Chainmail magic: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and more oddities

Chainmail* has several interesting ideas that have been "lost" in the transition to D&D. Studying them is fun and can provide many ideas for your D&Dish games. Today, we tackle magic, in three parts: Spell Complexity, Counter spell, and other curiosities.

[*affiliate link]

Spell Complexity

Spell Complexity is an optional rule where "each listed spell has a complexity value, and this value indicates how difficult it is to use such spell. [...] In addition, there may be a delay in the effect of the spell, or it may be totally negated due to some minor error or distraction. The table below gives the scores necessary for immediate, deferred (1 turn), and negated spell effects by the various levels of magic-users.".

In other words:

- Roll 2d6. Subtract spell level. Add half your level, round up (this is an approximation, CM units have names instead of levels).

- 8 or more means the spell is cast immediately. 6-7 means it is delayed for one turn. 5 means the spell fails. 

While I have written my own roll-to-cast rule for B/X, I must admit I'm enthralled by this one, simply because of the spell delay aspect. It adds another layer of excitement/tension and choice/tactics to everyone on the battlefield.

Now spell interruption is not only about initiative, but about a series of choices on both sides of the battle.

BTW, the book won't tell you what happens if you roll lower than 5; I first assumed the spell is lost for the day, but it could also be a spell mishap, etc. Look at the post I mentioned for more ideas. But, as mentioned in the comments, the table probably indicates that 5 or less means the spell fails. The notation is horrible but supposedly it is common in wargaming at the time.

Counter spell

"The stronger magician can successfully cast a counter-spell with a two dice score of 7 or better, while a weaker magician needs a score of 8, 9, 10 or 11, depending on his relative strength. A counter-spell fully occupies a magician's powers." 

In other words... you could employ a similar dice roll as the one describe above, adding your level and subtracting your opponent's level (half-level would be more precise, but I'd favor simplicity here).

CM does not delve into further detail; I assume the spell that is successfully countered is negated. I'm unsure if only delayed spells can be countered, but it would be fun if your delay allowed another magician to not only counter your spell but also cast a spell against you, etc.

Again, this adds another layer of tension and tactics to the game.

Other curiosities

"Wizards can handle magical weaponry. [...] Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack, they con see in darkness, they affect friendly and enemy morale as do Super Heroes [...]. Wizards are themselves impervious to normal missile fire but if they are struck by a missile from an enemy Wizard they must score 7 or better with two to survive."

They seems very powerful!

Wizards are also artillery. They can throw fireballs and lightning bolts (with effects similar to guns and catapults), which are not spells, so presumably they don't "roll to cast" and never run out. I like this approach and I added an "arcane artillery" feat to my Old School Feats.

A wizard - the highest level a magic-user can get - has only 6-7 spells. If we count fireballs, lighting bolts, and in visibility, we are not very far from one spell per level, which I like.

Also notice the lack of "Vancian" casting. No memorization. You just have a few spells that you can cast over and over until you fail.

Overall, I really like Chainmail magic. It is somewhat simpler and at the same time has more tactical depth than B/X, without getting to AD&D levels of complexity.

It doesn't require memorization, material components or specific casting times; the spells can be cast more often, but also can be delayed and countered. This seems to me as a superior alternative as it is more exciting than a list of requirements.

A B/X conversion?

How about 10+ means immediate casting, 5+ means delayed casting, and less than that you fail or lose the spell? This makes MUs lose some of their speed but not their power. Seems good for starting MUs, but as always they become too powerful at higher levels. As always, some fine-tuning is needed.

Old school dice pools

So, I just had a fast combat/mass combat idea for D&D, probably from  Chainmail or Delta's blog:

Roll 1d6/level for fighters, half as much for clerics, 1/3 for MUs.

1 misses, 2-5 hit/miss depending on AC, 6 always hits. 

Monsters only need one hit per HD and we don't even need d20s. 

The idea is making combat against dozens of opponents a bit quicker.

But come to think of it, it could be pushed into an entire system. Let's see.

Duels

Two 9-HD fighters facing off would each roll 9d6 and cause an average of 3 hits per round (assuming they hit on a 5-6), so combat would be a bit quicker than, say, B/X.

Ranged combat

Both in real life and D&D, ranged combat is not usually as efficient as mêlée combat. Maybe adding 1 or 2 to AC is enough. To avoid treating an archer like a machine gun, you can rule "missed" shots are time spent in aiming, drawing, etc., and only "hits" or 1s waste arrows.

Against a single target, maybe all damage comes from a carefully aimed single arrow; so a very powerful fighter with a magic arrow could kill a dragon immediately, but this is very rare.

Weapons

Certainly there is some nuance lost here. Let's assume everyone is using a single-handed weapon. 2H weapons might add a dice, while maces may remove a point of AC, etc.

Turn Undead

Cleric rolls 2d6/level. 

Rolling 2-5 turns one HD of undead, 6 damages them. You can alter these numbers to make the cleric more or less powerful, or maybe make turn undead a spell (see below).

Spells

Casters have 2d6/level "magic dice" per day. 

When casting a fireball, it works identically as a fighter's attack, but any 6s you roll are removed from your pool until the next rest. 

(I think I got this idea from Necropraxis).

