In praise of Lamentations (LotFP)

I recommended Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP) to someone online and they asked what's so special about it.

I had already compared it to other similar systems here:

Famous for its gory, mature, bloody art and themes, and some interesting adventures, but for me the rules are the best part: well organized, streamlined, and even somewhat rebalanced. Seems inspired by Mentzer's B/E. It strays a bit further from Basic than any of the ones mentioned above, but still roughly compatible. I find most of the changes (cleric, turn undead, 1d6 thief skills, encumbrance, the summon spell, etc.) very positive and preferable to the original rules and other clones. The basic rules do not contain anything explicit or gory except for one spell (summon) that might cause sexual violence. Free version here.

As you can see, there is a free version; if you prefer, go read the book instead of this little overview! The version with art is also worth it (if you are not discouraged by some blood and gore)

Notice I do not run LotFP, but my own game, Dark Fantasy Basic (currently on sale!), with a few updates.

But if you want to know why I like LotFP, here are some my favorite aspects.

The fighter gets +1 "to hit" per level and a few simple combat maneuvers. Other classes do not get any bonus after level 1, which I dislike but at the same time admire for its radical simplicity. 

Clerics and magic-users can use swords, however, which I like.

Clerics get to choose turn undead as a spell; it is not an intrinsic ability anymore. A cleric takes many hours to prepare spells - as many as the highest level spell being prepared. They deserve the nerfing IMO.

The magic-users start with read magic plus three random spells, and gains ONE new random spell per level. This is perfect IMO. Notice the simplicity: the fighter gets +1 to-hit, the MU gets one new spell, etc.

The MU can still get other spells through research, scrolls, etc. Spells like fireball, which I dislike, are simply removed. The summon spell is expanded (to 10 pages!) to generate random creatures that the MU cannot always control - and it can be used from level 1!

The specialist is probably the most interesting class: he has the same 1-in-6 chances that most other classes have to perform certain feats/skills, but he gets skill points each level to distribute as he wishes between stealth, climb, search, etc. Sneak attack is also a skill - having 4 points means you QUADRUPLE damage. There are ten skills, which sounds about right to me.

Overall, the rules of the game are simplified and well organized. I like most of the options the author takes (simplified encumbrance, silver standard, simplified weapons, streamlined attribute modifiers from -3 to +3, a few combat maneuvers, etc.), and they are very adequate to the "dark fantasy" genre I enjoy so much.

There are a few things I'd change, of course (combat feels less deadly than most B/X games for several reasons, I dislike the usual 5 saving throws, would like to give the fighter more tools to play with, or more customization in general - no multi-classing here, etc.), but this is just me.

The rules are both SIMPLE and feel COMPLETE, which is hard to do. The spells go to level 9, characters go to level 20 and beyond. There are innumerable small tweaks that improve the usual B/X rules, too many to analyse.

If I were to run a OSR dark fantasy game I didn't write - and couldn't change a thing - this is one I might use.

So, while I don't run LotFP, I have run several modules - Qelong (awesome), Better Than Any Man (which is very good and FREE!), The god that crawls (review here), etc. 

I don't think it is useful to make generalizations (well, I've made a few here) - some are great, some are bad, look for reviews here or elsewhere. In this post, I just wanted to talk about the basic rules.

NOTE: the sale is still on, including all of my books!

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

Some MMA-Melee reflections

I was talking about "medieval MMA" on twitter the other day and another user (@D20Gary) made a good point about how every attack "hits", and we could just roll damage instead of "to-hit" like Cairn does.

Gary makes a good point - in melee, almost every attack "hits" - even if only "hits" shield, armor or weapon. 

It is very rare that someone would hit air.

However, I disagree with the solution (and don't use a Cairn-like system), because not every attack DAMAGES.

Look at the video below, for example. Several attacks "hit" armor but not necessarily HURT.

It is often said that a "miss" in D&D could be a glancing/weak hit.

Although practice might vary from table to table, it is obvious that it must be so - just think about the numbers and what AC means.

E.g.: say your fighter "hits" by rolling 8 or more against an unarmored foe.

If the foe is using plate, a 8 or more obviously mean you still "hit" the target, but with not enough skill to bypass/defeat armor.

This can be seen in the video, over and over.

Another problem is that each fight like the video takes dozens of "hits" or more to  finish. 

Even with an average of 1d6 damage per round, every fighter would need 60+ HP, leading to HP bloat.

(This could be avoided by adjusting damage - apparently, Cairn does this by subtracting armor from damage, which is good).

So, even in the context of the MMA-melee video, a D&D-like system seems to make more sense - decent level fighters constantly "hit" but not always "damage".

HOWEVER...

I agree that needing TWO rolls for attack AND damage is redundant, ESPECIALLY if you consider "misses" are not necessarily MISSING the target.

The hit/miss binary is just too "low resolution" - doesn't measure quality or even separate "misses" from actual misses (i.e., "hitting air").

My favorite solution would involved a single d20 roll with some nuance. This has been attempted in several ways in here (see links below), and by many before me.

Anyway.

On a related topic.

What we said above is true for "MMA melee", but not so for actual MMA or boxing - it is not unusualk to "hit air". Same for shooting bows, etc.

Now think of the various forms of combat:

- Unarmed, which includes striking AND grappling.

- Melee with armor. 

- Melee without armor (e.g., fencing). 

- Bows. 

- Firearms.  

These are so incredibly DIFFERENT in reality that a single system is unlikely to work well for ALL types.

A dagger fight ends in minutes without armor, but can last HOURS in plate.

Add a knife to a boxing (or wrestling) fight and it changes EVERYTHING.

Just change the surroundings - from forests to tight dungeons - and the whole dynamic is different.

