Nautical adventures (+Ghosts of Saltmarsh)

So, apparently D&D's next book is Ghosts of Saltmarsh. The name is from the classic module The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, which is contained in the book in some shape or form.

When I described my four favorite meta-settings, I ended the post with " I always wanted to play a nautical campaign, going from one exotic island to another, but never managed to do it. [...]"

I really like the idea of nautical adventures, "The Seven Voyages of Sindbad" style. There are several reasons for that (other than the fact that I've loved to read the stories as a kid...).

First, you can go through old classics and new stuff, things like Isle of the Unknown, Isle of the Ape, Hot Springs Island and Tomb of Annihilation, just to mention a few. Qelong also fits, since you start from a boat IIRC, and might be a chance to use Freeport and some pirate stuff (out of Fighting Fantasy, for example).

You can insert something that would fit the bermuda triangle or Lost, or maybe even Earthsea. Plenty of good, epic stuff to mine from greek classics. Also At the Mountains of Madness (and all of the old gods and fish-people trapped under the sea), Dr. Moreau, King Kong... The possibilities are endless.

The idea of "strange lands beyond the sea" is more believable and exciting for me than that "Yawning Portal" stuff.

There is some continuity in the crew - and also a possibly of replacing characters. But there is also the constant discovery of new lands.

You can destroy an island without destroying the entire world, which seems cool. You can lose or retire half of your crew and go back for replacements. You can even leave some people healing during a certain expedition, only to go back into adventure in the next one.

Anyway, a great idea from WotC.

BTW, I also mentioned Ravnica in that (2017) post... Does that mean we could get Dark Sun next? One can only hope! ;)

Perception check - ROLL-playing versus PIXEL-BITCHING

Some time ago, I wrote about "social rolls":

I have little interest in this discussion because I am convinced that the truth lies in the middle. In fact, I am half-convinced that MOST OF US agree the truth lies in the middle. The problem is that we are discussing IN THE ABSTRACT. But discussing how it goes IN PRACTICE is easier and more useful.
[...] In short: when most possibilites of role-playing have been exhausted, and the result of the interaction isn't obvious, then you roll the dice.

I think the same idea can be used to find and disarm traps, solve riddles, and even in combat in some circumstances (PC: "I cut the prisoner's throat! My attack bonus is..."; GM "No need to roll, the prisoner dies").

In short, there is nothing really unique to "social skills" in this regard. You describe what you want to do and, if the outcome is uncertain, you roll. Had a clever idea? Maybe the outcome is now certain. Maybe you roll with advantage. Etc.

So, what about perception? Should you roll to find hidden things, or carefully describe WHERE you're looking and HOW you're doing it?

Again, this is a matter of degree, not black and white. There is BOTH "player skill" AND "character skill".

Let us try one example.

There are six statues in a room with painting, furniture, etc. One of the statues (a mermaid) has a single (and valuable) emerald eye, but this is somewhat concealed by darkness, painting, etc.

Copyright: Paizo

"I search the room for treasure" would find nothing (no roll). "I search the statues' eyes" or "I examine the mermaid statue" would automatically succeed. "I examine the statues for something strange" would generate a perception check.

Being extreme either way will lead to situations commonly described as "roll-playing" or, conversely, "pixel-bitching".

For example, if you enter the room and say "I roll to find treasure", this is classical roll-playing: you are not interacting with the contents of the room, just with the mechanics of the system. This will simply not fly in my games*.

However, if a player is suspicious of the mermaid statue's eyes (or just the face) and specifically examines it, asking "which eye" is typical pixel-bitching. Unless the PCs are pressed for time, examining one statue's face would be enough to notice anything out of the ordinary.

Other examples:

1. In a dungeon with 30-ish rooms, one PC searched for secret doors on the floor of the ONE ROOM that had a secret door on the floor. Automatic success.
2. Playing Curse of Strahd, one PC tested a suit of armor to see if it would animate. It didn't. A few rooms later, there was another suit of armor. Nobody tested it. No perception check - the PCs were unaware when it attacked. BTW, CoS is an awesome campaign, full of clever twist like this.
3. Upon seeing a large library, a player asks if there is something worth taking. Perception check to find a useful book (or Insight, etc.).

