I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.

- William Blake

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Review: The Gods Have Spoken (5E)

Disclaimer: the publisher has sent me a review copy of the book (in PDF format).

The Gods Have Spoken is a 5th edition supplement with 28 new deities and everything that comes with it: multiple character options (specially for clerics and paladins), holy (and unholy) locations, factions, new monsters, magic items, and a few 13th Age-inspired house rules.


The book

The appearance of this book is puzzling, with a curious mix of good and bad stuff. Most of the art, for example, is very well done (similar to the cover) - but some pieces are repeated two or three (!) time throughout the book, sometimes in adjacent pages (!!). Since the books uses good quality B&W and stock art, I see no reason for this.

The same thing happens with the layout. The overall quality is very good: the PDF is fully bookmarked, with a decent index, table of contents, glossary, and multiple side-notes, but also with lots of empty space. The page borders are not particularly beautiful nor do they have anything to do with the subject of the book , but each chapter is color-coded, which is nice and useful.

In short, it looks like professional work left unfinished. Well, you can judge for yourself:


The setting

First of all, while the book doesn't described a complete setting (since this is not the subject), it does imply a fairly high-fantasy setting with dhampirs, gnomes, and probably some steampunk. It fits 5e assumed setting well.

The book describes 28 deities divided in three different pantheons: the Thirsty Gods (of Egyptian flavor among other things), the Old Gods (Celtic, Norse, Slavic, etc.) and the Bright Gods (who might be based on eastern philosophies, although I cannot say for sure).

The deities are all creative and unusual; you never really feel that a deity is just Thor or Bahamut with a different name. The way the pantheons are described is very organic and flavorful: religions change, influence one another, create superstitions and schisms, guide different sorts of behaviors, etc. All of these aspects are described within the book. This is both useful and inspiring, even if you want to use it to create your own religions.

The holy and unholy places of each pantheon are intirguing, with plenty of ideas about encounters, scenes, and adventure seeds.

Then we get the factions. Again, they are diverse and flavorful: not only sects, but artisan guilds, secret anarchist cults, musician warriors, preservers of the faith, etc. The mechanics involving these factions are an important part of the book and will be discussed in the next topic.

The book also has half a dozen monsters (a dozen if you count variations) and a few NPC allies. Fluff-wise, the monsters are very cool, with mythological roots tied to the exploits of the main deiteis. Mechanically speaking, they have a few twists that I'll discuss in the next section.

Finally we have a few magic items and a whole system to generate holy weapons. This part is short but looks extremely useful, even if you don't plan to use any of the deities in the book.


The system

The character options contained within the book are standard 5e: cleric domains, druid circles, paladin oaths, feats, and three backgrounds, one for each religion (well, actually, the three are variations of the acolyte background - and a bit of needless repetition there). A few warlock pacts would be a nice addition. Everything seems fitting and balanced, with a few exceptions. For example, you get some of this:

"You are proficient in survival if not already. As well, you double your proficiency bonus for all survival checks."

This is obviously more useful to someone who doesn't have the proficient already. Compare this to the feats in the Unearthed Arcana: Feats for Skills from Wizards of the Coast:

"You gain proficiency in the Acrobatics skill. If you are already proficient in the skill, you add double your proficiency bonus to checks you make with it."

I'm not sure this is on purpose, because some feats might be too weak without this "free expertise" (Reknarite Knight, for example).

Flavor-wise, the options are very good and fit well with the philosophies of the respective deities. Overall, they are good additions if you're looking for more religious character options.



The book also has an entire faction system, with suggestions on when and how the factions interact with the individual PCs, how characters get favors, information, potions, enmity, etc. This seems to te heavily inspired by 13th Age (it seems the book has an earlier 13th Age "sibling"), but is much more detailed than the 13th Age SRD in this aspect.

If you want to have formalized rules about factions, these will certainly be useful - I am tempted to use this myself for 5e, even if I was never convinced by 13th Age's "Icons". This is another part of the book that you can use even without the deities.

