Dead-end mechanics

When I was analyzing the 1e DMG - a project I plan to complete in 2025 - I noticed it has several interesting sub-systems. 

While I prefer simpler games, I can see the value of having interesting detail to your games, no matter how idiosyncratic (for example, AD&D seems obsessed with polearms, while swords do not seem to get the same attention).

There was something bothering me about AD&D and it was not the bits that felt unnecessarily complex. The system felt a bit disjointed and I couldn't quite explain it until I gave it a name: dead-end mechanics.

This is not something specific to AD&D - it can potentially happen in any RPG, and it might be closely related to what makes RPGs unique.

AD&D is a good example only because it has so many moving parts.

Let's try a definition: dead-end mechanics are parts of an RPG system that do not meaningfully interact with other important parts, especially when those other parts are thematically related.

This definition can be improved, but let's give some examples.

Example 1. Disease, ears and hearing

There is a curious idea in AD&D that you can check monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease. While this feels un-heroic and not particularly exciting, I can see that it would give a campaign a gritty/realistic feels and a sense of urgency (TIME must always have a COST).

[It can also add some gravitas to fights against giant bats, rats and even wolves].

However, the effects of such diseases on usual dungeon activities are not always described. There would be some obvious solutions - for example, diminished chance of listening to doors or greater chance of being surprised - but the book simply does not address this.

If you lose hearing in BOTH ears, the results on "listening to doors" are obvious, even if not described - we'll get to that later. In any case, the results on surprise are not clear.

Similarly, there is no exact consequences to the loss of an eye for ranged attacks, for example.

(Another curious example here is venereal disease. Since the game includes no benefits to intercourse, this just feels disjointed from everything else. Pendragon, for example, has rules for lust and descendants, which might suggest a bigger focus on such issues. Also, the game mentions herbs/gems that ward off disease, but not how they actually affect disease rolls).

Example 2. Time - initiative, segments, weapon speed

My main frustration here is how complicated and disjointed the initiative/segments rules feel.

There is simply a lack of obvious connection between surprise, weapon speed and thief skills. They don't seem to communicate... but they obviously should!

Can a thief surprise a foe with his silent movement? Should a fast weapon be ideal for this job? Can you get more attacks with a fast weapon if your foe is surprised? I'd say "yes" to all of those, but the book either doesn't make it clear or indicates that the answer is negative.

There is also also no clear connection between the speed of melee weapons and ranged weapons, and they seem to work differently in the surprise segments for no apparent reason.

Example 3. Levels, abilities and dungeon/wilderness skills

This is not an AD&D thing, but something common to most versions of TSR D&D. 

As the PCs level up, they get better at fighting and surviving, but they do not seem to improve in any other dungeon activity: listening to doors (or breaking them down), find their way in the wilderness, hunting, etc.

The thief is the main exception here, since most of his skills are dungeon related and get better with level. 

Curiously, the ranger does not have many special skills in the wilderness: he is not better than any other PC when finding his way in the forest. He can cause upraise and avoid being surprise in any environment, but it is unclear how this fits with the vaguely similar abilities of thieves and even halflings.

Example 4. Drowning

I don't remember the source of this; could be some version of Labyrinth Lord. 

But the rule was something like "if you try to cross a river in plate armor, you have 90% chance of drowning".

Just flat 90% (or whatever). Your strength, level or class do not matter. HP? Save versus death? No. You just drown.

Are dead end mechanics even possible?

While I find these mechanics undesirable, I do think there is a natural limit to dead end mechanics.

As I mentioned above, it is obvious that if you lose hearing in BOTH ears you cannot "listen to doors", although the game does not say that, nor does it describe what happens if you lose hearing in ONE ear, which is much more statically probable.

This has something to do with the uniqueness of RPGs.

RPGs give fluff and crunch a peculiar bond, to the point that fluff IS crunch and vice-versa.

This is a long discussion, but in short, in RPGs a spear will NEVER be identical to an axe, even if both deal have the same damage, weight and cost. An axe will ALWAYS be more useful to take down a door even if the game doesn't say so.

My point is: if taking down doors is a frequent activity, the game should address this difference explicitly.

How to write better mechanics

My ideal game would have a big level of integration between the different rules. In the most frequent cases, this should be explicit to make the GM's job easier.

Modern D&D sometimes does a better job at connecting various mechanics. For example, a Constitution saving throw relies on ability AND level AND class. But, sometimes, it creates MORE problems of this kind, like the fact that 5e D&D has at least TWO unrelated ways of disarming opponents (one of them optional), with no clear relation. 

I must mention Quidditch as a negative example (despite not being a big fan of Harry Potter). While there is some nuance, it often feels like two guys are playing an entire different game that has a flimsy relation to the rest of the players and a huge possibility to make all other efforts void.

["A Seeker catching the Snitch ends the game and scores the successful Seeker's team an additional 150 points (15 goals). As the team with the most points wins, this often guarantees victory for the successful Seeker's team." - source].

But maybe I can express this point visually, using the two images in this post.

