Elven Beef

More thoughts on the AD&D game...

My son's character is an elven fighter. Not a multiclass character, just a fighter.  

He is a beast.

Back in the day (ah, the days of youth) such a character would never have existed in our campaigns. Never did exist...not even as an NPC. Oh, I think my half-elf's elven father was a general in the elven military (if I remember correctly) which would probably have made him a "straight fighter," but he never made an appearance except for a note on my character sheet. They were estranged after all.

[yes, backstory. We were dumb kids back then...and anyway, it ended up having zero impact on the game, except perhaps explaining why my character was out adventuring]

Certainly, we would never deign to use an elf fighter as a player character.  For multiple reasons: level restrictions first and foremost. Limits to the race's strength score is another (how can you fight if you can't hit?). And there was definitely a bad taste left over in our mouths from our B/X days, which we played prior to AD&D: the "elf" class is paper-thin (1d6 hit points per level) despite being expected to melee, and it takes twice as long to advance as a "normal" (i.e. human) fighter.

But level restriction was the main issue. When we sat down to the table, our intention was to be in the game for the long haul...thoughts of death or retirement were far from our minds! And none of us considered our D&D play to be a short-term, passing fancy thing... SO, any character "type" (race-class combo) that didn't allow unlimited level advancement was deemed as wholly undesirable. Ours was a human-centric game (as Gygax fully intended), though there were of course halfling thieves and half-elf bards, too.

My kids, though, don't think like that...at least not yet. The game is far too new for them still. Images and ideas fire their imaginations, not the raw heft of mechanics. My daughter is playing a halfling because, when I was toying with the idea of running a Dragonlance campaign I told them about kender; now, she insists her PC is a "kindr halfling" (pronounced "kinn-der"). She is, at once, both the most cowardly and most foolhardy example of a PC I can ever remember seeing in a game, and certainly deserves a post of her own.

The boy says his
character looks
like this dude.

Meanwhile, my boy prefers the fighter class (chip off the ol' block there) but wanted to be an elf. Unlike his sister, Diego did have an idea of the level restrictions...with only a 17 strength, I made it clear that the character would be limited to 6th level. However, I'm not sure he had all that much faith in his ability to reach such lofty heights; I don't recall any of his past characters making it past 4th level.

[reading over my shoulder, Diego just corrected me...he never had a character go past 3rd level]

Welp, as I wrote the other day, AD&D is far more survivable than many folks (including myself) give it credit for, and the kid has managed to amass nearly 27,000 x.p.. Fast approaching 6th level (at 35K), the end of his career is in sight, and I would not be surprised to see him hitting his limit after 2-3 more sessions, depending on what treasure they discover.

How? How does a lowly elven fighter, with a constitution penalty and a lack of exceptional strength manage to survive and thrive? This is a character that didn't even achieve proficiency with a longsword until 4th level (choosing short sword, hand axe, dagger, and short bow as his initial weapons), a character who eschews armor heavier than leather and shield, a character whose "party" has, for the most part, consisted of a halfling and two or three hirelings. How does he make it work?

Turns out, the elf has a lot of advantageous features for the player who doesn't have preconceived notions of the fighter's "role" in an adventuring party. Elves in non-metal armor move almost silently, surprising monsters on a 4 in 6 chance most of the time. Elves' +1 bonus with bows relates to any bow, not just the long bow, and the racial dexterity bonus makes them even better sharpshooters (especially given their infravision). The boy's character, in fact, has a dexterity of 18 because of the bonus, meaning he is almost never surprised himself (reaction bonus of AD&D) and enjoys an armor class equivalent to plate armor when using a shield...and that was before he found leather armor +1. Against goblins and giant rats...not-unusual-monsters for low-level adventures...he makes a number of attacks equal to his level, and the +1 to hit and damage from his strength made him a killing machine against such creatures...much more so after the party recovered a hand axe +1 from a goblin chieftain. 

But it's the staying power that has really impressed. A 90% resistance to sleep and charm spells is nothing to sneer at when these are the exact types of spells low-level sorcerers generally employ against  parties of invaders. And with a 16 constitution and d10s rolled for hit points, the character can take more damage than the average B/X elf of twice his level (34 at 4th level; currently 40 at 5th). That's huge. 

Of course, there're the bonus languages as well...being able to speak gnoll, goblin, orc, and hobgoblin has enabled the character (with stealth and the demihuman hearing bonus) to effectively spy on humanoid opponents and understand the tactics and commands they communicate in pitched combat. Good intel is always valuable, as is the ability to speak with foes (and potential foes) negotiating both terms for surrender and deals to preclude bloodshed. 

All of which has gone a long way to proving the basic elf fighter is an extremely viable character type. Which I wouldn't have thought possible before. 

Right, so...that's all I have time for today. Need to clean the kitchen so I can bake some gingerbread cookies.

: )

One Man Army

Once again, I find myself marveling at the elegant simplicity of the D&D combat system.

It's just so lovely how two fighters, equally armed and armored, will have a (roughly) 50-50 chance at killing each other. Certainly, one might get lucky (or unlucky)...in fact, luck will (in such circumstances) be the deciding factor in their battle, assuming neither chooses to withdraw. And having more experience simply prolongs their struggle, as well it should.

But how does D&D model combat against non-fighters? Pretty good, in my opinion.

Mail armor...what most D&D books refer to (redundantly and incorrectly as chain mail) was really, really good stuff. Nearly impenetrable to most weapons of its time, requiring both specialized tools and tactics to harm a human so armored. Is an "armor class" of 5 sufficient to model this? Even an untrained combatant (what B/X calls a "normal human") can land a successful attack against a veteran (1st level fighter) in mail with a D20 roll of 15, 16 if the vet carries a shield. 16? That's a 25% chance to hit (1 chance in 4) with a decent probability of the blow being a killing stroke!

But let's talk law of averages here. Played "by the book" a first level fighter has an average of 5.5 hit points (1d8 roll, discarding 1s and 2s). Assuming average damage from the untrained opponent (3.5, average for a 1d6 roll), it will take the guy on average 6.3 combat rounds to finish a veteran dressed in mail and using a shield. How much damage will the veteran inflict upon unarmored opponents in six rounds? 11.55 on average, enough to kill nearly five "normal" humans. And that's assuming you're using 1d6 damage and no bonus for high strength; a 1d8 damage sword coupled with 13 strength (+1 attack and damage in B/X) pushes the damage output up enough to fell nearly eight (7.92) normal men whose average hit points are 2.5 each.

Of course, being B/X, you can't kill more than one peasant per round.

Still six men dead in sixty seconds...not too shabby for a 1st level fighter, and a testament to the fighter's training and equipment. And adding extra armor, beefier weapons, and more combat experience simply increases this lethality.

"But D&D is so deadly to low-level characters!" Sure it is...if you're entering the lair of a manticore or a nest of orcs with naught but a couple buddies at your back. Yes, getting mauled by a tiger or bear will probably mean the end of our poor veteran, mail dressed or not...and that seems pretty true to reality, no? It would take a pretty high level hero (and/or one armed with magical equipment) to face such a foe and live to celebrate victory. As it should be.

Against non-supernatural horrors and the majority of gentlefolk met in the streets, however, the armored warrior is the Angel of Death, and should command a similar amount of respect, awe, and/or fear. Here's what's NOT realistic: law-abiding communities (especially towns and cities) allowing armored, be-weaponed slayers to roam freely and unchallenged through their streets. No such individual should be allowed entry to a temple (unless a sworn member to the church's knightly order or some such). No such individual should be granted access to a guild hall or the home of a nobleman or town official. No such individual should be allowed to shop at the public market, unmolested by local militia (who are similarly armed and armored for the express purpose of dealing with threats like the character). Assuming the town has any sort of wall at all (as nearly all medieval communities larger than a village would), it's unlikely a strange warrior...or a party of them...would even be allowed to pass the gates girded for war.

Dude's a one man army, after all.

