Category Archives: Uncategorized

Two Thoughts on Thieves

Talysman posted about his most recent version of the thief class and we have been discussing it in the comments on his blog (see here and here). This means I’ve been thinking about thieves (even) more than normal. Here are a couple of ideas that I want to get down in text.

Contra thieves: does the solo nature of many thief skills make them a bad fit for an adventuring party? For example, if you have a diverse mix of classes, the thief is probably going to have to go off alone to make use of stealth. This increases the chance of splitting the party. This is true of virtually all of the thief’s abilities (even “hear noise” requires everyone else to be quiet). The one player mini-games that follow both potentially waste the time of other players and expose the thief to unnecessary danger, since the other party members will often not be around to assist. Now, the last thing that I want is to excise the thief. I like the thief. The archetype is fun to play. In fact, it has been said that in my 3E incarnation I am actually a rogue myself. But I do think this issue needs to be addressed in a well-designed thief class.
Powerful spells can only be prepared by high level magic-users. Is it possible to distribute the thief’s abilities among the levels in a similar way? The traditional thief gets 7 poor abilities all at once and then has to wait for them to gradually improve. 2E, 3E, and some other systems tried to address this problem by using a point-buy system for thief skills, but that does not satisfy me because it adds complexity, calculation, and the opportunity overly optimize (i.e., min-max). Why not give the thief one awesome ability per level rather than 7 crappy ones? Are there some abilities that more naturally fit low level play? The pair of stealth abilities (hide in shadows & move silently) are basically invisibility, so they are clear candidates for at least the lower mid-levels. Maybe connect this to thief magic, in mechanics if not flavor?

These points don’t make much sense together. But there you have them.

Hammer Horror & Cleric Power Delegation

3 Replies

I had not heard of Hammer Horror films prior to being a regular reader of Grognardia (see this post). After reading the argument that Van Helsing was one of the inspirations for the cleric class, of course I decided that I had to watch some of the Hammer films. So, I did some web research, and this DVD set seemed to be a good place to start. Quatermass and the Pit and The Devil Rides Out also seem interesting.

Speaking of clerics (this is my attempt at a segue), The City of Iron recently wrote about doing without the cleric class using blessings & pacts. I was just thinking about sources of cleric power, and one of my ideas was “Hierarch; source is a higher-level cleric (it’s turtles all the way up)”.

Following on that, what if delegation is a standard mechanic for cleric spells? Here’s how such a thing might work:

Any cleric can grant spells to other characters.
Max level of spell that can be bestowed is one less than the highest level the cleric can cast (e.g., a cleric that can cast third level spells can delegate first and second level spells).
As long as the spell remains granted, that spell slot is occupied.
The cleric can revoke the granted spell at any time.
The cleric will know when the spell is discharged, but not the specific circumstances.
Some monsters could also be able to bestow similar blessings.
Non-clerics can at most retain one granted spell.

I’m not sure if I would actually want to play with this system, but I think it is an interesting variation.

Quick Skills Idea

6 Replies

Assume for the moment that you like playing with skills and feats. Why do first level characters get skills and feats? Video games rarely introduce all their mechanics at once; why should tabletop RPGs? Why not start accumulating skills & feats at second level rather than first? There is nothing special about second level of course, other than that it is not first level. This has a number of benefits:

Character generation is simpler and faster.
Players will be less likely to take skills or feats that are not useful in the particular campaign.
Character concept will be clearer once the character has had some play time.
Getting skills and feats is always a reward rather than an entitlement, and so will be appreciated more.
Character building becomes less of a self-contained pre-game.
Basic knowledge required to start playing is decreased.
Skills & feats become more about character development.
The principle of definition through play is strengthened.

Some might argue that the same problem applies to magic-user and cleric spells. I would respond that the cleric did not originally gain a spell at first level (a design choice I am coming to increasingly appreciate, for a number of reasons). The design of the magic-user is indeed vulnerable to this critique, but it is only one of several classes, and so is a form of opt-in complexity. Further, there are a number of methods for randomly determining spells known, so though it might take some time, it does not necessarily require any choice.