Lethality, speed, distance, % of hits landed, lasting wounds, etc. are just too diverse.

So, you either have SEVERAL combat systems or accept that these things will be mostly abstract.

It is difficult (maybe impossible) to have a system that is both realistic AND simple - not to mention FUN to use at the table.

Still, we keep trying...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/01/single-attackdamage-roll.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/02/hitting-armor-in-d-glancing-blows.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/minimum-combat-detail-deadly-daggers.html

https://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2024/07/d-combat.html

Note: the sale is still own, including all of my books!

Christmas in July (2024) picks

Christmas in July has arrived, so here are my usual picks, with some additions.

The most recent OSR deal right now is probably Knave 2e. I'm curious about this one -  I really liked the first one.

Dragonbane is currently 4.99, which might make me finally get it. 

Same for The Witcher if you're interested - doesn't look like my type of game.

Or Dungeons of Drakkenheim if you are into 5e - looks really cool, and I might get it for my OSR games.

Here are all the deep discounts - up to 80% off!

Also, let me remind you that all of my books are included in the sale! 

This includes my latest work, Basic Wilderness Encounters - which recently got a couple of 5-star ratings!

If your tastes are similar to mine, take a look! They are mostly compatible with OSR games (except for a couple of 5e books - "Manual of Arms").

HYPERBOREA - which I reviewed here - is also included.

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is also 40% off - or $45.00 off. Sounds reasonable for 1.100 pages (!) although it is probably too much material for me to digest.

Now, let's see the old favorites...

OSR

* Teratogenicon, my monster maker (check the previews!).

* Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X neoclone.

* Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe Edition (review of the original version);

* Monkey Business.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG);

* How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck; 

* The Monster Alphabet; 

* Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome; 

* Silent Legions; 

* The Nameless Grimoire.

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Adventurer Conqueror King System.

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

Classic D&D

This are some of my favorites. Explanation here.

* D&D Basic Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) (Basic).

* D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Basic)

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1e)

* Monstrous Manual (2e) - the current price is RIDICULOUSLY LOW for such a a great book.

* Dark Sun boxed set.

Goodman Games

In addition to the amazing Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG), I really like The Dungeon Alphabet, The Monster Alphabet and The Cthulhu Alphabet. They are near system-less and full of awesome stuff to inspire your games. I still haven't read How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck but it is also on sale.

They also publish awesome adventures; Doom of the Savage King is highly recommended! Same for Jewels of the Carnifex, which I reviewed here.

Necrotic Gnome

Several Old School Essentials titles are also on sale in addition to Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome. I really like Old-School Essentials. It is basically a concise, well-organized version of my favorite D&D (B/X). The SRD is great. the version that interests me the most is the advanced version - it is NOT an AD&D clone, but B/X with many new options taken from AD&D, dragon magazine, etc. For players and DMs.

Sine Nomine Publishing

Worlds Without Number is on sale. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles form the same author, including Scarlet Heroes and Silent Legions (maybe my favorite OSR take on horror and Lovecraft).

I think that's it for now. If you know any other books on sale that you'd recommend (especially if it is 40% off), let me know in the comments and I'll add it to my list. Feel free to promote your own products!

These are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

12 odd things about B/X wilderness encounters

While I was writing Basic Wilderness Encounters (now a silver bestseller!), I noticed lots of strange things in the B/X encounter tables I hadn't noticed before.

The B/X tables are inspired directly by OD&D tables. Notice that the OSE tables are identical.

In my book, I addressed/fixed some things to give the tables a more coherent feel, and I quite like the results.

Anyway, here is the list. Let me know if you have other items to add!

---

1. A dragon encounter is about 100 times more likely than finding a group of halflings. They are more common than wolves and hawks. Dragons are encountered in all environments regardless of color; i.e., a green dragon encounter is not more likely in forests despite the fact they live in forests.

2. Adventurer groups are incredibly diverse, considering how difficult is to find dwarves and other "demi-humans" in the tables. Any adventurer in a group of experts in 36% likely to be a "demi-human".

3. Expert adventurers, up to level 10-12, still adventure in the wilderness (despite many people thinking you should start "domain play" sat level 9 and stop adventuring.)

4. There are parties of high-level clerics, MUs, and fighters, but no thief parties (thieves only appear in more mixed parties, or as groups of "bandits" that apparently have no thief skills/talents). This might be because there were no thieves (as class) in the original D&D.

5. Mountains are extremely dangerous - at least 50% chance of encounter per day, and 25% of encounters are with dragon-like creatures (mostly dragons but also hydras, etc.), not to mention the possibility of a 36-HD giant Roc.

6. Swamps are dangerous too... Troglodytes are horrific; 2 HD, 5d8 appearing, camouflaged and always murderous. Desert and "barren" encounters are just as dangerous and almost as frequent (2-in-6, like forests), which I find odd, as desert fauna should be scarcer.

7. Swarms of common insects only appear swamps, but killer bees are everywhere.

8. The "unusual" table contains basilisks, which are more common than bears or ordinary hawks - or Halflings, etc.

9. In fact, there are NO ordinary bears in the tables, only cave bears and werebears.

10. Pirates (Chaotic, Morale 7) and Buccaneers (N, ML6) are nearly identical. They are also the largest groups; fleets can have more than 200 people in it.

11. You can find sharks in lakes and rivers, and even whales aren't uncommon. I replaced some with big alligators (of similar HD), that were sorely lacking.

12. Giant scorpions dwell in deserts according to the monster description. But they can't be found in the desert table. Only in swamps, jungles, forest, plains and settled lands.

Anyway, check Basic Wilderness Encounters if you want some reflections about these tables and 1000 entries to simplify you job as a DM. It is half the usual price if you get it in one of our bundles!