"Superheroes" get eight
attacks per round.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking about this morning. I like OD&D's multiple attacks against 1HD opponents based on fighter level, but I feel it likely needs a cap (probably around nine) and that it only really works because the OD&D combat turn ("round") is so long (1 minute, as opposed to 10 seconds in B/X). I like 10 seconds as a unit of measuring one "attack;" I think, for example, that four minutes is an extremely long time to optimally fight an ogre (one attack landing per round depleting one hit die of the monster). On the other hand, it seems to me that shoe-horning all spell-casting into 10 second rounds is a little too "cartoony" for my taste. Shouldn't it take longer to cast, a death spell or flesh to stone than a simple wave of the hand?

[yes, it probably looks fine in a cinematic scene...wizards in Thundarr doing all sorts of instantaneous, high-level hijinks. But then, cartoon sorcerers tend to shoot lasers at will, like 4E/5E cantrips, and I find THAT particular practice disgusting...]

But regardless. I like the simple fighting-person and "basic" combat system. That was the point of this post.

Building An Advanced Combat System

Things are feeling "back to normal" this morning. Kids are in school, wife's in the office, the Seahawks look good, the Raiders look like a dumpster fire. And I'm drinking coffee at the Baranof and researching stupid shit like military picks and flails.

Ah, yes...September.

I'll come right to the point: I have become fascinated over the last few days with the AD&D combat system. After reading Anthony Huso's posts on the subject multiple times, going over the actual AD&D rulebooks, and then re-reading Huso...

I kind of love it. Hell, I do love it...I kind of want it. Something like it, for sure.

I'll get to the why in a second. First I want to talk about my own AD&D experience. When I ran AD&D in my youth (from around age 11 to 16? 17? something like that), I did my best to run the game as written. Casting time and spell components? Check. Weapon speed factor and hit adjustment versus armor type? Check. Potion miscibility, psionics, wandering harlots? Yes, the whole nine yards. Did I screw up? Yes, sure, often. Did I get better at it over the years? Yes, absolutely...I did not make myself handy spread sheets, but much of the more fiddly combat tables were on my DM screens, and other rules were easily memorized (like helmet rules) or looked up the once in a while they came up (like a character who used two weapons instead of one).

In-game we played relatively fast and loose with things like encumbrance...calculations for weight carried was done and noted between sessions not during play (so as not to grind action to a halt). Arrow counts were diligent, but we were haphazard with ration consumption. Rather than tracking light source durations, we were usually adventuring in broad daylight (low level characters spent a lot of time wandering the countryside) or were assumed (civilized subterranean races) or magically mitigated (continual light spells, etc.). Item saving throws were used when remembered and deemed applicable.

Was it crunchy? Sure. Was it tough to do? Not really. Most of the burden of crunch was on ME, as the DM...and to be perfectly honest, following the Rules As Written was probably of importance only to me. And mainly because it allowed me to be a better, more impartial arbiter of the game.

I was not thinking in terms of what the system modeled or how rules were justified. I was not worried about offering players meaningful choices or adding challenge to the game. I wasn't concerned with that kind of thing, no more than I was concerned with writing "story arcs," or worrying about plots and pacing. I simply wanted to run the game by the instruction manual. That was plenty fun. When I stopped running AD&D, sometime in my teens, it wasn't because I was tired of the system or its complexity. It was instead due to a shift in interest, a change in social circle, and the appearance of other games that sparked my passion (like Vampire or Rifts or Stormbringer). If I had gone to high school and college with the same friends I had in middle school, I might well have continued playing AD&D.

How strange and different my life might be today. I've changed, grown, and evolved a lot since the age of 15...and from when I was 25. And from when I was 35.

So what's the appeal of an "advanced" combat system now? Why move away from a B/X system that works so well? Why move back from the ten second combat round where everyone gets one "go" to a one minute combat round filled with segments and mishmash? Why move from a system with such a nice little economy of modeling reality in the abstract?

Because of those things that I didn't care about in my youth: Challenging players. Offering players  meaningful choices. Modeling a certain type of messy...and yet heroic...reality.

The fighter class is the simplest option available to the players. It is the easiest class to learn: there are no spells, no skills, no special rules. There are no limitations to the armor or weapons the class can learn, the equipment that can be carried. For the novice player, it is an excellent choice for a first character...just to learn the game (with a decent chance of survival).

And yet, even for experienced players it's a highly practical and useful class to have in the party. The ability to hit more often, inflict more damage, absorb more blows (that might otherwise kill a comrade) is immensely important to an adventuring party...and, yet, on the surface it seems to be a "boring" choice to the experienced player. Where are the cool special abilities of the ranger or paladin? The spells of the cleric or wizard? The skills and stealth of the thief? Where are the meaningful choices for the character, without resorting to a list of "feats" (i.e. martial-type spells)? It's just wade-into-combat-and-swing-sword, right?

But with an advanced system, choice reappears for the class. Choice of weapon (for speed, reach, encumbrance, and hit bonus) becomes important. Using the right weapon for the right circumstance becomes important. Weapon proficiencies become a precious commodity. All of a sudden, combat becomes a more interesting strategic and tactical exercise for ALL players...and the fighter, with her additional choices, becomes the expert at combat. I really, really like that.

And with the one minute combat round, and the addition of "fiddly" rules like segments and casting times, you start being able to model things you can't in the B/X ten second round. Like spell-casting variants based on the power/type of a spell. Power word kill isn't just devastating because of its ability to snuff an opponent...it has a one segment casting time as the wizard slays with but a single potent word of magic (compare that to the 6 segment disintegrate or death spells). Wizards have to choose between using a long-winded incantation or something short-and-sweet that has less danger of being interrupted. Dexterity bonuses to AC aren't counted for spell-casters in combat...this models a mage needing to focus and concentrate, not act like some Doctor Strange superhero, dodging and shooting lasers from his fingers. This I really like, too.

An advanced system gives real guidelines as to how movement, attacks, and spells interact. And the one minute round allows for extra actions to take place in a single "go;" drawing or sheathing a weapon, finding a potion to quaff, attempting some sort of maneuver or fancy footwork in addition to making a standard attack. I like the idea of giving players this kind of freedom, and I really like Huso's concept of initiative dice doing "double duty," establishing quality at the same time they do duty in binary fashion. A tied dice roll happens one-time-in-six...rather than see that as a simple simultaneous strike, we get to see this as "there's a one-in-six chance of something SPECIAL happening every round." A chance that speed factor and bonus attacks might come into play. Without throwing a third die.

That's pretty awesome.

There are things that Huso does that I'm not terribly interested in: he's incorporated MOST of the 1st edition rules, and I'm inclined to ignore the vast majority of the Unearthed Arcana, for example. Other things he does...like only using weapon vs. armor adjustments for player characters, not NPCs...I will totally steal. Huso's already tested his house rules (over years) and found them to be of practical value.

[I've used rules like comeliness extensively in the past...I have no need to go back to that]

But I think I'm still going to start on a smaller scale than full on 1st edition. Do I need 15 types of pole arm? Probably not. How about splinted armor? Maybe? Like Alexis, I'll probably reduce the total number of weapons available in the campaign to something that seems reasonable based on the setting (Mr. Smolensk has also customized his AD&D rules over years of play-testing and has several systems worthy of theft). I am tempted to go back to CHAINMAIL and Supplement I (Greyhawk) for the specific rules with relation to weapon adjustments.

But one minute combat rounds? With segments? Yeah, I think I'm doing it. It's not that hard to get into...I've done it before. And I was a lot less smart back in those days.
: )

Putting Some Of It Together

As the recent discussion over at The Tao illustrates, there's more than one approach to "advanced play;" playing Dungeons & Dragons in an advanced fashion isn't simply a matter of opening up your old copy of the DMG and throwing a military pick +1 into your B/X game or saying "magic-user spells go up to 9th level." Some of the rules and systems penned by Gygax are pretty gnarly and their overall level of usefulness (let alone "fun factor") is highly questionable. And yet some of the AD&D stuff IS useful and worthy of purloining.