I bet 50% of characters played never reach second level. Why is the common case (first level) made nearly as complex as the rare case? What percentage of games start at first level? (My guess is the vast majority.) What is the average level a campaign reaches before petering out or being ended? These are interesting empirical questions that have potentially important implications for game design.

In fact, I think this principle can be applied in general. Why not make players earn their rules complexity? This is one of the reasons why a long list of powers for every class (I’m looking at you, Fourth Edition) does not work very well. This character generation rules proliferation is a side-effect of trying to stretch the “sweet spot” of D&D play over all 30 levels (an explicit design goal of 4E).

Or, to put it another way, why not back-load the complexity?

25 December 2011 edit: Jeffro wrote a great post about applying a similar idea to magic users (described below in the comments) by only starting them out with read magic, so that all spells are introduced through play. Go read it, because it’s a great post, and something I’m definitely going to try myself.

D&D Walking Dead

1 Reply

Christian wrote up a World of Darkness zombie inspired by AMC’s The Walking Dead (see Loviator #5). This is a B/X version. The basic idea is to make zombies more terrifying by using something like the save-or-die mechanic. In D&D, zombies are often just perceived as (slow) moving bags of HP and XP. They are only scary to the degree that they can overwhelm with numbers, and overwhelming with numbers is not very practical in D&D. Anyone who has tried to run a hoard of 40 or more monsters in D&D without some sort of simplification or handwaving should know this. This zombie is scary because it is a carrier. One bite, and you could be infected. This taps into a deep fear of contagion.

Walking dead are meant more as obstacles to avoid than as combattants to take out (though of course they can be taken out). As such, consider rewarding 0 XP for defeating walking dead in combat. Perhaps all monsters with powers such as deadly poison or level drain should actually award no combat XP? This is probably not necessary for players steeped in the old ways, but might be helpful for players coming from more recent games.

Walking Dead – HD 1, AC 9, damage 1d6 + infection, move 60′ (20′), morale 12, # 3-36

The walking dead are zombies that carry an undead plague of unknown origin. If hit by one of the walking dead, save vs. poison or be bitten. Characters bitten will become one of them in 2d6 hours. If one of the walking dead is reduced to 0 HP, it becomes immobile, but is still dangerous to anyone that comes within its reach (its reach will vary based on physical integrity). A head shot is required for actual destruction. Referees are encouraged to allow creative methods for head shots during combat.

Sources of Cleric Power

1 Reply

Writing up my Secret Santicore entry today got me flexing my random table muscles. And then this post provided a wacky explanation for clerics. I’ve always liked the idea of the cleric as a mortal siphon for SOMETHING. What is that something? Here’s a table. This is more a collection of other people’s ideas, but a few are original.

Celestial bureaucracy; preparing a spell requires paperwork and approval
Sorcerer king; cleric is a templar, like in Dark Sun
Parasite; cleric is a cosmic thief, roll again for source (cleric will be in trouble if the source finds out)
Hierarch; cleric can delegate spells in the same way that the deity can grant them, roll again for source
Hierarch; source is a higher-level cleric (it’s turtles all the way up)
Machine; orbiting AI like in ASE1
Machine; ancient device buried in the underworld
Machine; cloistered in a temple, maintained (controlled?) by high-ranking priests
Imprisoned higher being; celestial battery (think Trigun)
Demon; cleric is a warlock (think Elric)
Aspect-based pantheon; cleric often engaged in tasks for the god’s personal vanity (think Greek mythology)
Faction-based pantheon; cleric is a soldier in a cosmic battle (think Book of Revelation or Jotunn versus Aesir); spells are granted like ordnance
Vampiric; cleric must steal spells (or spell slots) from other magic-users or clerics, perhaps by ritually slaying them, or perhaps the cleric does not understand how spells are acquired
Monotheistic; could be explicitly Christian (see Blood of Prokopius)
Ancestors; spells are granted by the spirits of deceased family members
Deiphores; clerics feast on the flesh of dead gods (source)
Aliens; gods are actually advanced starfaring extraterrestrials (think Clarke’s third law and Stargate)
The Prince; political power fuels godhood in a similar way to how believers are sometimes explained as the source of a god’s power
Bodhisattvas; enlightened beings who remain in the world to benefit the unenlightened (they were once presumably mortal, and still exist in the material world)
Spirits inhabiting rocks, trees, and other natural phenomena (think Japanese kami)