10:1 combat (B/X, Chainmail, and OD&D)

There are innumerable ways to do mass combat in D&D (I even tried to write my own). 

In old school editions, however, I am not sure it is even necessary to have a mass combat system.

On the contrary, I've been thinking a separate mass combat system might become a problem.

Take Chainmail, for example. Many people that play OD&D or AD&D like the idea of using CM for mass battlers, but I find this a bad idea.

In Chainmail, the mace is FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2. In AD&D, since you can hit even negative AC with a 20, the mace is only slightly better than a sword.

This is the first thing that comes to mind, but there are many other differences - IIRC, a 4th-level fighter is much stronger in CM, for example, and using 2d6 will necessarily produce different results from a  d20.

My problem with this is that switching systems like that changes the assumptions about the game, to the point of changing the results of a fight depending oh the system you're using.

But what if you just use the same system with a different scale?

For example, say 100 knights are battling 150 berserkers. You could just run 10 knight "units" against 15 berserkers "units", as if they were individuals, and assume the results would be similar. 

I.e., a "10:1 scale"; one knight represents 10.

The rules would be exactly the same... with a few exceptions.

Morale

An unit tests morale upon losing one HP and again when losing half HP.

Notice that usually morale is checked when one combatant dies. If taken literally, this would indicate hat an army of 100 might flee is attacked by an army of 100 inflicting a single causality. I dislike that, and I only check morale when 10% of an army/unit is lost.

Interaction between scales

What happens when a unit of 10 knights attacks an ogre or even an exceptional PC?

Reverting back to the usual system is not a bad idea - it is easy enough to roll 10d20, etc.

Although I do think you should decide beforehand how many people can attack a single target at once (I like four, maybe twice as much for spears).

Likewise, the number of units attacking other units is limited and depends on geography.

When combat is resolved (because the ogre is slain or inflicts a causality and the knights fail a morale test), you can stay in 10:1 or 1:1 scale as appropriate.

Other scales/my experiences with mass battles

Of course, you can use other scales as appropriate. You could use 5:1, 100:1 or 1,000:1... The idea is finding a number of units that makes you comfortable. 

I have little experience running mass battles like that. But my PCs recently fought about 50 goblins in two or three waves, with the help of half a dozen NPCs, and it went very well. 

I once ran a 5e combat against 100 skeletons or so, which was also very easy as they came in groups of 4-5 thru the windows and the fighters would only miss them on natural 1s.

I think it would be hard to run more than 10 or 20 units at once, but within that limit I'd want to have as many unis as possible.

In addition, I'd have to consider unit types; if I have 1000 identical knights, I can use 100:1, but if I also had 50 archers, I'd definitely prefer 50:1. 

In any case, you can "zoom" back and forth as needed.

Well, for now, this is just brainstorming. Let's see if I can out it in practice.

The Tombs of Atuan

The Tombs of Atuan is the second book in the Earthsea cycle. If you liked the first one, this is a decent sequel, if a bit slow and underwhelming. I've read it maybe a decade ago and revisited it last month.

The book is about Tenar, who gets taken from their parents as a child to become the new high priestess of the "Nameless Ones" - supposedly for being the reincarnation of the former priestess - in the Tombs of Atuan, a religious complex of a few buildings over a big, mysterious dungeon.

The first few chapters show a child trying to navigate the duties of a high-priestess, dealing with isolation, insecurity, friendship and jealously from other priestesses. Halfway through the book, a peculiar prisoner gets caught in the dungeon, and it is up to Tenar to decide what to do.

Like the first book, this is a coming-of-age story, adequate to young adults, although a bit simpler than the first. Tenar is taken against her own will, and while her decisions might be difficult for the character, they look a bit predictable for the reader. 

This book very deliberately avoid having any action. There is no swordplay, flashy magic and even the "monsters" are mere shadows. Unlike the first book, there is not much travelling either. Instead, the focus is on the characters, their dilemmas and feelings.

For D&D players, the book might be worth the read for the portrayal of the labyrinthine dungeon and the process of navigating it in the dark.

The book feels very true to the first book in the sense that the themes follow naturally. Ged was looking for a name in the first one, and here he has to face the Nameless (hinted in the first book). Like Tenar, he was taken as child, but they had different mentors. Ultimately, both have to learn responsibility in order to grow.

It is another short, easy-to-read book, that I'd recommend if you like the first one - even if I liked the first one much better. In any case, I enjoyed it and proceeded to (re)read the third book in the series - which I'll review soon.

Sandbox detour

Yesterday, something happened in my game... that might be worth discussing briefly.

The PCs in my sandbox were hunting a few goblin tribes. I had the entire area (hexes) and a couple of goblins caves prepared in advance (adapted from a published module).

But when the game started (right after they had slain one of the goblin tribes - there were two more to go), the PCs suddenly decided to abandon the quest and traveled to the nearby haunted ruins, which they thought would be more profitable.

I had already decided on a module for those ruins... but I hadn't read it.

They had two or three nearby places to go (in addition to goblin territory). The thing is, I'm unable to memorize them all.

[Also, notice, it is USELESS to memorize them; now, the goblin "plotline" became partially obsolete because they will NOT be able to rescue certain hostages anymore, which changes the whole thing... there is little use in preparing too much for things you'll never face].

Sometimes I just need a dungeon that I can read while I'm running it. Or, even better, a complete sandbox like Qelong or Curse of Strahd - it allows me to familiarize with the whole setting at once.

The ideal sandbox would have a significant number of "IFs" so I didn't have to come up with my own. "If the PCs refuse, the hostages die", etc.

[Notice Qelong is surrounded by mountains and Ravenloft by mists; an island would work too. It seems the ideal sandbox is somewhat limited: "we are playing in this area, if the PCs leave the adventure will turn into something else, which requires some time to prepare"].

