Category Archives: Rules

Inherent and Learned

5 Replies

I have been dipping into some Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer FRP texts recently, and this has gotten me thinking about skill-based (as opposed to class-based) systems. Back forever ago, I participated in a game called Blackwater Falls that started as D&D but was converted partway through to a fantasy White Wolf hack (which, at the time, seemed like the cutting edge of RPG design).

The basic idea of the old White Wolf system was that the chance of succeeding at a given action was derived from the combination of an inherent quality (an attribute, such as dexterity or appearance) and a learned quality (an ability, such as archery or medicine). Each of those stats were rated from 1 to 5, and contributed to a dice pool. So, shooting an arrow would be a dexterity + archery action. Assume a character had a dexterity of 2 and an archery of 3. In this case, 5d10 would be rolled, and the number of successes (dice results above some value, based on the situation) would determine the outcome. Too many dice and too much counting, but I still think the direct combination of inherent and learned qualities is an interesting and intuitively appealing approach. Some versions of D&D have something similar in the division between ability score modifiers and THAC0 or attack bonus increases, but the system is not generalized or particularly elegant.

The Blackwater Falls system used that basic paradigm, but combined it with the simplicity of roll-under ability checks. Inherent + learned was a number from 1 to 10, and then the roll-under check was done with a single d10. Quick and elegant; I still like it. I don’t remember exactly how we did advancement anymore, but I think it was close to unmodified White Wolf. Each kind of stat had an advancement cost (inherent stats cost more to advance than learned stats) and XP was spent directly on improvement. This is okay, but seems less impressive in retrospect.

To refine this system, consider combining the core of the above paradigm with a roll to advance system (this is inspired by BRP or Call of Cthulhu). Inherent and learned stats would each be rated from 0 to 50, thus resulting in a combined range of 0 to 100. Don’t worry about how starting inherent stats are determined for now; it could be by rolling, arrangement of an array, or something else. Also don’t worry about how skills are selected. Just assume that starting characters have their collection of inherent stats like strength and a small number of skills. The exact list of stats is also not important right now.

Here is how action resolution works. Let’s look at dexterity and archery again. Say our character has a 25 dexterity and a 21 archery. The archery check number is 46. You could use percentile roll under for this, but simplifying by rounding down and using a single d10 decreases the number of required operations during play. So the target number becomes 4. Roll 1d10, 4 or less is a success.

Now for advancement. At the end of any session, each player picks one inherent stat (such as dexterity) and one learned stat (such as archery) that they used during the session, and rolls for advancement. However, the roll in this case is above instead of below (so that it becomes progressively harder to improve stats as expertise is gained). Following the example, the target number is 47 or higher. Percentile dice are rolled twice, once for the inherent stat involved and once for the learned stat. Any success increments the stat by 1. Pre-calculating the threshold number (inherent + learned) for each learned stat would make the action resolution process extra streamlined, and would be low cost since the numbers change infrequently.

Increases to inherent stats are limited by starting point. Not everyone can be Einstein or Arnold just by experience or trying really hard (though everyone can improve and it is the rare person that gets within spitting distance of their true potential). To reflect this, I would say that inherent abilities can be increased up to 10 points beyond the starting score. Thus, a character that begins with 21 strength can increase it to 31 through play. This is also important to prevent acquired blandness, as all PCs converge towards being good at everything (a common downside of overly general systems). Learned stats are also limited by their associated inherent stat. So archery can never be higher than dexterity (or whatever). Since all action checks are a combination of inherent and learned, going from 36 all the way to 46 through advancement is still useful, despite the rounding down for the 1d10 check, because when combined with different learned stats the percentile part might still make a difference.

Since the action check is done with 1d10 and the advancement check is done with percentile dice, not all advances will lead to a direct effect on play. That’s okay; they still bring you closer to a real improvement, and since the advancement checks happen every session, I think that is okay. The percentile number ends up being somewhat like the Hackmaster idea of fractional ability scores, but much more elegant. I’m not sure how long it would take characters to top out using this system. Given a large set of skills (and the increasingly slow chance of advancement), I could see this being functionally unbounded. If not, some more thought would need to be given to other forms of advancement.