You can also get "allies" with this system, with various functions: some will heal the party, others will hinder enemies, and so on. The "damage sponge" is a peculiar type of NPC who will draw heat from enemies.; the "red shirts" of the setting. The concept of having someone to die for the PCs doesn't seem particularly heroic (for the PCs) or believable, but I can see how it might be useful. Unfortunately, their stat-blocks are strange; a third-tier damage sponge has +12 to hit (which is probably WAY better than the PCs they follow). So, yeah, they will basically look more competent than the PCs and then die first in battle. I'm not sure the players will appreciate.

Monsters also have a few unique features inspired by 13th Age: they get special attack if they roll a "natural" 16 or more on the dice, or if the result is even, etc. Another feature of 13th age I didn't particularly like for PCs, but makes sense for monsters.

In conclusion

The Gods Have Spoken aims to offer more options for PCs and also flesh out the "Religion" chapter of a full setting, and it does both competently. But the book is much more than that. Specially, the faction system has lots of cool rules that might prove useful to any 5e game (or any RPG at all, if you think about it). It is also a good way to test a few ideas of the 13th Age RPG within a 5e framework.

On the other hand, the  unfinished look of the layout and a few inconsistencies with the mechanics detract from the rest of the work, and the price ($17.45 as I write this) might be a bit exaggerated for the page count with this amount of white space.

Overall, I feel the book deserves a bit of extra work to become really good, as it shows great promise; however, it has plenty of interesting stuff already, specially if you want more options to play with factions, religions and deities in your 5e games.

Friday, August 11, 2017

The double challenge - quick difficulty adjustment (5e quick fix)

5e quick fixes are exactly what they say on the tin. Small house rules to fix D&D problems you probably don't have. Use them wisely!

D&D 5e has few guidelines on fixing a Difficulty Classes (DCs). Basically, it boils down to this:

Task DifficultyDC
Very easy5
Easy10
Medium15
Hard20
Very hard25
Nearly impossible30
The idea is that you just eyeball it. Which is good enough, I guess, but it can lead to some incoherence if the GM pulls numbers from thin air while disregarding (or forgetting) past rulings.

The other problem is that many rolls in 5e are contests (opposed rolls) - they rely on your foe's stats and rolls, not on a fixed DC. The simple answer is advantage/disadvantage - but what if I want to add some degrees of EPIC craziness? Say, for example, I have disadvantage if my enemy is in a "Hard" situation - what if I'm on a "Nearly impossible" situation?

It seems to me that, if the DC is that different between "Hard" and  "Nearly impossible", there should also be some distinction when you're NOT using DCs.

Well, you can always adopt a +10 modifier instead of ad/disad for extreme circumstances. There is at least one good supplement - Dungeon Grappling - that does that.

There is no easy answer to all situations, but I use a simple rule that works for many circumstances, provided the challenge can be objectively "measured" somehow - in feet, pounds, number of creatures, minutes, etc.

It goes like this: you can double the effect of a roll by rolling two dice, triple it by rolling three dice, quadruple it by rolling four dice, etc. So, a "double challenge" would require two dice, and so on.

Let us say, for example, that you want to grapple or push four goblins at once with your shield. The GM thinks your idea is both plausible (you have Strength 18 and are proficient in Athletics) and cool, so she allows it - although she thinks pushing four goblins should be harder than pushing two or three.

Just roll four dice and pick the worst - if you succeed, all four goblins are affected.

Likewise, a Warlock could use Dark Delirium against three creatures instead of one - just roll three dice for their saving throws, and if the highest one succeeds, all three make their saves.

Or if you want to use a paladin's Abjure Enemy within 120 feet instead of 60 feet, to stop a skeleton. Technically it should be impossible, but why not allow it - specially for for a high level paladin against low level foes? Just roll two dice and pick the worst (since you doubled the distance).

This is not only for dealing with multiple foes. As you can see, you can double distances, do things three times faster, etc.


This assumes, of course, you must roll to hit and have both a chance of success and a chance of failure (no matter how minimal). However, you can also use this idea with powers or situations that require NO die roll - just assume a natural 1 is a critical failure, a natural 2 is a failure, and everything else succeeds.

