Nalfeshnee hack monsters

6 Replies

The way Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons handles monster design is problematic for a game run in an old school style. There are a number of reasons for this, which I will explain below, and a few tweaks that I have come up with to make the system work better for the kind of game I am running while still working for players who are familiar with 4E rules. Hopefully, people who don’t play 4E directly may still be interested in the game design discussion.

In traditional D&D, armor class (the only defense rating) is not tied directly to level at all. A twentieth level character with no equipment and average dexterity has the same AC as a similar first level character. Characters do get harder to kill as they progress in levels (by accumulating hit points and getting better saving throws), but they don’t get inherently harder to hit.

In Fourth Edition, defenses are tied directly to level, and there are four of them (armor class, fortitude, reflex, and will). This is true for both for characters and monsters. Characters add one half of their level to each defense and monster creation guidelines also derive defenses from level rather than from concept.

This game design means that all four of the defenses have similar values for any particular monster. It results in absurdities such as high level giants having a reflex of 30 and low level pixies having a reflex of 15. What’s the point of having multiple defenses if they are all within spitting distance of each other? In general, AC will be slightly higher than the other three defenses, but (according to the 4E DMG monster creation guidelines) attacks that target AC also often have a slightly higher attack bonus! So it’s a complete wash. I actually like the concept of being able to learn about monsters and target their weaknesses, but as written 4E defenses don’t really allow that. They just end up being multiple numbers in the stat block or on the character sheet.

Here’s another problem. Hit points (both obvious and hidden in the form of healing surges) have ballooned tremendously in 4E. So players and monsters aren’t doing that much more damage, but they have a lot more hit points. This can make combat take a long time, especially if players don’t invest time in discovering the synergies between build options that allow for damage optimization.

This game design, as eloquently explained by -C over at Hack & Slash, comes from starting with the result required mechanically by the game entity (for example, a monster that is challenge rating N). Then, appropriate cosmetic details are are attached. This is what -C calls a dissociated mechanic:

Dissociated Mechanic: Result => Effect
Associated Mechanic: Effect => Result

This is also why most bestiary entries have several different “levels” of the same monster (often three: one for each tier of game play). These entries are generally not identical other than scaled numbers (the more powerful monsters will often have more abilities too), but they are close. Combined with the fact that monster defenses scale with PC attack bonuses, this means that balanced encounters are mathematically similar in all cases (this is what the 4E designers meant by “expanding the sweet spot” of D&D play). Further, because of the variance of the d20 and the level of bonuses (one-half level is a good default assumption, but in reality there will be more bonuses), we are talking about a 75% change from first to thirtieth level, which means though encounters are balanced, that balance is fragile. A little too low, and foes will be trivial. A little to high, and they will be untouchable.

Here are some of my techniques for tweaking monsters to dampen the above-mentioned dynamics without totally scrapping the system. If I’m using a monster from the monster manual, my default method is to cut the HP in half and double all damage dice (before bonuses). This makes battles of attrition less likely and also produces a credible threat. When PCs are equipped with healing surges and piles of HP, doing 1d6 or 1d8 damage is just not scary. If I use minions, I make their damage variable so that it is not obvious to the players which enemies are minions (though I have been using minions less recently; they end up just feeling like clutter).

This is how I create my own monsters. Required stats for a basic monster are hit dice, AC, primary attack, secondary attack, and movement speed. I ignore the other three defenses most of the time and just use AC. I also don’t bother with ability scores or skills. Hit points are around 10 to 15 HP per hit die, depending on the monster concept (and adjusted to taste). Equipment and treasure depend on the situation. I would like to experiment with treasure tables more, but so far I have mostly just been placing treasure as I see fit (or relying on modules). XP is 100 * HD + bonus for special abilities sometimes.

AC is based on the 4E armor bonus values, which are similar to AC values in earlier editions. The values are: unarmored 10, leather 12, chain 16, plate 18, +1 or +2 for a shield, and +1 to +5 for agility. I also add a one-half hit dice bonus to keep up with the Joneses. I would like to just do away with all one-half level bonuses across the board, in the entire game, but I think that the logistics of that would be inconvenient. I’m trying to affect the player interface to the game as little as possible, as my players use the published books and the character builder program.

Thus, a 15 hit die (level) dragon would have 225 HP and a AC of 25 (18 from plate + 7 from inflation). Primary attack: claw/claw/bite +10 vs AC (2d8/2d8/2d12, each +7 for inflation). Secondary attack: breath weapon (fire): 10×10 area, 15d10 (luck throw for half damage, no hit roll required). Speed 10, fly 20. For a dragon, I might add one more special attack as well (because, you know, dragon). XP 2000 (15 * 10 + 500 for flying and fire breathing). I’m still experimenting with the relationship between hit dice and attack bonus.