I see learned stats for this system being significantly different than most of the skill-based systems I have encountered, which tend to be concerned primarily with modelling all of the things that define a complete individual. 4 points in drive, 3 points in literary analysis, 3 points in dancing, etc. That’s not the model for learned stats here. Instead, they would represent only adventuring skills (as appropriate to the genre in question). So a fighter-type might have pole-arms 20 and crossbows 17. The level of specificity is still somewhat up in the air. A specific stat for derringers is probably overkill, but an all in one melee weapon skill is probably too general. The traditional thief abilities are at about the right level of granularity (pick locks, hide in shadows, etc). For magic-user types, an individual spell or ritual is a separate stat, and could be used at will assuming all the requirements are met (along with some danger of mishap or chance of corruption). Learned stats will require some more explicit guidelines and examples, but I think the basic intent is clear.

Since all actions are based on inherent + learned, there would no suggestion that, for example, only thieves could sneak. Everyone could roll dexterity (or whatever) +0, even if they don’t have any appropriate learned stats, such as hide in shadows or stealth. The same is true for any relatively mundane action, like climbing.

Rather than an make an advancement roll, a player may choose to acquire a new learned stat, assuming that they have performed some action that allows getting a new skill to make sense in the fiction. For example, rescuing a martial arts master might allow a character to learn some kind of combat skill. Finding a tome of forbidden lore might allow the learning of a spell. The way I am thinking about this now, getting a new learned stat should not require a roll; it happens with no chance of failure. A newly acquired learned stat would begin with 1d10 points. Another option would be to require the player to roll under twice the associated inherent stat to start off the learned stat, but I think that might needlessly slow down advancement (the fictional justification, along with giving up an advancement roll, seems like it would be cost enough).

Rationalized hit dice

3 Replies

Hit dice in the original little brown books only used six sided dice. Plusses were applied to modulate the values by class. So (ignoring constitution for simplicity), a fourth level fighter would have 4d6 HP, whereas a fourth level magic-user would have 2d6+1 HP. Coming to OD&D from one of the later editions, the absence of different hit dice is one of the most striking differences (along with flat d6 weapon damage, to which the size of hit dice is related). This approach was dropped almost immediately, in Supplement I: Greyhawk, and forever after different classes have used different sized dice for their hit points.

I have come to appreciate the hit dice being only from six siders. It keeps the totals grounded. It works particularly well with rerolling per session (the scalar bonuses feel less strange, as they just modify the per-session expected value slightly). However, the actual progression seems somewhat arbitrary and unmotivated. For example, the original fighter “dice for accumulative hits” progression was, by level:

Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HD 1+1 2 3 4 5+1 6 7+1 8+2 9+3 10+1

What’s up with that?

It’s relatively easy to fix, though. Here is my proposal, broken down into progressions for high (fighter), medium (cleric), and low (magic-user) hit dice.

Level High Medium Low
1 1d6+1 1d6 1d6
2 2d6+1 2d6 1d6+1
3 3d6+1 2d6+1 2d6
4 4d6+1 3d6 2d6+1
5 5d6+1 4d6 3d6
6 6d6+1 4d6+1 3d6+1
7 7d6+1 5d6 4d6
8 8d6+1 6d6 4d6+1
9 9d6+1 6d6+1 5d6
10 10d6+1 7d6 5d6+1

The patterns should be easily intelligible. The expected values are relatively close to the originals, though in Men & Magic the magic-user gets all the way up to 9+2 (by 16th level). Gary sure did love the wizards.

What about after tenth level? My inclination would be to halt HD growth entirely past tenth level. A sort of soft E10. It would also be reasonable to keep adding some bonus HP though, in the manner of AD&D. I would probably just make it a flat +1 per level for every level above ten, irrespective of class. Going much above +1 would start to overwhelm the d6 values, unlike the larger hit dice sized used by AD&D, so probably best not to adopt the AD&D numbers (given characters of equal level, the relationship of fighter > cleric > magic-user will still obtain, which I think is the most important thing).

