Cross-Class Training: Teachers

In last week’s cross-class training post, I didn’t mention anything about hiring a teacher. This is partly by design, and partly because I wasn’t sure which direction I wanted to go with that.

I definitely don’t want to require a teacher. I don’t see classes as professions, more like semi-fantastic abilities. Player characters are larger-than-life figures in some ways, and should be able to train themselves, if need be.

But after a little thought, I think I see an easy way to add the option of finding a teacher. Remember the effects of prime ability scores on training time? If you have a score of 16+, you automatically take the minimum time and spend the minimum amount needed. That basically makes it match the by-the-book rules for changing classes. But if your score is lower, you may have to spend more time, sometimes a lot more, increasing the total cost.

If a character has a teacher, they use the teacher’s prime ability score, rather than their own. Simple! What the teacher charges for their services counts as part of the training cost. At least half the weekly training cost must go for training supplies, though, so if the teacher charges more than that, the excess is just an extra weekly cost.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Cross-Class Ability Training

Since I recently simplified ability checks, I’m feeling in a simplifying mood. Let’s simplify changing classes and multi-classing!

To add a second class, spend time and money training in the new class.

• Cost Per Week, in coins = Current XP/10
• Weeks Needed: Level modified by Prime Ability score for new class (Strength for Fighters, Dex for Thieves, etc.)

If Score Is …	Time Is …
3	Level x 4
4-8	Level x 3
9-12	Level x 2
13+	Level

GM secretly rolls 1d6. No roll is needed for a prime ability score of 16+.

On 5+, the character improves in the second class, one level at a time, after the minimum amount of training time.

On 1 to 4, add 1 and multiply by minimum time to find out how much more training the character will need.

Apply current XP to new class to find max training level for new class. After reaching this, new levels are added by earning XP as usual.

Old class does not improve further unless character trains to “switch back”.

Use best hit dice, attacks, and saves from all classes, up to last level earned in each class.

I might make a few tweaks to numbers, but there’s only one major change I’m considering for these rules.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Iconic Magic-Using Archetypes

Because of a comment JB made on the previous post, I created a companion chart.

These are magical archetypes rather than classes. They are loosely defined, compared to classes, with boundaries not even as rigid as I've shown here. They are the four basic approaches to magic:

Dabblers, brought up by JB, are those who aren't dedicated to improving their magic. It's just something they occasionally use. They might not even be magic-users by class, but may just pick up a spell or two somewhere, or have an innate power either inherited or acquired by accident.

Scholars are those who acquire spells through study and practice. They form the bulk of what most people think of as D&D magic-users: professional thaumaturges with an arcane library.

Mystic is a perhaps inaccurate label for those dedicate to exploring all that is possible with magic. They may be researchers, experimenters, or mad wizards, locked away in some tower somewhere, amassing huge magical libraries and binding hordes of demons, elementals, and other spirits to their will.

Power-Seekers was the most neutral-sounding label I could think of for those who seek power rather than knowledge. They don't care how it works or what they have to do the get it. They might study, if that's what they have to do, but if they find a shortcut, they will take it.

The Iconic Magic-Using Classes

I’m still occasionally working – well, half-working – on ways of making the magician (magic-using class) easy to modify on the fly. The way I imagine it working is that you offer players only three classes (talent, hero, magician) and when a player says “can’t I be a [more specific class concept]?” You reply “Sure! Just take one of those classes and we’ll make these changes.”

For magic-using classes, you can make superficial changes to how spells are recovered, how they are cast, and how they are dispelled and that will cover a lot of variations. But before I even go there, I think I need to start with defining iconic magical types. Not “iconic in the history of D&D”, but “iconic in literature and folklore”. I really don’t like some of the standard D&D class definitions, which seem to focus on mechanics, and I prefer to lead players away from thinking about mechanics.

My current iconic class concepts start with this simple progression from “arcanely academic” to “selfishly practical”:

• Magicians are your standard OD&D magic-using class, with loads of spells studied from books.
• Witches are naturally-gifted magic-users who can supplement their inborn talents with either dominance over spirits or arcane learning.
• Warlocks are self-made magic-users who have taken their powers from others.