Compare to the Adult Blue Dragon from the Monster Manual (page 78), which is a level 13 solo artillery monster. HP 655, AC 30, XP 4000, claw +16 vs. AC 1d6 + 6, lightning breath +18 vs. reflex 2d12 + 10 (miss is half damage). The dragon created using my house rules is easier to hit and has fewer HP, but has much more destructive attacks. This requires more planning and less direct assault, and also cuts down on the time required for combat, which is exactly what I want.

False TPKs

6 Replies
Revisitation: a series of posts that each feature a quote from a classic source along with a short discussion. Quotes that make me question some previous assumption I had about the game or that seem to lead to otherwise unexpected consequences will be preferred.

This selection comes from B2 The Keep on the Borderlands by Gary Gygax (page 14):

RANSOMING PRISONERS: Organized tribes can optionally be allowed to take player characters prisoner, freeing one to return to the KEEP in order to bring a ransom back to free the captives. Set the sums low – 10 to 100 gold pieces (or a magic item which the ransoming monsters would find useful) per prisoner. If the ransom is paid, allow the characters to go free. Then, without telling the players, assume that this success brought fame to the capturing monsters, so their numbers will be increased by 2-12 additional members, and the tribe will also be very careful to watch for a return of the adventurers seeking revenge for their humiliating captivity. The period of extra alertness will last for 1-4 weeks; the increase in numbers is permanent.

I am not in favor of all combats being deadly, even when the conflict is with agents of chaos. Cultists need live sacrifices, brigands need information about future targets, and everyone could reasonably desire gold from ransoms. Maybe live human is a goblin delicacy. But more important than narrative or naturalistic justifications, games where loosing a fight does not always mean a total party kill are more interesting and varied.

However, this must be handled carefully. I strive to be an impartial referee, so unless there has been some very dramatic development during the course of a fight, I default to assuming that monsters are using deadly force. In other words, the key to fair play is deciding beforehand what the priorities of the opponents are. I also try to seed the environment with clues where appropriate so that skillful play and engagement with the setting can be rewarded. I never want “waking up captured” to be used to save a party of adventurers. The monsters are either seeking to kill or capture, and I will try to play them appropriately based on their priorities. Some way of tying this to the encounter reaction roll might be reasonable too, for cases where preplanning (random encounters, limited time) are not possible.

Because I believe in giving players information about the consequences of their actions, I would also try to make sure that the players understand what was going on. Otherwise, how can they make informed decisions in the future? Perhaps the tribe starts putting up recruiting posters advertising the fact that they defeated the fearsome adventuring party. Much referee advice suggests that players should learn from their experiences, but if there is no way for the players to connect cause to effect, they are more likely to just assume that developments are by referee fiat or based on dice. Many players by default assume that the referee just does whatever they hell they feel like at any given time (“rocks fall, everyone dies”), so I believe it is worthwhile to spend extra effort countering this assumption.

Season of the Witch

12 Replies

Playing tabletop RPGs again has started to change, or maybe widen, what I look for in movies. Specifically, ideas and inspiration for my games are beginning to be just as important as other more common measures of quality in film. By this measure, Season of the Witch was a great success (and was not a bad movie apart from that either).

I would highly recommend it especially to fantasy game players. In fact, in some ways this story is a model for how to run a weird fantasy scenario. It is set during the Crusades. Right from the very beginning, it is clear everything is not quite right, but the day to day existence is still mundane. And I think every D&D player will recognize the small troupe of main characters as an adventuring party.

There were a number of small touches that I greatly appreciated. For example, everyone doesn’t speak in a British accent just because the movie is set during medieval times. A standard American accent was used by most actors throughout, which I enjoyed. More period movies should take this approach. Accurately representing accents is impossible, so why not make it feel natural?

Once the movie decided what kind of story it was going to tell, it didn’t dick around with you and keep making you second guess what was going on. It just went for it, and didn’t make any apologies.

Dungeon Crawl #1

4 Replies

My copy of Dungeon Crawl #1 arrived today. The format is newsletter, not booklet, as you can probably see from the photo above. It’s full of original material: monsters, spells, traps, etc. The theme of the material is “classical alchemy” (earth, fire, water, air) and all of it is concisely written with an eye to use at the table.