Once again, the truth lies in the middle... as if often does.

* There are games in which this type of thing is common.

For example, one of my favorite "modern" games, Dungeon World, has a discern realities move that comes to mind (check the link). However, even in Dungeon World you're not supposed to do straight roll-playing: "You can’t just stick your head in the doorway and discern realities about a room. You’re not merely scanning for clues—you have to look under and around things, tap the walls, and check for weird dust patterns on the bookshelves. That sort of thing."

However, the example in the SRD contains a PC finding "newer" and "bent" parts in the wall without any direct reference to his or her actions (namely, "I take out my tools and start messing with stuff. I pull candlesticks and tap the walls with my hammer.").

And DW has certainly many bits that indicate this type of "roll-playing". Including, for example, the possibility that you can find a trap/monster/trouble in an empty room if your roll is bad enough - even if it wasn't there before you roll. But not all GMs use such methods.

In any case, since this isn't black and white, you could certainly play DW in any way you prefer.

The TAGMAR universal table

Look at this beautiful thing (source):

It is an "universal" table (used for skills, combat, etc.) from the Brazilian RPG Tagmar (supposedly based on Star Frontiers, not FASERIP).

Looks nice, huh?

The skill part is really simple: you must roll red or higher for difficult tasks, yellow or higher for easy ones, etc.

But in combat, it really shines. You basically compare your opponents defense (and armor, I think) to your attack and check the corresponding column. Weapon damage s fixed, and each color corresponds to a fraction of total damage: 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% and 125%.

Here is another rendition (from another edition, I think):

So, even tough you have to look at a table, you save one roll (you do not roll for damage) and you don't even need math (damage is written in your sheet, something like "Sword +15 damage 3/6/9/12").

A natural 20 (grey) is always a crit and makes you roll again in the same table. Although the average damage is not necessarily that great, rolling 20 again means gruesome death (beheading, impaling, etc., depending on the weapon).

Talk about gritty!

And FUN!

This looks very cool IMO. It would be nice to make a D&D version at some point.

I guess I would fix a few things: some columns are identical, critical from inexperienced fighters shouldn't be so extreme (although the game make "minions" scary on purpose), experienced fighters shouldn't fumble on a natural 1 (although that is optional, I think), maybe three kinds of damage would be enough (33%, 66%, 100%, for example)  etc.

But I like the idea of having attack and damage in a single roll, and even having a big, fixed number for combat (say, you deal 32 damage with your axe), but seldom using your weapon's full potential.

It would be a great way of differentiating weapons and making them more unique without being too fiddly.

Of course, this means you'll ALWAYS be consulting a table... It'd better be printed in your character sheet!

Weapons/armor limitation (minimalist D&D)

Half-baked ideas, continued from here:

* You are proficient in all weapons and armor.

* Maximum weapon damage is equal to Strength (two-handed), 2/3 Strength (right hand) and 1/3 Strength (left and). 

* Off-hand weapon applies the WORST of Str/Dex.

* Special weapons allow you to add BOTH your Strength and Dex modifiers, or double your Str modifier, but the same limits may still apply.

* The maximum amount of AC bonus you can get from armor is equal to half your Strength. Strength 16 means you can get a +8 bonus (AC 18).

* Shield does not affect AC.

* If you get hit, you can dodge or block. To dodge, roll 1d20+Dex. To block, 1d20+AC bonus+shield bonus. Dodging avoids damage, blocking merely reduces it (maybe to one quarter damage?).

* HP = Constitution times level divided by three.

What´s the point?

A "Dark Souls" style system where you find new weapons and discover new fighting styles as you progress and make choices. Also, I hate the idea of "you are a wizards therefore you cannot use a sword".

