 1 in 6 (or greater, of course, depending on the situation and terrain). In game terms, getting lost means wandering accidentally into a hex adjacent to the one intended (determine which randomly). This can happen either during movement toward a known site (if a path is not followed) or during searching for hidden sites.

By implication, the “real” size (whatever that might mean) of a predominantly mountain hex is smaller that the size of a plains hex (because you can travel much farther on plains than on mountains). What this does is pull the wilderness into a loose mesh similar to a point-crawl, but with more enforced structure (as there will always be six adjacent nodes at any given location).

Just like in the dungeon, the default rate of travel assumes caution, resting occasionally, and so forth. Journeys are purposeful but not forced marches. This mode engages all the standard rules (mounts not dying on you, standard getting lost chances, standard encounter chances, standard surprise chances, standard encounter distances). If a group wants to throw caution to the wind and make like a bat out of hell to their destination, more than one hex may be traversed in a single day of travel, but chances of mishap are be greater. Roll or pick any number of possibilities from the following list:

  1. One encounter check (with increased chance) per hex traversed
  2. Mounts must save or die when destination is reached
  3. Increased chance of getting lost (if appropriate)
  4. Guaranteed attention from bandits (haste implies value)
  5. Guaranteed pursuit from origin location (haste attracts attention)
  6. Force retainer morale check (“I didn’t sign up for this garbage”)
  7. Otherwise obvious landmarks or sites go unnoticed
  8. Increased chance of being surprised during encounters
  9. Decreased encounter distance
  10. Penalty to encounter reaction rolls

Alex S. uses a similar one day per hex method, and his post helped lead me to my current method, though I do not expose hexes directly to players.

Current hexcrawl procedure:

  1. Roll for weather (2d6 reaction roll with cosmos)
  2. Move or search?
  3. Day encounter check
  4. Lost?
  5. Describe travel, note obvious sites and landmarks
  6. Resolve any day encounters
  7. Camp procedures? (establishing “default” procedures is reasonable)
  8. Mark off rations (I always forget to do this — bad referee!)
  9. Night encounter check
  10. Resolve nocturnal encounters

Chases

4 Replies
Perseus fleeing the gorgons

Perseus fleeing the gorgons (source)

How do you handle pursuit? Most of the official answers are either tedious or uninteresting (such as comparing movement rates directly). It seems like situations that are both uncertain and dangerous (like combat, or running away from a giant tentacle horror) deserve to incorporate some randomness. Knowing that your “movement 6” plate armored fighter will never be able to outrun anything is boring, and also causes perverse decision-making (any kind of certainty is rarely good for maintaining tension).

Most proposals I have read on the web to address this are a bit too complicated. I like this one by Roger, and also have thought about converting the movement tiers to d6 rolls (so movement 6 would end up being 2d6, which has an expected value of 7). But then his system gets into obstacle penalties and lines of sight, and I end up feeling lost. Or this one from Talysman, which breaks the chase down into segments, and modifies the standard movement rates by situation rolls in order to introduce some variation. I like both of these systems, actually, but perhaps a compromise between multi-turn chases and just comparing static movement rates would work best at the table.

Some form of direct roll-off would probably work best. Those fleeing roll some dice based on their movement, those pursuing roll some dice based on their movement, and the higher total wins. Easy to remember, obstacles and hindrances can be handled ad-hoc. Okay, so which dice then? The spread between 1d6 for movement 3 and 4d6 for movement 12 is just too much. I like there to be some effect of armor or encumbrance on chases, but those numbers just don’t feel natural, either from the perspective of what will make for interesting tension in the game or from reasoning about how armor “should” affect movement.

Perhaps we can borrow the d6 “dice chain” from OD&D? That is, 1d6, 1d6+1, 2d6, 2d6+1, and so forth. Then reorganize the chain slightly, so that the three different armor types don’t differ by that much, but still do affect the outcome meaningfully.

Encumbrance Traditional Dice Chain
unarmored 12 2d6 +2
leather armored 9 2d6 +1
metal armored 6 2d6
metal armored
and carrying treasure		 3 1d6

Traditional encumbrance and movement numbers are taken from the Moldvay Basic rules, page B20 (though Moldvay includes equivalent coin values as well, for bean counters). When you reorganize the chain though, it starts to feel less intuitive, so while I think this would work, I’m not totally satisfied. Also, I would probably modify Moldvay’s categories so that the progression was unarmored/light, medium, heavy (rather than unarmored, light, medium/heavy).

