Stretching the d20

The d20 is granular enough for me.

Each number in the d20 represents a 5% chance.

I really don't feel the need to distinguish "stealth 46%" from "stealth 48%", for example.

I could even use smaller dice, but I play D&Dish games and I like the d20.

However, there are a few situations in which the d20 is not enough: when you want to assign chances that are extremely high (over 95%) or low (below 5%) instead of saying "automatic success/failure".

Now, you might say you don't really need that; some situations are just impossible.

But D&D/AD&D has many such cases - thief skills (and system shock) going to 99%, 1% of low-Strength folks bending bars, and optional rules to allow someone with THAC0 20 to hit negative AC.

In other words, the d20 is only insufficient in extreme cases; I'd be happy to use it in every other circumstance (which is about 90% of the time).

Like Moldvay says, "there is always a chance". Before this section, he mentions another example: "Looking down into the chasm, your character can estimate that he has a 98% chance of dying, no saving throw, if he jumps."

I can imagine many other circumstances where 1% chances would be better than either 0 or 5%. 

For example, if you want fumbles in your game, it is ludicrous that you fail ridiculously 5% of the time, especially if you're a experienced fighter. 

Even for spell mishaps, 5% chance is just too much. A powerful mage casts several spells a day and shouldn't be dealing with fumbles every other day. 

I also love critical hits; 5% of the time seems fine for having "maximum damage", for example, but I'd love having the occasional "super crit" with double or triple damage (or maybe permanent damage, etc.)

There are several ways to "stretch" the d20 at the edges if you want more than 20 possibilities. I've discussed a d100 conversion in the last post, now I'll present an alternative:

Whenever you roll a natural 20, you can try again with a +10 bonus, picking the best result.

Conversely, a natural 1 forces you to roll again with a -10 penalty and pick the worst result.

This way, a d20 can easily generate results form -10 to 30, and beyond (you'd need several 20s in a row, but you get get to 100 once every 500 billion rolls...).

This would give you a small chance to hit even -10 AC.

If using crits, you could easy say that a margin of 30, for example, will give you triple maximum damage. Awesome, but rare.

Notice this can work for ANY kind of dice. 

For example, I hate the idea that you add your Charisma bonus to a reaction roll, making an "immediate attack" impossible (although this is not how I use the table). 

But you could re-roll a natural 1 or 6 with a -3/+3 bonus, which will allow an immediate attack by anyone, if rarely.

This also allows you to assign bonuses and penalties to enemies' reactions without taking some possibilities out of the picture.

This is similar to "exploding dice", but for me it has the advantage of not taking any result off the table. Rolling a 21 is possible, but less likely than rolling 20. Rolling a 22 is even less likely, and so on.

Note: there is a 70% off Frog God sale going on. If you like HUGE lists of monsters, I can recommend Monstrosities. Tome of Horrors Complete also looks interesting. Let me know if there are other products you recommend - I might get something for myself for Christmas! (affiliate links).

AD&D and ability checks - from d20 to d100

I have often wondered if people playing AD&D RAW use ability checks, and how often.

From a quick look at the rules, it would seem that if you don't, having Dexterity 7 and Dexterity 14 is identical. Same for Wisdom 8 and 14.

Is that part of the reason why Dexterity and Wisdom would become some of the most common saving throws in 2024 D&D? I'm not sure. 

Certainly rolling under Dexterity was used as a saving throw in some old school modules (to avoid falling into a trap, slipping, etc.).

For all other stats, however, there is some consequences to having a few extra points. The exact number are all over: Strength 18/33 gives you +1 to hit, +3 damage, +100 encumbrance, 50% chance of forcing doors and  20% of bending bars. Strength 18/53 will give you almost entirely different numbers.

[The table below if from 2e; the numbers are similar, but notice how they almost turned open doors into "roll under"].

I have a feeling that Gygax got enamored of the d100 some time between OD&D and AD&D. While AD&D uses multiple types of die, the d100 appears often, and it seems to be useful especially when the d20 is not granular enough.