This adds a lot of flexibility to the whole system. Say, if you have a power that can automatically provide food for six people every day, what happens if you're travelling with a dozen people? Or if you're in the a dry land with little food? Just roll a couple of dice and you're good to go.

I know, I know, creating a "dice pool" with disadvantages is verboten in 5e - but modifiers also are, as a general rule. In any case, if you prefer modifiers and dislike dice pools, just use the guidelines here. Or DOUBLE the number to get the modifier: -4 for two creatures, -6 for tripling the distance, -8 for acting four times faster, etc.

What is the point?

I added this rule to my RPG (Days of the Damned) to quickly adjust DCs in various circumstances. In 5e, I think it is useful for another reason: it allows high level characters to be more flexible and impressive against low level foes.

Because of bounded accuracy and the action economy, some PCs - specially Fighters, for example - have few options when fighting multiple weak creatures at once (and vice-versa - some high level creatures can be outclassed by a group of low level PCs).

This is deliberate, from what I understand about 5e's design goals - but not to everyone's tastes.

I, for one, think that there should be a greater gap between, say, levels 6 and 16. While I appreciate 5e's more "grounded" heroes, high level characters (specially fighters, barbarians etc.) feel a bit underwhelming.

In short, I like what 5e did - I just think they went too far.

A 12th level barbarian (according to the PHB, someone that deals with threats to whole regions or continents!) should have an easy time against a dozen of goblins archers, and not be completely unable to move if four kobolds ever manage to grapple him! I don't think it is too much to ask - at 12th level, a wizard can cast Mass Suggestion against a dozen foes, and even the fighter will survive a 100 feet fall with no serious injuries... So why not kick a few goblins away in a single round?

This little rule, by itself, is not enough to make high level characters more "epic", but it might be a good start.

Wednesday, August 02, 2017

Planet Asterion

Here is a few very loose ideas for an unfinished campaign setting. I wrote this a while ago and, to be honest, doesn't feel like an ideal RPG setting, but I thought I'd share anyway. Who knows, it might be the post of an "Unfinished Worlds" series. Unless I get lost in the way...


Planet Asterion

Planet Asterion is an endless maze. It might be a real planet, but then again it might be something else. Nobody has found the way out, and the exit is probably a myth. Common people waste no time with such thoughts.

Most corridors are 10 feet wide. There are wider clearings along the way, but big ones are rare.

The maze might have been created by someone, but most of it was not "built" in any meaningful way. Instead, the maze-like patterns force themselves on reality. Which means:

- Plants will grow into endless maze formations, always connected to one another - loose parts will die out. Most of the maze is made of living or decaying wood. The most common flora on Planet Asterion is made of short (about ten feet), dark red trees, with flat trunks that can go on for miles, no trunks and often covered by a dark leaf wall. These plants seem to take most of their sustenance from the ground, rather than the sun. Their life cycle is no longer than a few weeks, which causes the maze to change constantly. They can be hacked with an axe in a couple of hours, but unless the roots are destroyed they will regenerate within a week. They bear bitter fruit - but it might save you from starving.

- Erosion will cause rocks to become natural mazes. These walls are a lot harder to break, and often taller than plant mazes, but more stable. A stone clearing is valuable territory, since you can build a house in it.

- Animals will build their structures in the same way. Exotic beaver creatures infest the planet, and they are often building walls out of plant materials, re-purposed ruins or random trash. People assume they are intelligent, as they are certainly able to communicate through gesture, but they aren't really interested in other creatures.

There are different kinds of maze - or different parts of the same maze - too. The maze itself is very hard to navigate, but the different parts of it have specific characteristics that can make people know what to expect. Walls made of living flesh or bone are usually bad omens.

And then, there is Old Town. The labyrinth made os bricks and stone, with hidden doors, dangerous traps and crazy inhabitants that speak in riddles. Well, at least the mist cannot reach you in there. Nobody knows who or what built such thing, or for what purpose. Unlike the rest of the world, this is a mystery that actually makes people a bit curious.

Oceans exist, but no wood seems adequate to make a boat. Mountains can be useful in finding directions. The sun and stars are a bit less reliable.


