D&D Unleashed, part II: Above and Beyond Ability Limits

In most editions of D&D, the six abilities have a hard cap - a point beyond no PC can go, maybe because it is a "pinnacle of human capability" of some sort, even though D&D characters aren't restricted to human capabilities at all. D&D 5e explicitly say that "You can’t increase an ability score above 20". In some classic editions, you couldn't increase an ability score AT ALL, although nowadays many retroclones allow it.

The reason I dislike static abilities is that, as a character advances in levels, she gets tougher, better at fighting (even if she is a wizard, in most games), with more powerful spells and better saves, but for some reason not stronger or even wiser. Static abilities were fine in the original LBB D&D, where they granted little bonuses and weren't used for skills, saving throws, etc., but as they got more and more important, it seems that any real advancement should include improving abilities.

Hard caps on abilities bring similar problems, although they take longer to manifest. If you're a fighter, for example  you probably start with a good STR, and will augment it at every opportunity. Soon you hit the ceiling, and then you'll look for other abilities to improve. That, apparently, is how 5e works: you first put 15 in your main ability, then increase it with race features, ten increase it again with ability score improvements, and before level 10 you have already reached your maximum.

So your 20th level fighter will probably have a STR that is no greater than 99% of the 8th level fighters in the world, and in fact no fighter will ever be stronger than that (unless you're using feats instead of ability score improvements, of course).

But wouldn't be cool if you could make a Fighter with superhuman STR? One that was stronger than most Fighters, and probably stronger than anyone in the realm, but not necessarily the best Fighter of her level? Then you could have a match between two 15th level fighters where one has superhuman STR but the other can still prevail using speed and guile - and all  without using traits, alternate classes, or having to turn your Fighter into a Barbarian, Rogue or Swashbuckler.

Wouldn't it be cool?

Now, there is a reason for this limit. Since so much of the class traits focus on a single ability, if you leave it with no ceiling everybody would be tempted to put all their points in that ability (despite the problems it may cause), making everyone in the same class very similar.

My solution for this is: diminishing returns. Use soft caps instead of hard ones. Which means, you can have an ability greater than 20, but it will cost you.

Try this, for example (but see my notes below on how to change this table):

Score	Modifier
5	−5
6	−4
7	−3
8	−2
9	−1
10–11	+0
12–13	+1
14–15	+2
16–17	+3
18–19	+4
20–22	+5
23–25	+6
26–29	+7
30–34	+8
35–39	+9
40...	+10...

Now, all Fighters may benefit from a great STR - up to a point - but after a while being well-rounded might be more useful depending on the character concept. Want to create a Fighter with STR 25? Go ahead and do it! Her saves will suffer, and she might be easily fooled by someone smarter. She will probably be a great fighter, but not necessarily the best one in her level. At the same time, nobody will be better at arm-wrestling, carrying stuff or breaking doors down.

If you don't like the idea of messing around with the ability score/modifier table, you could also do this with a simple feat, instead, such as:

Exceptional Talent
One of your abilities is greater than normal human limits. Choose an ability. Increase this ability by 1, and now this ability can be raised beyond the maximum of 20, up to 22. Each time you take this feat, add 2 to this maximum.

What's the point? Adding more character concepts without adding much complexity or new traits and classes to the system.

Of course, the table above could be changed in many ways, and could go on forever. It also has MANY uses other than that (discouraging "dump stats", making that INT 8 really sting, allowing you to beat a house cat in a fight...). I use a similar version in my own game, but with more nuance. The example above are meant too keep things identical to RAW 5e in most of the cases. The whole "diminishing returns" subject is worth a post of its own - just stay tuned!

D&D Unleashed, part I: YES YOU CAN! (Classes)

Once upon a time, I got tired of OD&D/BD&D and all of its limitations, specially those regarding classes. "Wizards cannot use swords", "thieves cannot wear heavy armor", or even the (misguided) "non-thieves cannot hide", and so on. I thought this was silly. To this day, I dislike the limitations some editions of D&D try to enforce (even if they say you can take a feat to ignore it, although this makes things better), but once I better understood them, I realized that leaving D&D because of them is misguided.

Instead, I got rid of the limitations.

Of course, lots of people have done this before. Is easier than you may think. Let's see...

Can I use any skill, even if I'm not a thief? 

YES, YOU CAN. This is the easy one. In fact, this was probably the case from day one, as many have argued. Thief's skills are meant to go above and beyond a normal person's abilities. For examples, a thief can hide "in shadows" and climb "sheer surfaces", feats there are impressive for most people - but almost anyone can hide behind a curtain or climb a knotted rope. The thief's ability to "hear noises" is a bonus to what all classes can do, and there is no reason not to apply this to every skill they have.