This fixes a number of fireball problems I usually have.

Same works for curing wounds.

But what about spells that deal no damage? Maybe we could still keep the "roll to cast" and "magic dice" aspects. a 4-6 counts as a success; a 1st level spell requires only one success to function, etc.

You can use several dice to cast a 1st level spell, so you can be sure it succeeds in the first try, but that way you'll also roll more 6s and spend more dice.

Skills

Let's use "hear noise" as an example. Non-thieves have 1-in-6 chances, thieves start with 2-in-6.

So let's say a normal PC rolls 1d6, but a thief adds 1d6/level. Rolling a single 6 means success, so the thief start with 30.5% chance. By level 10, he rolls 11d6, with a 85% chance of success. He won't get to 99% until level 19-20 or so, which is nice, so there is always some chance of failure.

Maybe multiple 6s mean extraordinary success, and rolling all 1s means disaster (e.g., falling from a climb or getting caught in a trap).

Backstabbing is easy; a thief simply attacks as a fighter while backstabbing, and maybe lowers the AC by one if you want them to be really deadly.

Saves

Saves can work similarly to skills. Everyone gets 1d6 plus 1d6/level. 

Notice that the progression from 30% to 85% between level 1 and 10 is quite fitting. You can give fighters, dwarves, paladins etc. an extra die or two.

You do not usually "save" against damage; treat this like an attack against AC (see below).

HP

There is no more HP, only "hits". To make things a bit softer, I'd give each PC one hit PLUS level for fighters, level/2 for clerics etc.

Maybe you could do the same for monsters so that a 1 HD monster has 2 hits and so on. 

AC

AC now is 2 (unarmored) to 6 (plate+shield). 

If you want magic armor etc. you could go even higher, but then you'd need special rules. For example, each time you roll a 6 you can roll again and add 5 to get a result from 6 to 11.

In conclusion...

Well, if you like dice pools, you can see that you might was well play old school D&D with them and a little conversion. But you'd lose some nuance in ability scores, weapons, etc. Maybe just sticking to the d20 is easier.

Still, we have some nifty systems for mass combat, and maybe skills, spells and saves, to experiment with.

AD&D 2e reaction table

The AD&D 2e reaction table is... interesting:

Compare it to the BECMI reaction table, discussed here.

The tables are different for several reasons, but the main distinction is that the AD&D 2e table requires you to check the player characters' attitude before finding out how the monster behaves, while every other D&D table I can remember goes the opposite way: first consider the die roll, then check how the monsters behave.

Of course, in practice you can always ask how the PC's react first (or ignore the rection roll altogether, etc.). But I think it would be better to rely on initiative here - if the PC's have the initiative, they can choose to show they're friendly before the monsters decide how to react, which would certainly give them some advantage in the reaction roll.

If they LOSE initiative, the monsters "react" first - but if they are uncertain, this gives the PC's another chance to make a peaceful gesture, etc.

Another interesting aspect of the 2e table is that it can result in flight. This makes some sense as the table is affected by morale modifiers. A curious idea! Should scared monsters be friendlier? It makes some sense if they are intelligent, otherwise they should just run away if they can (which is the case if PCs are hostile).

Unfortunately, the actual morale score is irrelevant here; a monster with morale 18 and other with morale 10 are both as likely to flight or be hostile. 

Curiously, since chaotic creatures have -1 to morale checks for some reason (they are probably more cowardly and less organized), they are also more likely to be friendly, which is a mistake IMO.

Overall, the 2e table is not any clearer or better than other tables, but it has several advantages we can use - and a few disadvantages I'd like to change.

It feels too friendly to "indifferent" PCs, do not contain immediate attacks, and is organized in a 4x19 grid instead of the usual 5 entries. It also seems to lack a "cautious" column that should be the default for PCs, with equal chances of friendliness and hostility.

Maybe my ideal 2d10 table would be smaller, containing a single column instead of a grid. Give the PCs a -1 if they manage to show they're friendly before you roll (e.g., if they win initiative); let he "speaker" or "leader" make any kind of Charisma "check" you feel appropriate to change this to -2 [simply including the charisma modifier feels too extreme, IMO; it would make everyone your friend]. 

If they are hostile or attack, roll with +1 to +2 (it is unlikely you need to roll after the PCs attack).

2–3. Friendly

4–6. Positive

7–10. Curious

11–13. Indifferent

14–16. Suspicious

17–18. Negative

19–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check)

As you can see, I added morale only to the last entry. But you can also use it whenever intelligent NPCs feel threatened or unable to escape, to see if they negotiate or surrender.

This is not much better than the original 2d6 table. Except that 2d10 allows you some extra room to give +2 and -2 modifiers. Maybe a simpler version would be better:

2–4. Friendly 

5–7. Positive, indifferent

8–12. Cautious curiosity  

13–16. Negative, suspicious, aggressive

17–20. Hostile (fight or flight - morale check if needed)

But then again, I've written about this before... more than once! 

So I'll leave this as a small post about 2e reaction, and point you to some older posts about reaction rolls in general:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/reaction-rolls-in-practice-osr.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-d20-reaction-check-osr.html

GP instead of XP?