I think that, for any would-be redesigned and world builder, it's important to understand the evolution of the game. Okay, "important" is probably the wrong word...how about just "a good thing." AD&D didn't just arise out of a vacuum...in fact, NONE of the various editions of D&D did. All of them were built upon the foundations of earlier works. In addition to nefarious business reasons, the MAIN reason Gygax wrote his original volumes was to help tie together the copious, scattered rules haphazardly printed in a number of publications, and organize and implement them in a coherent, consistent fashion...PLUS add additional "necessaries" (not to mention his own ideas and philosophies of game play) to fill in specific blanks and thereby provide a (fairly) complete game system in a polished, professional package.

People can argue Gygax's success in this endeavor, but personally I think the results speak for themselves. First edition AD&D had the longest tenure of any edition, including its years of greatest (relative) success and popularity, and probably could have continued longer if not for specific (and debatable) business decisions.  It's still the foundational version of many players' home games, which might be fairly amazing...except, of course, that Dungeons & Dragons is an amazing game.

But back to the "purloin-able:" while things like ability adjustment inflation isn't really "inflation" (simply a codifying of the rules found in the supplements with the addition of "something for wisdom"), other changes...like HP inflation and adjusted combat matrices...aren't immediately clear. After some scrutiny, I find myself coming to the conclusion that they're mainly adjustments made to increase PC survivability:

• Extra hit points apply mainly to fighting types in standard "order of battle" (fighters, clerics, thieves). Meanwhile variable damage of monsters remains unchanged for the most part.
• Fighters increased chance of attack (+1 per level gained) means they'll hit more often, thus shortening battles, and reducing wear-n-tear. Note: nearly all "standard" low-level monster types (goblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres, hobgoblins, bugbears) remain unchanged in both Hit Dice and HPs from earlier editions...and the introduction of extra damage versus size L creatures also helps shorten fights with dangerous (i.e. high damage dealing) monsters.
• "Special" creatures, especially mid- to high- level undead seem to have received an INCREASED boost (most have an extra HD), probably to retain the same level threat to mid-high level characters (off-setting the additional attack/damage capability of fighter-types). However, clerics have access to more spells, and are much better fighters (equivalent to the standard fighter of earlier editions in terms of both HPs and hit probability). Thieves, while receiving extra hit points, retain the same combat progression as before albeit with a slight (-1) penalty, easily offset by the bonus received when back stabbing.

Again, I think all these adjustments are made in terms of increased survivability (i.e. increased playability for players) rather than any attempt at A) balancing the classes, or B) modeling "reality." Personally, I've long felt that B/X (aka "streamlined OD&D") does an excellent job of modeling the real world in the abstract...which is probably why it tends to be so deadly and prone to PC fatalities. The real world is less forgiving than most heroic fantasy.

All that being said, I like the idea of increasing (PC) viability, for multiple reasons: it's conducive to long-term play, it cuts down on player frustration, it (theoretically) increases player "boldness" thus contributing to the pace of play. And taking Gygax's professed tactic from his later years (using OD&D but starting PCs at 3rd level) is not to my taste at this time; I really, really want players to start from zero. But how to reconcile this inflated combat ability with abstract modeling?

Here's the thing: it's actually helped by my proposed South American setting. Hit points are an abstract concept when it comes to PCs anyway (representing a variety of factors, not just "meat" to be carved). D&D generally assumes PCs will be meeting humans of like-technology (warlords fighting warlords), not steel versus cloth & bronze. The Europeans steel armor, long swords, and firearms gave them a slight edge versus the indigenous Americans, small enough to model using the B/X variable weapon damage versus the increased HPs found in AD&D. For example:

Incan Weapons: short bow (d6), sling (d4), javelin (d4), spear (d6), hand axe (d6), battle axe (d8), club (d4), porra (2-handed club) (d6), bola (d2+entangle)

European Weapons: long sword (d8), dagger (d4), crossbow (d6), arquebus (d8), pike/lance (d6), halberd (d10)

A typical butcher.

As can be seen, most weapons in the Incan arsenal are in the d4 or d6 range (as would the weapons of most indigenous American peoples) while the Europeans' average is much closer to d8. Given that I would provide fighters from both sides with d10 hit dice, this still works out to be a small advantage for the conquistadors, easily overcome (as in history) by the numeric advantage enjoyed by the native peoples.

I'm slightly less keen on the combat tables themselves. I like the granularity of the fighter matrix, but the range of armor classes is too broad as is (I think) the range of progression. There's just only so much skill at fighting a person can acquire, and the extra numbers mean little unless you have armor classes in that -4 (or lower) range. And just what is that supposed to represent anyway? A creature moving impossibly fast? How would strength increase your ability to hit that? A creature with super impenetrable skin or wearing titanium power armor? Why not simply say "magic weapons required" to hit the thing?

Ideally, I'd use some sort of table that compares weapon type to armor type and adjust the target number based on class & level (as Oakes Spaulding did in his Seven Voyages of Zylarthen). However, I don't want to have to redo the tables every time a new type of armor or weapon gets introduced, and the system is much less effective against monsters with natural attacks, so rather than open that can of worms I'll stick with "playability" and stick with the B/X tables, perhaps with minor adjustment. I do want to take into account the historical armor of the time on both sides of the battlefield, and that's going to take a little adjustment from the usual leather-chain-plate paradigm.

[it may come as a surprise to some folks that the Incans wore body armor: a form of quilted fabric that was extremely effective (like ancient kevlar) at stopping attacks from spears and arrows. It proved slightly less effective against the long swords and firearms of the Spaniards, but even many conquistadors later adopted it as armor, being far more comfortable for the climate, and a perfectly effective at defense against native missile weapons. Alexander the Great is said to have worn something similar called linothorax. The Incans had a good command of metallurgy, using bronze for their spears, axes, and arrowheads; they just didn't turn it into breastplates]

Anyway, that's some of the stuff I'm doing. I'm also continuing work on the geography of the setting. Jesus, South America is a big continent. That makes for a lot of room to play with, but a ton of area to map (downloaded this hex program and it took me a day just to get a basic overview...at 60ish miles per hex!). Right now, I'm feeling like the official start date of the campaign should be around the beginning of 1511, around the anniversary of Juan de la Dosa's death. Darien has already been founded on the mainland by Vasco Nunez de Balboa, but most of the European "civilization" is still happening on the islands in the Caribbean. Pedro Arias won't arrive for about three years, the Mayans won't be found for six (except by a shipwrecked Jeronimo de Aguilar who is still residing in Darien), Cortez won't land in Veracruz for eight, and Francisco Pizarro won't reach Incan territory for 15 years.  At this point in history, there's still plenty of forays being made into the mainland wilderness but the knowledge of what's "actually out there" as fall as indigenous civilizations, is far from known, and the possibilities are still pretty wide open.

Though I'm not sure how I feel about creating alternate history (that's a subject for another post).

I'm seriously considering adapting Len Lakofka's "Lendore Isles" adventures (L1 and L2) to the Caribbean by the way. I mean, they were written for "Advanced" D&D, right? I'll talk more about that (maybe) in a future post. Also, thinking about starting a new series here at Ye Old Blog: "Get to Know a Conquistador," profiling the various slavers and treasure-hunters who pillaged their way across the Americas (usually dying in the attempt). Don't know if that sounds like "fun" to you folks, but it would certainly allow me to record some of the "fun facts" I've been digging up recently.

Later, Gators.

JB 3.5

A couple days ago I posted "my" D&D stats based on Easydamus's automated survey. The java program spit out my race, class, alignment, and stats based on the answers I gave to a 129 question quiz. The survey results are based on the 3.5 edition of D&D, but doesn't select feats or skills or equipment for your character...in other words, it ain't complete.

SO...as an exercise in mental masturbation, I went ahead and completed the guy ("me") using the 3.5 SRD and my memory of that particular edition. Here are the results:

JB (3.5)
Lawful Good Human Fighter, 6th Level

Hunting hawk not pictured.