The spheres represent game mechanics. The biggest ones are the most important/common. They are connected by lines; e.g., Constitution and level should both have direct lines to HP, but Constitution does not necessarily have a direct line to level or saving throws.

The first image in this post represents a disjointed game: no clear center, with some important mechanics disconnected from others.

The second image is closer to my idea: the most important spheres are near the center and strongly connected; disconnected mechanics are few and unimportant.

I think there is more to be said about the subject, but I'll leave it here for now.

As a suggestion, I'll say we must consider what are the central mechanics of a game (maybe abilities,  levels, classes, maybe also time, money, XP, encumbrance, etc.) and how they related to each other. Dead-end mechanics should be rare.

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!

Ability scores generation: method X (B/X? S&S?)

In the past few days, I've been considering the many methods of generating abilities scores (again...) for my S&S game. 

The most popular are 3d6 in order (OD&D, B/X, etc.) and 4d6, drop lowest (AD&D, Method I). However, AD&D has several other methods - why can't I find a favorite?

Well, someone else did the math. Turns out that 3d6 in order gives you an average of 10.5, and Method I gives you 12.24. And ALL the other AD&D methods give you results that are HIGHER than 12.24. 

So there is nothing between the two most popular methods.

But remember, B/X modifiers are bigger than AD&D. If you look at damage modifiers, for example Strength 13 in B/X is similar to 16 in AD&D (+1 damage), and a 16 in B/X means 18 in AD&D (+2 damage). A B/X PC with lots of 16s and 17s looks too powerful, adn a 18 should be extremely exceptional.

I like stats that look like the picture below: above average but not "epic". An average of 11-12, a couple of impressive abilities (14-17), and almost NO dismal abilities. I think someone just chose these abilities instead of rolling, but they feel about right for me.

[Notice that HP is also above average - maybe maximum HP at level 1?]

I feel that what is missing is a list of B/X methods, similar to AD&D: start with 3d6 in order and add several options that give you slightly higher results.

Anyway, I've heard one method I particularly liked: roll 3d6 in order, but re-roll 1s. 

This gives you:

- Average 12.
- Minimum 6.
- Low ability are unlikely or impossible, but high ability scores are not so common either (less than 1% chance of getting a 18, which is lower than AD&D).
- A decent chance of getting a 15+ for one ability at least. 

If you want the possibility of sub-par abilities, re-roll 1s ONCE, so you could STILL get a 3... But it is very rare.

The typical abilities would be something like 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Feels almost perfect!

I'm probably using that for my S&S book. 

A regular adventurer is above average in MOST things, can still have a flaw, but is unlikely to be Conan by level 1 either. 

I'll certainly include ability score improvements as you level up, so you can eventually get that 18 if you want.

[IF I were to use point buy, I'm thinking that maybe giving PCs something like 75 points to distribute - but positive modifiers costing points, so that 18 (+3) would cost 21 - would encourage fewer low abilities but also not many high ones. But that is probably for another post...]

Where AD&D is better than 3d6 in order

Being a fan of basic D&D, I always thought that rolling 3d6 in order was the cleanest, fastest way to generate PCs. Also the most fair, so PCs start, on average, as a normal person.

In addition, the -3/+3 modifier spread is beautiful and intuitive, while in AD&D you need to consult lots of tables to fill your character sheet.

In comparison, the AD&D methods were not only more complex - involving more dice rolling, sometimes to ridiculous lengths - but also made starting PCs stronger than average humans (but they could still be knocked out and maybe dying from a 10-foot fall).

In addition, this added complexity, redundantly, often got you to the same modifiers you'd get in B/X. 

For example, in B/X you get abilities of 10.5 on average, while you needed 13 Strength to get a +1 bonus to damage. 

In AD&D the average is 12.24... But you still get +0 to damage even with 13! 

So what is the point?

Well, the point is that despite these things, AD&D got a few things better than B/X here.

- The default modifier is +0, like in B/X, despite higher abilities.
- However, the bell curve in 4d6 is "higher" - averages (12, 13) are more likely and negative results are a lot rarer, which makes the game a bit faster since subtraction is uncommon (addition is quicker).
- Maybe PCs should be a bit stronger than the average human? And, specially, avoid PCs that are extremely weak in any area (e.g., PCs that can barely speak).

In short, this 4d6 methods was adopted in subsequent editions for good reasons - and there are plenty of B/X players using it too.

However, in B/X this makes PCs a bit too strong for my taste.

There are several methods to combine the advantages of both systems. In B/X, these are some of my favorites:

A) Roll 2d6+4 to each ability score. This avoids extreme results and gives you an average of 11.

B) 3d6 in order, but replace one result of your choosing by 15.

C) Some standard array to make things even faster (for 3d6, it could be 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7 or 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8; add 1 point to each to get an average of 11.5). 

I'd let the players swap two attributes to play the PCs they want (or assign to taste in "C").

[One thing to note is that I use feats and ability scores improvement, so that eventually you can raise your ability scores. If I didn't, I'd probably use "B" - leaving the possibility of 3s and 18s and also allowing you to play basically any class you want].