It’s important to note that the WotC warlock class would sometimes fall within the bounds of “warlock” as I define it, but my definition is broader. A warlock, in my mind, is the kind of magic-user seen in some fantasy lit who steals magical power from those who have acquired it through birth, blessing, or training. So, more like warlocks in “Charmed”, or what the MCU-version of Baron Mordo seems to be heading towards. Getting powers from pacts could be thought of as a variation on this.

There’s basically a two-axis concept grid hiding behind those three core iconic concepts:

• Power Taken From Others vs. Power Developed Within Oneself (Dependency Axis)
• Flexible Spell Options vs. Limited Power Choices (Variety Axis)

Scholarly Magicians are Low Dependency, High Flexibility. Power-Hungry Warlocks are High Dependency, Low Flexibility. Witches are dead center, with a limited set of natural powers supplemented by magical training. You can see this easier on this diagram.

Explanation of other iconic classes on the chart:

• Sorcerers for me are not the WotC class (which probably resembles my concept of witches more than anything else.) They are instead academics who know some spells, but expand their power by using their knowledge to bind spirits and demons to their will. They may also make pacts for more power, making some WotC warlock concepts fit better in that category.
• Necromancers get power by commanding spirits of the dead. There’s still more flexibility than warlocks, but not as much as standard magicians or sorcerers.
• Bards are highly variable in their fantasy lit representations, but I went with a more limited range of magic (songs that influence emotions and spirits) vs. a reliance on natural gifts + training. They could easily be up in the same position as witches, though.

Gray entries are not traditionally considered magic-users in D&D, but essentially that’s what they are.

• Psychics are basically witches who can’t learn additional spells in this schema.
• Priests typically get all their power from gods and can lose their power at the god’s whim.
• Godlings aren’t really a class, but represent where various beings like spirits and deities would fall: requiring some power taken from their worshippers, but being innately gifted as well and quite flexible in what they can do.

Any iconic character concepts that I missed?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Training Before Gaining New Class Abilities

I’ve been discussing my idea for merging the rules for changing classes and nonhuman multiclassing in a couple other places, and there may be a need to further limit having more than one class. As it stands, it takes longer to add a level if advancing in more than one class, and hit dice or hit points can be much lower than you’d expect for a given number of experience points. But some people have expressed the worry that making it easy to add a second class and keep the benefits of both means that players will always choose to add a second class, regardless of which classes are available.

One possible solution: require more in-game roleplay challenges to truly use an added class. For a character’s first class under standard rules, it’s assumed that:

• Fighters know how to use all weapons
• Magic-Users know all 1st level spells (or have a free spellbook containing multiple spells)

When adding these classes as a second class:

• New Fighters have higher combat ability with any weapon they already know, but must train with other weapons they want to learn
• New Magic-Users must locate spells to add to a spellbook before they can cast spells

New Thieves aren’t as limited, but you might require some training before picking up the class abilities. New Clerics might require locating spellbooks or not, depending on how you interpret cleric spells.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Merging Class Change and Multiclassing Rules

A recent forum discussion on class changes got me thinking about condensing some of the rules around changing classes vs. multiclass characters. As you all know, the Greyhawk supplement introduced the rules for multiclass nonhuman characters which survived in AD&D 1st and 2nd edition and in the various lines of “Basic” D&D (B/X, BECM.) Any nonhuman (except possibly halflings) can progress as two or three classes simultaneously, splitting their experience between all their classes.

This is in contrast to the rules for changing classes, which seem to be limited to human beings in Men & Magic:

While changing class (for other than elves) is not recommended, the following rule should be applied: In order for men to change class they must have a score of 16 or better in the prime requisite (see below) of the class they wish to change to, and this score must be unmodified. A Cleric with a “strength” of 15, for example, could not become a Fighting-Man. In any event Magic-Users cannot become Clerics and vice-versa.

— M&M, p. 10

However, at the time that was written, neither dwarves nor halflings could be any class other than Fighter, and elves were limited to Fighter and Magic-User, with special rules for progression that have been a matter for violent debate for years. Many people wind up using the Greyhawk multiclass rules instead, even when not using anything else from Greyhawk, simply because it seems to be better explained, even thought it leaves open a couple questions: Can a single class elf add a second class later, or is the character locked into just the class(es) they start with? How do you handle hit dice? Do multiclass characters split XP between all their classes even after they can no longer advance in a class? (Greyhawk says “yes”, but do all editions? It seems to be a common question…)

In contrast, the rules for changing a class are pretty simple, and could be even simpler. So why even have separate rules for nonhumans? What does it add to the game?