I've tried streamlining theses numbers before, and maybe replacing some of them for ability checks.

One issue with using a d20 is that you lose the finer detail of chances that are lower than 5% (e.g., bend bars) of greater than 95% (e.g., system shock).

But this is not impossible to fix either.

Just revert to the d100 when (and only when) the d20 is not granular enough to give you chance of success/failure.

We could just use ability checks with a bonus/penalty; usually, usually from -4 to +4, but -10 for extreme tasks (e.g., bend bars). If something is impossible to roll on a d20 (e.g, you need to roll under 3 but you have a -4 penalty), we could give the PC an extra chance by rolling a d100 - your chances decrease by 1% instead of 5% or each point.

[Notice we sometimes say "roll under" when we really mean "roll equal or under"; for example, rolling under Dexterity 7 means you have to roll 7 or less on the d20].

For example, you'd need Strength 11 to even try to bend bars (similarly to AD&D). This requires rolling a 1, which means 5% chance. Strength 10 could reduce that to 4%, and Strength 6 to 1%. Strength 5 makes it impossible. Strength 19 gives you a 45% chance.

[I'd probably get rid of percentile Strength, BTW].

Same reasoning for system shock: say you roll with a +4 bonus. Constitution 3 gives you a 35% chance (exactly like AD&D), since you have to roll 7 or less. Constitution 15 gives you 95%. Since there is always a small chance of failure, Constitution 16 will give you 96%, Constitution 17 will give you 97%, up to 99% if you have 19.

This also works for thief skills, which follow a similar progression (move quickly to 95% then slow down). Say you need to roll under thief level +3 to hide or move quietly; this gives you 20% chance on level one, 95% on level 15, up to 99% on level 19. Of course, you could use ability checks instead (with a -10 penalty, for these are exceptional tasks, but adding thief level).

Another use for this: hitting negative AC. If your THAC0 is 20, you have 5% chance to hit AC 0. In AD&D, you ALSO have 5% chance to hit AC -2, but... wouldn't it be smoother if your just apply the negative AC to that 5% chance? So, AC -2 gives you 3% chance of success instead of 5%. AC -4 gives you 1%, AC -5 is impossible to hit. Easy!]

Anyway, I've been thinking about these concept of "stretching the d20" for years. Now that I think of it, it probably deserves a post of its own. But this "d20 to d100" stretching is enough for AD&D, I think.

A real encounter with quantum goblins

Here is one experience that might be worth discussing.

I (accidentally?) "quantum ogred" my players this week. I also used some improvising and encounter balancing, two things I usually dislike.

And here is how it happened.

A few weeks before, the PCs had defended a town from goblin attacks. However, when the local lord asked their help to defeat the goblins entirely, the PCs decided the reward was not good enough, so they left.

When they went back, I said "roll a d20 so see how town fared against the goblins". I didn't have a rule for that, but I thought it made sense to ask this question. "Roll a d20 and see what happens" is the kind of vague/free-form rule I usually avoid, but this is what I defaulted too.

They rolled a natural 1.

I decided the town had been burned to the ground, then I remembered this post and decided d100% of the populace had been killed/fled. 

I rolled 89.

Only 11% of the population was left. The city had been razed and sacked.

So the PCs decide to ignore the goblins again and go North, through goblin territory, to find a Tabaxi tribe for their own reasons.

Now, this is LITERALLY goblin territory, and they knew it. Here is the map:

Anyway, when they got to hex 29.20, I rolled a random encounter: an hydra.

And I could (should?) have rolled again, because of the "double dragon" rule.

[This is something I mention in Basic Wilderness Encounters but I didn't invent: when you roll a dragon encounter, roll again ONCE, unless it is a green dragon in the forest, red dragon in the mountains, etc - this is meant to avoid the large number of dragons you find in B/X encounter tables.]

Instead, I suddenly decided the encounter should be with the goblin tribe that attacked the city.