The game turned out well, although it felt clunky reading and refereeing at the same time. I made a few mistakes (e.g., said a door was open when it was locked) and it took a bit longer to describe each room.

Fortunately, it was a short session, and I had my Basic Wilderness Encounters with encounters for EVERY biome in the setting, which made the wilderness part a breeze.

I will familiarize with the dungeon better for next week, since they are unlikely to change course soon, so things will be smoother.

What I DIDN'T want to do is "improvise" in any way.

I had two goblin lairs ready to go. Should I have used THAT maps for the ruins? 

NO! I want my setting to be a real place, not a Schrödinger's simulation.

Could I have rolled a new map randomly?

No, that would be equally bad. 

See, they had two nearby dungeons to go, each with its own "backstory". If I generated them randomly as they explore it, their choice would simply not matter.

Anyway, it is fun to have a sandbox and allow them to go anywhere. One of the players started asking, "wait, why don't we BUILD something?".

I have no plans for this type of campaign. Might be fun, I don't know.

One thing I do know is that the players can surprise me - and this makes running the game way more fun for me.

Additional reading:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/06/author-x-referee-gms.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

Milestones WITH XP

A quick thought exercise on the subject...

The two most popular (and somewhat diverging) ways of leveling characters are milestones and XP.

I assume you know how XP works; it is assigned according to treasure acquired, monsters defeated, etc. If you get enough X, you level up.

Milestones allow you to level up upon the completion for a particular goal: saving a hostage, slaying a particularly important creature, surviving a dungeon, etc.

Most people prefer using one way or the other, but it is easy to see you could combine them: for example, the GM may arbitrarily assign XP rewards for certain goals.

I like using milestones myself, because it allows me for a bit more control over the pacing of a campaign,  and also because it requires less bookkeeping. 

But I disregard XP entirely: PCs have levels and they level up when appropriate (usually upon finishing a module or two). 

In order to do that, I had to balance the classes using feats and a house rules.

This is also the case for my free "OSR Minimalist" game. I always enjoy getting feedback on that!

But what if you WANT to keep distinct XP costs and STILL use milestones to avoid writing down every coin acquired and every monster slain?

There are a few ways to do that.

The simplest way is probably choosing a PC at random to level up, but every PC has the same XP. 

If you have 4 PCs, all on 1st level, roll 1d4. It the thief is selected ts to level 2 (1,200 XP), no one else levels up. But if the elf is selected (4,000 XP), everyone else levels up too... and the thief gets to level 3 immediately!

As you can see, some nuance is lost here - some levels will be skipped.

Alternatively, just use 500 XP per milestone until 10.000 XP, then 5.000 until 100.000. 

This will give the fighter a level for each 4 milestones, more or less.

After 100.000 XP, you can give 20.000 to 50.000 XP per milestone, depending on how fast you want PCs to level up to "name level" and beyond.

Anyway, this is purely theoretical - I think I'd prefer to use XP or milestones as a primary method and maybe some exceptions.

There is probably a better solution out there... let me know in the comments!

BTW: my latest book, Basic Wilderness Encounters, is now added to my discount bundles. You can buy ALL my books for around 30 bucks!

The importance of cleaving mooks

I recently wrote a couple of posts about how B/X Fighters are too weak and how to fix them.

There is one thing I want to elaborate further: "cleaving" (or sweep attacks, etc.). 

As it often happens, there is a great post in Delta's blog about the subject, which covers most of the topic.

This is an ability the fighter had in OD&D and AD&D, that is missing from B/X. Here is how OSRIC describes it:

"Fighting the Unskilled: When the fighter is attacking creatures with less than a full hit die (i.e. less than 1d8 hit points), the fighter receives one attack for each of his or her levels of experience, e.g. a 4th level fighter attacking goblins would receive 4 attacks per round."

Delta's describes the importance of this rule when fighting hundreds of goblins. Notice that the number appearing for goblins is:

- In B/X, 2d4 in the dungeon and 6d10 in the wilderness. 

- In AD&D, it is 40d10.

This rule is useful not only to give the (very) high level fighter a chance against a goblin horde, but also to balance the power of fireballs (and similar spells) somewhat.

There is also a narrative importance to this rule that is worth mentioning.

In fiction, the "main villains" are often surrounded by low level "mooks" that must be defeated first by the protagonist. In RPGs, I've seem PCs ignore all mooks over and over again to attack the villain directly, as if the main villain was all that mattered. 

Which, fair enough, can be a good tactic, especially in the absence of "opportunity attacks" and the like.

However, it makes me wonder if the reason is not the lack of a cleaving rules, which would often encourage the fighter to make 10 attacks against the goblins instead of going directly for the goblin king/captain - which is a bit less likely to die in a single blow and usually deals significantly less damage than 10 goblins combined.

If you decide that the death of a leader will cause some penalty to morale, this introduces and interesting tactical choice.

Fighting hordes of mooks at once is also something that Appendix N characters like Conan and Elric can do.

In addition, let's remind that hacking down hordes of ores feels awesome for the fighter.

Amazing art by Dean Spencer.

My main issue with "Fighting the Unskilled" is that it lacks nuance. A 10th-level fighters has 10 attacks against goblins, but only one or two against orcs. 

Notice that orcs also appear in greater numbers in AD&D than B/X, but are not subject to these extra attacks.

Another difficulty is how these "extra attacks" combine with multiple attacks. If a 7th level fighter has 3/2 attacks, how many attacks does he get against goblins? Seven? 8/7? 

Weapon proficiency confuses things further.