Raise dead

12 Replies

In OD&D, clerics gain access to the raise dead spell upon reaching seventh level. One of the cleric characters in my current campaign is at fifth level right now, and has a pile of unspent treasure. The ability to restore life is right around the corner. This spell is potentially game-changing, and thus requires careful consideration. First, let’s look at the text (Men & Magic, page 33):

Raise Dead: The Cleric simply points his finger, utters the incantation, and the dead person is raised. This spell works with men, elves, and dwarves only. For each level the Cleric has progressed beyond the 8th, the time limit for resurrection extends another four days. Thus, an 8th level Cleric can raise a body dead up to four days, a 9th level Cleric can raise a body dead up to eight days, and so on. Naturally, if the character’s Constitution was weak, the spell will not bring him back to life. In any event raised characters must spend two game weeks time recuperating from the ordeal.

This description is characteristically ambiguous and demands interpretation. The way I read the timing rules, a seventh level cleric can only raise those freshly slain (one turn? one day?), since the example given has an 8th level cleric able to raise those that have been dead for four days, and that deadline increases by four days every further level gained.

The most obvious need for a ruling relates to constitution. What defines a “weak” constitution? Does this refer to the “withstand adversity” or survival chances given on page 11 of Men & Magic? (You can see the chances in my OD&D ability scores post.) That seems like a reasonable interpretation. I think a constitution check would be a more elegant resolution system, but I want to stay close to the original rules where possible.

The “two game weeks” recuperation fits nicely into how I have been handing time passage already. I assume that one week passes between sessions, representing downtime and recovery, unless there is some urgent reason compelling continuous adventuring (this happened once that I can remember, when the PCs were in pursuit of a sorcerer). So a raised PC would be unable to participate in the following session (the player could temporarily run a retainer). In game terms, this seems like a small XP progression speed bump (if a PC dies and is raised, they miss out on one session worth of XP).

The spell description says nothing about side effects, and of course there should be some. What marks are left on a character’s body or mind from a layover in the land of the dead? Are there cosmic consequences to calling someone back from eternal rest? Perhaps the land of the dead is forever drawn closer to the land of the living at the site of a raising. Perhaps there is a chance that something else comes back along with the soul of raised character. I have some half-baked thoughts on raise dead consequences here.

Here is a preliminary ruling. A raised character must make a survival check (using the percentage as determined by constitution score). Failure means the character is not raised, and can never be raised. If the check is successful, the character is restored to life but also loses a point of constitution permanently. Further, life and death are not to be trifled with, and there will almost certainly be some other consequence to tampering with the order of things.

Spell competency and other competencies

4 Replies

Spell competency is the highest level of spell that the magic-user can prepare. This is usually equivalent to experience level divided by 2 (round up). For example, a fifth level magic-user has a spell competency of 3. The original magic-user spell progression followed this pattern up until 6th level spells are considered, which are not gained until 12th level (rather than 11th, as the pattern would require).

I find treating this number as a separate stat is useful. For example, in the spell-casting roll. I imagine it could also be rather useful for some sort of magic duel as well. Relatedly, I read something by Jack on Google Plus about how he has spiced up the fighter class and simplified the thief for his Labyrinth Lord game. One of the abilities he added was a bonus to weapon damage every few levels (not exactly level divided by two in his system, but it easily could be with similar effect).

Does this risk the numerical inflation and illusionism of 4E? Regarding combat, as long as it’s not applied to the accuracy part of the equation, I don’t think so. I probably wouldn’t use this in OD&D, which has a very low numerical baseline (especially if you avoid +1 style magic items, like I do). But I could see it working well in a game that used B/X power assumptions perhaps.

As discussed by Talysman, this kind of “level divided by 2” number also fits well into the reaction roll when opposed by a similarly scoped difficulty number. He uses this as the basis for his X without spells class design paradigm:

The “without spells” approach is based on the reaction roll, and the interpretation of Turn Undead as a reaction roll: subtract the HD of the creature being commanded from the level of the character making the command, double the result, and use it to modify a 2d6 roll. On 9+, the command works.

The math is not exactly the same, but the similarity should be clear, I think. What if we generalized this kind of “reaction roll power” to every class? For example:
  • Cleric: turn undead (opposed by undead hit dice)
  • Fighter: intimidate or rally (opposed by enemy hit dice)
  • Magic-user: casting roll (opposed by spell level)
  • Thief: misdirect or dissemble (opposed by interlocutor hit dice)
And, if almost all capabilities are based on level divided by two, why not cut out the middle man and collapse level into that competency number? Attack progression does not happen every level in OD&D or Basic D&D. Saving throws do not increase every level. The only thing that increases every level is hit dice, and I think most of us can agree than D&D characters end up with too many hit dice anyways. An added benefit of this approach would be to do away with some of the ambiguity around the level numbers (as, for example, third level spells would be useable by third level magic-users).