STR 13 (+1)
DEX 16 (+3; advanced +1 at 4th level)
CON 13 (+1)
INT 14 (+2)
WIS 15 (+2)
CHA 14 (+2)

Feats (in order selected):
Combat Expertise, Dodge, Weapon Focus (Spear), Mobility, Combat Reflexes, Weapon Specialist (Spear), Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack

Skills
Climb 9 (+10), Craft (weapon smith) 9 (+11), Handle Animal 9 (+11), Intimidate 9 (+11), Jump 9 (+10)

Equipment (13,000gp worth for a 6th level character)
Breastplate +2; Frost Spear +1, Masterwork Warhammer, Dagger, Traveller's Outfit, Hunting Hawk*, 9gp

Armor Class: 21 (10 +8 (armor) +2 (enchantment) +3 (DEX) +1 (dodge))
Hit Points: 44 (based on 5.5/level after 1st)
Saves: For +6, Ref, +5, Wil +4

Weapons (BAB +6/+1)
Frost Spear +1: Attack +9/+4 (thrown +11); Damage D8+4+D6 (cold)
Masterwork Warhammer: Attack +8/+3; Damage D8+1
Dagger: +7/+2 (thrown +9); Damage D4+1

*I couldn't find a cost for a hunting hawk, though there are stats for "hawks" in the normal animal section. With a Handle Animal skill of +11, it's an easy matter to train a hawk for the "Hunting" purpose (DC 20; automatic with a take ten over six weeks). So I used the cost for a "guard dog" and figured I'd train the thing myself.

It's not a terrible build, though a fighter with STR 13 is pretty far from "optimal." Still, with the feats I've selected it's not a bad combat build on the old grid mat. Very high maneuverability (thanks to combat expertise and mobility) allows the character to get into optimal position to use his whirlwind attack against multiple opponents, and his high intimidate skill can give him an extra edge. I thought about adding improved initiative at 3rd level, but figured combat reflexes is a tighter fit, especially with the high DEX...the guy should really clean up against mobs of lesser opponents. And by "lesser" I'd probably include ogres in the mix; by fighting defensively, he should be able to hold his own against several of the big guys...especially with a couple party members to back him up.

See? I can do the 3.5 thing.

As you should be able to tell, the character is based largely on the image I pulled off the internet, especially the choice of equipment. However, I chose the image in part because I liked the gear the dude was sporting. That, and he looks badass. Just needs the bird...you have to imagine that part.

I don't have a name for the character. JB is good enough.

Madhouse

This place...Paraguay...is a madhouse. In so many ways, but today especially, what with everyone in the city preparing for yet another four day weekend. It's like the locusts have descended and are devouring everything...except we're talking the supermarkets and marketplaces, rather than the fields. All I wanted was some yogurt for the kids. And some fruit. Oh...and beer. But...just madness. These folks are preparing for siege or something.

Anyway, Tuesday is "chore day" around this neck o the woods, and the traffic and general chaos rendered it an all too "get nothing done all day" day. Which sucks but whatever. I'm in the middle of writing a waaaaay too long post on The Land of the Lost (among other things) that I started yesterday, but I don't know if/when it will get finished/posted. It may need to be serialized...but, then again, it may not be interesting enough to be worth the bother.

[ooo...which reminds me that I need to do a post about "self-doubt" one of these days]

So rather than give folks nothing, here's a fun little survey that will answer that oft-posed question to yourself, "What D&D Character Am I?" Go check it out; it's a fun little java that will spit out your class-race-alignment combo, complete with ability scores. For those who care, here's mine:

I Am A: Lawful Good Human Fighter (6th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength-13
Dexterity-15
Constitution-13
Intelligence-14
Wisdom-15
Charisma-14

Alignment:
Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Fighters can be many things, from soldiers to criminal enforcers. Some see adventure as a way to get rich, while others use their skills to protect the innocent. Fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities of the PC classes, and they are trained to use all standard weapons and armor. A fighter's rigorous martial training grants him many bonus feats as he progresses, and high-level fighters have access to special melee maneuvers and exotic weapons not available to any other character.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

The survey/game stats are D20-based and, yes, it's possible to return a multi-classed character or non-human. I should note that, according to the survey FAQ:

Adventurers tend to have higher [ability] scores than the rest of the population. This test takes that into account. The test doesn't give you your 3d6 self, but your 4d6 self. So most scores would be one or two points lower in "real" life.

Which suddenly means my ability scores make a lot more sense. I was wondering how I ended up with a 13 (above average) Strength score, for instance. Sure, I've done some yoga, but 11 seems a lot more accurate. Especially considering I was answering questions with "I'm sick most of the time," and "I have a hard time running" (in hindsight, neither of these are incredibly accurate, but they seemed better answers than my other choices. Per the FAQ, however, I was supposed to err "up" rather than down).

"Here I come to save the day..."

I was not terribly surprised by the results, however. Lawful Good is pretty close to my real life perspective (though I don't think I've ever played a D&D character that was LG), and human fighter, well...yeah. I'm kind of a neanderthal.

[I actually thought I might end up a druid with answers like "I hate the city" and "Nature is greater than Technology" and stuff. Nope. Per the detailed notes, my next highest class was a tie between Bard, Cleric, and Paladin. Yeah, I'm not really into camping]

The survey stats show that most people taking the quiz fall into the Wizard class, with the second highest being Sorcerer and Ranger. Almost no one shows up as a Barbarian (I'd think you'd have to really make a point of answering the quiz with an eye towards brutality and iconoclasm). I guess you'd expect that from an internet quiz.

All in all, it's not a terrible character...certainly playable. It's too bad it didn't pick my feats and skills for me (I guess it'd need a pretty sophisticated program to do that), but for a 6th level fighter, I suppose I could do the little work required to round it out (oh, wait...I'm human and have a +2 modifier for INT, so I've got to 5 skill points per level to figure? *sigh* maybe not). As B/X character, it would be quite good (and would work since the only fighters ARE humans). Do I really speak more than one language, though? My spanish is pretty terrible...

Like I said, I don't have much time today, so I leave you this to play with. Knock yourselves out!

[and please: if you're a regular reader here, I'd love you to post your results in the Comments section so I can better judge/pigeon-hole you in my mind's eye]
; )

Fighter Love 3: First Among Equals

Leadership. O man…another tricky topic.

I’ve run a lot of B/X games over the years for a lot of different people…and by “run” I mean “as a DM.” Small groups and large groups and ones that hung together with consistency and ones that had a constant rotating bunch of faces and more than a couple that were simply “one-offs.” The largest tables had nine or ten active players, the smallest had one. In nearly every case I can remember…and here I mean, “going back to childhood”…in every session I can recall, nearly all groups of two or more players suffered from a distinct disadvantage:

A complete lack of leadership.

Now, I am not referring to the presence of the B/X “caller.” Callers are useful…especially when dealing with a large, rowdy group that’s trying to make their intentions known over the noise of the karaoke at the bar. Especially with large groups, I’ve required the election of a caller, if only to keep some semblance of organization and efficiency. But a caller isn’t a leader; he (or she) is simply a mouth-piece for the group, the medium channeling the spirits that are the other player characters.

Don’t you folks have leaders in your lives? Authority figures…that’s what I’m talking about. People who’ve played team sports are used to deferring to a team captain on the field of play, and to a coach when off. People who work for companies or volunteer for organizations usually are beholden to someone…a boss or manager or supervisor or foreman. And military people certainly understand chain of command and following orders and the importance of both.

Because it IS advantageous to follow a leader…to have someone with an overall vision who coordinates activity and provides a direction (and directives) for activity. A coordinated team with a good leader is more efficient and more effective. I’d think that would be evident to most people just by experiencing it in their daily, real lives.

But at the gaming table? O boy…what a bunch of dithering, bickering, consensus-laden saps!

There are plenty of reasons why groups display a lack of leadership. All the players are “friends” (or maybe they aren’t, having just met each other at the table, but they would like to be), and want to consider each other equals. After all, all the players are Capital H Heroes, right? D&D is supposed to be “fun,” and telling people what to do (or taking orders from someone) creates discomfort or feelings of resentment (depending on which role you fall into). Authority figures remind people (uncomfortably) of their daily lives which they’re trying to escape in game play. Players may not be “A” type personalities (that’s usually the dude who gets assigned the gig of Dungeon Master) and aren’t used to stepping up into leadership roles…this one is especially true of kids who are more used to taking orders (from teachers, parents, coaches) than giving orders.