Notice that this is quite close to the averages in the D&D B-series pregens - who have average ability scores around 11-12 or a bit higher, as explained here.

This range looks satisfying to me.

Of course, it is ultimately a matter of taste - do you want PCs to be ordinary, a bit better, or heroic form the start? 

But for my B/X(ish) games, this average of 11.5 - just a bit above a normal human - is what I like.

Point-buy D&D (OSR)

I have played point-buy systems for decades. 

In some of these systems, you choose your abilities scores, powers, perks, etc. by spending a limited amount of points - instead of rolling dice and picking a class.

Point-buy mechanics are not uncommon in D&D; even in OD&D (IIRC) you could reduce one ability score to improve another. Later on, you had proficiencies to choose. 

In modern D&D, you get to pick your ability scores (and sometimes skills) with points too.

The best thing about this is that you can customize your character however you like. 

Do you want a spell-less ranger, nature paladin, witcher, white mage, etc.? Easy to do without multiclassing rules.

In systems like Runequest or Savage Worlds, you don't even need classes; you just create the character you imagine.

The main problem, of course, is analysis paralysis.

[Another downside is that all PCs of the same class become "optimal" and "samey" if you don't introduce some randomness].

Too much choice becomes burdensome. At the very least, you'd need a few examples or templates to help players out, unless they are familiar with the system (with that said, I played such systems for decades without much issue).

Anyway, I have often wondered if old school D&D could be easily reduced to a point buy system - probably after playing Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which uses a similar system for skills.

by James West.

Ideally, we'd have a number of things to "buy" with a similar cost. 

Let's start with 3 points per level (maybe 5 on level 1). You can assign them to (no more than one point per level to the same ability/skill/etc.):

- Attack bonus.
- Saves (bonus apply to all saves).
- Ability scores improvements
- Skills (1-in-6 otherwise).
- Spells (1 point per spell).
- Spell-casting.
- Turn undead.
- Feats/features.

Some entries deserve special consideration.

Attack bonus probably requires at least 1/3 of your current level, to keep in line with old-school mages.

Saves are the same (no matter if using a single save or more than one).

Ability scores improvements enhance your abilities, no matter how you define them in the first place (3d6 in order, standard array, etc.). To balance things out, I'd probably use WotC modifiers, i.e., +1 for 12-13, +2 for 14-15, +3 for 16-17, etc.

Skills replace thief skills but also ranger stuff (forage, hunt, directions). Everyone starts with a 1-in-6 chance, it becomes 2-in-6 by spending a point etc. 6-in-6 means you roll 2d6 and only fail if both dice get 6 (which means about 97% chance of success).

I'd reduce thief skills to five or six (see below).

Spell-casting means your MU level. Spellcasting 3 means you cast as a 3rd level MU. You still have to learn the spells, and you probably need at least the same number as you spellcasting (e.g., at least 3 spells for spellcasting 3).

To Turn Undead you roll 1d6 and must beat the target's HD by 4 or more. TU 2 means you roll 1d6+2, etc. A margin of 8 or more means destruction.

Feats are various perks, including all existing features. Some of them could cost more than 1 point (e.g., multiple attacks) and they might be limited (e.g., one for every three levels) to reduce complexity. You can find many examples in Old School Feats - they'd cost 2 points each.

Let's try to create a character - say, a 6th level thief, with 20 points - that will feel similar to the original version.

- Attack bonus: +3.

- Saves: +3.

- Skills: +12 (3-in-6 for six skills).

- Feats: +2 (backstab or read languages).

This is pretty close to B/X. 

What about a fighter?

- Attack bonus: +6.

- Saves: +6.

- Ability scores: +4 CON (for the extra HP).

- 4 extra points to spend as needed - probably a feat giving him an extra attack.

Eh, not perfect. The attack bonus is closer to AD&D than B/X, but I like the AD&D progression better anyway.

Cleric:

- Attack bonus: +3.

- Saves: +3.

- TU: +6.

- Spell-casting: 4.

- Spells: 4.

Close enough (I prefer the BECMI progression for cleric spells). 

If the cleric has some taboos, he might get an extra point or two, but his budget is pretty tight.

Magic-user:

- Attack bonus: +2.

- Saves: +2.

- Spell-casting: 6.

- Spells: 6.

- 4 extra points to spend as needed.

I like it. Maybe the MU can get some Lore skill, etc. 

The fact that the MU becomes stronger at lower levels and weaker at higher levels (fewer spells) is a fortunate consequence of this system.

Notice that this assumes no classes - so, same XP for everybody. Also, same HP - unless you get a CON bonus, etc.

This means the MU needs some nerfing.

The fighter loses some unique skills (wearing all weapons and armor - unless you want to count those as feats or, conversely, taboos), but gains more points to spend on abilities and features.

The cleric will be fine. It is powerful enough already.

The thief will probably need to specialize in three or four skills (and maybe they can be reduced to find, notice, climb, tinker, and stealth; with other skills such as lore, healing and nature added to other classes).

Overall... I think this is doable. 

This allows you to create a paladin or ranger (just add a nature skill) with relative ease, and to customize your own character/class.