The last page is a dungeon. The meaning of the dungeon is mostly left to the ref. What was it built for? Why are these creatures here? These questions are not answered. This absence is not a problem, it is a prompt for creativity. My one criticism is that I would like the level entrances to be marked more clearly on the map (for example, the well entrance to location 17 is not indicated on the map at all). Also, I gather than there will be more levels in future issues, but I can’t see any exits leading down. These minor shortcomings aside, it looks like a fun adventure.

What appears minimal and elegant to me may look sparse to others, so I would say this is not for everyone. In summary: lots of good ideas tied to a theme, very little fat. I’m glad to support it.

Death Frost Doom

5 Replies

I’m surprised it has taken me so long to get around to reading this. I’ve had a copy for a while, and Death Frost Doom is one of the best known and most talked about OSR modules. I know it has been used in many campaigns (just off the top of my head: Maliszewski’s Dwimmermount, Beedo’s Gothic Greyhawk, FrDave’s Lost Colonies). What can I say? I am overwhelmed by quality content, both new and old. Be warned, this post contains spoilers. I want to discuss the module in detail, and there is no way to do that without revealing some secrets.

Unlike many modules, this was a quick and engaging read. Everything feels like it belongs, and I already feel familiar enough with the map and framework to almost be able to referee DFD from memory after one read-through. The location, details, and monsters are that memorable.

I do have a number of concerns regarding the module though. I’m somewhat surprised about this actually. DFD seems to have more “problem” areas for me than other LotFP modules (even compared to the thematically much weaker Weird New World). I’m going to discuss what I don’t like (it might even end up being the bulk of the post) but I don’t want that to overshadow my final impression, which is that this is a fantastic scenario. It has one of the most compelling NPC antagonists (Cyrus the vampire) that I have seen in any module, and smart players will likely be forced to work with Cyrus to survive. PCs can truly leave their mark on the campaign world via the module endgame. How many modules playable by first level characters can make that claim? Because of the lack of reliance on simple fight encounters, this module should also be easily convertible to the rule set of your choice (even something dramatically different than traditional D&D). The only major changes needed would be stats for some of the monsters in zone 3. Many of the magic items that can be found in the module have both powers and drawbacks (without being just “screw you” cursed items). More magic items should be like this.

I’ve been in the process of seeding my current Nalfeshnee Hack campaign world (unfortunately, I don’t really have an evocative campaign name yet) with LotFP modules for a while now, and plan to use all of them, even Carcosa (I had previously placed a huge wasteland to the east called Urndach; this will use the Carcosa hex map). That’s right, all the Raggi modules and LotFP releases are going to be played (assuming we get to them) using a 4E-derived ruleset.

The PCs have already found a number of the Dwarven stone books from Hammers of the God (I created a set of 3 x 3 pages containing all the books so that I could shuffle them and give them as individual handouts) and a magically obscured treasure map leading to that module’s dungeon. I think foreshadowing in adventures is a valuable technique that really builds the sense of a living world, and there’s really no excuse not to do it in a sandbox world where you are likely to have a number of different locations prepared anyways. For another example, the PCs came across the fabled Pilz brew in a tavern, but the highly regarded beer was strangely flat and disappointing. (That one is not about a Raggi module, but you get the idea.)

On to Death Frost Doom. The first problem I noticed was a number of “site only” magic items. By site only, I mean items that might cause problems in a long-running campaign, either because they are too powerful or might otherwise upset some aspect of game balance. I detest this practice. It reminds me of using thieves to steal magic items back from PCs. One room in the cabin has two examples of this (page 8 in the print copy). The first is a mirror that doesn’t show chaotic (or evil) characters:

The mirror looses its magic if it is moved, but will regain its power if replaced in this spot.

The second is a clock that can stop time:

Removing the clock from the wall or damaging it in any way permanently removes its magic (even placing it back on the wall will not restore it).

There is not really any narrative grounding why either of these items work this way, and certainly nothing that the PCs could discover (without resorting to DM improvisation). If the mirror was used to detect spies, why would that only be useful in one location? If you’re going to put something interesting into a module, and PCs are creative enough to liberate it, they should be able to use it. If it is of a nature that would be problematic in a campaign, then it should not be included at all. There are much better ways to handle this, such having a limited number of uses. Or, in the case of the mirror, why not have a pond, or a fountain, that only reflects lawful and neutral characters? How do you move a pond? And yet, the restriction does not feel contrived (it doesn’t even feel like a restriction).

I plan to leave the mirror in, but it will work anywhere. The mirror itself will be a full size heavily gilded standing mirror, so it will be difficult to transport. This might end up becoming an interesting campaign item if the players are able to recover it. And it might also prompt me to think more about how alignment works in this particular campaign. I will probably just remove the magic properties from the clock. I need to think about this a bit more, because there may be ways that enterprising PCs could use the clock to forestall the the module endgame, and I don’t think there is any need to make this module harder.