Looking back, this feels a bit like railroading: the PCs had decided they wouldn't fight the goblins. And the goblins didn't appear in the random encounter table.

The thing is, the goblins were in the region. I hadn't assigned a specific hex for them, nor had I added this specific tribe to the encounter table - I had just assumed the PCs would look for them eventually, I'd ask for some tracking rolls, etc.

But I knew the goblins were around there. And I was using goblins from B10: Night's Dark Terror (recommended!), which suggests you "assign" encounters rather than rolling them.

The encounter in B10 had a mounted goblin king and 4 hobgoblins. But the PCs had killed dozens of goblins and are known as "goblin scourge" in the region: this small group just couldn't be that brave (B10 notices the king is ready to flee, IIRC). So I added a goblin encounter (6d10 goblins) on top of that.

It just made sense.

But also, they are level 8 by now (think the usual 4 classes) and most random encounters are just too easy - I needed the extra goblins to make it interesting.

In conclusion... I don't know. 

On one and I hate the idea of forcing the "plot" down the player's throats, or to create "level appropriate" encounters.

OTOH, I didn't stop believing the setting in favor of an expected "plot". They were going through literal goblin territory, after finding out the nearby city (Suykin) had been sacked by goblins. And not all random encounters need to be random? Goblins can plan their own attacks too. I am not sure how "forced" they felt.

And I respected each roll after I asked for them. Natural 1 means the city was defeated. 89% means only 11% were left. 6d10 goblins is the number of goblins in an usual encounter.

Anyway, after they managed to defeat the goblins, I went back to the usual tables. I rolled 12 bugbears. It was uninteresting and felt disconnected to the rest of the game.

I've been playing and running RPGs for 30+ years. Sometimes a game makes me change my beliefs and expectations. This was one of these times, maybe, and I might reconsider how to deal with random encounters in the future.

Well, I guess this is part of the fun of playing RPGS... you're always learning.

The Shadow People (book review)

Thoughts draw them. They are sensitive, they pick up something from us, they can track us by our thoughts as dogs can track by scent. Angry or disturbed or painful thoughts attract them most. That is why, in the old stories, somebody who had been "ill-sained" was particularly liable to capture by Otherworld denizens. And yet, for all their sensitivity, there could scarcely exist beings more primitive, rude, nearer to the archaic clay. They are not all alike.

There are three kinds of them, the gray, the black and the green. Green is the worst, but I have seen some white ones, too. I think that was underneath Merced. I wandered for a long time before I came out.

They dwell in a strange world, one of roaring waters, bitter cold, ice-coated rocks and fox fires glowing in the dark. They call our world the Bright World, the Clear World, or Middle-Earth. Their material culture is of the rudest. They have almost no artifacts except the ones they steal from us. Yet their place is home to them: I suppose that is what Kirk meant, in his Secret Commonwealth, when he spoke of their "happy polity". Their atter-corn is their one great luxury—that, and human flesh.

- "The Shadow People" by Margaret St. Clair

This is a weird book. 

And while it is indeed very much in the weird tradition of mixing horror, fantasy, and sci-fi, what I mean is that it is also a STRANGE book because of a sudden genre twist.

There will be some spoilers below.

----

The plot is about a man living in California, during the 1960s, that has to go to find and brave a surreal underworld after his girlfriend gets kidnapped. 

This "Underearth" is populated by evil elves - somewhat between fairy tales and cryptofauna - that want to rule surface eventually.

When the action shifts to the surface world, we suddenly see the world is living in a weird dystopia, probably caused by the elves machinations - in just three years! This is where dark fantasy gives way to sci-fi conspiracy, and the story seems to change focus completely, without much connection to the first part.

But the surreal tone is kept even in the surface. The world has gone dystopian and crazy. The protagonists find the villain eventually, but things don't really get resolved. Well, at least the protagonist can be protected from this social order... by magic?