Can I use any weapon, even if I'm not a fighter? 

YES, YOU CAN. And it won't break the game or be unfair. Fighters will still make the best of whatever weapons they get their hands on, due to better Strenght, HP, BAB, THAC0, etc. In OD&D there was a specific reason for this limitations: magical swords were the most powerful weapons around and were quite common in the random treasure tables. If this isn't the case in your game, there is probably no good reason to keep the limitation.

Now, if for some other reason the sword is simply the most powerful weapon of the game and everyone will use swords if you don't stop them, the problem is with your weapons, not with your classes - remember that older versions of D&D would sometimes use weapon speed and effectiveness against armor along with damage, so the "best" weapon was dependent on circumstances. But even if your swords do 1d8 damage while all other weapons do 1d6 and you don't use other distinctions, there should be plenty of "narrative" reasons to try other weapons: concealment, religious taboos, prohibitive laws and customs, availability, etc.

So what about armor? Can I wear any armor, too?

YES, YOU CAN. This one is a bit trickier, as armor, unlike weapons, can be equally useful to all classes. While I find unreasonable that wizards and thieves cannot wear armor, saying that armor gets in the way of magic and thievery sounds good. A penalty or a flat chance of failure due to armor sounds better than prohibition. Or you might want to use something from the next paragraph...

Anyone can read spell books...

Oh, yeah? So what about spells? Can I cast them even if I'm not a wizard?

YES, YOU CAN. And not just for scrolls, either. You can use spell books if you want. Look at thieves again: 10th level thieves can use magic scrolls with a 10% chance of the spell being reversed (if 7th level or greater), in OD&D. Yes - they are that good. Now think what would happen if someone else would try that - the chance of failure would be way greater.

For a one-line old school solution, save vs. spell to avoid the spell turning against you or causing other disastrous effects. Not old school enough? Then use the "% Chance to Know any given spell" in Supplement I. By the way, the books described in Supplement I are good examples of stuff that may happen when one reads the wrong book.

(And did you ever notice how magic-users are harmed by the Book of Exalted Deeds and not by the Book of Vile Darkness? What does this say about the nature of magic?)

Okay, now I guess you'll say I can turn undead and use cleric spells as well?

YES, YOU CAN. If you faith is strong enough, there is no reason not to. Sure, you have to respect any taboos that a particular god may enforce (avoiding particular weapons or arcane magic, for example), but a deity won't abandon its followers just because they aren't part of the clergy. Clerics can probably get more leeway, as a life of righteousness allows for a little misstep every now and then... or at least this is what they tell themselves in order to be able to sleep at night, depending on how gritty is your game.

By the way, you might need a cross to turn a vampire, depending on your GM. Better be prepared.

What about elves, dwarves, monks, barbarians, paladins, etc? Can they do anything as well?

YES, THEY CAN. Same ideas apply. Monks can wear armor although it gets in the way of their kung fu. Paladins have got it mostly right, they are just fighters that gain special powers in exchange for following some tenets. Dwarves and barbarians can cast spells, but they know it might be a bad idea, specially if they have more wisdom than intelligence... And so on.

... but results may vary.

And what about 5th edition? 
The way 5th edition works might make things a bit different, but not much. For example, BAB doesn't vary across classes (is usually equal to proficiency), but the differences in STR, HP and special traits should be enough to guarantee that a wizard with a sword won't break anything or get in the fighter's "niche". A rogue with a heavy weapon is fine too; she's probably better off with a rapier anyway. Same goes for spell-casting fighters and so on.

What's the point?
Limitations in D&D are a matter of taste, but if you have a player that wants to create a wizard with a sword, why not let him? A fighter of the same level will still beat him in a sword fight. Choices are what make RPGs so cool, and it will be fun to see what happens when the fighter wants to cast a spell, without knowing what is waiting for her...

D&D Unleashed, part III: Ditch the Prerequisites (on prestige classes)

In part I, I talked about wizards using swords and thieves turning undead. In part 2, I suggested you ignore limits to abilities. Today, it seems like a good time to talk about ability prerequisites and prestige classes.

Using abilities to limit character options is not a new idea. Supplement I required Charisma 17 for paladins, Supplement II had impossible standards for monks, and so on. The reasoning seems to be that some of those classes are “elite” classes, somewhat above the mundane ones, which is why you don’t get to play with them unless you get very lucky... or cheat.

