2021 plans... and what would YOU like to read?

Happy new year!

I'll begin the 2021 run of this blog by listing my current projects. If you want, let me know what you find interesting - or come up with your own suggestions! I asked the same question last year, and I think it worked out well.

There is no deadline for these ones; most are in a very embryonic stage. Surely, more stuff will come up eventually.

Curse of Strahd (blog)

I have endless comments about CoS, in addition to the ones I already made. The sad part is that I'm not currently planning to run it again, so many good ideas will go unused... let's see.

Tomb of Annihilation (blog)

Like CoS, a good but flawed campaign - the one I'm currently running. I might have a tip or two, but not as many as CoS.

Reviews (blog)

RPG reviews are hard to do. They take some work to write, and I'm always very cautious to be both fair and respectful. In addition, my reviews do not get many views or comments, so I'm not sure anyone is interested. Sometimes, I read a book that interests me, and I publish a short review - including non-RPG stuff. Or just a recommendation - something brief.

Maybe I'll add a "currently loving..." tag to my posts? If you want to know which RPGs I like, I'd say try Shadow of the Demon Lord. It has been my favorite for a while.

D&D 5e Light (blog + PDF)

My minimalist version of 5e. I will continue to write about it on the blog and might publish a PDF one day. I'm aiming at 20-40 pages for the PHB, might add a minimalist MM and DMG too.

D&D 5e Dark (PDF)

A small collection of house rules to make 5e a bit darker. Many people did this before but I want to give it my own spin. About 10-20 pages or so.

Teratogenicon (print)

I really want to make a POD version of the Teratogenicon. It is a bit harder than it sounds but I think I can do it.

Dawn of the Bloody Sun (PDF)

My post-apocalyptic setting. Only a collection of ideas so far. Even the name is temporary... but yeah, something akin to Dying Earth, Dark Sun, Mad Max... Red Sun, Mad Sun, Scorched Watelands and so on.

Here are some related posts: one, two, three.

Dark Fantasy Cyclopedia (PDF)

Dark Fantasy Basic plus monsters and a combination of all my booklets. Just calling it "cyclopedia" makes me nervous, I'll admit, but aiming for the stars might be a good idea.

Weapons and armor (blog)

I'm not really focused on that right now... But it is a subject I love, and the ideas keep coming. So I'm probably writing a bit about that in 2021.

I might also make Manual of Arms: Armor, a defensive counterpart for my MoA:Weapons.

EDIT (04/2021): Manual of Arms: Armor and shields is now available!

Suggestions?

If you have any ideas, let me know! Do you like OSR, RAW 5e, minimalist 5e, other systems...?

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 VI - SUPER-FAST 5e COMBAT!

Here is part V. That was the theory. 

Here is what I'm doing in practice. 

I am NOT using 5e rules exactly as written... but I am convinced you COULD use these rules and keep 90% of 5e. At least until level 5... see below.

In short, the idea is this: you only roll ONE d20 PER ROUND. Everyone rolls at the same time, saying what they plan to do.

The result will tell you: 

- Initiative. 

- Attack roll. 

- Damage. 

- Saving throws.

- "Luck".

This is really simple but I'll explain some details.

Let's use a fighter as our example. She has a +4 Strength bonus. She rolls 12 on the d20.

Her initiative is 16. Forget adding Dex to initiative, it is unnecessary and not necessarily realistic.

Her attack roll is 16. That works as expected.

Her damage is a fixed number (say, 10). 5e D&D already suggests this when dealing with monsters. In our example, let's say her weapon deal 6 points of damage, plus 4 from Strength. a natural 20 would cause 20 damage instead.

Her saving throw is 12+ability score. Saving throws work as intended in 5e. 

(Alternatively, you don't roll for saving throws anymore. Instead, saving throw is a number like AC; 10+stat+proficiency. Since the attacker is always rolling a d20, this also works).

Her "luck" seems decent (12). Here is one cool thing I improvised hen trying this system for the first time. I had a few goblins archers shooting at the PCs. Rolled all at once. One of them hits... but who was hit? The PC who rolled the lowest number on the d20. Of course, you're free to ignore this part.

And that's basically all of it.

