The Rule of Three - Easy outdoor survival rules for 5e, BD&D and DotD

A while ago, I explained why I dislike 5e’s rules for starvation and dehydration, and proposed something close to the original rules, while advocating using the same rules for both scenarios.

This time, I'll explain how I use the same rules for starvation, dehydration, suffocation, exposure, sleep deprivation and all kinds of hazards in my own game (Days of the Damned), and how you can use it in D&D to deal with this hazards without having to check your books.

The rule of three is a mnemonic device for outdoor survival that says one usually cannot live for more than 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food. It is a very rough estimate and it varies from person to person in real life, but works well for gaming

purposes.

In Days of the Damned, where damage means physical stress, this is quite easy to do: damage from this situations is 5 for the first third of this period, 10 for the second and 15 for the whole period - enough to kill most characters. If the character somehow survives, this keeps going: 20 for the fourth day without water, then 25, and so on.

In D&D, it gets a little trickier. To implement this, you must decide what levels and HPs mean in you game, and if the 20th level wizard should survive starvation better than the 2nd level fighter, among other things. 

Or you can just use the method I describe below.

If you assume (like I do in my games), that most 1st level characters should survive a day or two without water, but even a level 12 fighter cannot survive for more than 10 days without drinking, using HPs for this purpose (as Delta suggests for OD&D) might not be the optimal solution, specially in 5e, in which most high level characters are little better than ordinary people in most situations they aren't specialized in, but get lots of HP all the same.

Fortunately, 5e has a system that bypasses HP altogether: exhaustion, which is perfect for our purposes. It also has a different system to deal with skills that improve with level, but less dramatically than HPs: saving throws. Here is the simple rule for 5e:

Characters who spend more than one week without food. one day without water, one hour under extreme weather (heat or cold) without adequate clothing, or one minute without air suffer the effects of exhaustion (see appendix A). After each of this periods, she suffers two levels of exhaustion (but a DC 15 Constitution saving throw will halve this effect).

Exhaustion caused by lack of food or water can’t be removed until the character spends a day eating (or drinking) the full required amount.

This way, every character has a good chance of surviving a bit more than one would expect, specially the ones proficient in Constitutions saves, keeping the "heroic" tone of the game.

BD&D has no "exhaustion" system by default, but you can use something similar: Constitution damage. It affects total hit points and can cause death regardless of level. I would allow a save for half damage in order to let high level characters have a better chance of survival. 1d6 per period works well, but if you want to make it progressively harder to survive, start with 1d4, then 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 and 1d20. You can use this pattern if you prefer hit point loss to Constitution loss, too: it will spare most characters in the first period, but even high level characters are unlikely to survive after a while. And you only need one set of dice.

In any case, the recovery rate should depend of the situation. In my games (unlike real life), lack of air causes no lasting effects if it doesn’t kill the character, so he could recover in a few minutes, while other kinds of damage could be cured in about one day per level of exhaustion or per period.

But why stop there? As you know, I like using the same rule for multiple purposes, and this is a good example. Here are some additional ways to use it.

Falling damage. Not the rule of three, but just picking up more damage dice for every 10 feet: 1d4 first, than add 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12 and 1d20. Falling from 50 feet would cause 1d4 + 1d6 + 1d8 +, 1d10 + 1d12 damage. You can cap the damage if you want to give better chances of survival on great falls; maybe 1d4 + 1d6 + 1d8 +, 1d10 + 1d12 plus 1d12 per additional 10 feet, save for half damage. Of course, iy you want to keep 1d6 per 10 feet fallen you can go directly to Con damage... few characters will survive a great fall.

Sleep deprivation. You can use a 3-day pattern for sleep deprivation, but six levels of exhaustion may cause fainting instead of death.

Poison and disease. The "running against time" sensation caused by growing danger can be simulated by this rules, with one difference: if a character survives three periods (minutes, hours, days, weeks, depends on the poison or disease), he starts to heal and gets no further damage. The best part, of course, is watching the characters run desperately for a cure!