Favorable and unfavorable saves

10 Replies

Swords & Wizardry collapsed all the saving throws into a single number, with some class-based modifiers. For example, clerics get +2 when saving against paralysis or poison, and magic-users get +2 when saving against spells. The traditional saving throw categories do provide atmosphere (death ray, dragon breath), but are somewhat cumbersome and nonintuitive.

One thing I’ve been doing recently is using “most favorable” or “least favorable” save numbers for cases where the choice of what save category to use is not immediately clear. If it seems like something the class in question would have some competence with, the character gets to use the most favorable. Where this has come up most is for the saving throw involved in carousing-like activities.

I have previously discussed simplifying saving throws by deriving them directly from character level. Here is another approach. Rather than have one column of saves per class, as S&W does, or use the more complicated multi-save system as did the original TSR editions, why not have two progressions by level: favorable and unfavorable. All classes would reference the same values, but would differ as to which number was used by situation. This method would require two numbers, but would avoid needing any class-based or situational modifiers.

Putting this idea into Third Edition terms, combat oriented classes would use the favorable numbers for direct physical situations, whereas magic-users would use the favorable numbers for resisting sorcery or mental effects.

Saving Throw Competency by Class
Class Favorable Unfavorable
fighter fortitude reflex, will
magic-user will fortitude, reflex
thief reflex fortitude, will

The cleric does not fit quite so neatly into the 3E classification. A cleric should probably have favorable saves when dealing with demonic or undead threats, for example, but not necessarily for situations that require general toughness. Classes like the cleric would be easily handled by this proposed dual number system, without needing to spell out the types of threats beforehand.

Bifurcated Saving Throws
Level Favorable Unfavorable
1 – 3
12
16
4 – 6
10
14
7 – 9
8
12
10 – 12
6
10
13+
4
8

These numbers are derived from the OD&D fighter best and worst saves. I chose the fighter because A) the fighter is the most fundamental class and B) fighter saves improve every third level rather than the less frequent schedules of the other classes. The resulting pattern is also quite nice and easy to remember, as the two numbers always differ by 4 (20%) and always improve by 2 every tier (once a player has written down 12/16 they never even have to every consult the table again as long as that basic rule is remembered).

All classes would use the favorable number for the 0 HP death save.

I am aware that some people think that saving throws should be collapsed into ability checks, but I do not think that is the best approach for a level-based game, as improving saving throws should be a reward for longterm successful play, not a trick of the dice at first level. See here for more on my philosophy of saving throws.

Counter-spell

14 Replies

Magic-user spell, level 1, range 120′

Counter-spell may be cast in reaction to any spell being cast, even if the caster has already taken an action, as long as the enemy caster is within range. Any save against the targeted spell may be re-rolled once if failed. Counter-spell must be cast, however, before the first save is rolled. Counter-spell has no effect against spells that do not grant a saving throw. Though counter-spell is a first level spell, it may be prepared using any level of spell slot. The level of spell slot used grants a bonus to the saving throw re-roll (thus, the extra save granted by counter-spell prepared using a first level has a +1 bonus and counter-spell prepared using a third level slot has a +3 bonus). Scrying magic (such as that provided by a crystal ball or ESP spell) allows a counter-spell to be cast at greater range.

Variation: counter-spell is not a spell, but rather a reaction that any magic-user can take at the cost of a prepared spell, much like how clerics in 3E can substitute a cure spell for any prepared spell. Rules otherwise as above. I can’t decide which is better. On the one hand, magic-users are the planning class, and should thus maybe need to plan for counter-spells. On the other hand, spell casting enemies are not that common, so there is a risk that the option would never be taken.

See also this earlier approach to counter-spells.

Magic save as magic defense

7 Replies
The Enchantress (source)

The Enchantress (source)

Many spells allow a saving throw to avoid or mitigate spell effects. This saving throw is a property of the spell target that represents how good they are at throwing off the effect of magic. Thus, it is in effect a magic defense stat (much like the “will” defense in 4E).