Combat example:

Fighter, wizard and rogue are fighting three orcs.

Everyone attacks - except the wizard, who cast fireball, hitting all three orcs. The wizard rolls 12 (+4 from Int, 16 total), the fighter 17 (21 total). The rogue (trying to "sneak attack") rolls a natural 1 (obviously a miss). The orcs roll 14 (17), 3 (6), and 5 (8).

First, fighter hits an orc. Unless he has chosen an specific orc, just chose the one with the lowest roll. The orc is injured.

Then, one orc (17) sees the rogue trying to sneak around and hits him (since he has the lowest roll; however, circumstances might dictate otherwise, if only the fighter is in the front line, for example).

Wizard casts fireball; two orcs failed the save (since they rolled lower than the wizard). One dies (he was injured). The other is engulfed in flames and misses the attack. (Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the fireball didn't hit the wizard's allies in the first turn).

End of turn.

Problems?

Since most of the system is unchanged, there are few problems to be found. The MAIN problem is advantage and disadvantage, but I'm inclined to apply it as written. Attacking underwater? Seems obvious that the disadvantage should apply BOTH to initiative and the attack roll. Etc.

A bigger problem happens if you have multiple attacks. But I'm okay with having separate attacks. Fighter attacks, then goblin attacks, then fighter attacks again and again, etc.

There are other problems, surely... but I've found nothing insurmountable so far.

Other consequences

Combat is faster and more random. A bit more exciting, maybe a bit less tactical. I like it so far. Need to test it further.

What's next?

The play-test of this "minimalist D&D" is going very well. I'll probably make the whole system public very soon, I just have to adjust a few things.

I will post a bit more about Strahd soon, too; sorry for the delay.

Minimalist D&D V - SINGLE-ROLL COMBAT

One thing that lacks elegance in most RPGs, including D&D, is the fact that you generate lots of information to get one simple, often binary, result.

For example, you roll initiative, then make an attack roll, and then roll for damage. Say you get 7, 15 and 8. Adding your initiative bonus, your "to-hit" bonus and your damage bonus might give you 9, 21, and 11.

Most of these numbers matter ONLY to indicate if you go first/second.../last and if you hit/miss.

For example, if you hit with a 15 on the d20, you also hit with a 16, 17, 18, or 19, in the exact same manner (a natural 20 will at least give you a critical hit). A 19 does not mean a good hit - the damage can be low, for example.

In theory, you could have 20 different results when you roll a d20, but in practice you get two or three.

We are so accustomed to this that it seems reasonable.

However, I've been thinking of a different method: roll ONE d20. This will tell you your damage, if you hit or miss, and who goes first in the round, etc.

Source.

There are infinite ways to do that, but let me give you an example.

Start with a "roll under" mechanic. If you have Strength 15, roll 15 or less to hit, etc. Armor Class is 0 if you are unarmored, 2 for leather, etc. (saving throws follow a similar pattern).

Say we have a wizard with Int 16, a fighter with Str 15, and a thief with Dex 15, fighting against three Str 13 orcs. 

Everyone says what they want to do and rolls a d20. 

Example: the wizard rolls 12, the fighter 17, the thief 5, and the orcs 14, 3, and 8.

Then you resolve the action in the order of highest dice to lowest.

Everyone that rolls ABOVE their stat missed - so you quickly remove all dice that came up 16 or more (the fighter rushes forward and misses; one orc also misses the target!).

The wizard rolled a 12, which means the spell worked! 

An orc also hit with an 8.

Finally, the thief hit an orc (5) and an orc hit someone (3). However, these low rolls might be stopped by AC (simply compare the dice to AC, no addition or subtraction).

Damage? Well, if you need variable damage, just add one point of damage if you roll more than 10. Rolled a 12, add +2 damage. If you hit with 15, add 5 points of damage, and so on. Its easier and faster than rolling 1d8+3, for example. You could go one step further and multiply damage instead: double it on a twelve, triple it on a 13, etc.

This method has many advantages.

* The most important one: the results are VISIBLE. This is an important principle in design that is mostly ignored in RPGs. In ordinary RPGs, for example, you might roll a 15 (visible in the die), add +7 from you PC (visible in you sheet), and get a result of 21. The only number that matters here is 21 - but this result is nowhere to be seen; it must be calculated with every roll, and said out loud.