2DTH

10 Replies

Rolling two dice and taking the highest (2DTH from here on) is one of my favorite recent discoveries. I never saw this back in my Second Edition days. The first place I came across it was probably at Grognardia, perhaps one of the Dwimmermount session reports. I would be interested in knowing the ultimate provenance though. Is 2DTH a recent innovation, or can it be found in any of the classic writings? Philotomy has a similar rule in his OD&D musings, so maybe that is where it came from.

I like 2DTH so much because it allows you to skew probabilities in a particular direction without introducing bonuses or eliminating any possibilities. Also, though you are literally rolling more dice, it still feels like a single roll, and thus does not seem to bog pacing down as something like an additional attack roll might. Other editions have addressed similar problems by adding bonuses (the Third Edition family and Second Edition to a slightly lesser degree) or eliminating randomness altogether (such as HP in Fourth Edition).

Places where I think this mechanic is appropriate:

Damage: two-handed weapons or dual-wielding
First level HP

I’m sure there are many more as well.

The d4 is the simplest interesting case (the curve shift is not as obvious with a d2).

2d4 Take Highest
	1	2	3	4
1	1	2	3	4
2	2	2	3	4
3	3	3	3	4
4	4	4	4	4

This gives the following probabilities:

7 in 16 chance of a 4 (~ 44%)
5 in 16 chance of a 3 (~ 31%)
3 in 16 chance of a 2 (~ 19%)
1 in 16 chance of a 1 (~ 6%)

Obviously, two dice take lowest (2DTL) can also be used to skew the probability curve in the other direction, though I have found less use for this. Perhaps for situational modifiers.

Loviatar 5 & Hex Rewards

7 Replies

Issue 5 is my favorite of the zine so far. If I had to pick, B/X would probably be my game of choice, and the bulk of this issue is dedicated to basic D&D hexcrawl content! It also has the best cover of all the Loviatars. I hope that Hex 001 is the start of a series of hex articles.

Hex 001 also introduced a new rule (to me at least) that I am considering adopting in general. There are four main encounter locations within Hex 001, and if the PCs investigate at least 3 of them, they get a “hex reward” (in this case, the reward is the companionship of a flying cat). I really like this. If I had to define D&D, I would not cite treasure, or fighting, or monsters, or even magic; I would point to the concept of exploration. I know that is not true for all players. In fact, most of my players seem to be most enthused by killing enemies and accumulating treasure. (Maybe that’s the difference between players who are at heart referees and players who are at heart adventurers?)

I’ve thought about giving XP for exploration in addition to treasure and defeating monsters, but I’ve never gotten around to actually trying it. I have given XP for completing particular journeys, but I’ve never generalized the rule. Giving XP for specific journeys is really too story-based for me now, so I don’t think I would do that again. Using hex rewards outside of the XP system is another interesting way of approaching rewarding exploration. The only question left is: how much metagame information about the incentive should be communicated to the players? On the one hand, saying that “there are four encounter zones to find here” seems to break immersion. But I do want players to know what they are being rewarded for. So I would probably compromise and explain the the general concept of hex rewards to players without going into detail.

E6 and Skills

Necromancer Draft

6 Replies

A while back, I posted a classes overview for a B/X-style game. That was missing the necromancer and the thief. This is my work so far on a necromancer class. I’m going to do this one a little differently than the others. I realized that I was writing more rules than flavor, because no existing class really represented the necromancer I wanted. I want a necromancer that focuses on raising and commanding the dead, like the necromancers in the fiction of Clark Ashton Smith or the necromancer in Diablo II.