So, there you have it. This is the rule I use for antibodies in D&D, if you ever need one!

Update: want to download this rule in PDF form for using in your game? Check this out.

Sidney Sime, the original Old School Artist

Fans of the Old School Renaissance are usually familiar with public domain fantasy art. Lots of retro-clones (and indie RPGs in general) have used this; of particular notice is Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, by Oakes Spalding, that uses John D. Batten's art for amazing effects. You can find it here, for free. Other games (and blogs, including this one...) use art by Henry Justice Ford, Willy Pogany, Gustave Dore, and Albrecht Dürer, among others.

As amazing as this artists are, I think no artist (in the public domain) is more quintessentially OD&D than Sidney Sime. Although some people have drawn attention to Sime in D&D blogs, he seems to find little representation in OS games as far as I can tell.

Which is a pity, because his art portrays old school D&D like no other.

Just take a look at this stuff (click the image for greater detail):

How many "this is so D&D!" things can you count in this picture? We have the sphinx (far from Egypt...) in the first plane, the fallen explorer next her, the ominous ruins with partially collapsed stairs, the giant monster trying to escape from the door, the mysterious book under the candlelight, the treasure chest over the door (why is it in such an awkward place? Is it hidden? Is it some kind of trap?)... But the most amazing thing is the sense of danger. Even though they dress like knights and warriors, this adventurers are no heroes: one is already down, while the others prefer to avoid the monster instead of fighting it directly!

It is no coincidence that Sime is so close to D&D. He is most famous for working with Lord Dusany, one of the authors listed in the Appendix N without mention of a particular book (an one that I am particularly fond of).

Among other things, Lord Dunsany created the "gnoles" and influenced lots of other authors in the appendix N - including Tolkien, Vance, Lovecraft, Howard, etc. You can basically pick any of his short stories and borrow some ideas for your D&D games (and this stuff is public domain, too).

See this excerpt from Wikipedia, the opening paragraph of "The Hoard of the Gibbelins" (The Book of Wonder - 1912):

The Gibbelins eat, as is well known, nothing less good than man. Their evil tower is joined to Terra Cognita, to the lands we know, by a bridge. Their hoard is beyond reason; avarice has no use for it; they have a separate cellar for emeralds and a separate cellar for sapphires; they have filled a hole with gold and dig it up when they need it. And the only use that is known for their ridiculous wealth is to attract to their larder a continual supply of food. In times of famine they have even been known to scatter rubies abroad, a little trail of them to some city of Man, and sure enough their larders would soon be full again.

Does a monster that hoards treasures to entice greedy adventures sound D&D enough for you?

Go read this story, by the way - it reads like an old school D&D adventure might turn out to be, much more than anything that more popular authors in the Appendix N might have written.

Now, take a look at Sime's rendition of this tale:

Again, look at the details: the blood flowing from the corpse at the door, the hanging skeletons, the tower within a dark forest that is lighted from the inside, the would-be hero sneaking with a bow while his dragon-mount and armor stay on the outside... Once more, the adventurer looks like  a sad figure against great sinister forces.

Another piece in the same vein:

All these mushrooms, spider-webs, mysterious lights and caves remind me of the Underdark... But the frail hero in the center of the picture, maybe protecting his treasure, is what really screams "low level D&D" to me.

There is a 3d version here.

According to Wikipedia, Sime was not only an illustrator for Lord Dunsany either: "For one volume, at least some of the stories were inspired by Sime works (The Book of Wonder), and for three, in special limited editions, each plate of illustration was signed by both author and artist."

He also collaborated with William Hope Hodgson ("The House on the Borderland"). Hodgson is not the appendix N, but could certainly be - he influenced Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith, among others.

Not all of his art is about hopeless adventures, of course. Strange gods, bizarre monsters, mythic figures, epic struggles, fantastic maps, and gem-eyed idols are all pictured in his work. It would be easy to find a piece for each little white booklet in OD&D, although his art is more reminiscent of AD&D.