This is another crazy D&D idea I've heard while researching for the last post: ditch XP entirely, just pay the GP (for training, carousing or whatever) and you level up.

For example, any fighter that has acquired 2.000 gp can simply "buy" a level. There is no need for XP anymore.

The usual limits apply: only one level per "adventure", and maybe there needs to be some risk involved.

Some possible implications that I like:

- First, you eliminate the entire XP subsystem, thus making the game a bit simpler and ditching things  that take some math like monster XP.

- A level 5 party loses a magic-user they probably have enough funds to hire a new level 5 MU, but it will COST them. This doesn't mean they are getting someone off the street and training him to be a magician, but maybe they are paying someone's debt to their tutor, or money to take care of family while they travel, or passage from a distant land, or bribe to their former employer/patron/etc., or even specialized information on where to find someone experienced and brave enough for your expedition.

- This assumes the new MU is a PC and that the amount paid guarantees at least an honest attempt at loyalty, but the new PC is now part of the group and will share treasure equally. Hiring someone for work that is temporary or less risky would be a lot cheaper. Notice that the money is gone, not in the pockets of the new PC!

- Come to think of it, starting an adventure because you need to pay a debt is very pulpy. Or having someone pay to free you from slavery, etc.

- A rich baron may train one or more sons to become level 2 fighters, but after that they probably need some adventuring. Maybe the investment has only an 50% chance of actually working. Some sons will never become warriors/priests/wizards despite the training! It is a risky investment, but it may buy you loyalty!

- Multi-classing? Nope, now you just pay for training in your new class... but you ALSO get a 50% chance of failure. Not all fighters are meant to become wizards! Maybe its better to hire a new wizard...

- Come to think of it, this would be a cool way of getting retainers (not hirelings).

- This also explains why high-level PCs have followers and titles. They spent much gold and probably are owned many favors.

- Adventurers are no longer assumed to own large amounts of gold; instead, they acquire treasure and spend it. High-level adventurers will still be rich but not necessarily as rich as before. 

- If they have a regular non-adventuring job, maybe they get paid 1% of their "worth" per month or 10% per year. Without adventuring (or a good patron), it would takes years for someone to level up. But if you only need a few additional GP to level up, you could just get a job in the city watch for a short time!

- If that is too harsh, just let semi-retired adventurers to gain a level each year if they have no other business to attend to. This must be combined with ageing rules...

-  Could treasure lost allow you to level up? For example, if you have to let a treasure chest sink to save a damsel in distress. The idea sounds a bit absurd but very pulpy.

It seems to me that it would work very well. But at the same time it hurts our simulationist sensibilities; it feels like getting XP for fighting monsters, for example, makes more sense. Maybe we must keep an alternative method of leveling, such as defeating monsters above your level.

Or maybe the simplest, earliest method is still the best.

In any case, let's finish with a random table!

Where did the money go? 

1. Debts owed to dangerous loan sharks

2. Bribing city officials to erase a criminal record

3. Paying off a bounty quietly to avoid capture

4. Covering apprenticeship fees for magical or martial training

5. Paying a mentor for ongoing instruction

6. Funding room and board during training or travel

7. Purchasing expensive spell components or reagents

8. Repairing or upgrading weapons and armor

9. Securing travel—wagon, ship, teleportation

10. Buying you out of indented servitude

11. Helping a severely ill, homeless or troubled family member

12. Donating to a temple or guild

13. Expensive sacrifice to the character's deity

14. Compensating your former group for a previous commitment

15. Buying a nobility title, citizenship or license to carry weapons and travel freely

16. Settling family debts or obligations back home

17. Covering a party’s group expenses to earn trust

18. Making offerings to spirits, demons, or patrons

19. Hiring informants or spies for local intel

20. Investing in a personal business or long-term goal

Undead types and NPCs

I recently remembered the similarities between death knights and skeleton warriors. Both are powerful undead creatures, clad in decayed flesh and ruined armor, big swords, with ominous red dots for eyes.

[Wraiths also have red dots for eyes in their descriptions. And decaying flesh. Wights are similar].

One major distinction is that skeleton warriors are typically enslaved by a wizard, compelled to serve without autonomy. Death knights retain their will and intelligence—although, theoretically, they could be bound by a powerful spellcaster, like ANY undead could.

[I'm remined of "The Empire of the Necromancers" by Clark Ashton Smit. Go read it, it is awesome. Some undead retain some memories by accident, not because a wizard decided to create a specific "type" of undead].

So they look similar and serve similar purposes. It is unlikely that PCs would be able to tell them apart.

This speaks to a broader Dungeons & Dragons trend: the proliferation of nearly identical monsters.

Personally, I’d prefer a “powerful undead” template with variations instead of dozens of creatures that mostly feel the same. Imagine, for example, a system where magical users become liches, warriors evolve into death knights, and thieves fade into shadows or something similar.

Maybe they can keep (some of) their levels, so you'd have undead of all levels of power. These can be individuals, not simply monster types. Whether they are enslaved or not, or if they lead other undead, or if they wear armor or carry a sword, depends on their circumstances.

Not all liches must be super powerful! Some minor wizards could take a chance and botch the process a bit. Same goes for other types of undead.