* It resolves things in order of complexity: first, ignore the misses, then calculate the obvious hits (high rolls), probably taking out a few foes, and just then check the "near misses" - hit that were avoided by AC, etc.

* If the accuracy is more or less "bounded" (i.e., if their main abilities are similar) it is easy to know which dice to ignore very quickly. And if you roll a 19 for a powerful foe and keep it on the table... Well, now your players will be scared!

* Easy to work with multiple attacks: discard the ones above your Str, etc. Same thing applies when rolling with advantage: roll a couple of dice, choose the best.

* A great way to stop wizards when they're casting a spell, if you like this - hit then before they act, and they fail, period.

* It makes combat a lot faster and more chaotic, instead of following clunky "phases" or "turns".

* Notice how it makes sense to tie initiative to the action being attempted. An intelligent wizard casts a spell FAST - despite being frail and low on dexterity. If he tries to swing a sword, OTOH, he will be a lot slower...

* Tying the roll to damage allows characters to slowly augment their damage as they level up, raising the stakes as they fight high-level foes.

* You can guess the results of your moves just by looking at the dice: too high means you fail, unless you're high level yourself. 10+ is a good hit: almost never misses, and damage is good too. 10 or less is a weak hit, low damage and probably can be dodged or stopped by armor.

It requires some play-testing, but looks very promising IMO.

NOTE: I've written this post a while ago and hadn't published it for some reason. Since then, I've tried it using 5e D&D. It worked! I will write about that experience next.

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

Cleric spells with NO divine intervention

I've written about this before... but I guess I didn't consider all of the consequences.

So, the idea is this: you can get spell in multiple ways - study forgotten tomes, worship a deity, bargain with a demon, have magic blood running in your veins... But once you learn a spell, it is yours.

 A paladin that falls from grace still keeps his powers - making fallen paladins the stuff of legend! What is worse, they can pledge loyalty to an evil, rival deity becoming more powerful in the process. There is always a high demand for turncloak healers in the Evil Lord's army! That is why lawful deities are so careful when choosing their clerics and paladins!  

Chaotic deities, on the other hand, will be more flexible - they might exchange spells for goods and services.

Of course, forgotten tomes of forbidden lore are also useful when studying magic. Their authors must guard them carefully, or such secrets might be turned against them.
On the other hand, casting spells you haven't memorized should always be dangerous. Magicians can also create "trap grimoires" to fool their rivals.

The idea that a deity can strip you of yours powers is not only a shackle to the character, but also wastes interesting possibilities, such as the renegade paladin that goes rogue (with all his powers intact) and must be hunted by other followers. The fact that the deity cannot take you powers away directly opens a lot of indirect possibilities like this one.

It also makes sense in other ways. 

The idea that your deity is right there with you when you cast a haling spell gives deites an omnipresence/omniscience that is NOT fitting to the vast D&D pantheon. If the deity can strip you of your powers, why not DOUBLE your powers when you're in dire need? Also, why even CHOOSE the spell you want to cast and not let the deity intervene in a way that is more beneficial to its goals? The deity knows a lot more than you, anyway...

In short, I think of most D&D deities as non-intervening. At least, direct intervention should be rare. Deities act through angels, avatars, followers, etc. In addition, the deities are not omnipotent. The spells they can teach are limited resources.

(BTW, I really like the RC idea that deities need more followers to be more powerful, and I love the idea that a deity without followers maintains its powers for a while...)

Source.

But I hadn't really thought this through. In Dark Fantasy Basic, a magic-user that fumbled a spell roll had the spell wiped from memory... but a cleric that fumbled a spell roll could anger his os her deity.

But, come to think of it... why? If the deity had given the cleric magic powers to heal the wounded, why would the cleric be damned just because of bad luck?

What if you say, instead, that the deity will just TEACH you a spell from time to time - through prayer and meditation, you can get to revelation, but deities are careful when imparting such gifts... A deity can give a spell... but it can also give a sword, a prophecy, a vision of guidance, heal your wounds, etc. 