And perhaps for folks who learned to play D&D from a young (kid) age, this behavior of “free-for-all,” lack of leadership is simply learned behavior carried over into adulthood. ‘We never elected a leader when we played as kids, why do so now?’

Yeah, well, your characters got smoked a lot as kids and you cared a lot less about it, too. NOW, you act all cautious and shit to avoid getting killed…to the point that the whole group dithers around and is hesitant to take assertive action. At least, that’s what it feels like to me. Sure if something obvious triggers a proactive action (“A chest? I’ll search for traps!”), individuals are likely to stand forth. Otherwise, there’s simply a bunch of cautious negotiation (for the players who are wary of stepping on each other’s toes) or outright chaos (for the players inclined to “do their own thang;” though they're a rarity amongst adult gamers).

That’s been my experience, anyway. The intrepid party of adventurers is approached by a group of [insert semi-intelligent humanoid monster race]. “Should we talk with them? They might not be hostile?” “Does anyone speak their language?” “Maybe they speak common. Or we can try signing.” “Who has the highest Charisma?” [lots of consultation] “Do you want to do it or should I?” “Maybe the magic-user should have a spell ready?” “Do we know who’s going to attack if everything turns sour?” “Who’s holding the torch again?” Etc., etc.

It’s not just creature encounters, by the way. I clearly remember, while running a large group through White Plume Mountain, multiple instances when the party got “bogged down” upon being confronted by some trap or obstacle. Multiple ideas for circumventing the hazard would be hashed out, batted around, considered…but no one would make a frigging command decision. At some point, one has to act…someone needs to take charge and say, “hey, this is good enough…let’s try it.”

How many times have I heard, “let’s put it to a vote,” and wanted to pull my hair in frustration. It’s not rocket science folks, it’s D&D and things certainly don’t need to be solved by committee!

On the other hand, you do get the occasional impetuous personality who’s willing to fly off the handle (solo) and put everyone else at risk. I’ve seen this both in games I’ve played (as a player) and games I’ve run as a DM. My buddy, Steve-O, is semi-infamous for this in fact. It’s not that he gets bored or frustrated at the consensus process (Steve’s a non-conflict, Libra-type himself)…it’s just that he sees a void of action, gets an idea into his noggin, and proceeds to fill said void. Sometimes the result is a spectacular success; usually it’s the exact opposite. The thing is: Steve is perfectly happy to follow someone’s lead. I know this from having known Steve outside of gaming for more than 25 years. But no one ever attempts to rein him in. No one steps up and fills the leadership role…and neither does Steve.

[besides, it’s often humorous for everyone to see where Steve’s ideas take him. It’s just less humorous (for the players anyway), when his antics lead to a TPK or other clusterfk]

Now in addition to all the other reasons listed above, one of the problems with establishing a leader in a party…even assuming the players are mature enough people to elect someone to shogun the group, if only for a session or two…is the lack of quality examples in fantasy literature. I mean, most fantasy literature (and cinema) – which is what informs a lot of our ideas on “fantasy adventuring” – showcase a single individual, not a group of individuals. Conan. Elric. Perseus. Whatever. Sometimes there’s a pair, but usually the focus of fantasy stories is on ONE person with everyone else denoted as “side-kicks.” And D&D isn’t about “one dude plus supporting cast.” It’s a group effort. The stories told are not about a single character; they’re about what happens to an ensemble cast.

Unfortunately, other than TSR produced fiction (a la Dragonlance), there’s only one place to find an “ensemble group of equals,” and that’s the prototypical adventuring party found in the prototypical dungeon detailed in Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring. The fellowship consists of an all-star group of adventurers: a couple of heroic warriors, a dwarf and an elf, a wizard, as well as several hobbits (not a single one of which is a thief, by the way). And as a bonafide “fellowship,” everyone’s on a more-or-less equal footing with each other (it helps that most of the characters are princes or royalty in their own way). Sure, most of the group defer to Aragorn, who in turn defers to Gandalf…but Gandalf often asks Frodo what he feels is the best or correct course of action. In the end, of course, the fellowship splinters, but it operates effectively with its “group of peers” attitude, while it lasts.

BECAUSE IT’S AN F’ING FAIRY TALE NOVEL, PEOPLE.

Written by one guy (Tolkien) with a single agenda (as the author) to spin a good yarn. Real human beings don’t function so well as a true democracy…at least, they tend to be a lot less effective without a brain directing the body.

So then what’s the answer to the quandary? And what (if anything) does it have to do with fighters?

[*inhale*] Okay, here goes:

First off, I think it behooves a group of players to elect a leader from amongst themselves. Now, the leader may only be temporary…should, in fact, only be allowed to remain in power as long as he (or she) is doing a good job…and may only be for a single session. Now a GOOD leader isn’t a domineering tyrant…the wise leader will ask input from his (or her) fellows in order to make decisions, and will respect the opinions of those in the group.

Because truly the player characters ARE all equal…at least in the terms that they are all ambitious, special, and uniquely talented individuals, heroically braving dangers that normal folks wouldn’t dare to encounter.

Okay, having said that a good leader should listen to the opinions of his or her peers, the leader still has to LEAD. That is, the leader has to be decisive…has to make decisions and then pull the trigger and have those decisions executed by the other party members. Assuming the player is elected to the position by the other participants at the table, those “other participants” have to abide by the leader’s decisions…at least until those decisions prove the leader inept, incompetent, or morally corrupt.

[and even in those cases, it might be best for the leader to remain in charge, depending on the alternatives available!]

The leader should not be a “consensus builder.” Adventuring (especially underground) is the fantasy equivalent of being on a war-time mission, more often than not, and is neither the time nor place for facilitating a brainstorming session. For this reason, the choice of leader should often be informed by the experience of the possible candidates…that is, it’s useful to have a player with more experience (not “experience points” but real, gaming experience) act as the leader. But what about when all the players have roughly the same general knowledge base? Because (as I mentioned earlier) B/X isn’t rocket science, and a person who’s played for six months (or less) will probably know as much as the guy who’s played six years (or more).

Well, after experience, I'd say the choice of leadership more often than not should come down to a question of temperament. Who’s willing to take charge? Who’s untroubled by conflict and willing to become embroiled in confrontation? Who’s ready to stick their neck out and lead by example?

From a game mechanics point of view, the character best suited for the gig is the fighter.

Why the fighter? Why not the intelligent wizard or the wise cleric or the crafty thief? Why the blunt instrument fighter? Because the fighter is best equipped for the job. A character’s ability scores (great knowledge or spiritual understanding) don’t translate to any of those intangibles that make a good leader, they simply give bonuses to languages known and saving throws. The fighter, by the nature of the class, suits the temperament of decisiveness needed for a leader. They are designed for staying power, with their high armor class and hit points. They are built to forge ahead into the thick of battle, with their high strength and attack abilities. The are able to amass power (at high levels) by carving out a barony, attracting troops and vassals to their banner, and making war as needed.

The magic-user is powerful and intelligent, but too weak and easily killed to lead. The cleric is tough, but is looked to for support, especially as he gains in level, and often has his attention divided. The thief, while clever, is seldom considered trustworthy, and suffers from the same fragility as the magic-user. And the demihumans are limited in the role they can play over-time, both due to their level restrictions and their inhuman nature (at least in a campaign world dominated by the usual human settlements).

The fighter is used to taking the lead, literally. Walking point and kicking in doors is a lot easier for an individual with a high strength and wearing plate armor. Assuming the player has the experience and know-how of the game (and is not the newbie at the gaming table, given that “simple, easy role” that undermines the perceived value of the fighter), the player should have the built-in temperament for leadership that comes from choosing the fighter class. Decisive? The fighter is the epitome of the Gordian-knot-solver!

It only makes sense to give the mantle of leadership to the fighter of the party…assuming the players are ready to make the smart move of electing a leader. Best make sure the PC is worth the title.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

Fighter Love 2: Combat Stunts

We’ll start out our fighter love series with that house rule I talked about ripping off from Jon in my last post.