In my book, Teratogenicon, I describe three fundamental types of undead:

• Mindless – Purely animated bodies, like zombies and skeletons. These do not need personalities or many details.

• Bodyless – Entities of mind and soul, but no physical form (ghosts, wraiths). Some will have interesting personalities and traits.

• Soulless – Powerful creatures like vampires, liches, and death knights. While they retain their physical and mental abilities, they are somehow estranged from their souls. Maybe it is stored somewhere safe, maybe it is lost, or maybe just forgotten and they could be redeemed (but that'd probably cause their physical/mental demise). "Soulless" is a more poetic than practical description. They definitely deserve some history, personality an and traits!

This categorization offers a simple and effective way classify undead though a body/mind/soul divide. Undeath creates a fissure—some beings lose their autonomy, some exist only in spirit, and some are something else entirely.

Of course, there could still be liminal undead: creatures that keep some of their mental faculties, like ghouls, or protoplasmic shapes that are just echoes of souls and no actual souls, poltergeists that can affect the physical world up to a point, or dead bodies inhabited by spirits that belong somewhere else.

As you can see, I have nothing against undead types; in fact, I wrote a PDF with one hundred of them and ideas on how to create even more ("glowing red eyes" are there, but there are more than 100 traits to choose from!) . 

But I think some types of undead, specially the most powerful ones, should be seen as individuals (NPCs) rather than monster types.

Brief mass combat idea

Here is a brief mass combat idea meant for old school D&D or OSR games. I'm using ascending AC in my examples because that's what I use in my games.

Here is the idea:

10 1st level fighters count as a single fighter with a +10 attack bonus until the end of the round.

They attack as one. They deal one die of damage (say, 1d8 if they're using swords).

They add one point of damage for each point over the AC (if using ascending AC).

By Dean Spencer

Let's say 10 bandits are attacking your 5th-level  PC, who has AC 17. They roll 9. Adding a +10 bonus, this means 19, two points more than needed to hit. They deal 1d8+2 damage.

The best part about this idea is how it vastly simplifies things.

If you decide only 4 or 6 fighters can attack the PC at a time, just reduce the bonus to +4 or +6.

If the PC slays a couple of bandits, reduce the bonus to +8. And so on.

In some cases, you can just add up all HD. If your PC is attacked by a 3rd level fighter and 3 bandits, they can make one single attack with +6.

It also makes goblins, etc., dangerous though all levels. If your PC in magical plate and shield gets attacked by ten goblins, it is VERY LIKELY that ate least one of them will get a good stab!

This will probably be useful when PCs have multiple henchmen too. One roll, period.

Is this similar to actually rolling each attack individually? Well, it varies a lot depending on AC, number of foes, etc. Apparently, the bigger the group, the smaller the damage each individual adds (which might be explained by fewer people being able to attack at the same time). 

Let's try with six goblins attacking a fighter in plate [AC 16], using B/X (or OSE) rules. The usual damage per round (DPR) would be around 5.25. With my proposed rule, it would be about 4.4. 

If the fighter is unarmored, DPR is also similar (11.55 versus 9.78, more or less). Not bad.

And if the fighter has plate, armor, and some magic bonus to AC? Let's say AC 20? An extreme case, but... Then damage doubles from about 1.05 to 2.28. So the rule works as intended!

(These numbers were calculated with the help of AI... let me know if they're wrong!)

I probably wouldn't use such a rule if you're fighting a couple of giants, for example; just for low-level foes. Likewise, allowing 15 goblins to attack you at once sounds unwieldy; I'd keep the limit at 10 for now, and you ever fight 20 goblins at once they cannot attack you as a single unit (treat them as two groups).

I probably COULD use this idea for huge mass battles, just adding a few zeroes when needed.

Say, a force of 90 knights clash with 50 enemy knights. The 90 knights attack with a +9 bonus, etc. They deal 1d8 damage (or whatever) plus the margin of success. Then just multiply damage (or casualties) per 10, and reduce the opposing force equally.

I haven't played-tested this. But I have a good feeling about it...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hd-game.html

More glancing blows (and near-saves)

 A quick rule for any D&D game. I'm certainly not the first one to suggest the "half damage" part.

---

Glancing blows

When you roll the exact number needed to hit the target's AC, this is a glancing blow.

You damage is halved.

If the target has more than 1 HP before the hit, the glancing blow can reduce it to 1 HP, but no less.

---

This is the gist of it, but we could change the specifics. 

Instead of half damage, for example, I might do "one third of your maximum damage" to save myself a roll (and further differentiate 1d6+1 from 1d8 damage). 

Likewise, the "1 HP" part probably needs a few exceptions, but it would be fun if even a peasant has a 5% chance to survive being hit by a powerful monster and live to tell the tale (even if unconscious, maimed, etc.  -the idea is that a glancing blow doesn't kill).

You could extend the same reasoning to saving throws. This is somewhat similar to what I've been doing in my games. When the MU casts an 8d6 fireball, I make a roll even if the target is a group of goblins, allowing a natural 20 to save some of them. I might call this rule "there is always a save".

D&D 4e had minions rules that worked in a similar way: "minions" had only 1 HP but wouldn't be killed if they made a successful save. 