See more of Sidney Sime's in Monster Brains, where I got the pictures in this post.

The importance of levels

Even tough it can be said that every RPG in existence is inspired by D&D in one way or another, D&D has a few distinctive characteristics that are hard to find in most of the mainstream RPGs that aren’t D&D or direct clones.

One of this distinctive marks of D&D is the strong correlation between character level and the probability of surviving any given danger. In D&D, level measures survivability – almost regardless of edition. The two most important tools for that purpose are hit points and saving throws. Combat capability is also directly affected, through attack bonuses and more damaging spells. On the other hand, the effect of level on skills and general abilities (encumbrance, languages, etc) varies wildly from edition to edition.

The same cannot be said of most RPGs with point-buy characters. Take GURPS, for example: a character made with 200 points can be more fragile than the character made with 100 points in many circumstances, including combat, and even the same character can go from 100 to 200 points without increasing hit points. 

If you analyze all the things the characters can do (let's call them “capabilities”) and how they relate to levels, you can detect three main patterns (although the distinction isn’t always clear-cut). There are also some subdivisions that are worth mentioning.

1a. Direct correlation: the capability grows in direct proportion to level. For example, you gain 1d8 HP per level or +2 to attack rolls every three levels.

1b. Direct correlation with hard limit: the capability grows in direct proportion to level until it reaches a limit. After that, even if the character can still gain lots of levels, the capability evolves no further. For example, the dwarf in Rules Compendium doesn't improve his saving trows after level 12 even if he can get to level 36 (variant rules) ; the Fighter in Lamentations of the Flame Princess (based on B/X) gets a +1 attack bonus per level until level 9, then no more.

1c. Direct correlation with soft limit: the capability grows in direct proportion to level until it reaches a limit. After that, the capacity still grows, but at a slower pace. For example, in pre-3e D&D you might gain 1d8 HP per level until level 9, and then 1 to 3 HP per level after that.

2a. Indirect correlation: the capability bears no direct correlation to level, but as the character gains levels he gains resources that he can invest in it. For example, a 10th level fighter is no better at Appraise than a 15th level fighter in 3e, but he gets more skill points that he can invest in skills – including Appraise – if he wishes to do so.

2b and 2c. You can have hard limits or soft limits in this pattern too. For example, a maximum number of skill ranks in a given skill. Soft limits with this pattern are hard to come by, which I’ll comment later.

3a. No correlation: the capability bears no correlation to level at all. This usually happens because the capability is basically immutable, or can only be changed trough in-game events, as it happens to abilities in most of pre-3e D&D, and to the capability of a fighter to do damage with a single hit in B/X (although total damage dealt per turn can be raised through extra attacks and greater chances of hitting).

3b and 3c. Whatever limits you have on this capabilities are usually determined in character creation. For example, in most editions abilities are capped at 18 or 20 (hard limit). In 4e and 5e, soft limits are used when buying ability scores with points – going from 8 to 10 is cheaper than going from 12 to 14.

The analysis isn't purely theoretical: it changes how the game feels, marks the difference between editions and might create problems and opportunities during play. Complaints about "linear fighter quadratic wizard" and "hit point inflation" are usually related to this patterns. Whole games can be created by emphasizing some of this patterns and de-emphasizing others.

Let's see some examples.

Some times, leveling up doesn't help... (Source: DCC RPG - Art by Doug Kovacs)

HP inflation, AC stasis

An interesting feature of most D&D editions is that, while HP raises dramatically with level (pattern 1a or 1c), the amount of damage a sword blow does stays basically the same (pattern 3). To compensate for that, BAB raises with level (pattern 1), while AC remains mostly the same (pattern 3). The fighter will attack more often and land more often, but since opponents have more HP, fights won't go any faster because of that. This is usually a feature: since more attacks and more granularity means more options, the game gets more complex as it progresses in levels.