Here is another proposal. Unencumbered movement is 3d6 (expected value: 10.5). Subtract armor type (for example, heavy armor is -3) and any other encumbrance penalties. This makes the expected values of the movement by different armor types 10.5 (unencumbered), 9.5 (light/leather), 8.5 (medium/chain), 7.5 (heavy/plate). This seems to be a more reasonable spread than 12, 9, 6. Fast monsters would roll 4d6 for pursuit, slow monsters would roll 2d6. Very easy to remember, and supports the goal of adding tension to chases without complexity.

Using an entirely new system for resolving chases does give me pause, but none of the existing systems seems to work well. 3d6 gives a good distribution, and also plugs into numbers from other parts of the game (armor levels as 1 through 3, encumbrance penalties) in a way that makes sense, so I think the new die roll is justified. And since when has D&D ever been afraid of multiple resolution systems, anyways?

This movement scheme could also be applied to dungeon exploration mode. Traditionally, exploration rates are static, and based upon encumbrance. Instead, what if players rolled to move during the exploration context as well? The random encounter check could even be incorporated into this roll. One of the movement dice could be a different color. I don’t think this would work well in a videoconference game, but it might be good for an in-person session.

Postscript: Potential scheme for the 2d6 fantasy game: 2d6 +strength -armor (strength is probably a somewhat reasonable proxy for speed).

Chaos Engines

3 Replies

When using a magic item, roll 2d6, add one half relevant class level (round up) and any item level (use enchantment bonus if it has one, or make a ruling). Then consult the table below.

Enchanted Device (2d6)
2d6 Result
2 or less Destroyed (item ruined, triggers chaos surge)
3, 4, 5 Warped (does not function, chaotic energies twist device)
6, 7, 8 Undermined (functions, but not quite as expected, device left unchanged)
9, 10, 11 Consistent (device functions without surprises)
12 or more Augmented (functions, chaos embues the device with a new permanent ability)

For example, a magic-user deploying a staff would get the class bonus, but a fighter would not. natural 2 and natural 12 should always override any modifiers, just like how nat 1 and nat 20 are often interpreted. If you wanted it to be more swingy, you could only apply item level (and ignore character level). That would also decrease the load on referee creativity (by not requiring the invention of new permanent abilities quite as frequently).

Perhaps especially useful for handling magic items in FLAILSNAILS games.

A great question from Eric B. on Google Plus: Would there be ITEMS OF CHAOS with negative item levels?

To which I responded: yeah, that sounds like a good way to operationalize curses. “Most of the time this wand will just make problems for you, but once in a blue moon it will level the evil overlord’s fortress.”

Monster XP as treasure

2 Replies

Most versions of D&D provide XP values for monsters, usually awarded for defeating the monsters in combat. The Third Edition (and Pathfinder) manuals also give explicit prices in gold pieces for every enchanted item. Here is an idea for modifying how advancement is handled using those numbers. XP value specified per monster is converted into GP. This is the value of the monster’s treasure (and equipment). XP is given for GP spent, as I have been doing in my Vaults of Pahvelorn game. Additionally, magic items can be purchased as is commonly expected (I think) in many Third Edition games.

In a game like this, I still wouldn’t make magic item shops common. Instead, I would put together some sort of system to rate sellers of enchanted items (cunning folk, wizards, specialist merchants, demonic patrons, and so forth). The rating could either be a flat GP threshold (this NPC can sell magic items of up to 1000 GP value) or it could be something like an inventory saving throw (this wizard has a stock number of 11 — roll 1d20 against that target number, modified by desired magic item level). This is somewhat similar to an idea I had for rating sages, which I should probably also write a post about. This creates a motivation to quest for NPCs that are better able to provide powerful items. Particular famous items of power might be the purview of specific individuals.

The entire advancement system could even be replaced by item acquisition, for a slightly lower power game. So, for example, fighters wouldn’t ever get attack bonuses, they would just get more powerful weapons. Wizards wouldn’t prepare spells, they would buy (or create) scrolls and other enchanted devices.

The interesting aspect of this proposal is that it maintains most of the expectations of the 3E/Pathfinder advancement system (assuming that standard class progression is also maintained) while only modifying the specific action incentive. The standard benefits of XP for GP are preserved (rewarding clever planning as opposed to straightforward combat). Obviously, this system would result in a setting with more common magic, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Petitions

4 Replies
James Tissot - Noah's Sacrifice

James Tissot – Noah’s Sacrifice (source)

This is an extension and refinement (I hope) of some recent ideas regarding cleric magic. It has some atmosphere that I like, but I worry that it is A) too complicated and B) overpowered. Opinions on both of those aspects would be appreciated.