The second problem that I noticed was the “read aloud curse” mechanic. Basically, the referee is instructed to write down an inscription on a piece of paper and hand it over to the person controlling the reading character. If the player reads the inscription out loud, bad things happen. (Generally, you go around the table making saving throws until someone fails and then the bad stuff happens.) This doesn’t work for me because I am not strict about in character and out of character speech. I suspect many campaigns are like this. Generally, if something is not clear, I will clarify: is your character saying that? I do this often enough that (I think) it is not a flag for the players (they certainly don’t seem to make wiser decisions). In this case, such clarification totally would not work. On top of the note it would give away the trap. I either need to work this mechanic in beforehand using less deadly situations, or redesign these traps.

Like other Raggi maps, the DFD dungeon consists of several zones (3) connected linearly by choke points. There are several different entrances from the surface to the different zones, but they are designed in a way that makes it highly unlikely that any other than the cabin trap door (which is obvious) will be used for anything other than exits. This is not a problem; I just want to make the structure clear.

There is a trick that must be figured out to move from zone 1 (temple quarters) to zone 2 (the crypts). Zone 2 is connected to zone 3 by secret doors. I am ambivalent about the secret door choke point design. It is also used in Hammers of the God. In a small dungeon, I think this has the potential to needlessly limit the play experience. These areas which are access-controlled by secret doors are not megadungeon sublevels or areas with special treasures. They are integral parts of the location. I’m not convinced that making access to core parts of the location a reward for exceptional play is good design. I will not change the secret doors in location 22, but I have decided to describe them in a way which will likely stand out and prompt further investigation. Specifically, they are going to be bricked-up archways that use bricks of a different color. In other words, I’m making them easy to locate secret doors. Players don’t always catch things that seem like obvious tells to me, so I don’t think this completely gives the secret doors away. This also seems to fit the location better.

Despite these issues, I’m greatly looking forward to running DFD. It fits nicely with a number of background elements that I have already worked into my campaign, specifically several dread lich gods which used to rule as sorcerer kings in the distant past. I’m curious to know whether others have adjusted any of the module aspects that I mentioned.

The Luck Throw

2 Replies

Fourth Edition does not have a real saving throw mechanic. The narrative concept represented by the saving throw has mostly been replaced by the three extra defenses: fortitude, reflex, and will. For example, rather than rolling a save vs. poison when a poisonous attack hits a character, instead a monster would roll an attack against the character’s fortitude defense.

There is something called a saving throw in Fourth Edition, but it does not have the same game role (4E PHB page 279). Instead, it is a way to throw off a status effect (and thus support temporary effects that do not require bookkeeping). It’s a clever innovation, but it’s not a saving throw as traditionally understood. A 4E save has a 55% chance of success (10 or higher on a d20), unaffected by level or ability scores (a strange choice for a game that supports such heavy character optimization, but there it is). There are a few ways that an attacker can make saves against their status effects more difficult (like the orb of imposition wizard implement effect), but they don’t seem to be very common. And again, they are on the side of the attacker (condition becomes harder to shake off) rather than on the side of the defender.
This is unfortunate, because I like the level-dependent saving throw mechanic. It is impervious to PC build optimization. It rewards smart play by making characters that are able to survive harder to kill. I could just import the saving throw tables from a previous edition, but that would be confusing to my players and would overload the meaning of saving throw. So I decided to create a new mechanic for the Nalfeshnee Hack that serves the same function. It is called the luck throw.
The luck throw is a DC 16 check with a one-half level bonus. A roll of 1 is always a failure. Thus, at first level, there is a 25% chance of success (16, 17, 18, 19, 20). Chance of success increases with level, until at level 28 (+14), failure only occurs on a 1.
The luck throw is appropriate for any last chance escape possibility where you don’t want to base success on an ability score. Abilities in 4E tend to extremes (lots of 18s and 10s, because of their effect on powers), making them a bad fit for last chance mechanics (some PCs are almost always going to make an ability check while others are only going to make it sometimes). I imagine this problem is true for any version of the game that overemphasizes ability scores (really, AD&D on). (See here for more discussion about using ability scores for saving throws.)
This seems to be a reasonable approximation of the traditional saving throw mechanic. It is a simple formula, so it is easy to remember, and it also fits the feel of other Fourth Edition rules. It is similar to the Swords & Wizardry single saving throw, though it does not vary by class.