I thought about using the BRW Necromancer (which I like), but the BRW Necromancer is very much a spell-casting specialist wizard. Another option is The City of Iron Labyrinth Lord Necromancer (free PDF here). That is another great class, and includes more than 50 new spells; by all means, you should go take a look at it. But it is not solving the problem that I am trying to solve. The Undead Master from The Complete Book of Necromancers has some good qualities, but like most D&D necromancer classes it suffers from being designed only for NPC use.

This necromancer that I have designed is not a magic-user with a different spell list. In fact, this necromancer can’t even memorize spells (at least, I’m leaning in that direction). Instead, from the very beginning, this necromancer is engaged in raising the dead to do his bidding. In Talysman’s formulation, this necromancer gets undead minions to solve problems for him. In some sense, from a game perspective, this class takes the idea of retainers and builds a class around that.

The main objection to this kind of class is that it can result in an army-of-one. Even if that does not end in a more “powerful” character, it can still slow the game down by requiring lots of rolls during one player’s turn. Fourth edition takes the most extreme position on this problem: you need to spend your own actions to control animal companions, familiars, or summoned creatures. This army-of-one problem does not really bother me though, for the following reasons.

I’ve played characters with several animal companions, and it never seemed to bog down.
Any character can have hirelings, which can result in the same problem.
Necromancer minions are not under the control of the player in the same way a PC is; the player gives commands, but the referee interprets how the minions carry out their actions.
Based on these rules, the number of minions the necromancer can control is based on level, so it will be a long time before there are many of them.
Time-saving rules: one attack roll for all undead of the same type (see below).
Minions could be used as pit-trap detectors (this problem does not hold for mortal hirelings, as they would not consent to being so used). However, is this really any worse than probing with a 10 foot pole before every step? (Actually, yes, it is, at least a little, because probing ahead with a 10 foot pole slows down exploration.) In the end, I don’t think this is a big problem though, for one simple reason: creating minions costs money and finding minions is risky and requires adventuring. Thus, minions are not a resource to be thrown lightly into a pit trap. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Necromancer summary:

Hit die: d4
Control undead as cleric of equivalent level
Cast “command” incantations on controlled minions
Create undead
Worst attack bonus (primarily uses minions to attack)
Uses the magic-user advancement table
Cast necromancy spells from scrolls as thief

(Use your favorite retro-clone or version of D&D for advancement tables and other details.)

The quantity and potency of undead that can be controlled by a necromancer is as a magic-user’s spell memorization table, with hit die substituted for level. For example, if a magic-user of equivalent level could cast 2 first level spells and 1 second level spell, then the necromancer could control two 1 hit die minions and one 2 hit die minion. A higher-level slot may be filled by a lower-level minion. Following the above example, that could mean either two skeletons and a zombie or three skeletons.

Once an undead minion is under the influence of a necromancer, the necromancer must issue commands. Such commands are minor incantations, and require that the necromancer have use of voice and hands (a weapon or implement may be held, but may not be used during the command). Such a command requires one combat round and functions in the same way as casting a spell. Once so commanded, an undead minion will forever attempt to fulfill their charge, with various degrees of creativity and cleverness, to be determined by the referee in line with the nature of the type of undead in question. For example, a ghoul’s overwhelming desire is to feed, and all actions will be biased toward that end. Skeletons and zombies are virtually mindless, and will exhibit no creativity with regard to fulfilling commands. No minion will knowingly cause harm to their master or their master’s close associates. Though the necromancer can only issue one command per round, all minions will continue to pursue their last command.