In the versions of D&D that grant no extra attacks to fighters, combat may get very slow at high levels, because BAB doesn't make up for increased HP. Since wizards usually get better damage at higher levels, this doesn't apply to them.

Great balls of fire

In most editions, the Fire Ball spell causes 1d6 damage per level of the caster (pattern 1a). In B/X, HP reaches a soft limit in level 9 (pattern 1c). On the other hand, the Fire Ball allows a saving throw (pattern 1a - direct correlation to level) that halves damage if successful.

A 6th level wizard in B/X and BECMI, with his 6d6 fireball (average damage 21) isn't likely to kill a 6th level Fighter (average 33 HP, assuming 1d8 per level +1 bonus from CON) with a single spell. The chance, in fact, is less than 0.1%. The chance is lowered even further as they gain levels, until the HP soft limit is reached: after that, the fire ball becomes dangerous again, although better saving throws partially limit this effects. The RC dwarf mentioned above has the most chance of surviving a fire ball at level 12 - from them on, it only gets worse.

100 ways to die in a dungeon

One controversial effect of HP inflation (specially when HP follows pattern 1a - direct correlation to level) is how it affects the chance of survival from different sources of damage. There are quite a few people that accept than a 15th level fighter can take more than 15 hits with a sword and survive - since combat is abstract and HP includes the capability of avoiding killing blows - and at the same time get annoyed because the fighter can jump from a height of 100 feet and be sure to survive with no permanent damage.

In 3E, surviving without food or water is basically a matter of HP and level (and, to a lesser degree, Constitution). A 20th level fighter can be sure to survive about a month or more without food. 5E, curiously enough, has two different rules for dehydration and starvation, none of which involve HP. This is implemented in such a way that level may give you some protection against dehydration but has NOT effect on starvation (unless you add more Constitution).

E6, pattern 2c and soft limits

E6 is a way of playing 3e where, basically, you gain no more levels after the 6th, but you can get more feats. One of the goals behind the system is to avoid "HP bloat" that came with 3e using pattern 1a (direct correlation to level) instead of 1c (direct correlation with soft limit) for HP.

This works well for lots of people, but might be unattractive to those who dislike feats. One way of fixing that is using pattern 2c for abilities, as I suggested here.

Pattern 2c, in fact, is one of my favorite patterns, because it encourages characters to expand the number of capabilities (other goal behind E6), but at the same time allows them to specialize if they want to. 

Level is directly proportional to shoulder pads. (Source: Diablo III)  

The old-school inside 4e

There is a lot of talk about 5e being an old school inspired game, unlike 4e, but there are at least a few arguments in contrary. In OD&D, level was the main gauge of almost ALL of the characters abilities: HP, fighting ability, saving throws, skills, etc. There is some evidence (through people that played early on) that not only thieves but ALL classes relied on levels for their exploits.

4e does this by adding half level to almost every roll, so that a 20th level wizard is almost always stronger than a 1st level fighter (pattern 1a). By avoiding patterns 2 and 3, 4E makes sure that high-level characters are noteworthy in ANY situation.

Of course, there are many reasons to consider 4e a new school game, but is curious to notice this particular old school aspect is absent in most other editions.

The odd 5E pattern

Fifth edition has a curious implementation of this patterns, where some skills and saves will get better with level (pattern 1) while others don’t (pattern 3), although the feats may allow you to include more of them in the group that gains bonuses (pattern 2). Because of this, a 20th level character in 5E might look very similar to a regular person where most of her skills are concerned, but light-years ahead when her main capabilities are in question.

This pattern causes problems with saving throws, since the things that attacks STs always get better with levels (pattern 1), while most STs follow pattern 3 (unless you get the right feats). The result is that you are very unlikely to succeed in saving throws at high level, unless you're proficient.

To implement pattern 1a in 5th edition, one should starting by granting proficient bonuses to everyone, all the time, and letting proficiency grant a flat bonus instead (or advantage).