"Racial" features can be bought by level 1, with humans getting extra points to spend.

Come to think of it, this could be the basis for an updated version of Old School Feats someday. Or an entirely new thing...

EDIT: Just found out this is a thing in AD&D 2e. The 2e DMG has a class-creation system, which is not quite I'm doing here, but  Skills and Powers contains an actual point buy system that is much harder, but still very cool. This from that books description:

About Point-Based Characters. The idea of point-based RPG characters dates back to at least Melee (1977), the predecessor to The Fantasy Trip (1980). It was popularized by Champions (1981) and has since become a mainstay of the roleplaying industry.

However, even in 1995, the idea still hadn't been officially incorporated into AD&D, which instead focused on random rolls to generate characteristics, linked with rigid class and level structures that didn't give players any room for variance in their characters. The closest that AD&D came to point-based characters was in Unearthed Arcana (1985), which offered some alternative methods for rolling lots of characteristic dice to try and generate a specific character class that the player was seeking. AD&D second edition (1989) similarly provided some methods to let players add extra dice to certain characteristics during character generation.

Skills & Powers dramatically changed this by offering a point-buy system that let players not only purchase characteristic points and proficiencies, but also allowed them to choose which class abilities that they wanted to buy. It allowed considerable variation, and thus players could have characters with "out-of-class" weapons, or even a Conan-esque fighter who could both fight and move silently. Skills & Powers even included traits (advantages) and disadvantages - two notable elements of point-based character systems that help to add detail and depth to characters.

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

Minimalist D&D XIV - Overlapping abilities (and Mental Defense)

There has always been some conceptual overlap between Intelligence and Wisdom. In the beginning, that was irrelevant. Intelligence was for magic-users, Wisdom for clerics, and other than that, they didn't do much anyway. 

Things have changed. In modern D&D, you will hardly make any check that does not include one ability score in some way. Saving throws, initiative, attacks, damage... all rely on your abilities to some extent. In old school D&D, class and level were more important. In 5e, it is about 50-50.

And the overlap has increased, too. Now you can cast spells with Intelligence, Wisdom and even Charisma. You can use your Strength to boost your AC with heavy armor, or you Dexterity with light armor. Some classes get to add Wisdom or Constitution to AC when not wearing armor (maybe Charisma too; I don't recall, but it would be fitting). Some weapons allow you choose between Strength and Dexterity for attack rolls AND damage. When escaping from a grapple, you can choose between Strength (athletics) and Dexterity (acrobatics), making both abilities AND skills overlap.

So many abilities become dubious and redundant. You can use a rapier with either Dex or Str, but if you have BOTH it doesn't really matter, because you're only using one. Likewise, if you're wearing heavy armor, your Dex doesn't matter -  which makes little sense.

This is not a huge problem in itself. It can lead, however, to discussions ("but I should be able to use my Wisdom here!") or dump stats (if I can choose what I want, I'll always choose the same ability).

To avoid that, I'd prefer to have some overlap - especially when the PC is "attacking" - but some limits - especially when the PC is "defending" (more about that here). I'd also like all abilities to be useful for all characters, so having both Dex and Str (or Wis and Int) would be useful. 

Here was how I'd do it.

Art by Rick Troula - source.

When you attack, you can use either Str or Dex (your choice). If the attack is ranged, however, you can only use Dex. And, regardless of the type of attack, you only add Str to damage. So, you need decent Str to shoot a longbow, as it should be.

Dexterity always affect your AC - but the amount of armor you can carry is determined by Str and maybe Con (it makes sense you need constitution to wear armor or carry heavy stuff for long periods). You might have noticed that AC is now an amalgam of Dex, Str and Con.

Magic uses a similar reasoning. It's up to you whether to use Int, Wis or Cha to cast spells. However, you do not choose how to defend from spells...

This part a bit trickier. The difference between a saving throw that uses Str, Dex or Con is more or less obvious. For Int, Wis and Cha, the separation is not so easy. Usually, Wisdom is the most common one - but conceptually, I could see a fighter or mage with low Wisdom and high mental fortitude, either because of courage (say, Charisma) or smarts (Intelligence).

I'm thinking that using a single "Mental Defense" trait would solve a lot of problems. An average of Int, Wis and Cha would be good enough. 13th Age already does something similar. I might call it "Mental Class" - an analogous to AC.

I dislike the idea of adding a trait to D&D; my minimalist version should be subtracting most of the time. But this addition would simplify the game, and mirror AC very well - being an amalgam of Int, Wis and Cha. It solves the problems of dump-stats - since now every ability is important, at least for defense - and avoids confusion about which saving throw to apply.

Minimalist D&D XIII - skill use, proficiency all the time, or no proficiency at all

As you might know, I'm trying to reduce the number of skills in 5e; skills are one of my least favorite parts of the game.

One thing I dislike is how some skills are practically useless while others are ubiquitous. The user Merudo has compiled a couple of lists that illustrate this point:

I've searched through the adventure Waterdeep: Dragon Heist and counted the number of times that a given skill is used in an ability check.