How do necromancers acquire minions? One way is to find previously created undead and exert control over them. This works exactly as a cleric’s turning ability, except that the end result is servitude rather than fleeing. The other way is to create or summon minions. As the necromancer advances, each time a new strength of undead can be controlled, the necromancer gains access to rituals for creating or summoning one iconic type of undead. For example, at fifth level, a necromancer gains the ability to maintain control over one 3 hit die undead, and one ritual to create a 3 hit die undead. Each ritual also has a components cost, which is consumed in the ritual. The necromancer starts with the 1 hit die ritual for skeleton. Other rituals can be found through the course of adventuring. Costs are just guesses for now. These minions are consumable in a way that something like a magic sword is not, but in the end if these costs are appropriate or not depends on how wealthy PCs are likely to get through adventuring in any given campaign (I need to look at XP advancement values and compare to treasure hoards). An appropriate body must also be procured for the corporeal undead. Perhaps more specific components will be required also, but from the point of view of basic game-play, the cost is the most important thing (though I love the idea in Carcosa of binding particular components to hexes on the wilderness map).

Undead minions by HD:

Skeleton (cost: 10 gp, requires a cleaned skeleton)
Zombie (cost: 100 gp, requires a somewhat whole corpse)
Ghoul (cost: 500 gp, requires a living subject)
Wight (cost: 1000 gp)
Wraith (cost: 5000 gp)
Mummy (cost: 10000 gp, requires a prepared corpse)

Rituals to create necromantic golems are also possible, following the same rules. The necromancer binds a spirit into the inert prepared golem body, thereby rendering it animate. Golems so created should remain within the 1 to 6 hit die range; these are not quasi-artifacts like iron golems.

Necromancers may restore HP to minions by performing particular rituals. A necromancer that spends one day so engaged will restore 1 HP to each minion controlled. This must be a full day of work, and cannot involve travel. Treat it as natural healing for game purposes.

When the necromancer controls more than one undead of a particular hit die value during combat, one attack roll can be made per type of undead to speed up play. Generally, one attack roll will be made for each type of undead under the necromancer’s control to expedite combat.

The spawn of undead controlled by a necromancer (for example, those slain by wights or wraiths) are not automatically under the control of the necromancer. Control must be asserted as normal.

If a necromancer is slain, all his undead minions are immediately freed. In the case of mindless undead, they will continue to attempt their last task until destroyed or controlled by another necromancer. In the case of sentient undead, such as wraiths, the undead will immediately become hostile to the necromancer and any of his allies, and attempt to take revenge for the enforced servitude.

Spells that have an obvious connection to necromancy can be cast without chance of failure from scrolls. All other spells require a successful intelligence check.

When a necromancer reaches name level and builds a stronghold, 1d4 apprentices of level 1d4 + 1 will seek to learn from him. In addition, a necromancer’s stronghold is enchanted with powerful magic that extends the necromancer’s control over undead within his own domain. Within the bounds of the stronghold, the necromancer may control four times the normal number of undead.

Some questions:

Can minions use equipment such as armor or weapons? I’m leaning towards no.
I thought about including some anatomist or doctor skills (embalming, tending wounds) due to the knowledge of life and death (a doctor is just a kind of necromancer, right?). I think this necromancer is more mystical and fantastic though, so probably not. I’m not looking to model Dr. Frankenstein.
Do I really want to completely avoid spell memorization? Maybe, in addition, have a limited spell list, like the AD&D illusionist? But with fewer spell slots, like the second edition bard?
Magic item creation by binding spirits?
Are the advancement tables in any of the major retro-clones Open Game Content?
Should dispel magic be able to break the link between a minion and a necromancer?
Necromantic cantrips for free? Examples: wilt a rose, cause a corpse open its eyes, make a mouse skeleton dance.
Should necromancers acquire the ability to issue commands telepathically at higher levels (as in, without the requirement of the incantation)?
What should the range of the command incantation be? I’m thinking that it should be based on level.

This class clearly needs play testing, but I’m really excited about it. It seems to have all the qualities I am looking for, and is not just a skin-job on another class. More details about particular rituals will be included in later posts.

Talysman has also posted a great cleric-based necromancer.

Some Gygax