This has made a lot of people very angry and, from D&D 3e on, has been widely regarded as a bad move¹. Paladins and monks are cool, at least to some people, and now you can play them from level one, without getting lucky on character creation.

I know some people prefer rolling 3d6 in order and getting whatever class your abilities will allow – maybe thinking the “modern” method isn’t old school enough. I could argue that even Holmes (not an epitome of “new school”) says you should be able to choose whatever class you like despite what your abilities may suggest.

In any case, I reckon this is a matter of taste. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ll probably guess that creating obstacles to stop the players from getting the characters they want isn’t my cup of tea.

The reason I got back to this subject now is that, apparently, prestige classes are coming for 5e.

Take a look at the first sentence in the article: “Many of the character concepts that were once prestige classes or paragon paths in earlier editions of D&D are now options available to 1st-level characters”.

Choosing your class early on (source). 

This is, in my opinion, one of the strong suits of fifth edition, and a evolution over past editions. So why change it?

It is hard to ignore the circular nature of this stuff. First, you come up with “super classes”, somewhat rare, like monks and paladins, that require special prerequisites to play. Then, they get popular, and people want to play then from level one. A new edition comes, and now you can! But wait, there is a new “prestige class”, like the arcane fighter or what-have-you, that you cannot play if you don’t fulfill certain criteria. In 3e, luck has been somewhat replaced by “character build planning”, so instead of rolling well you must plan your character from level one to become a “super class” on level 7 (guess I miss level titles… but I digress).

Then fifth edition comes along²! If you want an arcane fighter, just pick the fighter class, and sooner or later – usually sooner! – you’ll have just the character you want! Archetypes and paragon paths instead of prestige classes! What a cool idea!

But wait! Now they came up with a new, special class, which you can add to any starting class… provided you meet the prerequisites. See the pattern?

There are two problems with prerequisites.

The first one is that they often add complexity for no purpose at all, with “balance” sometimes thrown in as a misguided excuse. I’m not saying that balance is a bad thing, just that prestige classes are not a good way to enforce it.

Take the d20 SRD, for example: did someone really think the game would break if you allow an assassin that isn’t a specialist in hiding and moving silently? Or an arcane archer with a bad attack bonus? On the contrary; most of the times, such suboptimal character builds wouldn’t harm anyone but the characters themselves. Feats often suffer from the same problems, but that deserves a different post.

Same thing happened with the 5e rune scribe, which requires intelligence, dexterity and proficiency in arcana, making it a class fit for wizards but not really for sorcerers, or to DEX fighters but not for STR fighters. But, again, why? Would a dwarf rune scribe with medium armor be any more powerful than any other character?

The second problem is even worse: prerequisites prevent you from using lots of interesting character concepts and dramatic situations.

I can’t build my a Dwarven Runepriest with a war hammer and armor, an archetype that could appeal to anyone who enjoys Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and some who don’t. The prerequisites effectively make this build unworkable.

Source.

But that’s not all (well, it is, for now, because that is the only prestige class for 5e).

Take a look at the d20 version of A Game of Thrones. It has prerequisites for commanders, knights, members of the Kingsguard and rangers of the Night's Watch³. It makes sense; these should be elite warriors or, at least, they should at least be competent with a sword. But when you enforce prerequisites, you end up excluding many interesting characters: the quixotic knight, the smart but clumsy commander, the incompetent ranger, the boy that got lucky and now faces impossible expectations, and so on.

Worse, you lose valuable plot devices. Nepotism, favoritism, tradition, despair, bribery, deceit, manipulation: all reasonable explanations for someone to be in a certain “elite” group even when they don’t “belong” there. In fact, the decadence of such groups is a recurring theme in the original books by George R. R. Martin.

Even “story” prerequisites are too restrictive. Why not allow for multiple character stories? For example, to be in the King’s Honor Guard you must be chosen by him, and he usually chooses the best warriors... But not always. One of them defeated a legendary knight in a tournament, one is just overrated. One is silent and loyal, and one is the king’s secret lover.

To sum it up: what the title says. Ditch the prerequisites. Use them as suggestions if you want, or use story prerequisites as inspiration.

Just don’t let them limit your game.

---
Note: I am quite sure I read about a similar idea (characters should be able to suck at their jobs) in Grognardia, a long time ago, but I cannot find it. If you can, let me know!

¹ To paraphrase the great Douglas Adams.
² And fourth, to a certain extent, although fifth is the subject of this post.
³ Granted, the prerequisites are quite modest.