Cleric's spells are not "miracles" anymore, and miracles become a lot more varied. In addition, divine gifts are not only for clerics - maybe a god of war will give your fighter the strength to fight an important enemy, etc. Religion becomes a lot more relevant for ALL characters.

As you can see, this solves LOTS of problems.

So, in my new RPG, spells are just spells (or maybe living spells). 

YOU choose the spell level, BTW. Pushing your luck is risky.

Fumble your spell-casting roll and it is wiped from your memory. You have to learn it again. If you have a grimoire, all the better. Otherwise, it will take a while. Your deity might help you... but ONLY if you are in good standing with it.

So, even if you LIKE the idea of a deity giving you a quest after you fumbled a spell, this has the same effect... but the motives are different. The deity isn't necessarily punishing you. It simply has to be careful while sharing limited resources with someone who is so eager to use them in imprudent ways. 

In addition, these quests are not only proofs of faith - if they were, any dumb thing such as removing one of your eyes would do. 

The quests are are means for the deity to further its own goals in the world. This makes them much more interesting - maybe you have to find a lost relic, or convert more people to your faith... or even hunt down a rogue paladin.

Spellcasting (Dark Fantasy Hack)

Dark Fantasy Hack is really going to be a thing, although I'm not sure about the name or even format. I am trying to make it 5e-compatible (and I'm currently using it to run Tomb of Annihilation) but there is this constant urge to make it simpler and more OSR-ish... So let's see how it turns out.

Anyway, unlike the (skill-based) Dark Fantasy Basic, it will rely a lot more on ability socres. Classes are almost optional.

And I'm making things a lot more flexible than I initially expected. For example, you can attack with Dexterity with any melee weapon, basically, but the damage still relies on Strength. I'm trying to balance "making each ability point matter" with "do what you will": you can make a magic-user with high Intelligence, high Charisma... or, ideally, both will be useful. I want all these concepts to be viable.

Of course, this is easier said than done. But here is what I've got so far...

Source.

Casting a spell requires a spell-casting check with Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom. The player makes the choice when the character learns the spell. There is one caveat: you cannot harm or control someone directly using Wisdom, unless otherwise noted.

(Notice that ALL spells require dice rolling. And yes, there will be spell failures... something I'll tackle next)

There are a couple reasons behind this decision. First, Wisdom is a powerful "defensive" stat, so it is unlikely to be dumped. Making it a little less powerful "offensively" makes sense and avoids encouraging every single character to pick Wisdom.

But there are some "flavor" reasons as well. In 5e, Wisdom is associated with Clerics, but also Monks, Druids... characters that are better at healing/boosting more than attacking (fireballing) their enemies. And Wisdom seems like a good ability for both empathy and finding stuff. Of course, you can make an "evil cleric" or "firebender monk", but that would take a feat.

Charisma and Intelligence are a bit harder to distinguish. Remember, I WANT there to be a huge overlap between these two, to maximize the number os choices available... But SOME distinction would be nice.

Right now, I'm leaning towards:

- "Charm" spells and other mind-controlling effects rely exclusively on Charisma. 

- Illusion spells and the like rely exclusively on Intelligence.

Not sure about the last one. I guess I could imagine an illusionist sorcerer. But anyway, feels like a good start.

One last thing... I wrote a few names form spell-casting "classes". They use Int or Cha. I've got Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch and... having a hard time with the last one. Illusionist, Necromancer, Pyromancer, are all very cool, but too specialized. Maybe Summoner is better. I want something that sounds instantly recognizable, and that relies on very high Int, high Cha, and low Wis.

Any ideas on the matter would be appreciated!

Skills in OSR/5e (proficient/expert) and the power law of practice

I've been thinking about skills lately and coincidentally I've read something about the power law of practice. For our purposes, you can say that this means that when you first learn something you learn fast, and then it takes more and more time to get better.

(BTW, I"m not even sure that this really works, and I don't particularly care; I'm thinking about archetype more than "realism").

I wrote Dark Fantasy Basic using a smooth skill curve, inspired by Basic D&D. With each level, your relevant bonuses get a bit better. I still like it, to be honest (which, TBH, makes me a bit discouraged when trying to write something new... but I digress).