Here are my results:

• Athletics: 48
• Acrobatics: 6
• Sleight of Hand: 3
• Stealth: 9
• Arcana: 6
• Investigation: 15
• History: 3
• Nature: 3
• Religion: 4
• Animal Handling: 3
• Insight: 10
• Medicine: 0
• Perception: 56
• Survival: 3
• Deception: 9
• Intimidation: 16
• Performance: 1
• Persuasion: 22

So the main skills are Perception (56), Athletics (48), Persuasion (22), Intimidation (16), and Investigation (15).

Note that some of these skills will actually show up more often than listed in the book, simply because the checks are a result of player actions. That's especially the case for social skills, Stealth, and Sleigh of Hand.

 

I've searched through the adventure Tomb of Annihilation and counted the number of times that a given skill is used in an ability check.

Here are my results:

• Athletics: 51
• Acrobatics: 14
• Sleight of Hand: 1
• Stealth: 10, plus extra opportunities if moving at slow pace
• Arcana: 5
• Investigation: 10
• History: 4
• Nature: 2 + recognize 8 plants/animals
• Religion: 6
• Animal Handling: 4 + dinosaur race
• Insight: 2
• Medicine: 4
• Perception: 96
• Survival: 13 + navigation checks
• Deception: 8
• Intimidation: 3
• Performance: 1
• Persuasion: 11

My initial idea was consolidating the skills in a few skill sets, but I'm this close to just giving everyone proficiency in everything. 

I'm half convinced it won't break the game, and it will make things a lot easier. I didn't like this in 4e - a high-level wizard going from +0 to +15 in athletics felt like too much - but +2 to +6? Well, why not, Gandalf can jump over that chasm after all.

That level 20th fighter? Yes, he DOES know a thing or two about arcana. He cannot cast spells, but he has seem plenty of sorcerers, spells, monsters and magic weapons.

And, of course, every adventurer becomes better at saving throws.

Robson Michel - source.

So, giving everyone proficiency would take care of that. If you need a specialist, he would get expertise instead.

On the other hand, I also considered ditching proficiency entirely in favor of ability scores.

If I do that, I'd still want saves and "skills" to raise with time. Maybe I should go the 4e route and just give +1 to everything at level 5, 11 and 17. A level 20 wizard with Strength 11 to 13 sounds ok to me, an even Conan shows above average intelligence as he progresses.

Fortitude/Reflex/Will in D&D 5e: another quick fix

D&D 5e saving throws has pros and cons; overall, I like it, but I think it could be a bit better. I wrote a post about that in 2015.

It just occurred to me that there's a simpler and better solution to do Fortitude/Reflex/Will in D&D 5e.

Here is how it goes: Fortitude is the average of your Strength and Constitution. Round up. Reflex the average of Int and Dex, and Will the average of Wis and Cha.

BTW, use Reflex for initiative if you want to. And Fortitude for concentration checks. Now spellcasters have some use for strength, and fighters some use for Intelligence. Nice, right?

In addition now, everyone is proficient in every save. Features that add proficiency (monk etc.) now give a +2 bonus intead. Or something.

This way, we have just cut the number of saving throws by half, removed one class distinction, gave Intelligence and Charisma a bigger role, increased STs in high levels (a worthy fix IMO) and made odd ability scores a bit more useful in some circumstances.

Not bad for a quick fix!

Minimalist D&D VIII - Stripping the Fighter (and barbarian)

The champion fighter is one of the simplest classes in 5e D&D. Maybe second simplest after the berseker barbarian. 

So, if I were to make a point about how unnecessarily complex 5e is, champions and berserkers wouldn't be the best candidates. However, I'm not just trying to make a point; I am writing my own version of 5e and I found out that even those classes are too complex for my tastes.

Let me show you.

Fighters don't need much... (art by Angus McBride).

This is what the fighter gets:

Hit Dice: 1d10 per fighter level

Armor: All armor, shields

Weapons: Simple weapons, martial weapons

Tools: None

Saving Throws: Strength, Constitution

Skills: Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival

I'll skip this part since I've written about skills before. Suffice to say: the fighter's weapons, armor, hit dice, skills and saving throws are all easily replaced by higher ability scores - mainly Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. A few "mental" skills are the only exception, which I'll discuss later on.

Anyway, the fighter also gets this (the champion features are bold).

Table: The Fighter

Level	Proficiency Bonus	Bonus Features
1st	+2	Fighting Style, Second Wind
2nd	+2	Action Surge (one use)
3rd	+2	Improved Critical
4th	+2	Ability Score Improvement
5th	+3	Extra Attack
6th	+3	Ability Score Improvement
7th	+3	Remarkable Athlete
8th	+3	Ability Score Improvement
9th	+4	Indomitable (one use)
10th	+4	Additional Fighting Style
11th	+4	Extra Attack (2)
12th	+4	Ability Score Improvement
13th	+5	Indomitable (two uses)
14th	+5	Ability Score Improvement
15th	+5	Superior Critical
16th	+5	Ability Score Improvement
17th	+6	Action Surge (two uses), Indomitable (three uses)
18th	+6	Survivor
19th	+6	Ability Score Improvement
20th	+6	Extra Attack (3)

I'll briefly tackle them one by one.