Combat maneuvers made easier (for BD&D, AD&D and OD&D)

I wrote about the subject before, but here is a different take, even simpler, and without using anything resembling dice pools, like I did the first time.

The thing is: I like my simple martial maneuvers in BD&D. They really make the fighter more interesting without adding much complication, feats, etc. The Rules Cyclopedia has a few interesting options, such as smash, parry and disarm. Modern interpretations of the classic rules, such as the elegant rules in LotFP and this cool compilation by Randall Stukey, make things simpler when compared to the RC.

Still, I wish for something both simpler and more flexible, and more suited for my group.

The problem with the original rules for martial maneuvers in the RC, as I see, is threefold:

- Combat maneuvers can get too complicated (too many numbers to remember).
- There is little decision involved - you either use it all the time, or never use it.
- They involve needless class/level restrictions (only fighters, etc).

Let's take a look at "Smash" for example:

Smash
This is a Fighter Combat Option maneuver, first available at 9th level to fighters and mystics, and at other experience point totals to demihumans (see their experience tables). With this hand-to-hand maneuver, the character automatically loses initiative and takes a - 5 penalty to the attack roll (he still gets his Strength and magic adjustments to his attack roll). 
If attack hits, the character adds his Strength bonus, magic bonuses, and his entire Strength score to his weapon's normal damage. 
For example, a Strength 17 fighter ( + 2 to attack and damage) using a sword +2 ( + 2 to attack, 1d8 + 2 damage) would perform a smash this way: He rolls to hit with a net penalty of -1 ( + 2 + 2-5). If he hits, he rolls ld8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

Smash is an important maneuver in the RC, making Fighters way more powerful than they would be without it. But is is easy to see that:

- It is needlessly complicated (unless you're used to the RC, of course) - just see the last paragraph. Also, why a -5 penalty in Smash and a -4 penalty to enemies while using Parry?
- It is too powerful when compared to a normal attack - after level 9, a Fighter will Smash most of the time against every monster with a couple of HD or more.
- It depends on class and level, so a Fighter doesn't get most of the maneuvers until level 9, and some classes get no maneuvers at all - which some people like, but goes against my "D&D Unleashed" philosophy.

This is easy to fix, of course:

Smash
With this hand-to-hand maneuver, the character automatically gets -5 to initiative and to the attack roll, and a +10 bonus to damage. 

But let me propose an alternative that replaces Smash, Parry, Cleave, Dual Wielding and multiple attacks.

Take your BAB (or Fighter level, etc - for this purpose, I would use BAB=Fighter level+STR or DEX, not 2/3 level like the RC uses IIRC). Do whatever you want with it, as long as you split it evenly, round down, and creates no bonuses smaller than +2 ("no bonus smaller than +2" is a general rule in my games because... granularity).

Your choices are limited only by the weapons you're using (or "how you narrate your attack" if that is what you're into).

For example, say you are a 12th level Fighter with a +12 bonus. You can:

* Attack with +6 and deal +6 damage if you have a two-handed weapon.

* Attack twice (+6/+6) if you have an weapon in each hand, although you probably have some disadvantage in the second attack unless you're ambidextrous.

* Attack with +6 and get a +6[-6] bonus to AC if you have a shield or parrying weapon (although they may break etc). You can probably do the same with a dodge but you lose your attack, or use up your movement, etc. Bear in mind that this is quite powerful without restrictions.

* Trip, disarm, ensnare, etc: +6 to attack and if you hit roll 1d6+6, and if this result is greater than 10% of your opponents' HP, you achieve the intended effect (or allow a saving throw with -6, or use the rules for subduing dragons, etc).

* Maybe do any of that with a quarterstaff? Here is a good reason to have a two-handed weapon with low damage.

* If you like weapon proficiency, you may require that to use each maneuver (I am not a big fan, to be honest).

And so on.

I am tempted to say you can use this against multiple opponents, instead of using multiple attacks or Cleave. If you have an adequate weapon, you can attack four opponents in the same action (+3/+3/+3/+3), by swinging at them, for example.

I would advise against allowing multiple attacks against the same foe under normal circumstances, or this would turn into a math exercise to see how to deal more damage. Well, maybe a "combo" would work with some kinds os weapons: do the first attack as normal, and the defender gets some advantage while defending (or just keep attacking until your first miss).

Most of other problems (using a inadequate weapon, etc) can be resolved using advantage and disadvantage from 5e.

There are lots of system for martial maneuvers out there; I hope you enjoy this one!