This is why I like the "cleave" solution, from 3e, as explained in Delta's blog:

3E D&D

CLEAVE  [General] You can follow through with powerful blows. Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack. Benefit: If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points, killing it, etc.), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature in the immediate vicinity... (PHB p. 80)

GREAT CLEAVE  [General]
You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes. Prerequisites: Str 13+, Power Attack, Cleave, base attack bonus +4 or higher. Benefit: As Cleave, except that you have no limit to the number of times you can use it per round. (PHB p. 82)

3E D&D introduced the concept of "Feats": special powers that may be chosen as characters advance in level. Fighters get additional, bonus Feats (more than any other class), and the two listed above are on their Bonus Feat applicable list. That said, not every Fighter gets the power; they must make a deliberate choice to pick up the ability. At the earliest, a Fighter might have Cleave at 1st level, and Great Cleave by (you guessed it) 4th level.

Most of us interpret this as a reworking of the rule from earlier editions; if a Fighter (with the Feat) battles very weak creatures, then they're likely to get a chain of attacks that puts many of them down. And many of us prefer the continuity of this mechanic -- unlike in 1E, where there's a huge quantum collapse between fighting "up-to-7-hp" creatures vs. "up-to-8-hp" creatures, the benefit here will more smoothly be usable against 2 HD or 3 HD creatures, just less frequently.

(Of course, I added similar feats to Old School Feats and I use them in my games.)

I'll add that this kind of cleave works smoothly with multiple attacks, magic weapons, weapon specialties, etc: the higher your attack and damage, the higher the chance to use this.

[One small aside: one thing I haven't considered in this post or the one before this is the 5e cleave method of "damage overflow": if you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, any excess damage is dealt to a nearby foe of same AC or lower. This is also a very interesting solution because it is simple, fast as smooth, while it also gives meaning to high damage rolls against goblins, etc.]

In short, if I were to add ONE single ability to B/X fighters, it would be this "great cleave". 

I do not think it would be enough, mind you - I still think they deserve extra attack to improve damage output against solo monsters  - but it would be a great start.

Fixing B/X fighters

In my latest post, I said B/X fighters are too weak.

Now I'll analyse some solutions - these are already implemented in AD&D, BECMI, and other games, but I'll discuss some and show which ones I use in B/X.

Better numbers

Easiest way of improving Fighters without making them more complex is just raising their numbers. E.g., giving them 1d10 HP or a better attack progression (AD&D), better saves, etc. 

This is a matter of fine tuning and taste; I like just giving fighters +1 per level as it simplifies things and it's just intuitive to me that a level 9 fighter has +9 to-hit (in my games, a 9HD monster also has +9). 

I'm not a fan of 1d10 HP because it leads to some HP inflation, but it is not bad either.

More damage

This is also "better numbers", but deserve special attention because, unlike HP and THAC0, damage doesn't usually raise with level (unless you use magic items).

A fighter that gets extra attacks increases damage output, but I always felt that Conan should be able to kill a sorcerer with a single blow occasionally.

We could give the fighter a damage bonus (level/3, round down?). 

Or just say that if you hit AC by 10 or more, damage is maximized or doubled. This will improve damage gradually with attack bonus, encourage the use of bigger weapons, give more importance to armor, and also give the thief a boos because of backstabbing (which is well deserved).

Better items

This is not exactly a solution, but a concern. Magic items in B/X are extremely important to Fighters, but not as common in my own games (which have a lowish fantasy, S&S feel). 

This is my own fault, of course - but I thought I should mention this here so you don't fall in the same trap. 

In other words, if you are limiting magic items (especially the intelligent swords of B/X), give the fighters something else to compensate.

Fighting minions and "cleaving"

The OD&D and fighter can attack multiple times against a horde of foes with less than one HD (e.g., goblins). I find this so important that I will write a small post on the subject next. 

My main objection to this is that it is binary; maybe the fighter can attack ten times against an horde of goblins but only once against a bunch of orcs.

"Cleaving" is a great substitution: when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP, you get an extra attack. This will often allow a high-level fighter to attack multiple goblins and even get some advantage against a group of reptile man. No calculations needed and it just feels cool.

Weapon specialization

Weapon specialization as described in AD&D and BECMI cover a lot of these grounds: better numbers, more damage, more attacks, etc. Which is good and also allows fighters to be archers, duelists, etc., giving players more archetypes to play with.

My issue with making weapon specialization a focus is that fighter often rely in magic weapons they've found, so they cannot always choose which weapon they'll use, and it is sometimes disappointing to find a cool magic axe that deals less damage in your hand than an ordinary sword.

My solution is that a "weapon master" gets a bonus with ALL weapons, and a SMALL bonus to a single fighting style, as suggested here:

Weapon master. You get +1 to attack, damage, and AC. Choose a type of weapon or a fighting style (blades, two-handed weapons, light weapons, missile weapons, dual wielding, sword and shield, grappling, etc.). When using this style, you get +2 to attack, damage, or AC (choose one when you pick this feat), instead of the usual +1.

Weapon maneuvers

BECMI has some cool weapon maneuvers (mostly starting at 9th level for fighters and mystics). 

The one I remember the most is smash: you get -5 to hit but add your entire Strength score to damage! From the Rules Cyclopedia:

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 1d8 + 21 (17+ 2+ 2) for damage!

1d8+21 damage?!? With this, Conan can DEFINITELY kill a sorcerer with a single blow!

The only problem with this maneuver is that it is so obviously overpowered for strong fighters that you will never make a regular attack again!

Notice this was partly incorporated in 5e as a feat: a simple -5 to-hit and +10 damage. Other OSR games have their own rules for special maneuvers (more notably DCC, LotFP, and Low Fantasy Gaming).

Multiple attacks

This is the most notable and popular of fighter enhancements, present in almost every edition other than B/X. It enhances damage, number of targets, options of maneuvers (maybe you can trip AND bash).