I propose these rules for training in more than one class:

Characters start with one class, but may add a second
or third class at any time if they have high enough
prime ability scores.

• Starting Level: Last level earned
• Current Class: Last class added
• Hit Dice: Best of previous hit dice or current hit dice
• Hit Points: Roll for increase when hit dice increase, otherwise keep previous hit points
• Current XP: One total value, no splitting across classes
• XP Needed for Next Level: Total XP needed for next level in each class
• Attacks and Saves: Best for each class

Default prime ability score needed to add a class is 16+,
but may be lowered to 13+ at the GM’s option.

Nonhuman races have two designated classes that do not
require minimum scores, and so may be added at any time
(For example, elves may add Fighter or Magic-User ability
even if Strength or Intelligence are 12 or below.) However,
they may have a cap on combat ability, saves, or max spell
level.

You will notice that under these rules, players don’t track separate levels or XP for each class. A Fighter/Magic-User who wants to advance to 2nd level needs 4,500 xp (2,000 xp for 2nd level Fighter + 2,500 xp for 2nd level Magic-User.) This is easier to handle than writing “Level 1/1 Fighter/Magic-User” or keeping track of XP for each class. The benefit is that abilities in all classes continue to advance with each level, but it takes longer to reach the next level. The downside is that characters only earn hit dice from one class, not all classes.

If a 4th Level Fighter decides to become a Magic-User, here’s what happens:

• Starting Level = 4
• Hit Dice is 4, and won’t increase until 8th level
• Current XP is 8,000+
• Character reaches 5th level at 36,000, instead of 16,000 (Fighter) or 20,000 (Magic-User)

Other penalties could be added, but these rules seem pretty severe on their own, without having the fiddly-ness of existing rules.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Shaman Class (Cleric Variant)

Was reminded that I’d done a write-up for a cleric variant class, but never posted it here. It’s the Shaman.

Concept: Semi-professional priest, able to deal with spirits and aid members of their tribe or community, but not part of a religious hierarchy or formal temple.

Alignment: Any.

XP/HD: As Hybrid (Cleric) class. Primary ability is Wisdom.

Saves: As Cleric class.

Weapons and Armor: Trained in any weapons purchased when character is created. Missile weapons are allowed.

Abilities: Cast spells as would a cleric, but remove any spells related to alignment (Protection from Evil is allowed, however.) Instead of turning undead, a shaman can command wild beasts to obey, turning or taming them. Any tame beasts count against Charisma as would a special follower.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

B/X Is Bad, Mmmkay? Part II

Continuing my rant about what I don’t like about B/X: I’m skipping over the post I promised as a follow-up about races, for now, and focusing instead on another element of B/X that I just can’t abide: the way magic-users gain and prep spells.

Unlike all the other versions pf D&D, a magic-user in B/X has exactly the same number of spells in their spell book as they are able to memorize and cast during an adventure. First level magic-users can memorize and cast one spell, so they only know one spell, and have exactly one spell in their spell books. Second level magic-users can memorize and cast two spells, so they add one spell to their spell books. And so on. The rules explicitly state that magic-users cannot copy spells from scrolls or from another magic-user’s spell books.

This may simplify the class, but it also limits an already heavily-limited class, especially at low levels. Furthermore, part of the motivation for adventuring, for magic-users in other versions of D&D, is to find more spells. Forbidding them from using spells found damps the interest.

But there’s something far worse about this design decision: it eliminates some of the challenge and strategy. A magic-user who knows eight spells but can only cast two during an adventure has to make decisions. Which spells are most likely to be needed? Should the party look for clues about what they are about to face, or just guess? Should they abort an adventure and return later if it looks like there was a better choice of spells? The only choice a B/X magic-user has is “use the spell now, or save it for later?”

Some of the B/X clones seem to agree with me. I notice Labyrinth Lord has characters begin with exactly one spell, but drops the restriction on adding spells to their spell books. So, players start with an extremely limited range of options, but expand to the same range as OD&D or AD&D as they play.