Maybe the whole makes sense in the weird mix of Californian culture in the 60s: fantasy, hallucinogenics, conspiracy theories, anti-authoritarianism, computers, social unrest, etc. It feels a bit disjointed, but I have to say it is interesting. 

It is somewhat reminiscent of The Futurological Congress in its hallucinatory tone.

It's inclusion in the Appendix N makes sense because the underworld is very reminiscent of the Underdark: dangerous, surreal, magical, endless, populated by evil elves and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

I find the first few paragraphs, reproduced above, incredibly inspiring. 

This has probably been a big influence in D&D's "mythic underworld", and even the drow probably took inspiration from this novel.

In short, this is a curious read. Definitely idiosyncratic. Probably not as D&Dish as other Appendix N books (except for the Underdark part), and not particularly well written, but reasonably short, and certainly worth checking out if these themes interest you.

Read more about the Appendix N and other fantasy books HERE.

More d20 damage

I have spent several posts considering making a single roll for attack and damage, and even more posts considering Critical Hits.

But what if we combine both?

Here's what I am thinking: if you beat AC by 10 or more, you deal maximum damage.

But if you beat AC by 11 or more, you add the excess damage (e.g., +4 damage at if you beat AC by 14 and so on).

Beating AC by 10 or more is something that RARELY comes up, EXCEPT for strong fighters against weak/unarmored foes.

So Conan could maybe defeat a horse with a single punch - although it is unlikely. 

(Or defeat a sorcerer with a chair, if you want an example from the books).

But your average magic-user is unlikely to get much out of this (on the contrary, if he has no armor, this puts him in more danger!)

What if you get a natural 20? I dunno, maybe you get maximum damage regardless of margin, or double damage, or add five points to damage, or count it as 25, etc.

Effects:

- Fighters get stronger.

- A thief's sneak attack gets better.

- Big monsters get scarier.

- Combat get deadlier and less predictable.

I like them all.

Maybe something else I'm missing? Let me know, Anyway, just a random thought for now.

Simplifying THAC0 (and attack matrices)

I usually prefer ascending AC to descending AC, but I never thought THAC0 was particularly complicated.

You don't even need subtraction to use THAC0. 

Just roll 1d20, add AC and modifiers, and beat THAC0. Done. 

Delta has already done most of the work. I also found this post by @contrarian, which inspired most of what I'm writing here - and provided most of the images.

One thing I dislike are attack matrices, because I feel there is no need to check a table for that. If you need a "to hit" number, a single digit will do.

With that said, there ARE some interesting aspects of the AD&D matrices. But they could easily be reduced to this:

* Roll 1d20+AC+modifiers.

* Add your level if you're a fighter-type, half your level if you aren't.

* If you roll 20 or more, you hit.

And... that is it, basically. 

We still have to deal with negative AC, but we'll get there.

Let's see. This is the original DMG table:

Notice that 20s are repeated SIX TIMES, making many kinds of armor practically identical. 

This six-point spread is huge; in OD&D and B/X, for example, it is as big as the difference between UNARMORED and PLATE!

Here is an optional rule that allows you to roll higher than 20 on the d20, but requires a natural 20.

I dislike this table because it makes negative AC too powerful against a fighter of amazing strength and magic weapons. And STILL treats AC -2 identically to AC -7 in some cases.

However, the idea that you ALWAYS have a small chance to hit - even negative AC - is nice.

How often do your 1st-level PCs fight monsters with negative AC? Not often. 

BUT: I'm guessing the multiple 20s are there to allow, say, an army of NPC archers to fight a dragon, which makes sense.

How can we achieve the same effect without the tables? Well, you could simply add +5 to your roll if you hit AC 0 BEFORE considering the negative AC. 

But, again, this makes many types of different armor identical in practice.

So, my idea is that negative AC is not added to your roll (count it as zero), but subtracted from your damage. 

Maybe a powerful attacker can CHOOSE between subtracting AC from the roll or from the damage (sometimes, you NEED to take the "less damage" option).