One small issue is that the second attack DOUBLES damage output, which is an abrupt boost (in 5e, for example, a 3rd-level fighter has some hope against a 4th level one, but neither can beat a 5th level fighter).

The third attack enhances damage by 50% so it is not as dramatic.

AD&D has "one and a half" attacks, which is a decent solution if you prefer less dramatic changes. The second attack comes every other round, but if you don't like this solution make the second attack deal half damage, or only take place when you roll an odd number for the first, etc.

My favorites - to use with B/X

I'm running a game that is mostly inspired by B/X, although with many house rules. 

Here are some of my favorites, for fighters:

* +1 THAC0 per level.

* Feats that include cleaving, multiple attacks, weapon specialization, etc. - the fighter gets more feats than other classes.

* Simple weapon maneuvers. Usually, -4 to-hit and choose a benefit. Examples: +4 to damage, or AC (against a single foe), or to an ally's AC, or to cause an effect in addition to damage (e.g., trip, disarm, etc. - the enemy usually gets a save). But it doesn't come up often.

* If we get to level 10, I'm giving fighters 10d8 HP and so on (explained here). If a 12th level magic-user causes 12d6 with a fireball, I think it is fair to give the fighter 12d8 HP.

* Strength affects how much you can carry.

* Natural 20 deals maximum damage.

One thing I haven't used in the current campaign is "cleave" (as no one picked the feat), but I'm feeling I should have given this to everybody. This is what my next post is about.

Are B/X fighters too weak?

Yes they are.

Before comparing them to other classes, let's take a look at other versions of D&D.

In AD&D, fighters have several abilities that are ignored in B/X:

- 1d10 HD.

- Better attack progression.

- Better types of ordinary armor.

- A few perks if they have high abilities (more HP, damage, etc.)

- Extra attacks as you level up.

- Extra attacks against low-HD foes.

AD&D came before B/X, but BECMI came soon after.

Arguably, BECMI "fixed" many things in B/X I perceive as flaws (e.g., the cleric), and it also added several toys for fighters: weapon maneuvers, proficiency, etc.

All other editions (2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, and even 0e) have fighters that are stronger and more varied than B/X. Even some basic-inspired games such as DCC and LotFP make fighters more "special".

The fighter is DISAPPOINTED!

Now lets quickly compare a B/X fighter with other classes.

Cleric

- A cleric with 50,000 XP can raise the dead once a day. He gets the equivalent of "THAC0 17" and 7d6 HP.

- A high level cleric might have fewer HP than a fighter, but he can heal himself compeltely in three  or four days of rest, while the fighter may take weeks.

- A fighter with the same XP has the same THAC0, 6d8 HP, and worse saves. His THAC0 improves significantly at 64,000 XP. Which is nothing compared to raising the dead.

- If both reach maximum level, their THAC0 is nearly identical and fighter saves are slightly worse. The cleric can now raise dead four times a day, AND requires fewer XP to get there.

Magic-user

- A magic user is frail when compared to a fighter, but has lots of firepower. A 1st level MU can put multiple fighters to sleep; a 10th-level MU can memorize three 10d6 fireballs, or even better-  summon a 16 HD fire elemental, which will give ANY single fighter a difficult fight. If he wins initiative, he cannot be stopped.

- Even with an awesome magic sword, the fighter cannot deal this kind of damage.

Dwarf

- Dwarves stop their careers at level 12... ONE SINGLE HP short of a 14th-level fighter, and with better saves, fewer XP needed, plus infravision. They have no restrictions on using swords. Dwarves are simply better fighters that require 10% more XP.

The thief is debatable - he often hits as hard as a fighter of similar XP, but is much frailer. I do not think the thief is a strong class in B/X (and it is even worse in BECMI). Halfings are not great either because their level cap is a significant limit.

Elves are more powerful than fighters because of magic, but slightly frailer in HP and saves. Overall, I find them much stronger than fighters.

How to fix that?

Well, that's the subject of the next post (I use feats, mostly; you might as well use the AD&D perks described above).

This one is about illustrating how the B/X fighter is weak compared to other fighters (0e, BECMI, 1e, etc.) and other B/X classes. 

Author x Referee GMs

The GM is BOTH an author AND a referee.

The author creates a setting, adventures, NPCs, etc. - even rules.

The referee enforces the setting and rules.

As you can see, GMs do both - but these roles are somewhat incompatible.

How can you be expected to be the impartial judge with rules you create yourself?

One method many GMs use to deal with this is separating the functions in two distinct moments:

- I'm an author during "prep", when I create worlds, dungeons, NPCs, or even random tables to sue during play.

- I'm a referee during play. I stick to the rules, respect the rolls, and do not changing the HP of an important NPC during a combat.

But, since you are expected to play both roles, some GMs prefer do to BOTH AT ONCE.

This is what "improv" is about. You cannot improv as a referee - when you do that, you are in author stance.

To each their own - but I find that confusing.

For example, an author can definitely "fudge" the dice. If he can create a dragon (or nation) out of nowhere, deciding a single hit missed is well within his powers.

This solves a lot of problems.

For example, the classic "quantum ogre". There are two doors. The PCs choose the door on the right. Can the GM decide there is an ogre behind it AFTER the PCs choose?

Well, author-GM can, but referee-GM cannot.

Likewise, is changing the result of a random encounter roll adequate? It is for the author-GM, but not for the referee-GM.

And what about "balancing" encounters to suit the level of the PCs? Same thing.

Come to think of it, this separation is the reason why I avoid "improv". 

I want to use the author stance as little as possible during the game.

Maybe that is also why I feel the need to write (and sometimes publish) my own material, despite my constant urge to tinker and house-rule.