I think my version feels a bit less artificial. No goblin should resist TWO 8d6 fireballs! Also, REDUCING a foe to 1 HP is a great opportunity of surrender, retreat, parlay, etc.

I also like making glancing blows a common concept so my players can finally accept I'll eventually tell them the monster's AC, so they might as well stop asking if they hit!

Anyway, for now this is just a random thought.

Weapons vs. monster

We discussed weapon versus armor in several posts. I think it is an interesting subject, but I'm still not sure it is worth the effort.

It probably works better when you're running troops of humanoids against each other, a la Chainmail. But what about dragons and ogres? AD&D suggests the table doesn't apply to them.

But, arguably, knowing if you foe is a dragon or ogre is more relevant than chain versus plate.

So maybe we should do "weapon vs. monster" tables instead of "weapon vs. armor"?

Of course, we already have something like that at least since AD&D. I don't remember if if it is from some  OD&D supplement (let me know!), but even in Chainmail the weapon versus armor table has a couple of columns for horses (and also different hit probabilities against ogres, dragons, etc.).

Could we create a minimalist version for B/X and other OSR games?

I think it would be a good idea. Let's see. Instead of specific monsters, I like to think of monster types.

- Giants are resistant to small weapons, but more vulnerable to large weapons, especially swords and polearms. Same for oozes. (although I think giants also deserve an HP boost for that). The downside is that David vs. Goliath becomes harder.

- Golems are resistant to cutting and piercing weapons, plus weapons made of wood. You need a mace of pick for that. Of course, a golem made of straw is weak against cutting and strong against bludgeoning.

- Plant creatures and wood golems are more vulnerable against cutting weapons, especially axes.

- Arrows and daggers are weak against ALL these creatures (you're unlikely to reach their vitals), plus undead, but maybe daggers are good against unarmored and defenseless humanoids. Would give thieves a reason to use them over longswords.

- Blunt weapons are good against skeletal undead and similarly brittle creatures.

- Lycanthropes require silver weapons. Demons, fey and golems have magic resistance. Elementals resist most weapons and certain elements, and so on. Swarms resist all weapons.

Dragons and other monsters are treated according to size.

How to enforce that? I think a simple -1 to +2 to both attack and damage will suffice. Anymore than that would probably be a headache.

If we only had giants and oozes to deal with, I'd give them some damage resistance - maybe 4 points? - but allow a weapon to roll two dice instead of one. So a dagger would have a hard time but a 2h-sword would deal more damage than usual (2d10-4).

And then we'd have to consider giants in armor... sigh. Maybe doing a simple version is not so simple after all. But it might be worth the effort, at least to different weapons and make the monsters more... tangible?

Reflections on RAW, RTFM and game design

It is common knowledge that several rules are simply ignored in many RPG systems.

Instead of playing RAW (rules as written), people often play the game with several changes they have invented or found elsewhere.

AD&D is a good example - apparently, not even Gygax used all the rules that it proposed (most famously the weapon versus armor tables, maybe weapon speed). But this is true for a number RPGs, and it definitely includes the current version of D&D.

Some rules are ignored simply because they are BAD. But that's not what I'll discuss here.

Let's assume we have some GOOD rules that are ignored by many (maybe most) tables. We could even imagine that ignoring them will make a worse/more unbalanced game.

If your game breaks because of that... who is to blame?

Well, most people would say you are at fault. Especially if you are a "RAW purist" - someone who believes RPGs should be played exactly as written.

You should "Read The Fucking Manual" (RTFM), as people say.

I'm not so sure this is the case.

Let's try an analogy. 

A doctor orders you to take a medicine daily.

Many people will automatically say it is obvious that taking it is your responsibility.

But I can BET that if this is a pill to treat an advanced case of dementia, or it is a medicine in form of a big suppository for a mild disease, many people will simply skip the medicine.

And this is a DESIGN PROBLEM.

Likewise, if your games have rules that work in theory, but often get house-ruled in practice, maybe this could be a design issue.

Maybe the rules are too burdensome, fiddly, for anyone to actually use.

And yes, sometimes popularity is about quality - especially in this case. 

You already bought the book, and decide to play the game, so if a particular rule is often ignored, it probably means it is bad or too cumbersome, obscure, etc.

Maybe they tried the rule and didn't like it.

Maybe they didn't even try - partly because the designer hasn't been able to sell it in the manual. 

If people ignore an IMPORTANT rule, maybe part of the reason is that the designer failed to emphasize it enough.

Another example that occurred to me is buying my grandma a new air fryer.

At first, she was not sure how to use it. She does sometime struggle with the remote.

Fortunately, the manual is about 2-pages long, and buttons have been reduced to the minimum.

Good design is also about ease of use.

Maybe calling grandma stupid for not being able to use the remote and telling her to "RTFM" accomplishes nothing.

Maybe the remote COULD have a simpler design.

If you write a game, you should at least consider it.

Your D&D character doesn't have scars, and I think this is a problem

Your D&D character doesn't have scars, and I think this is a problem.

I'm not talking about your level 1 PC - before adventuring starts, his scars are just cosmetic. 

Some RPG systems have mechanics for hindrances/disadvantages, and that is cool too, but I don't think it is strictly necessary. What happens BEFORE the game begins is not as important ad the actual game.