Now AC 0 is different from -1 or -2, etc.

Gygax considered something vaguely similar is Isle of the Ape.

(Of course, we could go even further. Since you need 20 or more to hit, each point over 20 could be translated to damage (something that AD&D also suggests for fighter that hit automatically). But now we are getting further away from the original. Anyway...)

Here are a few additional considerations:

- Should clerics, thieves, and MUs use the same table? 

Yes. Clerics are too tough and thieves too weak already. For MUs, if really doesn't make a difference - your level 10th MU will use its 10d6 fireball rather than 1d4 dagger.

- But shouldn't a MU keep the same attacking capabilities until level 6? 

Not really. Gygax indicates a smoother curve for Fighters - why not do the same for other classes?

- What about backstabbing?

Since this is mentioned in the matrix, I will suggest thieves/assassins simply add their level to backstabbing damage (maybe a minimum if +4). This encourages them to attack with small weapons, and gives them a little boost every level. The books indicate that the only part of the damage that is multiplied is the weapon dice, not Str or magical bonuses. 

So, a thief with a magical shortsword (say, 1d6+2) dealing quintuple damage would roll 5d6+2. This is about 19.5 on average. 1d6+19 is just slightly higher than that, and the thief deserves the boost.

- What about monsters?

Treat them as fighters. Much easier but not that much different.

- But I want THAC0!

Here you go. Expand to level 20 or whatever you want.

- But I want something EVEN CLOSER to the original matrices!

In that case, check the original post by @contrarian. Great stuff!

Also, let me know about any other objections to my solutions!

The campaign spreadsheet

We used to joke about needing a spreadsheet to run certain games, but, come to think of it, this can work WONDERS for your campaigns - especially if you're playing online, of course.

I'm a bit of an Excel nerd. Not that I know much about it - I just use it for everything, especially to manage my calendar, passwords, goals, new year resolutions, links, and so on.

I have been saving my campaign stuff in text format (see here), plus various PDFs, but I'm certainly using excel (or OpenOffice, etc.) for my next campaign.

The first sheet to consider is a campaign timeline. This it's both a schedule (of future events) and a diary. The diary is basically "set in stone"; the players have access to it (you can have a second column of unknown/secret events to yourself). The schedule is basically a list of things you have planned or rolled in advance: an earthquake on November 16, the Dark Lord is planning an invasion on the October 1st, etc. As the players move closer to the events, they can see some signs and even potentially alter it.

The second sheet to consider is your GM screen. Anything you'd put in your "GM screen": random tables, critical hits, a list of random names, THAC0  tables, etc.

I'd keep random encounters in their own sheet. I've been using my own Random Wilderness Encounters PDF, but come to think of it, it might be useful to be able to edit encounters. Maybe discard some used ones (and roll them again) You could even prepare some encounters in advance, make a d10 table, and replace them as you go.

Then you might have a glossary of sorts: places, people, monsters, and so on. You might list them alphabetically (adding a column to specify "type": location/NPC/ etc) or create different sheets for each.

Characters could have their own sheet too, especially in systems that require math for character building (for example, to figure out skill points for the 2e thief).

You can probably add a sheet of random ideas in the end: links, modules you might want to check, tables you don't use often, and so on.

Now, one might wonder: why not use a .doc or wiki instead?

Well, you can. But spreadsheets may have at least two additional perks.

First, spreadsheets can do math. For example, I can quickly add a formula to know how many HP each PC will have on each level (if I'm playing 5e, for example).

Second, they can roll dice. 

I'm not an expert at all; I know that "=RANDBETWEEN(1,20)" automatically rolls a d20, and so on. You could create an entire line of formulas to make all the six or seven rolls you need for a random encounter in just a click or two (I could have saved so much time!).

Well, this is just a brainstorming post. Unfortunately, I have little actual practice with campaign spreadsheets.

Hopefully, I can just give you my spreadsheet when I start my next campaign. But if there is one like that out there... let me know! It will save me some work!