So, my complaint about how spells work in B/X is basically the same as my complaint about how races work. B/X stifles variety and restricts options too much.

B/X Is Bad, Mmmkay? Part I

In a comment on a blog link post, Norman J. Harman, Jr. expressed his opinion about Gygax’s writing and quality of rules. Which is fine, everyone can have opinions. But the comment ends with “B/X is a better game than AD&D.” And that had me do a double-take, because I think of both as being about equally bad, and certainly B/X had a couple distinct rules differences I’d consider worse than AD&D. And I’m not talking about minor quibbling differences that people always seem to focus on. I’m talking about the differences everyone seems to ignore that are basically the deal-breakers for me.

One difference is race as class. I’m not completely opposed to the idea, but I do think it’s a terrible design choice. People generally want to add fantasy races so that they can have more variety… so making all elves the same, all dwarves the same, and so on seems counterproductive. OD&D started with fighter-dwarf, fighter-halfling, and elves that could be either fighter, magic-user, or both, then expanded the options for those three races with thieves… and then B/X came along and got rid of the options. AD&D expands the options, and though I don’t think it did so in the correct way, at least it’s not B/X.

Continuing that line of reasoning: minimum ability scores is also a bad idea. B/X shares this with AD&D, though, and at least B/X doesn’t have minimum scores for the core classes, just the races, so that’s one thing in its favor. But having minimum scores at all, for anything other than rare classes like paladins, is a bad decision, again because it limits variety. You can’t play the weak but brave dwarf in B/X (or the weak but brave fighter or cleric or thief, in AD&D,) because hey, why have more variety in your game? Plus, it has the added effect of making ability scores more important and dominating the game, but that’s a whole other line of argument.

You may have noticed, in the Liber Zero class pamphlets, that none of the variant classes like Beast Master, Witch, or Apothecary have minimum scores. I decided to shift the opposite direction, away from B/X and AD&D, towards more freedom and variety instead of less.

Because dammit, even if I agreed B/X is a better game than AD&D, it’s not better than OD&D.

Liber Zero Hybrid Class Reference Sheet (PDF)

This Liber Zero class reference document took longer than any of the others, but it’s finally done: the Hybrid Class reference sheet! Hybrid, in my class scheme, represent classes that mix Heroic (fighter) and Magic (magician) abilities. They are not as good at fighting as fighters, and more limited in what magic they can use, but the fact that they combine two classes is a huge advantage itself.

The quintessential hybrid class is the Priest, which is what I’ve renamed clerics. I’ve also spun off two variant classes from clerics: Chaotic priests become either Heretics or Diabolists, depending on whether they lose their turn undead ability or replace it with a command undead ability. And I briefly describe another variant, the Beastmaster, which uses the turn undead mechanic on animals instead of undead.

One thing you may notice is that there’s no discussion of alignment. There will be a separate reference sheet for alignment, but it will describe this as an optional system, because I realized while writing the Priest, Heresiarch, and Diabolist descriptions that I didn’t need to rely on alignment to make the distinction. I could make it all about how they handle reversed spells and turning undead.

Releasing this pamphlet means that I now have all the basic classes covered. I still have to do the spell lists, a couple GM reference sheets, and some variant classes, but I’m close to being done with Liber Zero’s core game.

Update: I corrected a couple of spell names and added a brief table of reversed spell names and uploaded the new version. For those who don't want to download another PDF just for a couple small changes, here's what changed:

• Cleanse Food became Pure Food
• Heal Minor Wounds became Minor Healing
• Added Putrid Food
• Added Circle of Shadow
• Added Minor Wounding

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

    

    

Other
Liber Zero
Reference
Sheets

    

About
Liber Zero
material

    

Other PDFs

Archer Class (Hero/Fighter Variant)

Per a conversation on the ODD74 forums, here’s a quick Heroic Class variant: the Archer.

Concept: Warrior specializing in bows, for example Robin Hood (assuming you don’t make Robin a thief.)

Alignment: Any.

XP/HD: As Fighter (Heroic Class.) Primary ability scores are Strength and Dexterity. Use half the lowest score to determine XP bonus.