The Oblivion & the mist

People in the maze seem to be forgetful, to say the least, but very adapted to the planet they are in.

The nature of the universe is a non-issue. Everybody know they live in a maze world, and nobody cares except a few demented philosophers. 

Where do you come from? Nobody cares. You assume you had a father and a mother at some point, but, unless they are with you at this very moment, chances are you don't remember how you got separated. No use in brooding over it now.

Languages? Well, everybody speaks Common, because of course they would. They know a language from their past, that they don't really use unless they happen to find a long-lost relative.

You might also know a third language, one that only you can speak. You have tried to find someone else to talk to, but it has been fruitless.

I might have something to do with the mist that comes at random intervals, stealing people's memories without notice. Recent memories remain, and you don't forget the times you spent with people that are currently around you, but much is lost anyway.

Even the things that you thought to be parts of yourself.


People and civilization

There are all kinds of intelligent creatures in the maze, although they are seldom taller than normal humans. Rhinoceros people, noseless aliens, and intelligent quadrupeds are all common, but not much similar to each other and not particularly likely to band together unless they are a family. Most intelligent creatures have humanoid shape, and people don't really notice the differences.

It is hard to be prejudiced -you can often tell someone's strength by the size of their muscles, but having pointy ears doesn't make one more likely to see in the dark.

Genetics work differently in there. It seems like all kinds of creatures can produce children, who only looks vaguely similar to their parents half the time. Children cannot be conceived without love, even if love may also be forgotten in a few minutes.

There is no significant civilizations. There are small tribes and parties wandering around, loose families, and so on. but one can hardly build a city in such environment. Large gatherings of people will cause starvation and death, since the fruits are scarce.

Intelligence creatures have tried to build ample structures. It's no use. Plants will creep through the floor. The ground will fracture. Eventually, it will become part off the maze. Legends tell of the Suspended City, which the plants cannot reach, and of the Mad King who built the ever-changing Golden Maze palace that is undisturbed by the pattern, but then he got lost inside, never to be seen again.

Repeated attempts at building cities have managed to leave lots of ruins - strange, forgotten, warped ruins, that most people avoid.

With no social tissue, it can be hard to know how to treat people. Everybody can talk to each other, but resources are scarce are everybody is hungry.

Fortunately, some truths seem to be self-evident to most intelligent creatures. Killing, stealing and lying are wrong (although people will do it anyway). Adding a brick to the Old Town maze or traversing it brings good luck, provided you survive, while eating the beaver-creatures brings bad luck. All this stuff is obvious.

Intelligent beings meeting you for the first time will treat you like they rolled on a Moldvay reaction table. Unfortunately, not all creatures that look like people are actually people.


What Evil lurks

There are no great, land-based monsters in Planet Asterion; the maze cannot support them. Birds are common, pterodactyls a bit less so, and dragons are the stuff of legend. Most menacing creatures within the maze look like tigers or wolves - seeing one turn the corner is a terrifying experience.

Even small, burrowing creatures have a difficult time avoiding the maze. Snakes cannot go through walls, except ion the greener areas. Monkey-like beings that can climb and jump fare somewhat better.

The greatest danger to the people are the violently insane. They act in unpredictable ways, and often attack on sight. Their eyes are hollow and most are unable to communicate. Nobody knows where they come from - but everybody assumes there is no possibility that someone could turn insane. Those people are just too different from us, although they look the same - they must be of a different, completely unrelated, species.

"Common" people call them Minotaurs. Their brains - not their heads - are like those of violent beasts.

What do we do?

The setting seemed a bit too nihilist and random to me. An endless maze does not look like fun role-playing (turn right, walk 30 feet, turn left, walk 50 feet, which way are you going now?), unless abstracted or used with a decent "oracle" of random encounters.

With that said, adventures in the maze wouldn't be different than most adventures - start with a rumor, explore a unknown location, interact with complete strangers, etc. - but would contain a lot more random elements and no overarching "goal" or "endgame".