I'm not talking about healing spells either, although maybe they ARE part of the problem.

I'm talking about your high-level warrior, who has been trough dozens of battles, got stabbed, bitten, knocked out, and almost died several times.

He might have acquired many treasures, gained famed and riches, defeated several monsters, he might even rule a castle, but, by the way it looks, there was no simply no cost.

I'm not talking about appearance only.

Instead, I'm wondering if there should be a place in your character's sheet for old wounds. Maybe a missing finger, or even an eye (that will give you disadvantage when shooting bows). Maybe -1 Charisma from a hideous facial scar, or -1 Dexterity due to a ruined knee.

They don't need to be permanent, but some might be.

It doesn't need to happen often, nor does it need to happen to every PC.

I guess what I want is to at least have a possibility of actual wounds after dozens of dangerous battles.

These might not be to everyone's tastes. 

As doesn't fit every genre. You could even say that Conan, Elric and John Carter rarely get significantly wounded. Add healing magic to it, and you have every reason to believe your setting is full of veteran warriors without a single old wound.

But I really feel this makes the game less interesting. 

Scars and wounds give PCs history, even more than their stats and weapons do.

You are unlikely to remember how you got to level 5 and even where you got that +2 sword, since you get so many.

But you'll probably remember why, where and how you lost a finger...

Anyway, getting this to work in the table isn't easy. Nobody likes playing a severely wounded PC that doesn't heal.

Critical hits come to mind, but this is not an ideal solution; it is likely that they'll cause TOO MANY WOUNDS because PCs fight so often. Fighting and horde of goblins will surely cause several critical hits, for example, even for the experienced fighter, and even heavy armor will not protect you from crits if they are caused by a natural 20.

Wounds probably need to come from being reduced to zero HP (the 1e DMG subtly suggests this as an alternative to death). 

This way, your wounds will not be as terrible - they will remind you of that time when your nearly escaped death!

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/12/nothing-to-lose-but-their-lives-stakes.html

NOTE: there is a California Wildfire Relief Bundle on DTRPG. It has lots of Savage Worlds (including Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and a couple of OSR games. "By This Axe I Hack!" and "There and Hack Again" are the most interesting to me.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Two uses for each ability score

One thing that bothers me about D&D - most editions share the same problem - is that it feels like I need at least TWO different uses of each ability score.

For example, if I have Charisma 15 (+1), I feel I need to have a use for the score (15) AND also for the modifier (+1).

Otherwise, why would I need the two? ESPECIALLY when I'm trying to keep things minimalist - starting by the character sheet.

[Of course, you could just get rid of the score, which I'm also tempted to do, although I like having compatibility with other D&D games, etc.]

Fortunately, I don't use Strength 18/77 +2 +4 +1500 1-4 30% 

As you can see above, it is not difficult to find several uses for Strength.

Other abilities are trickier, UNLESS you use ability checks. 

And, fair enough, this is a decent solution. 

My issue with ability checks is that they don't take level into account.

So, a 10th-level fighter is as likely to avoid a pit trap (an early example of Dexterity check) as a first level one.

[This is also a terrible use of Dexterity because it feels like a saving throw but has a completely different method and rationale].

One compromise that could work is what I suggested here ("Minimalist OSR"):

Roll under skills (optional): this is an alternate method to deal with skills that makes PCs more

competent and their ability scores more relevant. To accomplish anything:

- If you are trained in a skill, roll under half your ability (round up) plus your level.

- If you are untrained, roll under your ability (round down).

This has lots of advantages, but it is slightly more complicated than simply rolling under ability. Also, if your rolling for easy stuff (which I don't recommend), it will make PCs look bad.

Even with ability checks, what do you "check" Charisma for, if there is already a (undue, IMO) influence on reactions, retainers, etc.?

If you don't like ability checks, things get even more difficult. Ideally, I'd want EVERY point of EVERY ability to serve SOME purpose to EVERY character. 

So, just saying that abilities give extra XP for certain classes (one of the main purposes originally) is not enough for me.

Let me give some quick examples:

Strength

Score = encumbrance (one item per point).

Modifier = bonus to hit and damage.

Constitution

Score = you lose Con when you have 0 HP, 0 Con means death.

Modifier = bonus to HP.

Dexterity

Score = No idea. Maybe unarmored AC when you're unencumbered? Too many "ifs" here.

Modifier = bonus to AC, maybe ranged.

Wisdom

Score = Could serve as sanity points (e.g., in Crypts and Things) or be "drained".

Modifier = bonus to saves versus spells.

Charisma

Score = Maybe some kind of "Luck points", but this require a new mechanic. I thought of giving a 12% discount in all equipment for PCs with Charisma 12 and so on, but that is a bit niche.

Modifier = bonus to social interactions.

Intelligence

Score = No idea here either.

Modifier = bonus to languages (seems weak, but okay - maybe you can trade some languages for skills or spells).

Well, there are hundreds of old school games out there. Surely there are more uses for ability scores?

Let me know in the comments!

Three-dimensional growth and thieves

 As I've mentioned before, mages gets better in three "dimensions" as they level up.

- They get more spells.

- They get better spells.

- The spells they already have (e. g., magic missile) become more powerful.