Saves: As Fighter.

Weapons and Armor: Use any bow or crossbow, dagger, and any armor. Also trained in any weapons purchased when character is created. Shields and weapons can’t be used while using a bow or crossbow, but can be used as a backup after dropping or stowing away the bow.

Abilities: Short range distances for bows and crossbows are doubled. Archers also do bonus damage based on either their Level or half of their best ability score (Strength or Dexterity.) See the table below.

Level		Ability Score		Damage
1-5		3-11		1+1
6		12-13		1+2
7		14-15		1+3
8		16-17		2
9		18		2+1
10				2+2
11				2+3
12				3

Archers can potentially hit creatures that are immune to mundane weapons, even when using mundane bows and arrows, as long as their base archery damage is 2 dice or more. Creatures that can only be struck by +2 magic weapons can be hit if base archery damage is 3 dice.

When not in heavy armor, archers can aim and fire while moving (split move and fire, as an elf.)

Archers can aim and fire into a melee safely. Ordinary bow users have to randomize their targets when firing into a melee, either always or when they miss their attack roll. Archers, however, only randomize their targets on a critical miss (for example, a 1 on 1d20.)

High-level archers can build a stronghold and become a baron, just as fighters do.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Liber Zero Apothecary Variant Class (PDF)

I know I should get the Hybrid Class reference sheet for Liber Zero done, as well as the spell references and a few other things, but I’ve been working on this pamplet instead: the Apothecary variant class. It’s a variant of the Talent class, but instead of a thief, it’s … a chemist! Not an alchemist, mind you, although because this is an extraordinary version of a mundane profession, Apothecaries have the uncanny ability to identify alchemical ingredients, even if they can’t use them themselves. But they can make what are essential “mundane potions”: drugs, poisons, antidotes, the infamous “flaming oil”, and even explosives.

They may seem useless on an adventure, but they are as “combat ready” as a squishy magician or thief. An apothecary with a blowgun and some poison powders could be a handy replacement for a magician with a Sleep spell. A lower level apothecary with not much money can still be useful identifying poisons before anyone “researches” them the hard way, or might have enough cash for some night vision drugs.

You’ll probably need to refer to the Adventurer Skills reference sheet to make sense of the formula research rules, but they are pretty simple: decide how long you want to take, which sets the weekly cost, then the GM rolls a d6 (usually…) On 5+, it takes exactly one base time period (week, month, season.) On 1 to 4, add that many extra time periods. Figure out the total cost based on the number of weeks in that time.

    

    

Other
Liber Zero
Reference
Sheets

    

About
Liber Zero
material

    

Other PDFs

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Liber Zero Magic Class Reference Sheet (PDF)

It’s Liber Zero reference sheet time again! Finally, I finished the pamphlet for the Magic Class. In other words, magic-users. The hold-up, really, was that any pamphlet meant to help beginning players create a magic-using character would necessarily have to include a short list of beginning spells, but I haven’t necessarily settled on how I want spells to work. I haven’t done much for the LZ build-a-spell system.

As it turned out, there was no room for even one-line spell descriptions, so I just needed a small table of spell names. The one included are tentative and might change. The basic naming schema is that Verb+Noun names tend to be reserved for spells that improve or add abilities, while Modifier+Noun is for spells that modify other things, and Noun+Prep+Noun usually has a spell’s form in the first noun slot (Circle, for example, creates a circular effect.) I need to work this out in more detail, however.

The part most people will find interesting is the inclusion of Alchemists and Witches as variant classes. If you use another OD&D-compatible spell list while waiting for the Liber Zero version, you should be able to start playing these now.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

    

    

Other
Liber Zero
Reference
Sheets

    

About
Liber Zero
material

    

Other PDFs

Saving Throws as Attack Rolls

Everyone wants to simplify the way saving throws work, but the approaches I’ve seen all leave something to be desired. The single target number save system is just too simplistic, when it’s not the original system in disguise. The Fortitude/Reflex/Will system adds saving throws where I don’t want them, and I vehemently object to Will as a category.

How about this?