Now, I already have magic-users roll a saving throw when they cast a spell to see if the spell is retained. Why not roll the retention save and the monster save together? One minor problem is that the player wants to roll high on the retention save, but wants the monster to roll low on the defense save. However, this is easy to address; just subtract the monster save from 20 to get a new target number.

For example, say the target of a spell has a saving throw versus magic of 15. That means they have a 30% defense against magic. Also assume that the caster has a save versus magic of 15 (and thus a 30% chance to retain the spell). The player rolls 1d20. Above 5 and the monster is affected (30% chance preserved). 15 or higher and the spell is also retained. This is a quick and easy single roll spectrum system that uses all the default game numbers.

The one minor hack that I would add is to have the magic-user apply spell competency* as a bonus to the roll and spell level as a penalty to represent spell difficulty (at first and second class level these modifiers balance out, so no math is required until a magic-user reaches third level). This makes the all-in-one saving throw more like a direct “spell roll.”

* Spell competency = the highest level of spell that the magic-user can prepare. This is usually equivalent to experience level divided by 2 (round up). For example, a fifth level magic-user has a spell competency of 3.

Point buy alternative

4 Replies

A method for randomly generating 3-18 stats:

  • 12 + 1d6
  • 10 + 1d6
  • 8 + 1d6
  • 6 + 1d6
  • 4 + 1d6
  • 2 + 1d6
The resulting scores could then be distributed randomly or arranged to taste. This is meant to be more consistent (guaranteed one low and one high score) while still being somewhat unpredictable.
The total expected value of both this method and 3d6 each is the same. Expected value of 3d6 down the line is 10.5 each and thus 63 in total. Expected value of this method is:

(12 +10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2) + (6d6) = 42 + (3.5 * 6) = 42 + 21 = 63

I posted this on G+ already, but I figured it was worth putting up here too.

Combat & movement

3 Replies
Image from Dark Classics

Jack recently wrote about differentiating weapons. I have also in the past sought to make weapon differences meaningful over and above damage dice, with varying levels of success. Jack’s proposal has some Third Edition assumptions (such as critical ranges) that I don’t use, but I find one of the properties he gave daggers particularly interesting. In his system, dagger wielders may use movement actions to attack. Presumably, this is to represent quick close attacks and perhaps grappling.

5E is also experimenting with using movement as a resource that can be “spent” in combat. For example, five feet of movement can be used to stand up from prone, allowing a character to stand up, move (slightly less than normal) and attack all in the same round. Now, this particular rule might be too fiddly (and might be difficult to make work without using a grid). If doing combat only using a shared imaginary space, is there really much difference between 30 feet worth of movement and 25 feet worth of movement? Probably not.

I am, in general, not enamored of the action economy approach to combat. It tends to slow play down and make the decision process more complex without adding corresponding depth. For more on how this worked in 4E, and the proposed simplification for 5E, check out this blog post. Fifth Edition is also experimenting with other ways to spend combat time resources which look intriguing, such as spell concentration being required to maintain continuous effects (which should help control the problem of appropriately enchanted wizards being potentially better at any conceivable task, a problem that I gather can be relatively acute in Third Edition and Pathfinder, though I have never played high level games in either of those systems). For more on concentration in 5E, check out the second half of this Legends & Lore article.

Back to the topic at hand though, I still like the general idea of a tradeoff between mobility and other weapon properties. However, multiple attacks have the potential to be both cumbersome (extra die rolls) and unbalanced (that is, clearly superior to other weapons in damage dealing potential), so this needs to be handled carefully. Further, without a grid, it seems difficult or impossible to keep geometry and tactical placement relevant. Again, this makes me wish for a simplified and non-quantified representation of combat beyond conversational description. Something that would perhaps be gained by using miniatures in a loose, almost informal manner.

What kind of OD&D implementation based on movement might work for the dagger? Before a dagger wielder can get any kind of benefit from close fighting, they must first get inside an enemy’s guard. It seems reasonable to model that as a successful to-hit roll. They must also successfully bypass any kind of “hold at bay” active from pole-arms. Once the dagger has hit, the attacker is considered up in it and future attacks do “two dice, take highest” damage. Note that this also applies post-backstab for thieves. As long as the attacker chooses to maintain this disposition, no significant movement is possible, as they are focusing on carving up the target.