A caveat

This post doesn't concern starting capabilities. By changing the number of HP you get in the first level, you can change a lot of assumptions about the game. But this is a different subject, that deserves a post of it's own. It also doesn't discuss the exact number of HP or the exact bonus that is gained per level, which is also a different matter.

What's the point?

The main goal of this essay is to give you tools that you can use in your own games. How should a 15th level character look like? If you want her to be able to survive a 100 foot fall, use pattern 1. If you want her to be able to survive it up to a point, use 1b. If level shouldn't protect her at all, use pattern 3. The same reasoning may apply to any number of capabilities - should the Fighter attack more often, or should she get better at dealing damage and breaking down doors? Should a high level wizard be stronger than a low level fighter? Should a 15th level cleric be better at sneaking around than a 1st level one?

This might help you understand why you favor one edition over another, and how you can come up with your own house rules for D&D.

The Minimalist Magician - easy spell-casting for BD&D

Last post I said I "kinda liked" wizards. To be sincere, I like them a lot more than that. In fact, they might be my favorite kind of characters. The problem is, I am not the biggest fan of D&D's spell system, the main reason being that I find it too complex - although I do understand the appeal of Jack Vance.

Wizards memorizing spells from ancient books and then forgetting it all of a sudden might sound cool, but it might get troublesome if you (the GM or player) are the one suddenly forgetting your spells and having to check your own books in the middle of the action.

I tried coming up with my own system many times, and I often erred on the side of free-form. Magic (and the gods, if we are talking about clerics) is capricious and unpredictable, and would-be-wizards should be prepare for that. Eventually I came to the conclusion that this could get unfair and quite annoying to the players, specially the ones who like tactical choices, planning in advance, etc.

When writing Days of the Damned, I came up with a very structured way of creating new spells. For BD&D, OTOH, there are so many good spells already that it seem a bit of a waste to redesign the whole system, specially after you beef up your fighter a little bit.

With that in mind, here is my minimalist system for wizard in BD&D.

Wizards have a number of magic points (MP) that follows a progression very similar to their HP progression, but using INT mod instead of CON mod (and +3 MP after level 9). By making MP similar to HP, you keep the flatter power curve after level 9. By making it recover at the same rate as HP, you have the different classes in the game replenishing resources at similar rates (although they may require a library, meditation, prayer, etc., depending on the wizard).

Art by Rick Troula (from "The Displaced")

Wizards can cast spells that have a level equal to halve their own, round up. So, a 13th level wizard can cast 7th level spells. As for the number of spells, they get one or two at first level, and ONE extra spell per level.

Casting spell uses up a number of MP equal to spell level. Spell level is measured in a scale from 0 to 9. The guidelines are whatever spells you're using in this campaign, although rating something on a decimal scale comes very intuitively, with 0 being cheap tricks and 9 being spells like "wish" and "defeat anything without a saving throw" stuff (if you're using such spells). When in doubt, adding a level to the spell doubles the range, duration, or number of targets.

If you prefer to keep the spells as written, there is always a "predefined" spell to get you started.

Let's take a few examples from Labyrinth Lord, which I have at hand:

Continual Light is a level 2 spells that creates a "60 diameter sphere of light is brought into being, and is a permanent effect". It can also blind one creature if it fails a saving throw. If you cast at at level 5, it can blind 8 creatures around you instead, or light up a whole hall.

The famous Fire Ball is level 3 and causes great destruction. But at level 1 it just lights candles all across the table. Level 5 double the radius to 20' (which quadruple area, of course).

Teleport is a level 5 spell. It gets quite dangerous if you're not familiar with the destination. At level 6, you cast it as if you are one level more familiar with the destination than you actually are, and so on. Alternatively, add 2 levels to take a group of four with you - very useful for adventuring.

Although the wizard might seem to lose a little in total number of spells, he more than makes up for it in flexibility.