Hoarding gold would be useless, but looking for food and knowledge might be enough to motivate PCs. Or not. It is an odd idea, and probably half-baked.

Strangely enough, the concept felt a lot shallower in my read, but writing everything down made it a bit more interesting for me. Let me know what you think.


Things that might have inspired this

My earliest experiences with dungeons (specially "fun-house dungeons" I guess), Labyrinth (the movie), The Citadel of Chaos, Jorge Luis Borges ("The House of Asterion", "The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths"), H. P. Lovecraft ("In the Walls of Eryx") and later the Hellraiser movies and Italo Calvino.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Dark Fantasy Basic, One Page Hacks, and Alignment

As you might know, I was trying to rewrite B/X one page at a time... But now it seems I rewrote the whole thing.

Yeah, my "one page hacks" transformed into a fully developed retro-clone. Well, not fully developed; the first "booklet" (a player's guide including spells and all rules on adventuring) is finished, but "Monsters & Treasure" and GM stuff will have to wait. 

I'm calling it "Dark Fantasy Basic"; if you like my "one page hacks", I bet you'll like it, so stay tuned; it will probably be available within a couple of months, at most (if you want to take a look and provide feedback before that, let me know through G+ or in the comments, and I'll send you the current version).

In any case, this post is about alignment.

As you know, the original D&D, heavily based on Poul Anderson's work, used alignment as teams, and "chaotic" was basically a synonym of "team evil". 

Michael Moorcock created a more nuanced (and sometime confusing) view on alignment, making agents of Law as dangerous as Chaos. Later forms of D&D added "good and evil" as a distinct axis to reflect that (Holmes D&D, interestingly, recognizes the possibility of "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good", using 5 alignments). 

This is the Law! - source.
I don't think the Good-Evil axis is particularly useful, but "team good" and "team evil" is also limiting in my opinion. And I like my shades of gray, and the idea of Evil Angels of Law is just too enticing for me. Law, Chaos, and even Balance should be kept a bit beyond the characters' comprehension; they are just too big to grasp completely.

This nuanced view opens interesting possibilities of role-playing; from time to time, the PCs might find themselves fighting against the forces of Law, pitting the forces of Chaos against each other, making deals, etc. It is also a view concept that fits the polytheistic view of the world often sued in D&D; sometimes, the gods of the underworld are the ones who can guide you though the dungeon. 

"Neutral", by the way, is also not a useful concept for me, because it encompasses those who don't care, those who cannot care (animals), and those who think there should be a balance between the opposing forces of Law and Chaos, or maybe that both forces are dangerous to humankind.

Anyway, here is what I came up with. Click here for the PDF. As always, the idea is that you can use it with any version of D&D.

Alignment & World View


The universe hangs in the balance of the cosmic struggle between Law, the infinite unifying principle of order and conformity, and Chaos, the unrelenting entropic force of freedom and change.

It is up to you to pick a side or remain neutral. You can choose to be Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral or Unaligned, unless the PC’s class or other features requires a certain alignment.

Alignment is not a straitjacket for character behavior, but a summary of the PC’s philosophy, world view, and sympathies.

Lawful characters believe in heavenly order. There are divine laws, legitimate rulers, and faithful prophets, although there are also false idols and usurpers. Unholy magic is better left alone, and the undead must be destroyed, along with other aberrations. Some lawful creatures, such as the Ironweb Spiders, are very dangerous, but that is because the universe has mysterious rules that the mortal mind cannot fully comprehend. To defy Law is to bring destruction upon the world.

Chaotic characters believe in freedom and chance. There are no legitimate kings or queens, no perfect doctrines, no reasonable taboos. The universe is ruled by randomness. The strong rule the weak with power and lies, as it has always has been. Magic, people and creatures are just tools for the clever. Some demons, at least, will offer you a deal – which is more that can be said of the silent Stone Angels that seem to want to turn the world into a tidily organized jail block.

Neutral characters believe in Balance. They believe both Law and Chaos are inimical to humankind, as both visions of paradise will turn this world into a living hell. The gods of Neutrality, if they exist at all, are bound by nature and want to preserve reality as it is. Life is more important than order or freedom.