But I've been thinking of an alternative. One thing that bothers me a little in 5e D&D is how the starting barbarian is bad at nature and survival. Dark Fantasy Basic is a bit better, IMO... but what if we tried something different? Something simpler and more binary?

If we were to make use the "power law of practice" in out games, we could simplify the whole logarithmic scale to three situations: novice, proficient and expert (to use 5e D&D lingo).

A novice knows nothing about a skill. Think of someone who has never picked a musical instrument. There is no chance to perform a song. You cannot make a living baking cakes without any knowledge of cooking, and trying to tame a horse will get you hurt. Do not bother rolling the dice.

Someone proficient has passed some amount of time learning a skill. Maybe 20 hours of serious practice, maybe the proverbial one year of training you get at most jobs (and then you do the same thing for 30+ years), or maybe an entire summer with your friends. Doesn't matter. If you have a background in cooking, you're proficient. If your have any graduation in a martial art other than "white belt", you're proficient. If you always lived in cold places, you're proficient in surviving in the snow even without formal training. If you've grown in a farm, you're proficient with animals and agriculture. If you can entertain people with a lute, build a small house, or tame a horse, you're proficient. Your knowledge might be practical, instinctive, or even based in superstition. But it gets the job done.

An expert is another matter. That is "10,000-Hour Rule" stuff (which, again, might not be true in real life): "black belt" fighters, agronomist or veterinaries (when compared to farmers), superb musicians, award-winning actors, architects, etc. There is not 1% chance (let alone 5%) that you will fail when performing a simple song or making a cake.

In real life, there are plenty of intermediary situations - and even experts that have advanced knowledge but no practical knowledge. RPGs do not require that level of detail, necessarily.

5e D&D has un-proficient/proficient/expert. It could fit. However, the difference is often a small bonus - the difference between +0/+2/+4 at level 1. At level 20, you've got +0/+6/+12, which is a bit better... but feels too little, to late (my campaigns do not reach level 20 usually).

Look, the difference between 20-100 hours of guitar and NO hours of guitar will show 100% of the time, not 95%, much less 70% of the time as the dice will tell you. Proficiency is the different between succeeding sometimes and not even being able to try. The 5e DMG points at this direction. Of course, there is some stuff that everyone should be able to try. adventurer stuff - climbing, breaking down doors, etc.

Another problem is that being a expert is hidden behind multiple walls ion 5e. If you are a druid, you can hardly be an expert in nature barring some very specific circumstances (maybe with multi-classin - which is an optional rule - or a non-core feat - and feats are also optional, and you must be a human... etc.).

If proficiency/expertise must have a bonus, if must be something significant... A 10th wizard must succeed at least 95% of the time against the barbarian when rolling arcana (of course, the barbarian can always punch him in the face before that). A difference of (about) +8 is simply not good enough (the wizard will lose/draw one time out of five).

It is worse for things that do not use skills. There is people that make a strength roll to break down a door, for example - no "athletics' skill. So the Str 20 fighter, against a DC 16, will succeed 50% of the time... And the wizard (or peasant) with Str 20 will succeed 25%. It's just not enough IMO.

All these numbers do not mean much at face value - I bet you do not care about this while you're playing, or never noticed the exact statistic. I dunno. For me, a +11 bonus just LOOKS to little for a level 20 wizard. This guy or gal is traversing planes, and even flying around SINCE LEVEL 5. If a peasant beats him in arcana, it should be a ONE IN A MILLION situation.

Anyway.

Long story short, here is my plan for my next game (Dark fantasy Hack). You get +5 (proficient), +10 (expert), or nothing. Plus your ability bonus (which is twice as normal). You can hardly beat someone skilled if you're a novice, and facing a expert is certain defeat barring mythical circumstances (even Sigurd had to learn a bit about blacksmithing IIRC). A 20th level wizard gets about +20 in arcana. sounds better to me.

Also, there is stuff everyone can try, and stuff you can't even try. Also, skills are optional.

But that's next post.

Minimalist D&D III - Ditch EVERYTHING but abilities... and SOME features!

Continuing this discussion...