[Basic Wilderness Encounters was created precisely because of this reason. I didn't want to "author' encounters during the game. I wrote it is an author, and I use it as a referee].

And why I prefer to run other peoples' modules - and even campaigns - rather than creating my own.

To be clear, I LIKE to be an author-GM, just not during the game.

Anyway, I cannot be the first to have this thought, but I think the distinction should be more popular, and probably more discussed in game master's books.

There are probably more things to tackle around this subject. 

For example, I am thinking players have a specific stance during the game (they are almost NEVER authors in my games), but it is fine to give players author role between sessions, while writing a backstory, or when scheduling a game (e.g., agreeing in advance WHICH dungeon the PCs will tackle next).

But I think this is enough for today.

Related posts:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/12/railroading-paradoxes-plus-diegetic-rr.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-random-quantum-ogre.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html

Unlimited D&D x Limited D&D

These are two different perspectives for playing D&D, or, more specifically, running/DMing D&D. 

One is that your options are somewhat limited whatever is included in the game rules (I'll call this "Limited D&D" or LD&D). 

The other is that there is no such limit, and the DM can come up with whatever he deems necessary for his campaign ("Unlimited D&D" or UD&D).

This is not about "House Rules x RAW", however. 

It is about the number of pieces you get to build your setting: for example, how many monsters, races, classes, magic items or spells you can use in your creations.

I would guess most groups would quickly accept that the DM can include new monsters to the setting as desired, but this is an assumption that often gets ignored when discussing old school D&D. 

For example, I always found that "immunity to ghoul paralysis" was a silly trait to give a class or creature because it is so specific. But if you are only using Moldvay's Basic - and not even expert - it could be an interesting advantage, since the total number of monsters is low. Still, people keep using it even when playing some form of UD&D.

Same for the cleric "turn undead" tables that include the NAMES of the creatures turned instead of their HD. If the number of undead are limited, this makes perfect sense; otherwise, it looks strange and impractical.

(A more extreme example is the blink dog and its hatred of displacer beast. B/X tell us almost nothing about these creatures, but they attack each other on sight. How often will that happen? If you're playing UD&D, almost never).

There are other aspects of old school D&D that seem to be remnants of this limited mindset. For example, clerics and mages cannot use sword, which is important if most magic weapons are swords, but becomes less important if you have several magic maces or daggers.

Another example I've been struggling with lately is spells. I've been running a game slightly based on B/X, which does not contain "counter spell", exactly. But now I'm introducing an NPC for another system that has this spell. Is it fair to my caster that he didn't get to choose it?

(My solution for this is: if my player shows interest in Dispel Magic, I'll let it function as a counterspell. Fortunately, he hasn't got it so far).

Personally, I was always attracted to this "Unlimited" take on RPGs in general. I'm willing to add new monsters, spells and even the ocasional laser guns to my games, and always tried to accommodate every character concept the players suggest (although now I'm tempted to go mall-human for the next campaign).

But there are advantages of the "limited" perspective - it allows players to get more familiar with existing monsters, spells, etc., for example.

And, in general, I want to expand the boundaries rather than destroying them. I would definitely not limit the number of monsters I can use in my games, but I'm perfectly satisfied with running a limited number of monster types: undead, giants, humanoids, beasts, etc.

In fact, having fewer monster types reinforces their significance rather than diluting it.

(This is partly what Teratogenicon is about, BTW).

If every single monster, spell or item the PCs find is completely new, they can never learn anything except trough direct contact. There is no room for extrapolation, generalization, etc.

I have a similar feeling on classes. Yes, I like paladins, assassins, warlords, druids, avengers, and monks. But rather than having a dozen classes, I prefer having FOUR: fighter, mage, thief, cleric, each with a few variations. And I think the AD&D bard - a class that works in a completely different way from other classes - is an unnecessary mess.

(Maybe I'll reduce it to THREE classes for my Sword and Sorcery game, ditching the cleric).
Even 5e seems to have problems with this (correct me if I'm wrong; I don't play 5e anymore). For example, the "Staff of Charming" requires attunement by "a bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard". But what if I'm using a 3rd-party class, or even the very popular artificer? Are they automatically excluded? Or do including a class requires rewriting all magic items like that?

As you can see, seeing classes through a limited scope simplifies some aspects of the game.

(This is partly what Old School Feats is about, BTW - no extra classes but many additional options. You can look at the free previews to see how I treat fighters, for example: a framework to create warriors, paladins, rangers and warlords).

In short, my favorite approached to D&D is having unlimited choices within a limited framework that works as a common language between players and DM.

Basic Wilderness Encounters is now available!

My new book, Basic Wilderness Encounters, is now available!

It is 50% off for the first week or so - but if you bought ANY of my books before, see if you got my e-mail before buying.

I've been obsessing about random encounters for the last few months of my hexcrawl campaign...

I really liked adding them to my games, but there were some aspects that I found troublesome in practice: mostly, it took me too long to generate encounters and the results did not always make sense.

In this book, I try to tackle the whole idea of random encounters: the tables, procedures, terrains, and so on.

 

The first part of this book is a collection of thoughts, ideas and alternatives for creating random encounters - including reaction, distance, surprise number of monsters appearing, balance, and so on.

 

The second part is a list of 1000 random encounters (100 for each type of terrain), one line for each, including number, distance, surprise, and a few details, using this format (I added a summary of terrain features for easy reference):

 

  

The third part of the book describes a year in the wilderness – giving you a random encounter check, a succinct description of weather and some random details:

 

 

Each part can be used separately.

Take a look at the previews to see if you like it!

Writing this book has made using random encounters faster, easier and more fun in my own campaigns - I hope it does the same to yours!

Inverted Target 20 - Trained/Untrained

If you have been reading this blog for a while, you know I'm a big fan of Target 20.