It merges the saving throw table with the attack table by equating saving throw categories to types of armor. It assumes the following for normal humans:

• Save vs. Magic or Dragon Breath is as difficult as “to hit” vs. Heavy armor (plate,)
• Save vs. Stone or Wands is as difficult as Medium armor (chain,)
• Save vs. Death is as difficult as Light armor (Leather.)

Character classes would get bonuses for some categories: Wands and Dragon Breath for Fighters, Magic and Death for Clerics, Stone and Magic for Magic-Users. Thieves could get a bonus to Wands and Death.

Since this is a dice-neutral table, the exact bonus depends on what dice you are rolling for attacks and saves. A +1 or +2 would do in most cases. The M-U save vs. Magic bonus should be Level/4 (round up) if you want it to be closer to the original probabilities. Or, as an alternative, you can use the advantage system on one or both of a class’s favored saves, rolling twice and taking the best, which will give a much greater benefit than a simple +2.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

My Top 5 Fixes for OD&D

On the OD&D forums, there’s a thread asking for everyone’s “top five” fixes for OD&D. I answered there, but thought I should preserve the answers here for posterity. Most of my fixes involve more than one change, so I suppose some might consider that “cheating”.

Assuming we’re starting from the original three booklets as the base, I now make these changes before adding any supplemental material (from Greyhawk, for example.)

1. Corrected d6-only hit dice progression. Fighters get 1d6 per level up to 10th. Magic-Users get 1d6 every other level. Clerics are in between (2 dice every 3 levels.) M-Us and Clerics get a “loaner” hit point on levels where they don’t get a hit die. “To Hit” chances are based on hit dice, sort of like a loose interpretation of Target 20.
2. Situation Rolls. All the various probabilities for surprise, listening at doors, opening stuck doors, wandering monster rolls, and so on are regularized to 5+ on 1d6. Anytime I decide something could go wrong with an action or players have a slight chance of escaping a bad situation, I pretty much use that roll.
3. Magic Scrolls. Only magic-users can make magic scrolls of any type, including cleric scrolls. Magic-users can use any scroll type, Clerics can use cleric magic scrolls, and anyone can use protection scrolls or curses. Magic-users can make scrolls at any level, as per Holmes Basic, but only of spells they know or research. Spells above 6th level can’t be memorized, only cast from scrolls.
4. Clerics Without Spells. Clerics don’t memorize spells, but use the Turn Undead roll to pray for miracles. Use the reaction roll table as a replacement, 2d6 + 2 * (cleric level - spell level or undead hit dice). 9+ means spell is cast or undead is turned. The first time a cleric gets a 6-8 result, the spell asked for is cast, but never again for the rest of the adventure. On a 2, the cleric falls from grace and loses all powers. Praying at an appropriate shrine and otherwise fulfilling religious duties erases all penalties and starts over if a 9+ on the reaction roll is rolled. (The link is to the first post of many about using Clerics Without Spells, but these rules represent my current thinking.)
5. Corrected Armor/Shields. Leather armor has no move penalty for fighters, -3 Move for everyone else. All metal armor halves base Move. Magic-Users (and some custom classes) halve Move again and must rest 2 turns out of every 6 when wearing metal armor because of fatigue. (I use this general fatigue rule elsewhere, too.) Shields shall be splintered, but only for fighters.

The hit dice fix was something I talked about back when I was doing the clone project/Liber Zero, but is kind of spread out across several posts. Situation rolls also showed up in that discussion, but long-time readers will recognize that 5+ on 1d6 roll as something I’ve used in many, many posts.

There are certainly other, lesser fixes, some of which are still in the midst of being tweaked. Some things I also add are background professions, special abilities of weapons that take effect when damage is 5+ or when a critical hit is rolled, changes to Read Magic and the way spells are learned.