I know, this doesn't sound old school. Original D&D had little use for abilities. Nor does it sounds revolutionary - there are plenty of RPGs that do something similar.

But I'm truly considering ditching everything but abilities and "features" in the next version of my game ("Dark Fantasy Hack" until I can think of something better).

Abilities are the 6 characteristics EVERYONE has: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. You could probably cut one or two but familiarity makes things easier.

"Features" are SPECIAL powers - something only a few characters have.

Let's start with 5e.

"Three d20 rolls are at the heart the game’s rules: the ability check, the attack roll, and the saving throw" - source.

Notice that skills fall under ability check in 5e.

Even tough the three rolls are somewhat different, the mechanics are similar - you get a bonus from abilities (usually -1 to +5) and another bonus from proficiency (usually +2 to +6, or 0 if you are not proficient). Two modifiers with similar ranges and similar functions.

Turns out that they are redundant - just double one of them and you're good to go.

I'll explain, using this 5th level Barbarian as my example (source):

Attack rolls - all attack rolls are made with Strength or Dexterity. Add your proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the weapon you're using. This is mostly a softer way of saying "wizards shouldn't use swords", an idea I dislike. In 5e the concept is mostly useless since a wizard with a sword is usually better off using his cantrips even if he is proficient.

In our example, all his attack rolls are +6 to hit. Which is the same as doubling his +3 Strength bonus.

Skills - it's pretty obvious that skills do not function exactly as intended. The DMG gives you a good alternative for not using skills (just choose two abilities to be proficient with). Which is very similar to saving throws. In facts, the abilities they suggest are often the same they suggest for saving throws, but not always (Constitution, for example, has no skills, so it isn't an option).

If we're using skills, the +2 to +6 bonus is obviously too low - something WotC seems to notice by creating multiple instances of "doubling" it, although not enough (just let anyone take the "prodigy" feat and it will fix my issue with the game). In addition, the DMG (and multiple house rules) suggest in some circumstances you can only roll if trained.

In short, skills shouldn't be a small bonus, but something much more significant. In Dark Fantasy Basic, for example, your "top" skills scale with level. So, a level 12 fighter has +12 to attack (and maybe +8 to athletics, for example), on top of ability scores.

I should probably stop here an write entire post about skills later.

Anyway, in our example, we got good athletics (+6, which is double his Strength bonus). He's got +2 in nature - which means the wizard often beats him in the wild. Shouldn't be the case. Same for survival.

And animal handling... cleric beats the barbarian when dealing with animals. His intimidation (a skill I'm not sure should exist) is decent. With his +4 bonus, the hulking barbarian is probably as intimidating as the skinny bard with a lute.

Notice that he COULD have chosen animal handling, but perception, etc., is way more useful.

Saving throws - each class gets two. In this case, Strength and Constitution, both +6. As you can see, in both cases the bonus is identical to what you'd get by doubling the ability bonus (+3 in both cases).

What about the other saves? Doubling the bonus would make him better in Dexterity saves (which makes sense for Barbarians, IMO). Which is a thing barbarians NEED - which is why he gets "danger sense " at level 2. Not exactly the same, but a feature that could be ditched by just doubling the Dexterity bonus.

Charisma would get a small boost, Intelligence a small penalty, making the distinction between 8 and 12 more significant, which I like. Wisdom in unaffected.

As you can see, arbitrary picking two saving throws doesn't not get us any big benefits. Needless complication for no discernible gain.

(BTW, saving throws as written also creates baffling results such as barbarians getting more resistant to dehydration, but not starvation, as they level up. High level barbarian will still survive a 100-foot fall unscathed...).

What else the barbarian got? 

Well, a couple of unique features of course. These are cool and should be kept, most of the times. Others, not so much. Let's see.

- Proficiency in all weapons: unnecessary, as seem above.

- Proficiency in light and medium armor: this is more complicated, but I think a barbarian should be able to wear ANY armor. However, he wouldn't be able to take full advantage of his Dex and Con. Take a look at this post for some ideas.

- Skills: see above.

- Rage: yeah, that's the barbarian main feature. Keep it.
Unless... Well, rage is +2 damage at this point. Double the strength bonus to damage, you'd get +3 instead... But anyway, let's leave that to another post.