 One of the things I liked about DCC (yes, there are/were SOME things I liked about DCC) was the concept of special combat maneuvers for fighters, as well as the gradual increase in ability to perform those combat maneuvers. Having said that, I found the execution of those combat maneuvers (in play) to be frustrating in two regards:

1. They happened too infrequently.
2. Their effects were too limited (too rigidly or narrowly defined). 

But again (and just to emphasize) it’s the execution that tanks. The concept, the idea, is an excellent one:

• It makes the fighter “special” in combat (where fighting should be the fighter’s specialty).
• It gives a mechanic that can “spruce up” battle (less “boring”).
• It adds another bennie that “levels up” (development/growth over time).

Currently, there is a certain “dullness” to Old School combat, only flavored/colored by the narrative of the DM and players. Now, yes, this can still be plenty exciting, especially at lower levels with dangerous encounters when a lucky blow can (or two) can knock a PC dead. But sometimes it would be nice to do a “special effect” with your attack, similar to DCC’s Mighty Deeds of Arms which include (for those who don’t know) blinding attacks, tripping and throws, push backs, disarms, troop rallying, precision shots, and defensive maneuvers. Done with a little tactical cunning, these things can add to a party’s effectiveness in addition to making the “hit point attrition mini-game” a little more interesting.

Because – especially at high levels, and when fighting large monsters – the steady drone of clacking dice and counting HPs becomes tiresome. How many successful attacks does it take to take down a 20 hit die T-Rex? Wouldn’t it be nice to blind the thing or do that cinematic maneuver where you jam something in its mouth (like a big bone or tree branch) to keep it from biting? Is there a way for the heroic fighter to defeat such a monster in heroic (and clever) fashion, rather than just standing toe-to-toe and swinging away? I’d prefer there to be something for the fighter, rather than just waiting for the spell-user to neutralize the big threat…why must my fighter be nothing more than a glorified bodyguard for the artillery?

So, yeah: combat stunts. That’s what I’m talking about. Interesting “add-ons” to the standard attack roll-damage roll game mechanic found in B/X.

Jon’s idea (if I’m remembering correctly) was to roll two different D20s for an attack roll, one a “regular attack die” and one a “special attack die.” If the “special” D20 scored a “hit” you could attach an effect of some sort to the opponent, even if you failed to do damage with your “normal D20” (i.e. even if you rolled a miss). The example he gave might be something like tossing sand in the opponent’s eyes so they suffer an attack penalty in the next round. If you succeeded with both rolls, you got to add damage, too. If you succeeded with the attack die, but failed with the special attack, you’d do normal damage without any added effect.

All that is too complex for my brain to remember, plus I hate asking players to call colors and whatnot (“Which die is the special attack? Which die is the normal attack?”). So here’s my riff:

-        Your character can choose whether or not to do a combat stunt.

-        If you choose to do a stunt, roll 2D20 for your attack instead of 1D20.

-        If both D20s (with normal bonuses) result in “hits” you can narrate your combat effect.

-        If either D20 misses, your attack misses.

-        A successful combat stunt always does normal damage, unless you choose otherwise.

[regarding normal damage: remember that I generally use the D6 default as standard in my B/X games or D8 for slow, two-handed weapons. I might adapt this as well saying, "you can do D8 damage if you choose a slow stunt" acting at the end of the round]

The B/X Companion has two-weapon rules.

This for me is simple and straight-forward. There’s a little risk-reward going on here (it’s easier to roll a hit with one D20 as opposed to two). Fighters, who have better attack rolls, will have an easier time succeeding at combat stunts…and their ability to DO those combat stunts will get easier as they go up in level. Yet other adventurers can still try stunts, too.

Most combat stunts will probably be used in melee, seeing as how fighters (with their high prime requisite STR) will have a better attack roll in melee, but archer-types with high DEX might well attempt “ranged disarms” and “bullseye” type shots. Here are some ideas of the types of stunts that I'd allow:

Cripple: used to give a character a penalty for the remainder of the combat, no more than -2 (though additional crippling results might be cumulative). This could represent a cut that drips blood in the eyes, knee-capping or stomping an ankle, or giving someone a nagging wound of some sort. The opponent can withdraw and spend D4 rounds of self-ministering to recover from the crippling attack.

Delay: a temporary “stun” attack that prevents the creature from taking any action for a single round. This could be a kick in the groin, a trip attack, sand in the face, or a stick in the craw of a large monster (like a T-Rex). The creature cannot move or attack (or cast spells) while delayed. Usually only a single delay can be performed on the same opponent in a single combat. If the combat stunt occurs at the end of the combat round (after the opponent’s normal action), the opponent is delayed in the following round.

Disarm: usable against opponent’s with weapons only, though it may be possible to maim a claw/claw/bite creature’s natural attack (broken wrist, for example). If the disarm is temporary (the opponent’s weapon can be retrieved), the stunt automatically works. If the disarm is permanent for the remainder of the combat (breaking an opponent’s weapon, crippling an opponent’s natural attack), then the opponent is allowed a save versus wands to resist.

Hamper: hamstring an opponent (or leave a dagger in its paw or similar) to limit its movement. The opponent’s movement rate is halved for the remainder of the combat and for one turn thereafter.

Incapacitate: a knock-out blow of some sort. The character must have equal (or more) levels compared to the level or HD of the opponent; for example, a 3^rd level fighter can’t knock-out an ogre. Giant monsters (larger than 7 hit dice), may be immune to this combat stunt unless the PC can provide some justification (like using a girdle of giant strength to slug the creature with a tree trunk or boulder). The opponent is allowed a save versus poison to resist this stunt. The creature wakes up shortly after the combat ends.

Intimidate: perform some incredibly intricate attack or maneuver to break the will of the opponent. If successful, the opponent must make a morale check. This combat stunt only works on opponents with fewer HD/levels than the PC performing the stunt. The morale check may be adjusted if the opponents outnumber the PC or PC’s party. When attempting to intimidate a group of opponents, the stunt must be performed against the leader of the opponents (i.e. the attack roll is made against the biggest badass of the opposing side).

Push: maneuver the opponent in the direction desired, driven and directed by the PC performing the stunt. This can force a creature back over a ledge, or back into a bottle-neck area (like a doorway), or turn a creature so a buddy thief can backstab the opponent.

Take-Down: this combines both the delay and push combat stunts as the character takes the opponent to the ground; the difference is that the PC goes down with the creature and must spend a round (their next available action) in order to regain his or her feet. The PC can decide to maintain the take-down, taking no other action, in order to keep the opponent on the ground in subsequent rounds, but the opponent is only delayed for a single action and may proceed to attack the PC while on the ground.

Okay, that’s all I’ve got off the top of my head for combat stunts (though others may think of others that don’t fit into these categories). I haven’t had a chance to play-test any of these yet, so I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has a chance to use them.

More fighter stuff sometime in the near future!

: )

Fighter Love

[boy, it sure has been a week for puncture wounds and bleeding. I won't go into it at the moment...we're all alive and well...but, well, take my word for it]

I know there are plenty of readers (or, at least, subscribers) who continue to play B/X as their game/edition of choice and who wish I would continue to put out more B/X content. And that’s not an unreasonable demand…I mean, the blog IS billed as “B/X Blackrazor,” right?

The thing is B/X is the origin of my “fantasy gaming” passion. B/X was the first RPG I learned and played…it’s how I cut my teeth on the hobby. Even when I (in my childhood) moved into Advanced D&D game play, I (and my fellow players) brought a lot of B/X sensibilities. When rules in the advanced game didn’t make sense or were incomprehensible to our twelve year old minds, we would default back to B/X for our rules frame despite that (as young teens) we were scoffing at the idea of “race as class.”

I still carry those B/X sensibilities with me. I’m writing new games and new rules and new systems, but I’m drawing them up in comparison to B/X. Even DMI which has card mechanics unlike anything in B/X still has pieces of B/X (like class and level and random tables, depending on the version). B/X is my foundation of gaming. When I write a game that has nothing in common with B/X, the press release in my mind is saying, “This game, unlike B/X, uses A, B, and C…”

But the "B/X" is still there. Just so you know.