Fighting Style -  a collection of small (often too small) bonuses for fighting with certain weapons. Wrote about them here. I like them in play, but they could easily be replaced for something simpler and more balanced (archery is too good and GWF too weak).

Second Wind - in practice, this means the fighter gets about a bit more than 1 extra HP per level. Easily replaced by higher Constitution.

Action Surge - once a day, the fighter gets two actions instead of one. I'm not even sure this is thematically appropriated for a fighter (it is often used to multi-class and cast two spells), nor do I think it is a great idea to give a high-level fighter eight attacks before anyone else can move. I'd rather fewer, more powerful attacks.

Improved Critical - A critical hit on a 19 or 20 is a good idea, if only because it allows you to add more meaning to the number you rolled (instead of just hit/miss). Nothing particularly "fighter" here (I could see it in a Rogue or Barbarian, for example), but good feature nonetheless.

Extra attack - This is ok IMO.

Remarkable Athlete - this lackluster feature is easily replaced by higher Constitution, Strength and Dexterity.

Indomitable - not a bad idea, thematically appropriated, I like it - despite maybe being easily replaced by higher ability scores.

Survivor - well, not bad for a high-level, "epic" feature.

So, about half of the fighter features could be replaced with better ability scores - especially Constitution, Strength and Dexterity. 

But we are left with the "mental skills". It makes sense that a fighter might be good with Animal Handling, Perception, and Survival. Which could be replaced by good Wisdom... and that would ALSO improve their saving throws. I like the idea of requiring some Wisdom for a fighter - it represents willpower, awareness, etc., things that even a dumb fighter should have.

History and Insight, I see no reason for the fighter to have. Intimidation shouldn't be a skill in the first place, but if you use the popular "intimidate with Strength" house rule, this is easily replaced by higher Strength.

BTW, berseker barbarians are very similar. d12 for HD, Unarmored Defense, Danger Sense, Feral Instinct... all easily replaced by higher Constitution, Strength and Dexterity. 

You basically get a fighter with some interesting rage features. 

He gets unarmored defense instead of heavy armor, but I don't see why a barbarian wouldn't be able to fight in Chain Mail if he found some (IIRC Conan wore armor sometimes), nor do I see why a Fighter wouldn't get some small bonus to AC even when unarmored (when compared to a wizard, for example). BTW, if the barbarian is carrying heavy armor on his back, he might have better AC than wearing it, which sounds insane. Maybe some advantage for unarmored fighting is a good idea... but that's not it.

The monk and ranger are not too dissimilar. The paladin has a few cleric features. And that's it. We could probably reduce all this classes to a single "warrior" class with a dozen to twenty features to choose from. Which is what I did in Dark Fantasy Basic and plan to do with my minimalist 5e.

Minimalist D&D VII - Six skill sets

Here is part VI.

You asked for it, and you shall receive!

More minimalist D&D is coming... hopefully, until it becomes an entire game.

I talked about skills before (read that first!) and I am 90% convinced that they are not needed. However, five skills remained useful in my analysis: sleight of hand, arcana, history, nature and medicine.

You might call them "skill sets", instead. Something like this:

- Nature: animal handling, survival, nature, maybe perception when in nature.

- Lore: religion, history.

- Thievery: sleight of hand + thieves' tools.

- Arcana: well, arcana.

- Medicine: just medicine.

I kept these because you can build interesting archetypes around them. The experience ranger or hunter that is not particularly wise (average wisdom), the thief who is better with lock-picks than with a rapier. Or a doctor and a wizard who are both very intelligent, but not in the same way.

Source.

I cannot see that with other skills. Acrobatics, for example - can you think of a hero in fiction which would have low Dexterity and STILL great acrobatics? Makes no sense to me.

I considered some kind of "influence" skillset for charisma skills (deception, intimidation, persuasion , performance). But nope. A knight who is a leader has high Charisma. A suave thief has high Charisma. That's enough.

But I am really tempted to add a sixth skillset. Which is:

- Observation: perception, insight, investigation.

Now, I can see how this is somewhat redundant to Wisdom... And, as I've said "wouldn't it be cool if perception were context-specific? So, the ranger notices everything in the wild, but the aristocrat measures every look in the court, etc."

But... 

I can see the opposite too. A thief with low Wisdom, but a great eye for detail. Maybe a skill set to find hidden stuff; secret passages, quiet noises... This stuff is so improtant in D&D! Or maybe that should be folded into thievery. So, the thief sees small secret doors, the ranger doesn't - but he gets too see an ambush in the woods in advance. And the wizard perceives magic stuff.

Thinking of it this way, the sixth skill set could be War (or a better name - any suggestions?). It wouldn't influence combat at all... but would allow you to see an ambush before it comes, the value of a good sword, some interesting tactics against another group of combatants... Maybe the can MAKE some simple weapons in extreme circumstances.

War certainly creates lots of interesting combinations. Barbarians do War and Nature, Paladins do War and Arcana, etc.