To do something similar, the fighters need:

- Better attacks (i.e., bigger "to-hit" bonus).

- More attacks.

- The attacks get better (i.e., more damage per attack).

Not hard to do at all, especially if they get magic swords and other weapons.

(Although these things are not exactly the same - spells can attack and open doors and deceive and carry stuff, while attacks can only attack. OTOH spells are limited by spell slots while attacks are not, although the MU gets more slots as he levels).

But what about thieves? I guess they should get:

- More skills.

- Better skills.

- Improve the skills they already have.

This is a bit harder to do. 

The B/X thief gets better at their skills. They do get a couple of extra skills as they level up (reading languages and casting from scrolls - which don't get better), but these are rare (the MU gets new spells every level).

Giving thieves "skill points" like LotFP is helpful - now they can distribute them freely between "new skill" and "get better at skills you have" (well, to be precise, they don't really get new skills, since every skill starts with a 1-in-6 chance, but... it could be done if you add new skills to the game that you can only access through "points").

Still, while you get better chances of success, your successes are always the same. 

So, you get better chances of hiding or climbing - but you don't usually get to hide more people nor do you climb faster as you level up. You open locks more often, but not any faster, etc.

This is "fixed" in modern versions of D&D, but not B/X or AD&D.

One easy way to change that is adding "critical successes" of some kind for thieves' talents.

For example:

If you're using 1d100, "doubles" are now criticals. For example, if you can climb twice the distance or at twice the usual speed, and if you hide you can attack once and remain undetected.

Conversely, you could just add modifiers to these skills. "Attack and hide" imposes a -30% penalty, for example.

Even better, you could use some kind of synergy for thief skills, allowing some skills to affect others.

Single attack/damage roll (kubular), but divided in half

I think I discussed that idea at the time, but I didn't write down this exact implementation. Read that post before this one! This method has several advantages over the usual D&D method.

Here is the deal: no more damage rolls.

Just roll 1d20 plus modifiers and subtract AC, then divide by two: this is the total damage (minimum 1).

Modifiers include attack bonus and weapon rating (WR).

WR usually goes from -3 (unarmed) to +3 (heavy 2H-weapon).

A dagger has +0 WR; other weapon are easy to figure out (d6, d8 and d10 become +1, +2, +3).

Improvised weapons, gauntlets, etc, have a WR of -1 or -2.

Lets assume ascending unarmored AC 11 (like BFRPG).

A dagger hit deals an average of 3 damage against unarmored targets, a bit over the original (nice!).

A 2H-sword, OTOH, deals 3.77 damage on a hit, but hits more often than in the original BFRPG; the DPR (damage per round) is about 2.45, a bit HIGHER than the usual 2.25.

What about heavy armor? Say, Plate mail is AC 17 in BFRPG. 

To hurt someone in plate with bare hands, you need a natural 20 (realistically, you'd be more likely to hurt your hand... add some grappling rules to your game!).

A dagger will only deal 1.5 points of damage. 

A 2H sword deals an average of 2.5 damage (originally 4.5), but again the DPR is 0.8, not far form the original (0.9).

I'd definitely combine it with some "armor defeating" rules for maximum effect. E.g., cutting weapons deal 1 point of additional damage if they hit, maces get +2 to-hit against chain or heavier, axes are +1 against everybody, etc.

More minimalist classes (OSR) - Thieves

In my endless quest for minimalist OSR systems, I've been thinking of minimalist classes lately. At the risk of repeating myself, here is how it goes:

- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.

- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.

- Thieves get ONE new skill per level.

The LotFP method of using "skill points" works well, but this is even more minimalist and simple. I think I got the idea from a Brazilian YouTuber, DM Quiral.

Now, you either have a skill or you don't. If you do, you will occasionally succeed automatically. If numbers are necessary, you get a +10 bonus. But, mostly, you don't roll: you can simply be able to do ventriloquism, juggling, appraising, etc.

E.g., B/X suggests an ability check for climbing a rope (which RAW indicates the thief has better chance climbing sheer walls...). If you have "climbing", you get a +10 bonus, which often means automatic success.

If you prefer X-in-6 chances, +10 translates to +3. E.g., the thief has 4-in-6 instead of 1-in-6 chances of hearing noises.

For challenging stuff (climb "sheer walls"), the GM may require a skill check... Other PCs get a -10 penalty, but you roll your ability as usual, since your +10 bonus compensates that.

This simple system addresses some of the common problems I have with skills:

- How can a 1st-level PC be really good in a given skill.

- How non-thief characters can try to do thief stuff.

- You do not have to write a bunch of skills into every thieves' sheet, let alone other PCs.

HOWEVER it loses some of the compatibility with the original thief.

One alternative is, instead of giving ONE +10 skill, you give the thief TEN +1 skills. The usual ones: hear, climb, hide, traps, read languages, scrolls, back-stab, etc. By level 2, you get a +2 bonus and so on, until level 10.

This still leaves the thief behind the mage. Remember, the mage gets:

- More spells (i.e., variety).

- New spells that ARE BETTER.

- Old spells GET BETTER.

So, maybe the thief deserves some equivalent to "critical hits". Not only he is more likely to succeed, he succeeds BETTER than an untrained PC.