Most of the changes to damage, combat, and ability scores from Greyhawk are ignored. Thieves are still being tweaked, but they get the same hit dice as Magic-Users. A lot of custom classes wind up being Thieves or Clerics with replacement abilities. New spells from the supplements might require reworking before I use them, but new monsters and magic items are generally OK.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Re-Thinking XP and Hit Dice

I did not have any spare writing time this week, so here’s just a quick note about XP. I like using these three XP progressions the best:

Level	Fighter XP	Cleric XP	Thief XP
1	0-1,999	0-1,499	0-999
2	2,000+	1,500+	1,000+
3	4,000+	3,000+	2,000+
4	8,000+	6,000+	4,000+

Now, previously, I figured out that magic-user XP works out to 125% of fighter XP. But I’m tempted to simplify things this way: get rid of the fighter XP column entirely and express all XP in terms of two columns:

Level	XP	Hybrid XP
1	0	0
2	1,000	1,500
3	2,000	3,000
4	4,000	6,000

Basic mundane classes, like thieves, use the main XP column. Heroic mundane classes, like fighters, shift down one row. Those in between, like clerics, shift over one column instead. And full-fledged spell-casters add the two columns.

Hit dice requires a slightly trickier table. Here, each level has two rows. Again, use the hit dice in the main HD column for basic mundane classes, but use the first of the two rows. Shift down one row for heroic mundane classes. Hybrid classes shift over one column. Full-fledged spell-casters use the same HD as basic mundane classes.

Level	HD	Hybrid HD
1	1	1
	1+1
2	1+1	2
	2
3	2	2+1
	3
4	2+1	3+1
	4+1
5	3	4
	5
6	3+1	4+1
	6
7	4	5+1
	7+1
8	4+1	6
	8
9	5	7
	9
10	5+1	7+1
	10+1

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Elven Hit Dice

An old topic came up again elsewhere: how do you figure out the hit points of elf characters in OD&D?

In Vol. I: Men & Magic, the description of player-character elves is pretty short:

Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero) nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other usual tongues.

That’s actually not that complicated. They start out as one of two classes, can switch to the other class between adventures (in other words, in town,) and can use equipment and abilities of either of their classes, in exchange for level limits. People make this a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

“But what about hit points?” is the objection people raise. “How do you know which hit dice to roll for hit points?”

Think about non-elves who switch classes for a moment. A 3rd level human fighter with a 16 Intelligence decides to become a magic-user. How would you figure out that character’s hit points, without overthinking the process? At 3rd level, a fighter has 3 hit dice, so their hit points range from 3 to 18 (average 10.5) using the old M&M hit dice progression. Then the fighter becomes a 1st level magic-user, which only has 1 hit die. They wouldn’t lose their existing hit points, but they wouldn’t gain any, either. Three hit dice is more that 1 hit die, so just keep what hit points they have until they hit 6th level, when a magic-user gets 3+1 hit dice, which is more than the 3 hit dice of a fighter. Not complicated.

An elf would work the same way. The only difference is that an elf can switch back and forth, but each time, they keep their current hit points, and only add hit points when they earn more hit dice than what they started with.

The other option, one I think Gygax mentioned in an early Strategic Review or Dragon article, is to roll for both classes and average them together. That’s a little too complicated, but if you are using the Greyhawk supplement, it becomes easy: fighters get d8 for hit dice, magic-users get d4 for hit dice, and the average of a d8 and d4 is a d6. Just give them as many d6s as their highest class level. This is what the race-as-class elves in later editions of the Basic D&D line does. For OD&D, with its separate tracking of levels for each class, this helps compensate for the elf’s advantages; elves take much longer to increase their hit points than would a human of any class.

Rituals Gone Wrong

Since the undead project is going along reasonably well (20% of content done, maybe?) and the next big project is the cleric/spirits project, I’ve been thinking a bit about what should go into it. Yes, it’s basically an expansion of Clerics Without Spells, so that will be in there. And yes, at least some of the classes that use the same mechanic will be in there (Druid, Weather-Worker, Beast-Master, Necromancer, Mesmerist.)

But clerics are about more than just that. Priests fulfill a role in society, basically maintaining the social structure. They officiate at social transition moments: rites of passage, weddings, funerals, investitures, christenings, seasonal rites. And these are traditionally avoided by RPGs.

The few times I’ve seen anything about rites performed by priests, it’s presented in one of two ways:

1. As a narrative device. How to include weddings and funerals in your game to make your campaign feel more alive.
2. As yet another combat aid. Get a +2 bonus on all rolls if you participated in a wedding within the last week.

But instead of looking at the rites themselves as add-ons, maybe we should be looking at the transitions they mark. When a baby is born, a couple form a relationship, or a person dies, or when farmers are about to plant or harvest, societies see these as important events that need to be surrounded by ritual. If they aren’t, bad things can happen, at least from the viewpoint of tribal, ancient, or medieval cultures. So what happens?