Anyway, I’ve got an idea for a possible house rule B/X players might want to incorporate into their games. For the record, the basic concept is ripped off from Jon/Red Beard from a conversation we had at Dragonflight…he and his co-DM have been working on something similar for their games. I’m taking it, refining it a bit, and running with it. It addresses a couple issues/complaints I’ve heard more than once over the last couple years:

-        The “boring sameness” of B/X combat compared to later editions (specifically 3^rd edition and later). And in conjunction:

-        The lack of interesting maneuvers (or “boring-ness”) of the fighter class…especially (again) compared to the customizable concept found in D20 (through the selection of “feats”).

Now, personally, I am a big fan of the fighter. I like to play fighters. I don’t often get the chance to do this (for a variety of reasons), but that doesn’t matter much since I tend to play all my characters like a fighter anyway…you know, kick-in-the-door, take-no-prisoners, etc. There’s a simple elegance to an archetype that’s the character class equivalent of a blunt object. I mean, let’s face it: the fighter is built to soak and inflict trauma. Any other use of the class is counter-productive.

Fighting is the fighter’s purpose in life. Everything else is incidental.

One of the unfortunate things about this simplicity is that this is the character class most often foisted off on the beginning gamer. Never played before? Be a fighter. They have a high survivability (good HPs and AC) and are pretty effective at the simplest method of “conflict resolution” in the game: charge the monster, roll D20. With the prime requisite of Strength…and Strength’s ability to add to both attack and damage…a 1^st level fighter (with enough wealth for proper equipment) is the MOST effective human class in B/X D&D; only the demi-humans (dwarf, halfling, and elf) are more effective.

[why is the prime requisite important? Because in B/X you are allowed to raise your prime by lowering other abilities. You can, from Day 1, give yourself a boost to your fighting abilities. The demi-humans share STR as a prime req, plus they get other special abilities and saving throw bonuses…and they can still wear plate mail and shield and wield normal (D8 damage) swords. It is only over the long-haul that the fighter “out-classes” the B/X demi-humans by surpassing them in level…but that can take a long time]

But when your least experienced players are the ones playing the fighter (because the other classes are too complicate, hard to play, or risky for the newbie) it can lead to a devaluing of the class. Well, no…that’s not really what I want to say. Over time, it feels like fighter is “dump class” because that’s where newbies get “dumped” when they’re still knuckleheads just trying to learn the game.

[which, of course, is ridiculous since BASIC D&D is, by definition BASIC. So long as the level of play is under 4^th level, you might as well let anyone play any class]

Now, readers may think I’m pointing fingers at their blogs or campaigns or DMing ability and may have objections to my “assumptions” of their style of play. No, that’s not the case. I’m talking about my own experiences – as a DM and as a player in D&D games – and how, at least when I was younger, I would encourage newbies to try the game as a fighter. And this despite actual evidence in play that it’s possible for the best player and the biggest badass to be a simple (SIMPLE! No feats! No weapon specialization!) fighter.

Because she was.

Having a high survivability and great ability to dish out damage in melee makes the fighter the ideal leader of an adventuring party. And do you want the least experienced player at the table leading your group? I sure don’t!

But I’ll be honest: the fighter as “heroic leader” is not something I’ve seen in play very often. In fact, in my B/X games I’d go so far as to say “almost never.” But then, a lot of times I see a lack of leadership in general (boy, that is a topic that REALLY deserves its own post!). Instead, the fighters I usually see are:

-        Big, dumb, plunge-ahead guy. “I’ve got an 18 strength and a two-handed sword.” This is the guy that leads with his foot (kicking in the door) and blade. They don’t usually last too long (though, they may be the last man standing if they, say, draw their party into a battle with a nest of troglodytes).

-        Skulking “hero.” I don’t really know how to describe this. Oh, wait…sure I do. This is the guy who takes a fighter as a character because “the party needs a fighter,” but he doesn’t really WANT to play a fighter. He might walk point, but he’s hesitant to get into combat until the battle is joined and he’s still acting in a “support” role…it’s just that his “support” is in melee. These guys tend to survive a long time (because of cautious play coupled with high survivability) unless they blow a saving throw but, man, they are armored wussies.

Maybe it’s just a guy thing. It’s funny, but when I think about it the best fighters I’ve seen in D&D games have all been controlled by female players.  Yes, yes, there are women gamers who can act dumb or who “just want to kick ass” (I’ve had that argument with people before), but if given a chance (in game) to think or interact, females playing fighters will usually step up to the challenge.

In my experience, this is in direct contrast to male players who are playing fighters. Not that male players don’t want to interact with NPCs, puzzle out obstacles and riddles, or think of clever things to do…plenty do. But (it’s weird now that I think about it) not when they’re playing fighters. It’s like they step into the role of a fighter and they decide to turn their brain to “off.” Even the “skulking fighter” described above becomes TENTATIVE in play…while the same player as, say, a cleric brings more to the table in the role. Also, it’s worth noting that this “turn the brain off” mentality doesn’t apply to fighter “subclasses” like paladins and rangers and archers and scouts (though, upon reflection, it still applies to barbarians).

Maybe, male gamers are cerebral people who are over-thinking (or under-thinking) the fighter class and don’t see the potential in being a blunt object.

Dammit…this post is getting long, and I haven’t even gotten to my whole B/X house rule I wanted to write about.  Along with my thoughts from yesterday (the simultaneous combat of melee), I think I’ve got fodder for a couple separate fighter posts.

In fact, in reading over the blog, I see I’ve written LOTS of posts on the other classes of B/X D&D and very little on the fighter, other than to justify the abstract combat rules of D&D. Looks like it’s time to rectify that situation.

[to be continued]

Shield Love

I’m tired of people whining over aspects of the game that aren’t broke. There are plenty of things in the D&D game that are in need of fixing, but for me SHIELDS aren’t one of these things. That there’s even a debate on the issue (or rather, a consensus of complaint) irritates me…like a tick under the old cuirass, so it does.

For me, I find shields in the B/X game to be modeled just about perfectly.

God, where to begin, where to begin…the stupid splintered shields rule? The discussion on the limitations of the shield? Shields through the ages? Or the total bad-assedness of the shield rules as written? We’ll probably have to get into the abstract combat of B/X at some point, too, though I dread re-treading the same ground already covered.

Ah, well.

Historically speaking, back when shields were a regular part of the field of battle (i.e. before gunpowder and plate armor, the latter of which forced warriors to switch-up to heavy two-handed weapons), they were generally made of wood and hide/leather. LIGHT wood…tricky enough to fight with one’s off-hand, but there was also the point about speed and arm endurance…you didn’t want to get tired out blocking blows all day.

And blocking shots is NOT what the shield was all about anyway. While crossbowmen might hide behind a tower shield for cover while re-loading, the average knight in the field (or foot-slogging infantryman) used the shield mostly for DEFLECTION…something to knock aside an opponent’s blow and (hopefully) create an opening for a killing strike. Shields are not a passive defense, but an active tool WIELDED by the fighter. Like an oven mitt used to get a hot item out of the stove, the shield was designed to maneuver something that would injure you if you used your bare hand.

Now I’ve put in a little shield-work, myself, in the past…15+ years ago, sure, but I remember the experience. Shields work great to deflect an incoming attack…until someone stronger and/or more skilled than you knocks it aside and clubs you. In individual combat (as opposed to a phalanx formation), shields are a happy little device, easily overcome by someone who knows what they're doing.

Of course, I’M no fighting man. If anything, I’m the equivalent of the Normal Human (maybe with 3 hit points, as I’ve been bicycling a lot lately). A +1 bonus to AC is about all I could hope and expect out of a shield…I would be MUCH better off wearing leather armor and helm (or hopefully, something heavier!).

Using a shield as an active defense is a grueling work, made easier and more effective by skilled use, by someone with COMBAT SMARTS. And how exactly are those things modeled in D&D?

Class and level, baby.

Hit Points, in other words. Who’s the most effective dude using a shield? A fighter. Who has the most hit points? A fighter. What do those hit points represent? Aside from actual physical health: endurance, conditioning, skill, and luck.