There are four categories of cleric magic, called petitions. All require calling upon holy power, and thus are subject to mysterious divine whims. The four categories are commands, prayers, rituals, and abjurations. The first three types of cleric powers map to the three game timescales: combat rounds, dungeon exploration turns, and days (the turn unit for wilderness exploration). A petition requires the given amount of time to attempt, at the end of which a petition check is made (see below). Thus, commands are the only petitions that can be used during combat since they only require a round. No petitions need to be prepared beforehand, with the exception of abjurations.

The petition check uses 2d6 and works much like a reaction roll. Half level (round up) is added as a bonus. An unmodified 2 is always a failure and an unmodified 12 is always a success. An abjuration petition check of 2 ends the abjuration. Thus, if you roll a 2 for turn undead, your deity has deserted you. A vial of holy water may be used for a +1 bonus to the petition check (holy water is encumbering, may be used no more than once per check, and is consumed when used in this way). Petition checks for commands and abjurations are opposed (penalized) by enemy hit dice. Other petition checks have a difficulty numer (equivalent to the old spell level ranking) which is listed in the table of petitions below (in parentheses).

Petition Roll
2d6 Result
2 or less Abandoned (given petition no longer available this session, abjuration ends)
3, 4, 5 Spurned (further attempting this petition is at -1)
6, 7, 8 Ignored (failure, may try again with no penalties)
9, 10, 11 Answered (standard success)
12 or more Rewarded (double effect, demons or undead destroyed, etc)

Abjurations are defensive magics, and only one can be active at any given time. The player must decide which before the session starts. They function like rituals in that they require a day of preparation, but they then remain active during the entire following day. Petition checks are used when the abjuration is challenged rather than when the ritual is performed. So, for example, if a demon attempts to touch a cleric that has protection from evil active, then the player rolls a petition check (penalized by the demon’s HD) to see if the demon is able to overcome the holy protection. Abjurations also have their dangers: in some situations, they may function as beacons.

Cleric Petitions
Level Command Prayer Ritual Abjuration
1 turn undead – – –
2 – cure light wounds (1)
detect evil (1)
detect magic (1)
light (1)		 purify food & water (1) protection from evil
3 – – – –
4 hold person speak with animals (2)
find traps (2)		 – bless
5 – – – –
6 sticks to snakes neutralize poison (4)
cure serious wounds (4)
speak with plants (4)		 remove curse (3)
cure disease (3)
locate object (3)
protection from evil, 10’r (4)
create water (4)		 continual light
7 dispel evil
quest		 – raise dead (5)
commune (5)
insect plague (5)
create food (5)		 –

The metaconcept of spell level has been discarded (though you can still see some of the spell levels show up as difficulty numbers), and the various petitions have been bound to character level directly. The levels that various powers are gained at is the same as in the 3 LBBs. I’m pretty sure this is not the best arrangement; the various powers should probably be more evenly distributed around the levels (that’s probably a task for a future post). It is particularly odd that the level 3 and 4 spells both become available at cleric level 6 in the original rules. It may seem like cleric levels 3 and 5 are “dead,” but this is actually not the case as the “half level” (competency) bonus is incremented at both of those levels.

Some specific spell interpretations using this system. Cure spells may not be used more than once per character per encounter (and may cause aging). Continual light is a ward against shadows, functions as sunlight, penalizes or prevents hide in shadows (depending on situation) and moves with the person of the cleric. Purify food & water is not usable offensively against water weirds unless you can force them to sit still for a long time.

These changes may grant the cleric more power. The petition check system introduces the chance of failure in any given situation and also consumes diegetic time (potentially exposing the PCs to random encounters). Despite those balancing factors, it seems like the cleric should formally become the “medium armor” adventurer (as she probably always should have been) so that heavy armor can become the purview of the fighter.

Some petition check examples:

  1. A level 6 cleric prays for speak with plants. Spend 1 dungeon exploration turn in prayer, then roll 2d6 +3 -4, which simplifies to 2d6 -1, and consult the petition roll table. If the result is a failure (but not a 2 or less), the cleric can try again if another turn is spent.
  2. A 2 HD demon attempts to challenge the protection from evil abjuration of a fifth level cleric. Player rolls 2d6 +3 -2, which simplifies to 2d6 +1, and consults the petition roll table to see if the abjuration holds the demon at bay. Even if the demon overcomes the abjuration, as long as a 2 or less is not rolled, the abjuration endures and the demon will need to overcome it again for further attacks.

The system is designed to almost guarantee success (just like how I handle thief skills) as long as enough time is spent, assuming 2 or less is not rolled.