Too many races (+My Carcosa)

Races available in my next Carcosa (Dark Sun/Tékumel) campaign:

- Choose any race available in any 5e book. Try to avoid the most boring ones (no ordinary humans). If you find something cool in another system, we will find a way to include it too.
- Tell the GM the main distinction of your race: habits, culture, etc. Be brief. You do not have to stick to WotC text.
- Races chosen by players substitute one of the thirteen types of men described in the book.
- Races not chosen are whatever the GM feels like. Some suggestions:

Black – Danuvian (Talislanta)
Blue – Vedalken (Ravnica)
Bone – These look cool the way they are, actually.
Brown – Goliath
Dolm – Thri-Kreen (Dark Sun)
Green – Genasi
Jale – Gnolls
Orange – Ahazu (Talislanta)
Purple – Kenku
Red – Red Martians
Ulfire – Shén (Tekumel)
White – Melniboneans
Yellow – Githyanki

Voilá! Now Carcosa is full of bizarre races, each with a distinct appearance and culture, if you need one (just google it!).

----
Explanation:

My current 5e campaign has four player characters: a gnoll, an aasimar, a goliath, and a tiefling. I play most old school modules and I'm currently running Curse of Strahd; so you can imagine that there is no place reserved for such races in most adventures. My players do not care much about their races beyond chargen, and as a result their races NEVER got mentioned again (except for the goliaths' size).

I don't care either - I want players to be free to create any characters they enjoy. However, it paints an irritating picture in my mind. They seems out of place - unlike my Dark Sun or Ravnica adventures, these "unusual races" just do not seem to fit (they would be a bad fit for "tolkienesque" settings too, but I hardly run those).

To be honest, Curse of Strahd should probably be human-only. Not onyl the PCs, but the NPCs add nothing by being half-elves etc (well, I can only remember a single case anyway).

My next campaign after CoD is probably a Carcosa hexcrawl, which gave me this idea.

As you know, Carcosa is inhabited by many types o men: orange men, blue men, bone men, etc. They are nearly identical expect for the colors of their skins, which many people find boring (although I think 13 different races with distinct appearances and cultures might be too much).

So I thought I'd inverted the usual "these races are available". Instead, let the players choose which races are available, and cut everything else. This will give the setting a distinct flavor and avoid race proliferation.

(And if you're asking yourself how many races should a setting have, the answer is probably seven).

Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be better to use the same reasoning for ALL settings...

Damage types (D&D 5e)

5e has thirteen damage types: acid, bludgeoning, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, piercing, poison, psychic, radiant, slashing, and thunder.

One could argue we don't need damage types at all - a monster that is susceptible to fire will obviously take more damage form a 5d6 fireball, so "5d6 fire damage" fireball is redundant.

The distinction is useful if you have a magic mace that deals, say, additional 1d6 fire damage, or a spell like meteor swarm, which deals bludgeoning AND fire damage. In this cases, a susceptible creature would take double damage form the fire, but NOT from the bludgeoning damage.

But even in these cases, I think I would ok with a less "realistic" and more "cinematic" version: the (fire-susceptible) scarecrow would be easily destroyed by a flaming sword, etc., despite the fact that a flaming sword would do a terrible job at destroying a scarecrow in real life.

In any case, I would like to keep damage types if only to make things clear and avoid questions such as "does the meteor swarm causes double damage to this monster?".

However, there are three damage types that bother me:

Bludgeoning. Blunt force attacks—hammers, falling, constriction, and the like—deal bludgeoning damage.

Force. Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon.

Thunder. A concussive burst of sound, such as the effect of the Thunderwave spell, deals thunder damage.

These three are so similar in my mind that they could all be described as "bludgeoning". I assume most people picture the impact of a magic missile to be akin to an invisible rock. Likewise, the impact of a "spiritual mace" would be the similar to a regular mace (even if stronger).

And "thunder" damage is specially weird. It deals "concussive" damage - like a mace, but more diffuse I'd guess - but this damage is caused by a burst of sound. Maybe the distinction would make  sense in real life, but in 5e thunder damage doesn't hurt your eardrums, and even a grenade does not cause thunder damage. In addition, people might find the thunder/lighting separation confusing (here is one example). "Sonic" damage might be a better choice.

As for monsters... there are not many monsters that are susceptible or resistant to bludgeoning or force. Some creatures are resistant to thunder damage, but most of these are ALSO resistant to bludgeoning for non-magical weapons. There are some flavorful choices - storm giants being immune to thunder and lighting, for example - but also weird distinctions, like skeletons being especially susceptible to maces but not thunderwave, "spiritual maces" or grenades.