Take a look at my All Time Favorite medieval combat scene in film: the final judicial “trial by combat” in the 1952 film Ivanhoe, starring Robert Taylor. Ignore the clang of weapon on aluminum shields (the main historical inaccuracy of the scene) and go with the wanton brawl of an axe/flail fight that lasts three minutes (the equivalent of 18 combat rounds in B/X!). See those guys take a pounding on their shields? That’s not the equivalent of a “missed” attack roll…those are HITS that are subtracting hit points from each combatant’s profile.

Every shot that is not “actively deflected” is a blow that is absorbed, an impact felt through the wrist and arm and shoulder, a little more damage wearing the character down to where that final telling blow causes mortal injury. Because these guys are high level fighters they have scores of HPs to soak punishment…if it was me out there, I’d probably be clubbed senseless by the first blow struck, even if I got my shield up in front of my face!

Shields give you a +1 bonus to AC…it helps the exact same as having a Dexterity of 13-15. Interestingly, up until the AD&D PHB was published, there was never any mention of Dexterity being “agility”…in the LBBs and Supplement I and Holmes it is pretty clear that Dexterity is speed of hand and hand-eye-coordination. This is why it provides a bonus to missile combat (and determines “first strike” in Holmes). When Gygax gave fighting men (only) the bonus to AC based on DEX, it was due to the ability to dodge and parry attacks…hand-eye-coordination giving a bonus to defense for swordsmen.

Which, by the way, explains why the AC bonus provided by DEX was never affected by armor worn (well...until later editions, that is). Wearing chainmail or plate doesn’t hamper your ability to use your weapon for deflection and maneuver, it only hampers your movement when trying to run (which is accounted for with encumbrance). Shields, then, AID in the deflection/parry of incoming fire, just like having a higher dexterity.

“But what about arrows? Look at those films where a wall of shields holds off a huge flight of arrows.” Okay, first off, have you ever tried to deflect/block an incoming arrow/crossbow bolt with a shield? Have you ever tried to catch a bullet with a baseball glove? There are two reasons why a wall of shields is SOMEwhat effective against missile fire (as opposed to being incidentally effective for carrying a heater), neither of which has to do with Hollywood's dramatic license:

1. A bunch of people in formation means massed ammunition being divided amongst multiple targets…there's less chance that YOU are the one being hit.
2. Large enough shields in a stable formation can provide some amount of COVER (and such cover rules may be found in the B/X rules on page B26). While a single shield is NOT considered cover, a phalanx of steel shields or a two-handed tower shield might be considered such, depending on the DM’s judgment.

Otherwise, any protection provided by shields is minimal (possibly increased by a character’s DEX…how good are you at maneuvering that shield to catch an incoming missile?).

So having put all THAT out there, maybe you’re starting to come around to my way of thinking…that a +1 AC bonus for carrying a shield is just fine and dandy. Perhaps your next question is, why the heck would anyone want to carry a shield for a measly +1 bonus when I could be hitting folks in the mouth with my two-handed war sledge?

Because they are hella’ effective, that’s why.

I’m going to tell you a story first, and then I’ll give you some math. Back in the Way WAY Back History of my youth, I had a long-running AD&D campaign that featured characters of nearly every class and stripe: elves and half-elves, dwarves, thieves, barbarians, acrobats, assassins, bards, clerics, illusionists, drow…even classes/races out of Dragon magazine like half-ogres and archers and healers. The ONE combo that was almost completely missing was the lowly, drab, totally boring human fighter.

Almost.

We had ONE in our group…a character that had been grandfathered into our AD&D campaign from our B/X days. She still had D8 hit dice, and while we probably converted her for “weapon specialization” sometime after the Unearthed Arcana was published, I don’t remember ever using it. Fact of the matter is, she didn’t need it. With plate mail, shield, and a broad sword she outlasted and out-fought every other power player in the game. She was a frigging juggernaut, eventually relegated to the role of an NPC that would occasionally make cameo appearances. As a kid, I never understood why she was so much more durable than the 18 CON barbarian or the 20th level bard…or the demons and devils and beholders she might encounter.

Amazing what a combo of good armor, shield, and high hit points will do for a character.

When fighting against weapon-using opponents (like humanoid monsters), the addition of a shield can add ROUNDS of survival to your character. Assuming average hit points and average DEX, the difference between plate and plate & shield breaks down like this:

Against goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 3 extra rounds
3rd level – 4 extra rounds
4th level – 6 extra rounds
5th level – 7 extra rounds
6th level – 8 extra rounds
7th level – 9 extra rounds
8th level – 10 extra rounds
9th level – 12 extra rounds

What good is an extra round of survival in combat? Just he difference between life and death! Using my dopplehander weapon rules, the damage output over time is equivalent (the two-handed weapon does roughly the same damage in a shorter survival period as the one-handed weapon in a longer survival period), but what do those extra rounds really mean?

• Time to run away (if necessary).
• Time to be healed by a party cleric.
• Time for a buddy to jump in and spell you/save your bacon.
• Time for you to spell a buddy about to get killed.
• Time for the monsters to break morale and surrender/run.
• Time for you to get in that lucky blow that ends the fight.

Extra time in combat is precious…and the shield gives you this. Against smaller monsters (like kobolds) that time is increased; against larger monsters it’s decreased. However, you still gain time through the use of a shield; for example:

Against gnolls/2nd level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 2 extra rounds
3rd level – 2 extra rounds
4th level – 3 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 4 extra rounds
7th level – 5 extra rounds
8th level – 5 extra rounds
9th level – 6 extra rounds

And these extra rounds of survival are gained simply by using a NORMAL shield. When a character sports a magical shield, survivability rises considerably, quickly out-pacing the over-all damage output of a character with a similarly enchanted two-handed weapon.

Now before you shield-wielders run out there feeling all Captain America and invulnerable, it’s important to realize and understand the limitations of the shield. First off, you’ve only got ONE. That means its most effective against one defender. Secondly, it was designed for ARMED COMBAT…i.e. combat against sentient, weapon-users.

What does this mean? That your character’s survivability decreases when faced with multiple attackers or creatures with multiple attacks (like owl bears and ghouls). If you think a shield is going to give you “extra rounds of survival” against the mauling of a grizzly, you may be in for a rude awakening (not that the guy without a shield is going to do much better…). But check this out:

Against THREE (3) goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – NO extra rounds of survivability
2nd level – 1 extra round
3rd level – 1 extra round
4th level – 2 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 3 extra rounds
7th level – 3 extra rounds
8th level – 3 extra rounds
9th level – 4 extra rounds

So if your character is a 1st level fighter that gets surrounded by three goblins, it doesn’t matter if you have a shield or not…it takes the same length of time to kill you with one as without (and by the way, that IS counting the +1 shield bonus against all attackers…you’re assumed to be whirling and twirling in the chaos of melee). Three adversaries are just a lot tougher to face down as a lone warrior: one guy beats your blade, one guy tries to pin your shield, and the third stabs at your eyeballs…a nasty business. Back at the Caves of Chaos a few weeks ago, our barbarian was sporting chainmail and a +1 shield; but he got isolated and surrounded by a bunch of spear-wielding kobolds and went down hard because of it.

The point here is, you still have to be SMART…pick your point of attack, find a choke-hold, buddy-up with your shield-wielding companion(s) and form a mini-phalanx, etc. There ARE tactics in D&D, even the B/X edition.

All right, that’s enough for now. I’m sure there will be dissenting opinions, and this may need a follow-up post for things I've forgotten. However, I want to say one last thing regarding the “shields will be splintered” rule. If you want to keep this “get out of jail free card” for your players, fine. If you want everyone to start with a couple potions of healing, you can do that, too. Personally, I figure shields are “splintered” when a character gets killed (as is armor, for that matter…ragged, tattered, and useless). You know what broke nearly as often as shields back in the “old days?” SWORDS. An individual using a weapon as often as the average D&D adventurer would probably need to purchase a replacement every 1-2 game sessions (at least one per 6 or so combat encounters). Why don’t y’all model that?

While shields ARE breakable (wood and cloth, remember?) if you’re breaking ‘em too often, you’re probably using them wrong. Again, they’re designed to deflect and turn blows, NOT absorb every swing.

Doing that too much is going to give you a broken arm!
; )