Many people are agnostic to this struggle and remain unaligned, whether because they don’t fully understand it, because they feel they cannot affect it, or because they don’t care.

People don’t necessarily act in accordance to their alignment all the time, and sometimes it is often hard to distinguish one alignment from another. All alignments contain good and evil people. A Lawful character may choose to wage war against other Lawful sects for religious or mundane reasons, for example, or always choose justice over the slightest mercy. Chaotic characters may cooperate with Neutral or Lawful characters to achieve a common goal. A Neutral character can pray to the Lawful gods against the hordes of chaos in a moment of need.

Lawful and Neutral beliefs are more common amongst humankind, although Chaos is often worshiped simultaneously (or secretly).

There are plenty of nonhuman creatures that identify themselves as forces of Law, Chaos or Neutrality. It is often hard to say if they’re telling the true. As a general rule, Lawful creatures are a bit more predictable since they are always seem to be following one some kind of rules, although those rules will often contradict one another.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

GURPS D&D, part IV: Active Defenses and Saving throws

Read parts III and III before, if you prefer.

So, active defenses. In GURPS, unlike D&D, if an enemy hits you, you can still dodge or parry the blow. It makes a lot of sense; having a parrying weapon or shield is useful, but it can break, and parrying a blade with your arm is certainly going to hurt you. 

Like everything in GURPS, you must roll under a target number to succeed. This target number is usually much lower than the "attacking" skill, making attacks usually better than defense. Which makes sense; combat would take forever otherwise.

In fact, sometimes it feels that combat DOES take forever in GURPS. If your Dodge score is 12, for example, you must roll under 12 (with 3d6) to succeed, which means you can ignore 75% of the attacks that hit you.


The concept of "active defenses" is not that different from D&D saving throws.

Curiously enough, spell saving throws DON'T work in the same way in GURPS. At least not necessarily; a magic projectile is still an attack and can be dodged (the sorcerer must roll two times; once to "create" the projectile and the second to hit the target, and then the target rolls to dodge), but a mind controlling spell, for example, requires the target to roll 3d6 under his Will score (with 3d6) AND beat the sorcerer's margin of success, which isn't required when you dodge.

There are half a a dozen additional rules to make it more complicated (critical hits don't allow defenses, special maneuvers can increase or lower the defense scores, a defense of 3-4 always succeeds and 17-18 always fails, the rule of 16, etc), but that's the gist of the thing.

Why does this need fixing? Because it is too complicated and generates lots of useless rolls. 

How do we fix it? Unify and simplify.

Fortunately, using a d20 in a roll under system (like suggested in the previous posts) make things really easy: just use a blackjack mechanic.

(I've written about similar subjects before, here and here; also, Pendragon does something similar IIRC).

First, defenses. Forget GURPS; now defenses are half attribute + skill, like everything else. Obviously, you can defend with any weapon you can use, but "general" defenses should be easy to come by. In my own game, Days of the Damned, I created a "Survivor" skill that applies to, basically, all defenses but combat; we could probably do the same here.

Now, the combat procedure. Roll 1d20 under you skill. If you fail, well, you fail. If you succeed and roll over your opponent's skill, you hit. Otherwise, you opponent gets a chance of defending, but he must roll under his skill (as always) and OVER your skill to defend.

Example: say your Warrior skill is 17, and you roll a 13. You hit. If your enemy's defense is lower than 13, there is no defense. If your enemies defense is, say, 15, he can only defend by rolling a 15, 14 or 13.

Spells? Exactly the same. ONE roll to cast the spell, and one roll to defend (at most). Don't worry, we will talk about spells eventually.

If you want EVEN LESS dice rolling just divide the skill by two for one of the sides, instead of rolling.

Say, if you want an attack roll but not a defense roll in your games, the skill 17 attacker will hit an skill 12 defender with any number between 6 (i.e., 12 divided by two - although a 6 would be a tie, and ties go to the defender) and 17.

Likewise, if you prefer the PCs to make all the rolls, NPCs always divide their skill by 2 instead of rolling.