I'm thorn on this one. I confess having six abilities and six skill sets is very tempting.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't want skill sets to be something every character has (like abilities).

By learning medicine or arcana, you know things no one else knows, even if they have high Intelligence. This is NOT just a bonus.

In short... skills are feats. Common ones, but still feats. So they can contain whatever you find interesting... and can be multiplied infinitely.

Anyway. that's probably the direction I'm going. Skills are feats, they do relevant things, and not everyone is forced to pick them.

Bows are nearly useless (unless you're an expert)

"If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"

- King Edward III... allegedly.

D&D and D&D-like games treat bows as weak guns - probably more dangerous than daggers but not much better than a rapier.

Have you ever tried using a bow? I tried some modern (not professional) ones... probably easier to use than medieval bows. Let me tell you, shooting someone that is 80 feet away would be hard if you're not an expert (and I'm certainly no expert). That's the "minimum" range of a short bow in 5e - meaning that anyone proficient with simple weapons can use them without disadvantage. The "maximum" range of the short bow is 320 feet - with disadvantage (which would make you hit, say, 42% of the time instead of 65% of the time).

Consider seeing a bowman from 230 feet away (Olympic distance). How likely are you to simply move away from the incoming arrow?

Now, try swinging a bat at a punching bag. Or sticking a dagger-like object into a tree (please be careful... you'll might break your knife or hurt yourself). Even a child with a sharp knife is dangerous. A bow? Not so much. But the short bow deals 1d6 damage, the dagger 1d4.

Also... how many times can I stab while you shoot an arrow?

Bows also require strength... in real life, not in D&D.

Of course, there are people who can do amazing things with a bow. Just look at Olympic athletes, or even hunters... But they require extensive training. But in 5e, a shot bow is a simple weapon... while a short sword is a "martial" weapon, supposedly requiring more training.

D&D is not real life, of course. But even in a gaming perspective, bows seem to have an unfair advantage in 5e... they have better reach, nearly the same damage, and the best feats and fighting styles.

I know bows are useful in war... But that's an entirely different game. You are shooting at an army, not a specific foe. Arrows are good when you have LOTS of bowmen ("so many arrows that blot out the sun").

D&D fighting is mostly about small duels... not much more than half a dozen in each side. The way bows work might derive from the fact that D&D was originally a war game. Curiously enough, I think most games have kept the same reasoning since the. In GURPS, for example, the bow is an "average" skill like swords... although penalties due to distance are harsher IIRC).

There are good points to be made against this - bows have been used all over for hunting and wars, thousands of years. King Edward's archers beat heavily armored knights in Crécy... some bows can pierce heavy armor (although I think a baseball bat would do better on a one-on-one fight). Maybe big monsters - like dragons and giants - are easier to hit with arrows.

In addition, there are SOME limitations to archery in D&D - mainly, the fact that you have disadvantage if you're shooting with someone within 5 feet of you (another good point - maybe archery is so easy in D&D because you are not so worried about parrying, dodging, etc.).

And, when in doubt, I defer to the rule of cool... since everyone seems to like Legolas and Robin Hood, D&D 5e is good as it is.

Anyway...

In my current minimalist D&D game, missile and thrown weapons lose a single point of damage. So, if a short sword deal 1d6, a short bow would deal 1d4. Likewise, a thrown dagger deals less damage than getting stabbed (maybe 1d4-1).

In addition, damage is always determined by Strength. You use either Str or Dex to hit with a melee weapon (your choice), only Dex to hit with ranged weapons, and only Str gives a bonus to damage (more thoughts about this here and here) .

It is not a huge issue, but I like it this way, and it's been working well so far.

Minimalist D&D IV - How many skills do we NEED?

Here is part III.

As I write my "Dark Fantasy Hack" - a somewhat minimalist (or at least elegant) version of the game - I'm considering cutting skills entirely... but less make a small exercise first.

Here is what we've got int he original game:

Strength
* Athletics
Dexterity
* Acrobatics
* Sleight of Hand
* Stealth
Intelligence
* Arcana
* History
* Investigation
* Nature
* Religion
Wisdom
* Animal Handling
* Insight
* Medicine
* Perception
* Survival
Charisma
* Deception
* Intimidation
* Performance
* Persuasion

How many skills can we cut without significant loss?

art by Rick Troula.

* Athletics - this skill in redundant with Strength. This means that characters with low Strength and high athleticism are rare; you'll have a hard time finding them in movies, literature, etc., when comparing those that are good (or bad) at both things. You can safely ditch this skill by using the optional rules in the DMg or doubling the Strength modifier.

Notice I'm using "adventurers" or "protagonists" as a rule. Of course you can have some kind of professional athlete (or other specialist) that is only good in one sport. But this is not a common character concept in D&D and adjacent fiction.... at most, a great athlete that cannot fight would be a NPC.

How do we measure that? Well, ONE way is to see how many classes in 5e have athletics as a skill and ALSO Strength as a "suggested" ability. I'm not looking at this one a case by case basis, but, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, you can see that the classes who rely most on Strength (Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins) have athletics on their skill lists.