Now, you might argue that BD&D spells are not big on "balance", and I would agree. Ultimately, it is up to the group to decide what a 1st or 9th level spell looks like. For example one might limit spell's damage to 1d6 or 2d6 per level, always require a save, make magic more dangerous or unpredictable, etc. But once you got that going, it becomes a lot easier to play a wizard.

By the way, here is how spells work in Days of the Damned, adapted to BD&D. It bears mentioning that spells in this system are significantly weaker than their BD&D counterparts.

Level	Number
0	1
1	2
2	4
3	8
4	16
5	32
6	64
7	128
8	256
9	512

Level is spell level. Number is any "real" number involved in the spell: distance, number of targets, duration, area, weight, etc, but not "game" numbers such as HP, AC, HD, damage etc. Those are directly based upon spell level, one-to-one: a 3rd level spell either causes 3d6 damage, summons a 3 HD creature, add +3 to AC, an ability modifier, saving throws, etc.

For me, these numbers are actually easier to remember than abstract measurements (line of sight, medium distance, etc), and better for games that are focused on resource administration. Your tastes may be different, of course.

You start with a baseline 1st level spell and add characteristics as desired. For each trait you add, raise the spell level accordingly. To add 3d damage would add 3 levels. To target 32 people instead of 8 would add 2 levels. And so on.

Touching the target, using somatic components, specializing and a magic school, being in the right place or at the right time (the stars are right!), making the spell dangerous to the caster, spending any adequate resources, etc, lowers the spell level.

The last thing you need is the baseline spells. There is not one single "right" way to do this; it depends on the type of campaign you're running, the system you're using for fighters and thieves, etc. Some examples could look like this:

Fireball (level 1): does 1d6 damage to 1 target up to 100 feet away.

Teleport (level 1): moves one person (that is within 100 feet) up to 100 feet away.

Some spells are better described in multiple levels:

Levitate: level 1 to slow down a fall, level 2 to levitate above the ground, level 3 to float horizontally, level 4 to fly freely. Speed is the same as walking speed. This lasts for one minute.

So what about powerful spells like Wish, Shape Change, and Resurrection? In this system, those are rituals, spells that can only be cast with rare materials, when the starts are right... Finding the formula and materials is an adventure in itself.

The Flexible Fighter - easy combat stunts for BD&D

It has often been said that the BD&D fighter is a simple class (at least until level 9, where you have some domain management to take care of). Even though one can mention magic swords, setting spears versus charges, armor choice and so on, it is hard to deny that the fighter is pretty straightforward when compared to wizards, for example.

Some see this as a feature, others think that the classic Fighter is boring. In my opinion, the Fighter can get too simple in BD&D (and the wizard, too complicated, but this is a whole different post).

So here is a more flexible and tactical, but still pretty simple, BD&D Fighter.

First of all, she gets an extra attack from time to time. I prefer doing this in levels 6, 12, and 18, but you can keep whatever progression you're using.

Here is the twist: in lieu of making an extra attack, you can use each one for a number of different things. You can call them "combat moves" if you want.

Choose an option on level 8 and every three levels after that (or just allow everyone to do anything, maybe wit a -4 penalty if they don't have the appropriate "feat". Fighters just do it better - as long as this doesn't overwhelm your players). Say you have three attacks, total. You can make three attacks, one regular attack and one attack with extra damage, or just one attack with extra damage to the head.

Here are some examples:

Precise strike: add 1d6 to your attack roll. Add 1d8 if using some kind of finesse weapon.

Mighty blow: add 1d6 to damage. Add 1d8 if using a two-handed or heavy weapon. This makes more sense if you're using some kind of cleave rules or DR.

First strike: add 1d6 to your initiative, if you're using a d20 (or +1 if you're using a d6, etc).

Parry: add 1d6 to AC against one attack. If using a shield or weapon, you may choose to add 1d8 but it might break. Missiles can only be parried by shields, a fireball cannot be parried by a common sword, etc.