The quick fix is to assume there’s a chance of being cursed every time you pass through a transition. Make a reaction roll, for example the standard 2d6 one from OD&D. On a Very Bad reaction (2, for a 2d6 roll,) everyone involved in the transition is cursed. Or, if it is a land-related event (planting season, harvest,) the land itself is cursed.

The trick is that, if there is no ritual observed, either the result rolled is halved, or the GM rolls half as many dice. This increases the chances of rolling a Very Bad result: for the 2d6 roll, there’s a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a 2 or less.

At the very least, curses should shift any reaction roll down one category, or cause disadvantage for games like D&D 5e. Things can go wrong in other ways, too. For example, weapons can break or be knocked out of a PC’s hand when damage rolled is 1. In Our Undying Neighbors, I make a big deal about Animate Dead and Raise Dead spells having a chance of creating undead when cast under the influence of a curse.

Obviously, this can be fleshed out a lot more. And eventually, that will be my job.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Combat Expertise for Fighters

Some people worry about fighters not being interesting enough. One of the many solutions suggested is increasing their damage output.

I use a simple damage table for monsters based on their hit dice: 1d6 for creatures of 1 to 4 hit dice, plus 1 point of damage per hit die thereafter, or a full die of damage per 4 hit dice. I’ve been tempted to apply something like that to fighters, but felt it lacked something. But this looks like a viable solution.

Fighters can use any weapon of any of type: bows, melee, thrown, pole arms, and miscellaneous others. Each fighter has expertise in one of those types and does +1 damage with that weapon at 1st through 5th levels, At higher levels, they do an additional +1 damage every level. Convert every 4 points of bonus damage into a standard +1d6 damage. This translates into the following table.

Level	Damage
1 to 5	1+1
6	1+2
7	2-1
8	2
9	2+1
10	2+2
11	3-1
12	3

It’s possible to add expertise in additional weapon types beyond the first at great expense, or even to add unusual combat skills to weapons fighters already have expertise in. Rather than muck everything up with feats or abilities gained at specific levels, just use the training rules to add as many combat skills and expertise as desired, limited only by time and money.

This is all in addition to the multiple opponent rule:

When facing multiple normal opponents of 1 or 1-1 hit dice, fighters make a single attack against a number of targets equal to their level, doing the same amount of damage to all targets. For weaker creatures (1-2 hit dice or less,) they attack twice as many targets. All targets have to be the same kind of creature, and cannot be magical, supernatural, or have levels in a character class. Armor type must be the same, or optionally the attack is rolled against the target with the best armor type.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Re-Examining the Cleric Without Spells Gimmick

The thing about the “Cleric Without Spells” concept that I think people are finding intriguing is not the trivial aspect of not having cleric spells. Technically, I didn’t get rid of cleric spells at all when I wrote that post. I used the existing spells as a guide to see how likely it would be for the cleric’s s request for a miracle to be granted.

No, what I think people are looking for is a cleric that feels different from magic-users. Not just another class that has a different spell list, but one that has a different approach to supernatural power.

What I’m wondering, though, as I consider ways to develop the idea further, is: how different do other, similar classes have to be to likewise feel different and not just a retread?

Shortly after the original “Clerics Without Spells”, I did write-ups on a couple other classes that used the reaction roll/turn undead mechanic:

• Mesmerist (hypnotizes people for mind control/illusion effects)
• Weather Worker (bargains with spirits for weather changes)
• Necrocmancer (controls spirits of the dead)
• Beast Master (charms wild animals, controls animal helpers, shapeshifts)

These classes don’t all use the exact same rules. Mesmerists are the closest to clerics, in the sense that they use a reaction roll + the Illusionist spell list to effect their powers. Weather Workers are similar, but needed some weather-working spells as a guide to what they could do. Necromancers aren’t too far off, but have no special spell list, just using a selection from the M-U list. Beast Masters have no spells, just some rules on how to implement their ability to speak with, charm, or evoke beasts and beast-powers.

But how desirable are these classes, really? Will they feel different enough?

That’s a big question I’m going to need to answer.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.