* Acrobatics - similarly to athletics, this skill in redundant with Dexterity.

* Sleight of Hand - a bit redundant with Dexterity... However, I could see a character good with delicate things that is not necessarily good at dodging or shooting a bow, and vice-versa. Maybe this has more to do with Dexterity being too powerful than with the specific skill. Does this make sleight of hand a specialist skill? I dunno. I gonna say "maybe" for this one.

To make things clear, I would call a specialist someone who could be great with a skill regardless of ability. So, maybe we might have someone who is not wise or clever, but is REALLY good with nature. A healer with low Wis and high Int is also easy to imagine, etc. Also, so specialists are a bit RARE among adventurers... every PC should be able to run, hide or dodge, but not necessarily know magic or medicine.

This is not clear-cut. But I think you get the idea.

* Stealth - redundant with Dexterity.

* Arcana - like sleight of hand, I could see how this would be redundant with Intelligence (and, in 5e, there are no classes I can think of that rely on Intelligence except spellcasters). It si easy to see, however, how this would be a specialist skill in a low magic setting.

* History - probably redundant with Intelligence... like arcana, could be a specialist skill.

* Investigation - "When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check". I had to look that up to make sure. Well, this is similar to history; probably redundant, could be a specialist skill, but I doubt it - all PCs should be able look for clues and make deduction, and even Batman and Sherlock Holmes are extremely intelligent characters.

* Nature - This is where things start to get difficult. This is certainly NOT redundant with Intelligence, when you think of the low Int barbarian that know a lot more about nature than a high Int wizard. Using Wisdom would make it slightly better, but not much (think Barbarian versus Cleric).

But it is also not exactly SPECIALIST skill - since it is a common enough character concept IMO, and also something LOTS of characters in the same party could have (a party with three healers or historians is a lot rarer, for example). So... this skill is almost necessary.

* Religion - look, a cleric or paladin know a lot about HIS OR HER RELIGION... but not necessarily ALL religions. So, specialist skill. However, theologians are rare characters. and, in a world where deities are magical, magicians will certainly know a bit about deities, demosn, spirits, ressurrection, etc. (use history for the non-mystical aspects). So, probably redundant with other skills (arcana and history).

* Animal Handling - Similar to nature. In fact, a bit redundant with other skill (nature), since, again, not many character that are "good with animals, bad with nature".

* Insight - Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Redundant with Wis.

* Medicine - a bit redundant (most doctors in fiction are smart, but smart people are not that often capable of doing medicine), but mostly a specialist skill. Also, could be Intelligence instead of Wisdom, but anyway...

* Perception - redundant with Wis, and also a bit redundant with other skill (Insight). Also, wouldn't it be cool if perception were context-specific? So,t he ranger notices everything in the wild, but the aristocrat measures every look in the court, etc.

* Survival - a bit redundant with other skill (nature),

* Deception - redundant with Charisma. Not being able to lie is a common limiting factor in some archetypes, but not exactly a lack of skill.

* Intimidation - shouldn't be a skill. Also, you could intimidate with Strength, etc.

* Performance - redundant with Charisma. If very specific (playing a lute, for example), it might be a specialist skill.

* Persuasion- redundant with Charisma.

Notice that it is hard to think of a good actor, leader, or lair with low Charisma.

In short:

Strength
* Athletics - redundant.
Dexterity
* Acrobatics - redundant.
* Sleight of Hand - redundant, maybe specialist.
* Stealth - redundant.
Intelligence
* Arcana - redundant, maybe specialist.
* History - redundant, maybe specialist.
* Investigation - redundant.
* Nature - useful.
* Religion - redundant.
Wisdom
* Animal Handling - redundant with nature.
* Insight - redundant.
* Medicine - specialist.
* Perception - redundant.
* Survival - redundant with nature.
Charisma
* Deception - redundant.
* Intimidation - shouldn't be a skill.
* Performance - redundant.
* Persuasion - redundant.

So, let's say we keep sleight of hand (which should probably include Thieves' tools), arcana, history, nature and medicine. Everything else gets folded back into ability scores. Five skills.

Here is one idea: you get to choose one skill, or more if you have high Intelligence (two at 14, three at 16... or something). Spell-casters MUST take arcana. Thieves (or other classes with many skills) get a few extra ones. Maybe you could trade a skill for a few languages or tool proficiencies. Might be a cool way of making Intelligence more useful.

Notice that these five skills are VERY close to backgrounds... you have a "wilderness" background (nature), an "urban" background (sleight of hand), and "arcane" background (arcana) and a couple of "scholar" backgrounds (history and medicine). If assign "history" to relevant nonmagical events (important families, lineages, wars, etc.) you'd have a "noble/knightly" background in there.

On the other hand, this is almost - ALMOST - fighter, thief, wizard and cleric.

But I'm still not sure that the entire skill system is worth keeping for these five skills.

Well, this is what I have for now. See you soon!

Further reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/07/skills-in-osr5e-proficientexpert-and.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/05/minimalist-d.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/06/gurps-d-part-ii-skills.html
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/45078/roleplaying-games/untested-5th-edition-streamlined-skills