Other than that, damage types don't really DO anything. There is no difference in criticals, types of armor (unless magical), and so on. You are not on fire after receiving too much fire damage, and you're not even poisoned if you take poison damage.

In short, if you NEED to use damage types, you could probably fold thunder and force into bludgeoning, making the game simpler and losing very little in the process.

Alternatively, you could USE damage types to do things (for example, making bludgeoning better against heavy armor), but that would make the game more complex.

The "middle ground" of "we have many damage types, but they rarely DO anything" seems like a bad choice for me.

UPDATE (10/10/2019): I released a book (5e Manual of Arms: Weapons) that, among other things, tries to differentiate between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage - see below!

---

To support this blog, buy my books on DTRPG! Try my 5e Manual of Arms: Weapons or any of my books. If you prefer comic books, check The Displaced series. Many titles are free!

Alternatively, click here or on the DriveThruRPG banner on the right. Any shopping you do through this link - even form other authors - helps us!

In addition, there are many other ways to support this blog! Share and recommend it, leave comments, etc. 


Thank you all for your audience and support!

Speed, initiative, bonus actions and the action economy...

Happy new year!

These year I'll write about monsters, weapons, yadda yadda, let us skip this stuff for now.

So, here is a brief idea after a long hiatus. Hopefully, I'll get back to blogging soon enough.

---
TL;DR: I'm considering allowing PCs to trade half their move (or their main action) for an additional bonus action.
---

I like the whole "action economy" of 5e. I think they've got it (mostly) nailed with actions, bonus actions and reactions, with a few exceptions - two weapon fighting, Beastmaster Rangers, etc.

However, Mike Mearls himself has suggested that it might be a good idea to get rid of bonus actions.

I often wonder about the same topic.

The most obvious solution would be trading some MOVEMENT for special actions - dodge, disengage, hide, etc. Use "half your movement" as a baseline. Not too different from getting up if you're prone, for example, or how disengage worked in B/X.

Other simple actions could be "part of your attack". Drawing a knife or arrow, for example. Drawing a zweihander might cost you some movement, so an unprepared warrior with a heavy weapon would be less mobile. Nice!

Other things - like rage, for example - might be better portrayed as reactions. I like the barbarians' rage triggering in response to some event, at least in the first few levels.

What about bonus action spells? Well, I'm not the greatest fan TBH. Most of them seem to be created to allow you to create a special weapon and attack with it. So, just add hat to the spell's description.

In short... bonus action serves as an abbreviation, a shortcut to the idea that you can do this "thing" and still get your main action, but you cannot do two of these "things" in the same round. Which is not always a good thing - rangers, for example, have too much stuff competing for their actions.

In short, the whole "bonus action" concept isn't necessary... but a good enough shortcut. Because of that, I am not sure if getting rid of them would make the game any simpler.

If I were to make a "realistic" system from that, I'd probably give each character a few TOKENS representing their movement. Say, one blue token for each 5 feet of movement (these can be used for various kinds of movement). Then one red token for each attack or spell (a fighter with four attacks gains four tokens). Whoever surprises the other side, rolls high enough for initiative, has some rogue-like reflexes, etc., gains a few green tokens that cannot be used, only held until the end of the round.

The creature with the most tokens acts first, spending some of their tokens - maybe from one to three, at most.

So, the fighter with four attacks can probably pull a knife and stab a CR 1 monster three times before it reacts... But if he has a battleaxe, he might have to spend a couple of blue tokens to draw it before attacking, which might be enough to let you attack back, unless you're surprised, etc.

This would lead to more "organic" battles, as I intended here.

These lead to endless permutations, of course. Tokens for reactions - why not? Additional tokens for critical hits of misses, maybe depending on weapon speed, etc.

Probably too much work for little effect. But something I would definitely use for a more "tactical" version of D&D in line with 4e, etc.

For now, I might just allow PCs to trade half their move (or their main action) for an additional bonus action. Maybe fighters get one additional bonus action for extra attack, provided they use it for TWF, etc.

Next: maybe a(nother) simple yet detailed "fix" for two-weapon fighting or weapon speed, based on this post.