- d12 for HD: So, he got more hit points. The lowest HD possible is a d6; a d12 grants him an average of 3 extra HP per level. You guessed it: just double his Constitution modifier and you get the same effect. I have a even easier formula, which I'll discuss later (basically, multiply his Constitution by 6 and divide by two and you'd get 48 HP, pretty close, and easier to do).

BTW, did you realize barbarians get 1d12 HP peer level, and fighters 1d10? Well, fighters have "second wind". In practice, the results are similar.

So, most of the "chassis" for the class are unnecessary. Do we even need classes at this point? Or would a collection of features (extra attack, rage, etc.) suffice?

What about races? Those are features.

Backgrounds? Those are features.

Spells? Features.

More and more, I'm convinced ability scores + features would be enough to do everything we need.

Minimalist D&D II - DITCH initiative!

Still writing my "minimalist" Dark Fantasy Hack, as we've mentioned in part I.

I tried MANY complex ways of fixing initiative in the past, as you can see in this blog - and I've found it is not especially useful, realistic or fun.

First, initiative DOES nothing. You roll a dice to see when you'll have the right to roll another dice, and then MAYBE accomplish something.

If you win initiative and miss your roll, nothing is accomplished (and you rolled twice for nothing). If you lose initiative and one side wins before your turn (or you're taken out), it is just frustrating. If a monster loses initiative and gets attacked by the whole party it can be taken out without even appearing menacing.

Of course, whoever loses initiative can at least react to everyone else's actions... which doesn't make much sense.

And when initiative does something fun - you win initiative, and you hit, AND you roll well for damage - is lots of rolls and calculations where ONE would suffice.

If you use initiative just to give some semblance of order to combat, that's understandable. But do you really want to turn combat into an orderly affair instead of something unpredictable and chaotic? Is it really a good idea?

Anyway, IF that is the case, I'd use side initiative - one "side" acts, in any order they wish, then the other side. Or just let everyone act in order of Dexterity, without even rolling.

But wait - Dexterity? Why? Why would a wizard or sorcerer need to be agile to cast a spell first? Dexterity covers a LOT of unrelated things already - picking locks, dodging, shooting arrows and (gasp!) even playing stringed instruments in 5e. Why does quick-thinking need to be included in this unholy hodgepodge?

Now, imagine a 11th level orc fighter with Dexterity 10 (in 5e for example). She can attack THREE TIMES in a turn, or SIX TIMES with action surge (seven, with light weapons). Why would the 1st level rogue with Dexterity 16 be able to attack before ANY of the seven attacks?

(In fact, 5e DOES realize this and attempts little "fixes" such as giving initiative bonuses to champions and barbarians. But this shouldn't need fixing in the first place. If you're a good fighter, you should master your timing in combat by default).

What if we inverted this rationale?

A competent fighter attacks fast. A competent wizard casts a spell before the low-level ranger can act (unless we are interrupting spells, but that's a different matter). However, the old wizard CANNOT throw a punch that quickly!

In short - how fast you act depends on what you want to do.

But then you must DECLARE what you'll do BEFORE you roll, which makes PLENTY of sense.

So, try this.

EVERYONE says what they'll do. Ogrok the barbarian attacks the dragon. Maellus prepares a spell. Melfin draws his bow while moving behind a rock. The dragon inhales, ready to breathe fire over all of you! Oh my!

NOW everyone rolls at the same time.

Ogrok rolls best! Then the dragon, Maellus and Melfin.

The barbarian flanks the dragon and attacks before it can react, causing massive damage. The dragon  breathes fire, but now the barbarian moved to the side, and he chooses to toast the barbarian instead of the rest of the party. OR: the dragon already chose where to attack (and thus cannot change the action), and burns the other two before they can act!

And what if Melfin rolled a 1? Well, he knows shooting the dragon will lead to failure, but he declared his action already. Maybe he can change it, for some price? Or maybe his roll meant he also failed his saving throw and is badly burned? Maybe he has more than one dice to roll with many attacks?

I don't know, there are many specifics to think of.

But, overall, this kind of combat feels faster, more chaotic, real... and fun.