Dodge: add 1d6 to AC against one attack. Add 1d8 if unarmored or using light armor.

Toughness. Add 1d6 to a saving throw. Because when you're in combat, you're unstoppable. No saving throw? 1d6 penalty to whoever is attacking you instead. No attack roll? 1d6 less damage then.

Opportunistic strike. Use your extra attack at any moment. You can interrupt another character if she is using a spell or slower weapon (maybe compare DEX or make a saving throw to see who stops who). Yes, if your initiative system doesn't allow for wizards to be stopped when casting a spell, now the fighter can stop them all the same. Now you have your own "opportunity attacks" as well.

Disarm, trip, ensnare, etc. Just make an attack roll, no penalty, and produce the desired effect, within reason. Having adequate equipment is a plus. Your opponent might get a saving throw.

Hit location: choose which body part you want to hit. Effects are up to the GM, who will take the amount of damage you dealt in consideration. Knocking a dragon out because you dealt 2 points of damage to his head? Not likely. Cutting a Minotaur's horn? Sounds like a good idea. Not wearing a helmet? That's just dumb...

Dash: move 10 extra feet.

And so on, ad infinitum. Add options to taste.

Do you miss the warlord? Make a fighter that can rally the troops and grant bonuses to allies. Want a paladin? Your character can use his attack to turn undead or lay on hands, and adds a d10 instead of a d6 to damage when smiting evil. Ranger? Use one of your attacks to command your pet, or something. Defender? Take a hit for an ally. Assassin? Extra attacks when backstabbing (stab! stab! stab!). Wolverine? Why not? Use an attack to regenerate 1 point of HP, to a maximum of whatever you had when you started the battle or Constitution score plus level, whichever is lower.

Also, you get one extra attack when you're a paladin fighting demons. Or an enraged barbarian. Or a knight fighting for you lord, or whatever system you use for this kinds of things.

I would advise against stacking bonuses, but adding different bonuses is ok. Throwing your mace in the wizard's mouth just when he is preparing to cast a fireball? Sounds awesome. Nothing against wizards, really. I kinda like them, in fact.

Of course, you could make a wizard or thief with the same reasoning. Although I do have some other ideas for them, if you're wiling to wait. On the other hand, this system works very well for monsters.

Now you can have a tactical fighter without using penalties for special actions, complicated feats, "encounter" and "daily" actions, and, most important, you can still have your simple Fighter at earlier levels so new players can get the hang of it.

And combat can still be simpler to the players that chose classes with different schitcks, since they have less options to think about.

Next: the simple wizard.

The Gray Enforcer, lawful angel of death - A creature for 5e, B/X and LotFP

The Gray Enforcer is the ultimate agent of the letter of the Law, its sole purpose to take revenge against sinners and lawbreakers. The Enforcer is literal and unrelenting; it sees the idea of “the spirit of the law” as heresy, repentance as dissimulation, and forgiveness as the ultimate sin of wretched souls who would substitute sacred scripture for their own misguided opinions. Although it despises chaotic and unnatural creatures, those who defy written rules within their own societies are the ones it hates the most.

The Enforcer follows no particular creed or religion. It’s not up to him to judge the whims of the gods, real or imaginary. If the it is in the doctrine, it must be fulfilled. Oral tradition is ignored by the Enforcer, that only executes written rules.

The Enforcer looks like a humanoid creature with bulging muscles, stony gray skin, and a cuboid head with no facial features. It fights with a great maul and carries a huge book strapped to its back. It’s thick skin, stony skin halves the damage caused by fire, electricity, cold, poison, and slashing or piercing weapons. 

Art by Robert Chew - source.

The Enforcer dwells on a gray, sterile plane of empty buildings and perfect Euclidean geometry, where no words are spoken in order to avoid lies. This plane is also the home to an underground library that holds the enormous Books of Iniquity, each with a interminable list of names of those who have broken a particular written law.