This is similar to a grapple (though there is no grabbing going on). Pole weapons are almost impossible to bring to bear against a dagger wielder up close, and all weapons other than a dagger or short sword attack at -1. The target may disengage by spending an action and making a successful dexterity check. Fighters may attempt a disengage maneuver along with a standard attack, but all other classes must spend all their efforts just to get the sharp thing away from them. Whether or not dagger work can be used effectively against non-humanoid enemies should be determined situationally (bear: sure, purple worm: not so much).

Basic wands

12 Replies
Image from Dark Classics

Image from Dark Classics

There are three main types of elemental wands: flame, cold, and lightning. Magic-users may craft any of these wands beginning at first level. Crafting requires a sympathetic component, which is not necessarily required to be valuable. Some examples: a bonfire, the remains of a monster with an elemental affinity, a hand lost to frostbite, a branch struck by lightning. In addition to the sympathetic component, 100 GP worth of components are required per wand level, along with one week of work. Thus, a third level wand costs 300 GP and takes one week to create.

Along with the sympathetic component and ritual materials, an object for the wand itself must be procured. Simple objects may be used for the wand (such as a yew rod or a bone), though wands made from such mundane materials crumble to dust, shatter, or otherwise fall apart when exhausted. More finely crafted wands will simply cease to function when used up and can be enchanted again in another wand creation ritual. Traditionally, wands are batons, though this is not required. For example, consider the famous jewelled storm gauntlet of Hyssiasto of Urtar.

The use of a wand does not require an attack roll. Instead, enemies must make a saving throw versus wands and then take 1d6 damage upon failure. Damage from wands is considered magical. Range is as thrown weapon. Especially vulnerable targets may take extra damage (for example, a creature of fire might be vulnerable to a cold wand, and soldiers in metal armor are vulnerable to lightning). In general, this is operationalized as penalty of 1 to the wand saving throw and +1 damage per die. A natural saving throw of 1 results in two dice of damage.

The destructive potential of any given wand is not unlimited. At the end of any combat during which a wand is used, 1d6 is rolled for exhaustion. On a roll of 1 or less, the wand has lost its enchantment. If wands are used outside of combat, exhaustion is checked for at the end of an exploration turn.

The three types of wands also have the following additional effects:

  • Flame: ignite oil or flammable materials such as paper
  • Cold: slowing and penalty to actions requiring fine motor control
  • Lightning: also damages those touching target (or in water with, etc)

Wand level has several different effects. A higher level wand in the hands of a more experienced magic-user is more difficult to resist. Enemies take a save penalty equal to the lesser of wand level and wand user spell capability. Spell capability is the highest level of spell that can be prepared (which is pretty much magic-user level / 2). That is, higher level wands must be crafted to take advantage of a higher level magic-user’s power. For example, the targets of a fifth level magic-user’s third level wand make saves at -3 (because the highest level of spell that a fifth level magic-user can cast is 3). The same magic-user would have the same effectiveness with a fifth level wand, because of being unable to fully take advantage of the wand’s power. Additionally, the wand level is used as a bonus to item saving throws that the wand needs to make.

In addition to the standard attack, there are two alternate ways that wands may be used: surge and final strike. Surges do one extra point of damage per wand level (assuming the target fails the save) but require an immediate check for wand exhaustion. Final strikes do one extra full die of damage per wand level (assuming the target fails the save), but also automatically exhaust the wand.

Having two or more wands of different elemental affinities in close proximity can be dangerous. If either of the wands are subject to an event that would require a saving throw (such as being blasted by dragon fire), both must succeed at an item saving throw. If either wand fails the save, the wands rip apart in a vortex of unleashed magic power. The detonation causes 1d6 damage per wand level to any spiritually attuned (that is, spell casting) creature within five feet. Additionally, a wild surge or magical mishap occurs (roll on any such table, maybe this one or this one). Thus, most sane magic-users carry only one type of wand. Note that this risk of meltdown is only present due to miscibility; having a single type of wand does not carry the same risk, even if the wand is destroyed.

There are legends of many other kinds of wands, but the methods needed for their creation are more obscure. Magical research or the discovery of ancient manuals is required.