A Debt to Orcus

12 Replies
Illustration by Harry Clarke for Goethe's Faust

Illustration by Harry Clarke for Goethe’s Faust

Of all the ways people report handling raise read, my favorite response came from Gavin over at The City of Iron:

Courtesy of your friendly local Temple of Orcus.

Following that link (and continuing to quote Gavin):

As luck would have it, following a recent suggestion from Alex, I’d decided several days previously that Orcus is the main cosmic power to whom adventurers may turn when seeking to raise a dead companion.

So, on the spur of the moment I was presented with the task of deciding how that works. Visiting the temple of Orcus in S’raka, here are the choices the PCs were presented:

  1. Pay 5,000gp for the ritual.
  2. Pay 2,000gp and provide a bunch of live sacrifices to “butter up” the lord of the dead. A total of 17 humans or 32 “little people” were the figures recommended.
  3. Accept a group quest to return the favour.

I really like the feeling of dark gods being accepted as part of the world, though still feared. There is a danger here of domesticating the darkness, so setting details like this should be handled carefully. Perhaps cultists of Orcus could be major campaign antagonists as well. Perhaps being raised brands one as an untouchable or immune to normal curative magic.

The monotheistic tradition has to some degree done away with the ambiguity of scary-but-cosmically-necessary (present, for example, in the Greek fates or the fickleness of Poseidon). Monotheism does, however, has an analogue that could potentially be leveraged, which is a deal with the devil (see the Faust legend for some inspiration, though it does not involve the desire for a second chance).

Some Rules Clarifications

20 Replies

Here is an index of the answers people have given to 20 Quick Questions: Rules.

Apologies if I have missed you. Leave a comment and I’ll add your link.

Helmets

18 Replies

Recently I posted this set of rules clarification questions and a number of people explained how they do things. I had no idea this would turn into a survey, but now that we have some data, why not make use of it? Many people discuss rules prescriptively or theoretically, but this is a measure (at least partially) of what people do. Thus, these approaches are actually working for people at the table (as opposed to just looking good on paper).

Of all the questions, the one that seems to have generated the greatest variation is how people handle helmets. Here are some of the answers, organized roughly by popularity. I tried to group similar answers and in the process I may have lost some minor details.

The most common option (though not a majority) was to have no mechanical benefit or ignore the issue:

(Regarding looking awesome, everyone should check out JB’s B/X headgear table.)

Some people give penalties for not wearing a helmet:

  • Penalty for not wearing a helmet (1d30, DuBeers, Reign of Jotuns, rpgist, Gordon Cooper)
  • “No, but not wearing one makes your head AC9, and I understand you keep important stuff in there…” (Beedo, Chris Hogan)
  • AD&D (DMG page 28):

    It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer. Wearing of a “great helm” odds the appropriate weight and restricts vision to the front 60″ only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 = head blow).

    (James Mishler)

  • Labyrinth Lord (AEC page 142):

    Generally characters are assumed to be wearing a helmet with their armor. However, if for some reason a character is not wearing a helmet an opponent of no intelligence or relatively low intelligence will strike at a character’s AC 9 head on a roll of 1 on 1d6. Intelligent opponents will attempt to strike the head on a roll of 1-2 on 1d6.

    (Bob, scadgrad)

A few people allow helmets to function like shields (presumably stacking the bonus):

Another somewhat common approach is to grant some level of protection against critical hits or detailed injuries:

  • Can save you from a head crit (Jeff Rients, Niccodaemus, Zzarchov, Catacomb librarian, Grognardling, Johnathan Bingham, Dak)
  • Protects against some death & dismemberment results (The Bane, Mike D.)
  • “Only if a critical pushes a system shock check … Critical Hits that require a system shock roll have a chane at serious scaring or dismemberment.” (ERIC!)
  • “A adjusted roll of 17 or better that hits on a helmless target is a successful head short and cause the target to make a saving throw at +2 or fall unconcious. A adjusted roll of 20 or better is a faceshot and will cause the target to make a saving throw or fall unconcious unless they are wearing a greathelm.” (Rob Conley)

Or defense against stuff from above:

  • Protection from falling objects (Lasgunpacker, Stuart Robertson, Timrod)
  • “Only if something falls on their head, in which case the helmet gives the same AC value as the armour worn. A helmetless head is unarmoured.” (David Macauley)
  • AC 2 if attack from above, otherwise AC 9 (Ian)
  • “Anti-critical hits + possible damage reduction for stone blocks hitting one’s head.” (Omlet)

Bonus against head shots:

And finally, some miscellaneous approaches:

(Please forgive me if I missed your answers.)