It seem that, sometimes, combining two games can create something that is simpler than either of them.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

GURPS D&D, part III: Combat basics & weapons

Check Part I and Part II.

How would GURPS-D&D combat play out?

First, combat is a skill like any other, but it is ROLLED differently. Not because it is a special skill, but because combat is a special situation that requires multiple repeated rolls. Want to enter an archery contest? That is 3d6 (or 4d6, 5d6) under skill. Combat? A d20 all the way.

Why? Because predictably is necessary when dealing with skills, but boring when dealing with combat.

A natural 1 is a critical hit, by the way. And let's get rid of some of the most stupid rules of GURPS (critical hit tables with "nothing happens" as the most likely result) and D&D (the 3.x "confirming criticals" idea) while we're at it. Funny how those rules are similar, right?

Should we use DEX or STR for combat? Both are fine by me. I'd prefer using DEX "to hit" and STR for damage, including missile weapons, as in GURPS. The idea that you should be using a rapier or longbow if you're weak makes no sense to me! And, as you've seen in part II, combat is mostly skill in this hybrid system, so a low-DEX high-STR fight can still work very well, specially with a d20.

Aside from using a d20, combat is roll-under like everything else. Roll under DEX/2+Fighter (or Barbarian, Monk, etc.) and you hit. Active defenses (dodge, parry, etc) deserves another post.

Forget AC; in GURPS, armor means damage resistance (DR; for example, DR 2 reduces 5 points of damage to 3 points of damage). You don't even need the book; DR is 2/4/6 for light/medium/heavy armor. Flexible armor is easier to don and hide under clothes, but has half DR against crushing attacks. Weight is 15 pounds per point of DR, cost is $300/$1000/$3000.

By the way, the paragraph above fixes one of the most annoying aspects of GURPS: it doesn't have "complete" armor sets in the core book. You must buy armor separately for the torso, legs, arms, etc. You can still use the original method if you prefer more detail.

GURPS equipment is in some ways more interesting than D&D equipment, and GURPS Low-Tech is a thing of beauty if you're looking for detail. But even in the core rule book you've got rules for obsidian blades, different weapons against different armor (no table needed!), and so on.


GURPS does have a few interesting twists when it comes to weapons. Basically, stronger characters are more efficient with axes, maces and other "swung" weapons, while weaker ones would better use spears and arrows ("thrusting" weapons). Some swords and pole-weapons have both options! Nice, huh?

But probably too complicated, and you still need a table to find your damage. It is not a difficult one to use, but I'd rather avoid it.

Let us make it simple: just give an WotC-era bonus to damage (+3 for Strength 16, for example), but DOUBLE the bonus for swung weapons (do not double the penalty for weak characters!).

You can still use damage from your favorite D&D edition (1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10; save the 1d12 for halberds only). It works better, and polyhedrals are more fun, right?

GURPS have lots of "realistic" rules for maximum damage, minimum Strength, etc., but they can simplified to this: you cannot have a bonus greater than the dice you're rolling (so, a 1d4 weapon deals 1d4+4 damage at most). If you want to enforce minimum strength, you need Strength 4 to use 1d4 weapons, Strength 6 to use 1d6 weapons, etc.

It also has this cool little rule where cutting/piercing damage that penetrate armor gets a bonus. Piercing weapons DOUBLE that damage (for example, 10 damage, minus 2 from armor would be 8 damage, but 16 if the weapon is piercing). Cutting weapons add 50% to damage after armor. It is easy once you get the hang of it, I promise.

This means a barbarian with a halberd and Strength 20 (assuming 22 as a maximum) deals 1d12+10 damage, plus 50% of any damage that penetrates armor. Which - surprise! - very similar, in average, to the damage he'd deal using GURPS unadulterated rules (3d+7)!

These rules seem simple enough, but cause lots of interesting effects:

- Strong characters are encouraged to use big weapons, and very strong characters are encouraged to use two-handed weapons.

- Certain weapons are better against certain types of armor by default.

- High DEX and high STR Fighters are BOTH feasible, but they FEEL different in play. Unlike 5e D&D, for example, high DEX characters hit more often, but deal significantly less damage per hit.