However, in the last few days, I've been thinking of an alternative that is even simpler. I'm not the first one to have this idea - I've seem something similar in at least two or three OSR games.

Mathematically, it it's very close to Target 20, but it uses a method that resembles THAC0 and saving throws. Here it goes.

You have two numbers in your sheet, in addition to ability scores* and modifiers: Trained and Untrained.

(* I've been considering 4d4+2 or a 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 array).

To succeed, you need to roll 1d20+mod, equal or over this number.

Notice that the chances of succeeding when you are untrained are about half when compared to a trained PC (e.g., by level 5, the chances are 30% and 15%).

And this replaces:

- Saving throws. I'd say every adventurer is trained in saving throws. Some classes or situations deserve a bonus.
- Skills. Thieves are trained in their usual skills. But you could add "training" to rangers, for example, to forage or find tracks.
- THAC0. Works perfectly with descending AC. Only fighters are trained in combat.
- Ability checks. If you are untrained, this is how you can attempt to do thief (or ranger,etc.) stuff.

- Spellcasting, if you want roll-to-cast.

This has some advantages over Target 20:

- Level is calculated in advance, you only roll 1d20+ability mod.
- Comparing values is even easier than addition.

I'm somewhat tempted to leave this table in the hands of the DM - the PCs just roll 1d20+mod, period, telling the DM if they are trained or not.

But, overall, Target 20 feels somewhat easier to grasp for my players - they expect bonuses over a descending number.

I am a bit doubtful about what version to use in my next game.

Anyway, if you like how THAC0 and Saving throws work in old school D&D, however, this might be  a good alternative!

Notice that the two systems can be used interchangeably, as the "trained" values are mathematically identical to suing Target 20.

Fallout: Carcosa

Nine years have passed since I first started thinking of creating a "Dark Sun-ish" setting.

(Nine years. Whoa. That is quite a lot. And it was fast. I have to think about that. Anyway.).

At that time, I mentioned the Fallout series as one inspiration - besides Barsoom, Carcosa* and Dune.

A few things have changed since then - maybe one or two authors mentioned in that post turned out to be contemptible at best, so I'll avoid them - but, once again, I've been thinking of Fallout and Barsoom, and wishing to run a campaign in such setting.

It was probably the TV series that made me want to play Fallout again. I had only played Fallout 3, and now I'm playing New Vegas. 

It really makes me want to create my own post-apoc setting - "with blackjack and hookers", as the saying goes, but New Vegas already has some of those...

Carcosa* is one of these games that I always wanted to run but never quite got around to it. It is full of awesome ideas, but I think it stops just a bit short of being an amazing setting like Dark Sun. I hear that the author has other modules in the same setting, but these are not in DTRPG.

Here are a few elements from New Vegas I'd like to add to Carcosa in order to make the setting more interesting.

Vaults

Fallout vaults are a source of endless possibility and fun. 

First, each one is a dungeon to explore - but a dungeon with a real purpose and history. 

Second, vaults are created as different experiments, so each vault can be unique and even contain different creatures (including mutants, robots, etc.). Some experiments are social, so different forms of government are to be expected - you can check this post or Dark Fantasy Places for ideas.

Factions

New Vegas has several interesting factions. Some evil, some neutral, some trying to do 
good, with many shades of gray,

"Everyone wants to save the world, they just disagree on how" as the show mentions.

There are several factions that think that things will be a lot nicer when THEY are in power, even if they need to brutalize some folks to get there.

Carcosa doesn't have much of that - all groups are similar, and governed by a single individual. Add a few details and things start to get interesting.

In addition, Carcosa has "men" int he encounter table, but doesn't give you anything else - are these merchants? Explorers? Adventurers? We should probably add some ideas here.

Lost technology

This is another fun part of both Fallout and Carcosa - projectile weapons, power cells, power armor, robots and cyborgs are in both settings.

Maybe the system deserves some kind of "repair/tech" skill, allowing some PCs to try to access technology they cannot fully understand.

Mutated monsters

In Carcosa, "The spawn of Shub-Niggurath are the innumerable and typically unique monsters [...] These [...] are the most common type of monster on the planet of Carcosa". There are also numerous oozes, jellies, worms and dinosaurs.

Which is fun. But I think mutated/giant insects (or other beasts) might be an interesting addition to the setting. 

Unique monsters are cool, but not every monster needs to be unique - sometimes, fighting a bunch of giant cockroaches or giant scorpions can be fun.

Sandbox & Hexcrawl

I have been critical of hex-crawls for a while now. 

It doesn't make sense that an adult wouldn't know at least vague directions to nearby lands. The idea that you enter a new hex and suddenly see a new city (or the sea!) sounds absurd. There are exceptions - maybe when discovering a new continent, etc. Still, if there are intelligent people around, it should be easy to ask for directions.

Unless...

What if the PCs are vault dwellers? When they come out to the world, they have no idea where they are! They still can see a mountain at a distance, but not much more than that. It would be a nearly ideal setting for a hex-crawl.

Can we use Carcosa hexes?

Carcosa hexes are often interesting but sometimes very repetitive and terse ("Castle of 29 Black Men led by a neutral 5th-level Fighter"). 

Human groups are very small, somewhat similarly to Fallout.

Maybe we can combine existing hexes with some random tables to add detail.

Do we still need magic?

Fallout doesn't have magic spells. Carcosa has rituals, but they are very unique - unlike anything I've seen in other RPGs. Dark Sun has proper spells. But do we need them?

Maybe psionics would work better here. And, of course, technology that is "indistinguishable from magic".

But the rituals in Carcosa are so interesting and unique that I'm doubtful about getting rid of them.

---

Well, that is it. I hope I can actually do something with this before nine more years have passed!

* Affiliate links.