Unable to punish all sinners at once, the Enforcer randomly picks a Book and goes out on a hunt in the less Lawful planes (such as our own) until 1d100 names are crossed from it. After that, it goes back to its bleak dwelling to recompose and choose a new book. The Enforcer is able to teleport though any rectangular doors or similar passages, arriving at any known destination of its choice.

While carrying a Book, the Enforcer is granted specific edicts and powers, as well as the ability to detect those who partake in one particular sin. Here are some examples:

1. Hypocrisy. Those who willingly associate with chaotic creatures must have their faces violently rearranged (losing 1d4 points of Charisma). While fighting parties that include chaotic and non-chaotic characters cooperating, any damage dealt to the Enforcer with weapons is also inflicted upon the attacker.
2. Witchcraft. Anyone who has spells memorized must have his tongue pulled out. The Enforcer is immune to arcane magic.
3. Leniency. Anyone who has forgiven others of a crime or sin must carry the weight upon themselves, and thus will have slabs of stone attached to their torsos, affecting Encumbrance (10 lb).
4. Doubt. Those wearing heavy armor must be stripped naked and cast into a pit. The Enforcer’s attacks ignore armor.
5. Idolatry. Anyone who carries a holy symbol must have their bones broken (losing 1d4 points of Dexterity) and be displayed for others to mock. The Enforcer is immune to clerical magic.
6. Avarice. Anyone currently searching for gold or treasure will be victim to a curse that causes all valuables being carried to turn to stone. Bladed weapons are useless against the Enforcer, and non-magical weapons break on a natural 1.

Other sacred laws involve trespassing, eating forbidden things, wearing inadequate clothing, saying wrongful words, and others. The Enforcer believes every transgression, no matter how small, must be punished in due time.

In order to inflict the punishment such as the ones listed above, the Enforcer must roll a natural 20 unless the target is helpless – this special effect is caused in addition to the normal damage. The punishment is usually dealt with a strike of the maul, that can break bones and faces, push opponents away or leave pieces of stone in them, depending on the circumstances. The target will have a glimpse of understanding of its supposed crimes, and must succeed in a saving throw (Charisma or Magical Device) or will ardently believe the punishment received to be justified. The maul itself isn’t special, but the Books are.

Carrying a Book of Inequity gives the wielder powers and defenses similar to those granted to the Enforcer, but also and insatiable urge to inflict punishment to the listed. Merely reading it allows one to find a particular name included in the Book (1-in-6 chance of finding it per hour), but carries a cumulative 1% chance of obsession per hour (the reader will hunt sinners relentlessly and must punish 1d6 of them before recovering). A save is allowed in order to avoid obsession.

Each Book has a number of hit points equal to one fourth of those of the Enforcer (and -4 or disadvantage to hit). Without it, the Enforcer loses its purpose, and must immediately return to its plane for a new one.

LotFP / B/X: 

Armor: as plate (18 or 3), Move 60′, 8 Hit Dice, 1 maul attack doing 1d10 damage plus special effect, Morale 12, Save as Fighter 8, Alignment: Lawful.

5e (summary):

Medium celestial, lawful neutral

Armor Class 18, Hit Points 280, Speed 60′ (and teleportation - see above).

STR 22 (+6) DEX 16 (+3) CON 26 (+8) INT 18 (+4) WIS 20 (+5) CHA 22 (+6)

Saving Throws: Wis +10, Cha +10.

Damage Resistances: acid, fire, necrotic, poison; slashing and piercing from nonmagical weapons.

Condition Immunities: charmed, frightened, poisoned.

Senses: darkvision 60′, passive Perception 20.

Languages: all, telephaty 60′.

Challenge 14 (11,500 XP)

Attacks: Maul (+11 to hit, 6d10+6 damage). Either multiattack (x2) or 1 attack plus special (see above).

Special thanks to James Raggi (monster originally created for a contest in the LotFP blog). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't it be cool?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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