- A combat between the Red Viper and the Mountain will play somewhat like... well, the combat between the Red Viper and the Mountain (from "A Song of Ice and Fire").

- The result is both more "realistic" than D&D and more fun than GURPS. Which, come to think of it, might be the whole point of this exercise: making combat faster and more fun, while still giving plenty of meaningful tactical choices to warriors.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

GURPS D&D, part II: Skills

Click here for part I, where I explain why D&D does attributes better than GURPS. I started writing this because of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, but I have no idea if they use a similar system to the one I propose here, since I haven't played GURPS for a while. Let me know in the comments!

One of the reasons I stopped playing GURPS was "too many skills". I know some versions of TSR-D&D (and, obviously, 3e) had lots of skills too, but eventually I decided I prefer 4e and 5e in this regard.

How many skills do I need? Well, around a dozen will do, but I'd take a few extra skills if needed.

GURPS has about 18 skills... that start with the letter A!

But - wait - there is more! At least a few of those MUST be taken with a specialty, so you have Area Knowledge (Neighborhood) and Area Knowledge (City) as two separate skills.

Unfortunately, choosing skills is not enough. Each skill has a different difficulty - easy, medium, hard, or very hard - with different costs (mercifully easier in GURPS 4e than in 3e).

At least you don't have to buy all skills you want to use. Some skills default from attributes, so if you have Intelligence 15 you automatically get Accounting 9. Unless you have the Finance skill. Then you have Accounting equal to Finance -4. Or Merchant -5. You also get a discount to Accounting if you have Finance and want to raise the other skill...

Is accounting a bad example for D&D? Try swords: there is a skill for broadswords, other for short swords, rapier, saber, smallsword, two-handed swords... and they all default to each other.

Even if you don't play GURPS, I think you can see why some people have headaches while reading it.

(And yes, I will STILL say that GURPS is a simple game to PLAY, although character creation can be a hassle).

Sample skills from the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.
Still, GURPS has some advantages over D&D when dealing with skills. Probabilities make way more sense, for example. Nope, the Strength 10 guy won't beat the Strength 20 gal in an arm-wrestling match 20% of the time. Maybe 1% of the time, probably less.

The problem, then, is the skill list.

Fortunately, GURPS has a built in solution: Wildcard skills. They replace ALL the skill in any given "umbrella". If you have a "Sword!" skill you can fight with all swords and knives, fast-draw your sword, and jump around while fencing. The good thing is that you can still use GURPS's humongous list of skills if you need to know exactly how Aerobatics work. Or Accounting.

For a "GURPS D&D" game, its easy to see you can use these skills in lieu of classes.

Of course, in D&D classes are often MORE important than attributes/abilities, so a few tweaks might be useful.

Try this: all skills default to Attribute/2, and each +1 bonus costs 12 points. Since you have a bonus instead of a fixed number, you can add it to different attributes: an Dexterity 16 Intelligence 8 fighter with a Barbarian! +5 skill attacks with a skill of 13 but can also identify plants in the wild with a skill of 9 - better than than the group's wizard!

This is even better than Wildcard skills, because I don't want barbarians to jump around while wielding a rapier... but "Swashbucklers!" certainly will! It is all about archetypes, IMO.

Also form the RC. Same page, actually.
Attributes are still useful to define speed, HP, etc., but less useful for class abilities. Which is good because now my barbarian doesn't have to be able to pick locks (high Dexterity) in order to be a fearsome fighter.

It also fixes the need for a skill list, and makes the "Dexterity as an uber stat" a lot less severe.

Come to think of it, this system would also work very well for D&D games.

BTW, "specialty" skills cost 6 points and are added on top of the existing skills (cannot be more than twice the wildcard skill bonus). If you want multiple specialty skills, all but the highest cost 1 point only (then you can have Barbarian! +5, Axe +8, Survival +7, Climbing +7, etc).

Is this too complicated? I think it is easier than 3.x D&D or BECMI weapon proficiencies, but what can I say... I am a GURPS fan after all!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...