Meaning: if you succeed by 10 or more, your results are particularly impressive. Maybe you can "climb silently" or help your allies. Maybe you sneak so proficiently that you get a bonus on top of your back-stab. Etc.

Still, the thief should maybe get both more skills and better chances - especially if using the same XP table. 

Anyway, its a start.

INSANE MAGE NERF - one spell per day!

In my endless quest to nerf B/X magic-users, this might be my most radical idea:

Magic-users (MU) and clerics get to memorize ONE spell per day.

A 10-th level MU 10 still has 14 spells or so, but it takes a couple of weeks to memorize all.

This makes spell slots a more "time sensitive" resource like HP, rations, and everything else.

When the party is planning an expedition, spell choice becomes part of the planning - do we have enough torches? Should I memorize "light" instead? What about cure potions and "cure light wounds"? We are not taking the thief this time... should we get "Knock"? Etc.

BTW, CHANGING your selection of spell has the same cost. You cannot rewrite your selection of spells overnight.

If that's too harsh, let the MU recover a number of spell levels equal to their level (e.g., a 10th level MU can recover 3 fireballs and 1 magic missile) or any other solution you find adequate. 

I'm tempted to say "one day per spell level" so you'd need three days to recover fireball. 

Again, it sounds too harsh - but the fireball causes at least 5d6 damage. A fighter would need one to two weeks to recover from one.

MUs would need to be more careful about their spells, which I like. OTOH, they need to be able to do something else while hoarding spells, so I'd probably let them have swords, cantrips, or something similar.

In practice, this is just a random idea - I don't really use spell slots in my games.

But I've seem this happen again and again in my BXish games: the fighter needs at least a week to recover, while the cleric and MU just recover all the spells overnight. Fortunately, the cleric can just cure everyone in a day, which makes him an obligatory character in any party.

I think I'm always nerfing the spellcasters because most of my campaigns happen in the wilderness - on average, there is less than one combat encounter per day and the MU fireballs everything. 

Dungeons help, but PCs fall into the "5 minutes workday" pattern, which is a whole issue...

Same XP for all classes (B/X)

Despite being inspired mostly by B/X, I prefer using the same XP for all classes in my games. This is how Dark Fantasy Basic works, for example.

I heard some arguments to the contrary - that different XP tracks are important. I think there's some merit to this idea, but for now I prefer doing things my way. 

In theory, I wanted a 10th-level Fighter (or "F10") to be roughly as powerful as a 10th-level Magic-User (M10). Which is hard to do.

In B/X, you might be tempted to think the idea is that a F10 is close in power to a MU9, since the XP requirements are somewhat similar. 

I think this is doubtful, at best. 

But if that was true... could we still have B/X with same XP for all classes? 

I have read many attempts to " reverse engineer" B/X classes. I do not think they were as engineered as one might think, but I like playing with that idea. 

Today, I'll be referencing BX Options: Class Builder, which looks very cool (I've only read the first few pages).

The idea is that you can create a stronger Fighter or Thief by requiring more XP. So, giving the thief better saving throws (as a fighter) would "cost" 300 XP. Could we make everyone share the same XP to get to level 2, for, example? Let's try. 

Fighter: Leave it at 2,000 XP for now. Let's try to make other classes the same.

Magic-user: We'd have to bring the MU down to reach the fighter. There is no easy way to do that without giving him even more restrictions. 

The class builder suggests one could get extra spells for 100 to 200 XP. Maybe we could do the opposite, giving the MU fewer spells - at most one per level. 

Notice the MU starts getting more than one spell per level only by level 7. If we change that, the starting MU is not any weaker (good!) but at level 10 he is significantly less powerful (also good), especially because he can never get three fireballs.

This gives the game a somewhat more S&S/low-magic vibe, which I like.

Let's say:  

			Spells
MU level	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	1
2	2
3	2	1
4	2	2	1
5	2	2	2
6	2	2	2
7	2	2	2	1
8	2	2	2	2
9	2	2	2	2	1
10	2	2	2	2	2
11	2	2	2	2	2	1
12	2	2	2	2	2	2
13	3	2	2	2	2	2
14	3	3	2	2	2	2

Cleric: I do not think the cleric deserves any further boost. They are very powerful, in my experience. I'd just require 2000 XP like the fighter. The spells and turn undead makes up for the difference. Please let me know in the comments if you disagree.

Thief: this is my main concern because it is a class that I find very weak, despite the low XP requirements (1,200 XP to level 2). The thief deserves 1d6 HP IMO, plus better saving throws (let's say the sneaky thief is as elusive as the strong fighter). This brings him to 1,700 XP. 

There is not much more to give a thief. Infravision or a couple of extra skills could work to get him to 2,000 XP, or maybe give him fighting capabilities similar to the fighter - when you compare the B/X thief with similar XP as a fighter, the attack bonus is not that different.

I wont include elves, halflings and dwarves because I don't use race-as-class.

Is this worth the effort? I'm not sure. Tweaking classes like that assumes there is some balance to begin with, which might not be the case. 

As I've mentioned in my last post, I'd prefer starting with very simple classes and then adding some feats as you go. 

Spell-less classes would get more feats than spellcasters, to improve their versatility, since they don't get to choose spells.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog