How I Run (AD&D) Combat

Two different folks asked me (on a recent post) to describe how I run combat using the AD&D system. The short answer is: "mostly By The Book." What follows is an elaboration of my standard operating practice, whether I'm running for two players (my kids, for example) or 8+ (such as my sessions at Cauldron last October).

It all works the same.

First, you have to approach combat...and the AD&D game...with the proper mindset. Understand that it's meant to be fast and furious; understand that it's meant to be abstract. Above all, understand that while combat is a Very Important Part of play, it is only part of the game...only part of the adventure.

Give combat the respect that it's due...and nothing more.

The procedures provided in the instructional text are there to serve play, not vice versa. Some things are, or should be, obvious...and the edgecase rules that exist are there to cover possibilities and provide a means of dealing with any particularities more complex than the back-and-forth of two swordsmen whacking away at each other. Again: the procedures SERVE play, not the other way around. Trying to fit your play into a checkbox paradigm of if-then-what-next is missing the point.

Next (now that you, hopefully, have the right mindset), combat ALWAYS starts with the situation. As Dungeon Master, you have to understand, and be able to visualize, the circumstances of the battle about to commence. Not only must you be able to visualize it in your own mind, you must be able to explain your vision to the players, such that they can react accordingly to the situation. These days, I always carry a few miniatures for the players to represent positioning in the imaginary "battle space;" back in my youth, if I had an especially complex situation to describe, I'd do a quick sketch to help my players visualize what was going on.

But that's in a second...first, you need to check for surprise.

As in real life, surprise can be decisive and game-changing with regard to combat situations. Understanding surprise in AD&D is pretty darn essential...fortunately, it's pretty straightforward. Each side gets their BEST chance to surprise (and be surprised) which, on occasion, may mean no surprise is possible (again, this is why understanding the situational situation needs to come first). Otherwise, multiple surprise segments may occur. These days, I only worry about partial (1 segment) or complete (2 segment) surprise...I honestly can't remember if I used to award 3+ segments of surprise back in the days of my youth, but currently, I'm okay with two segments being the maximum. In my opinion, 12 seconds is plenty of time to recover your wits, unless you happen to be REALLY slow, wit-wise (i.e. a cleric with a DEX <6).

Once surprise has been dealt with, we move onto combat proper.

DECLARATION OF ACTIONS...this is the first thing we do after I've outlined/described the tactical situation to the players. I go around the table and address each player, asking what they want their character to do. Order is usually determined by relative positioning and situational awareness. Ask the guys in the front rank what they're doing first, then  the secondary row guys, etc. If one character kicked in the door to a room and stumbles into a pack of wights (or whatever), for sure I want THAT person's declaration first and foremost.

Declarations of action are kept snappy. No dithering, hemming or hawing. In a situation where players actually get the drop (i.e. surprise) on an opponent, I'm a tad more lenient with declarations, especially in instances of complete surprise (PCs may well have the luxury of a whispered conference prior to taking action). My players generally have an idea of their particular "order of battle" anyway as...long before any actual encounter...I've established things like marching order, who's carrying what in their hands (weapons, shields, light sources, etc.). Sharp players will, of course, have planned out some battle tactics in advance, otherwise things are likely to devolve into a chaotic free-for-all.

Which is fine. There's verisimilitude in that. 

After getting their asses handed to them once or twice, they'll start to figure things out, and go into situations better prepared. And that's fine, too...again, this is true to life. These are not well-drilled U.S Marines with extensive training in CQB...they're hardy adventurers working their way through dark and dank tunnels (or deep dark forests or mountain passes or well-lit castles or whatever), sword-and-torch in hand.  A lot of players are used to smaller tables...three to five PCs...and large groups (such as one finds in convention games) can take some adjustment for the players, especially those who haven't worked together before. And, again, That's Okay. Combat is only part of the adventuring process.

SO...declarations. Players who dither or are overwhelmed (or just cautious) are passed over for the players who are more decisive. And this is FINE. Often, the player who's unsure what action to take is a spell-caster who's considering the proper spell for the situation...and he/she can fall back behind the rest of the gang, while considering. Again: this is verisimilitude.  There's no need to go off half-cocked...maybe the rest of the party will take care of the bugbears withOUT the need for that web spell to get cast. And that's fortunate and saves resources for later...yay!

ALSO...no, I do not require players to write down their "orders" separately from each other. In a combat situation, I assume the players are actively communicating with each other (yelling "cast the fireball!" or "loose arrows!" or "set spears!" or whatever) even as some PCs' actions...notably charging...requires not much communication at all.

As for the opponents' actions, I (as DM) already have an idea of what they're going to do in that first round, based on their temperament, their capabilities, their numbers relative to the party, etc. Again, this is based on comprehending the SITUATION. After the first round, the situation will have changed, and the actions/reactions of the opponents will have changed as well...for me, situation determines how the NPCs are going to act. It's not about an optimal "Tucker's kobolds" screw-the-players approach to battle, it's about verisimilitude. Humanoids armed with spears are not going to throw their only weapon, unless they plan on running/escaping afterwards. Animals are unlikely to fight to the death (or fight large numbers  at all) unless defending their lair/young. Etc. 

Back to procedure. So we've got a declaration of actions from the players. Great. Now we dice for initiative. Depending on actions chosen by players, I ask one player to roll for the party, choosing the person whose declared action is most immediate and/or most likely to be affected by the outcome of the initiative dice. For example, when facing undead, if a cleric is going to attempt to turn the creatures, I'll usually let the cleric roll the initiative die for the party. Why? Because the result might well mitigate or eliminate the entire threat the group faces.

Now let's talk segments and spell-casters. When a caster declares they're casting a spell in combat, the number on the initiative die is going to be important, due to casting time and the chance of being interrupted by an opponent.  Magic-users are the most likely to cast a spell in combat given A) they're the most likely to feel "useless" outside of their spells, and B) players have a tendency to stockpile offensive magic. Fortunately, most MU spells have a casting time equal to the level of the spell (1 segment for 1st level spells like magic missile and sleep, 2 segments for second level spells like stinking cloud and web, 3 segments for 3rd level spells like fireball and lightning bolt, etc.) which is easy to remember, and outlier spells...well, with time and practice you remember that some spells (strength, for example) have a longer casting time than expected. Other than command, most clerical spells take a LOT longer to cast...hold person, that combat staple, takes 5 segments, despite being a 2nd level spell. Again, there are so few clerical spells that are useful in combat (compared to the magic-user) that you get to know the casting times after a few repetitions.

When a player wants to cast a spell, I always ask the casting time, and I'll usually have the casting player roll for initiative telling them "okay, so you need to win by x number or else you have a chance of your spell being interrupted" (assuming that there is an opponent targeting the spell-caster). FOR EXAMPLE:

Tim declares he's going to cast fireball on the bugbears who are gearing up to charge. I note that the bugbears are 30' away from the party and can easily reach the PCs, although it will take two segments to do so (as they only move 18' per segment). I thus say: "Okay, Tim, roll for initiative; if you win by 3 or more, your spell goes off before they arrive; if you win by 2 they get to attack you AND the spell goes off. If you only win by 1 they'll have a chance to hit you and interrupt the spell before you cast it."

Thus knowing the stakes, Tim and I roll initiative with everyone hanging on the results of the die rolls.

But what if Tm the wizard was facing a squad of plate-armored goons (movement: 6")? And what if they were 40' away, not 30'? It would thus take four segments (at 12' per segment) for the goons to get to Tim...how is this resolved?

Well, for me, it goes like this:

• Tim wins initiative by 3 or more: Tim's spell will go off before chargers get to Tim.
• Tim wins initiative by 2: Tim's spell and the charge attack are SIMULTANEOUS (spell goes off, even if the attack hits); with the EXCEPTION of and initiative roll of 3-1, in which case Tim's spell would go off before the goons arrived (since they need four segments to get to Tim). 
• Tim wins initiative by 1: the chargers arrive first and the spell can be interrupted; with the EXCEPTION of an initiative roll of 2-1, in which case Tim's spell goes off before the goons arrive, or a 3-2, in which case the spell and charge are SIMULTANEOUS.
• Initiative results are TIED: while it's subject to debate, I'd probably rule that a 1-1 allows Tim to get his spell off first, a 2-2 results in actual simultaneous actions (spell goes off AND chargers attack) and any other result allows the chargers to strike first, possibly interrupting the spell.
• If Tim LOSES initiative, the goons are probably going to get to him before he can cast his spell. However, if he only loses by a roll of 2-1 (DM gets a "2;" Tim gets a "1"), then the spell and the charge are going to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. Why? Because the spell will complete on segment #4, and the goons won't arrive till then. 

[please note: for ME, the first segment of action counts as the first segment of casting time. So if the spell caster commences a 3-segment spell on segment #2, the spell will be completed on segment #4]

But here's what I'd ACTUALLY say to Tim:

"Okay, Tim, roll for initiative; if you win by 3 or more your spell goes off before they arrive; if you win by only 2, then their attack happens simultaneously with your casting and if you lose or beat them by only 1, they'll have a chance to interrupt your spell. However, it's going to take them four segments to cover the distance, so depending on what the actual die roll is, you might get a break...let's roll and we'll figure it out afterwards. Just know you want to beat them by as much as possible."

There's only about 6 chances in 36 of getting one of those "odd results;" 30 times out of 36, the initiative dice are going to come up with a number that's easy to adjudicate...I'm be beating Tim nearly 50% of the time just by rolling higher than him. In all likelihood, there'll be no need to work out the math ahead of time, and if it's close and the dice rolls are low (knowing that it takes the goons 4 segments to cross the distance), I'll be able to eyeball it pretty accurately.

Now if the distance were greater than 40' or if Tim were using a faster spell (say, magic missile with its 1 segment casting time), it might well be possible that the DM (me) could WIN initiative, and the spell would STILL go off before the charge arrived. In this case, the spell is not much different than missile fire which, for me, will usually occur BEFORE a charging combatant can come to grips with their foe...depending on the type of missile weapon being used.

[for the record, devices like wands and staves have a number of segments of "operation" and, in general, I just treat them as spells (i.e. with casting times) that cannot be interrupted. "Spell-like abilities" of various monsters are NOT spells and do not have casting times, nor do I treat them as interruptible]

With regard to bow-fired arrows, daggers, and darts...all of which have a rate of fire greater than 1...I treat them the same as a combatant with "multiple attack routines," thus firing both before and after initiative. While the rules are not explicit on whether or not to treat multi-fire missiles as such, I can look back to Chainmail (from whence AD&D gets the 1 minute combat round) and see that this is indeed how archer missile fire was treated: archers would receive one shot SIMULTANEOUS with movement (so the archery would be resolved against chargers prior to resolution from melee at the end of the charge) and then a second shot would be allowed at the end of the turn provided both A) the archers did not move during the turn, and B) they were not engaged in melee at the end of the turn. As with many things AD&D, I find this very obvious: charging a position of missile-armed combatants is going to get you lit up. With regard to slower weapons (crossbows and such), initiative would still be rolled and shooting is determined based on the die result AND the amount of distance the charger needs to cover.

Once battle is joined (melee...yay!) things become very straightforward, especially declarations. "You're still locked in melee, do you want to continue to attack?" Characters who break from melee (fleeing) suffer the consequences of their cowardice; otherwise, the initiative roll every round determines which combatant throws their D20 first, so long as neither opponent has the "multiple attack routine" thing going on. Once an opponent is downed, they can move to attack another opponent in combat (no attack roll is allowed when performing this movement/target switch, unless the new opponent is already in melee distance). With regard to facing, given the abstract nature of AD&D combat and the length of time in a round, I do not award "flanking" bonuses or back attacks unless an opponent is already engaged in melee (in which case, I dice randomly to see who the opponent is facing) OR the opponent is unaware of the flanker (usually because the flanking attacker just downed their own opponent and has either charged, or moved to engage an opponent that was already distracted by fighting).

With regard to the unholy section of the DMG 66-67 ("Other Weapon Factor Determinants")...eh. It's fairly straightforward, even if ugly. This section only occurs when a combatant is in melee with an opponent who is trying to do something "other than striking blows:" casting a spell, using a wand, drinking a potion, etc. You subtract the losing result of the initiative dice (1-5) from the speed factor of the melee weapon, treating negative results as positive numbers(!!) and compare the result to number of segments that it takes the non-weapon wielder to complete their action, in order to determine "what happens first." When initiative results are tied (i.e. when combat would otherwise be "simultaneous") nothing is subtracted and speed factor is simply compared to the segment time of the non-melee action...an odd choice as this can give advantage to many spell-casters one-sixth of the time. 

What is NOT explicit...although I believe to be implied...is that the "losing initiative die roll" is ONLY subtracted from the weapon speed factor IF it is the melee combatant who loses initiative. If the melee combatant WINS initiative, they strike their blow BEFORE the non-melee activity takes place. This gives the advantage in melee squarely to the person with a sword, which is as it should be...Gygax writes at length about the difficulty of casting a spell during the chaos of combat; it makes little sense to give a wizard an advantage over a sword-swinger with spells like lightning bolt and magic-missile. Casting a spell while engaged in melee should ALWAYS be a desperate maneuver on the part of a caster! It only rarely comes up in my games because neither my players, nor my NPCs casters are likely to try it.

[again, NOTE: this rule only comes into effect after combatants are already engaged in melee. It does not apply during other parts of initiative when the easier "compare die results with casting time" procedure applies. I readily forgive DMs who prefer to ignore it altogether and simply use the "standard procedure" 100% of the time] 

ANYWAY.  As said, once combatants have come down to melee, combat gets incredibly straightforward. Initiative moves back and forth, combatants maneuvers as opponents are downed, and everyone keeps a close eye on their hit points. Morale becomes a factor for some types of foes/monsters (less so for others) and fights usually end up being to the death. For me (as the Dungeon Master) the trick is to resolve the combats QUICKLY...once combatants get "stuck in," the battle should be resolved in a few minutes. Declarations are fast. Dice are rolled fast. Damage is removed.  Morale is checked. It grinds out in rapid fashion, and thank goodness, because we all (DM and players alike) want to get back to the adventure and exploration that led us to the battle in the first place.

Okay. I think that's about it. I'll answer specific questions in the comments section.

Iron Fist

*sigh* Cavaliers

This post is going to address several "bad ideas" found in the UA;  I mean, might as well get them all out of the way at once, right?

Weapon specialization is a VERY bad idea...it falls under the category of "how much have you been drinking, Gary?" Len Lakofka first introduced the idea of an archery specialist (character class) along with a lot of really crunch missile fire rules in Dragon #45; it's not terrible (we had an archer PC back in the campaign of my youth), but most of the crunch only serves to slow down the game (worrying about whether actions occur at the beginning, middle, or end of a segment? Come on, dude...we don't need to micromanage more than we already do). And it introduced the idea of "point blank range" (*sigh*), to Gygax and got him thinking about OTHER possible types of specialists. Hence, weapon specialization.

One can see the appeal in an existing (long run) campaign: high level fighters are watching all the other character classes get fancy spells and abilities for achieving those 'teen' levels and, yet, they're doing the same-old-same-old since they picked up that frost brand sword back at 6th level; 'where's the love?' they cry. Unfortunately, implementing weapon specialization wrecks the combat economy from the very beginning. A normal party generally has a potential damage output of 4.5 damage per PC (roughly) with the high strength fighter types making up for low damage wizard types. But this goes off the rails with weapon specialization and (especially) double specialization (both available at 1st level). A fighter with an 18+ STR (up to 18/50...achievable for most fighter types) and double specialization in longsword strikes with a +4 to hit and +6 to damage, as well as getting two attacks every other round...a potential average damage output of 21 points in round one (25 against a large sized creature). Average hit points for an ogre are 19...for a bugbear 15. First level fighters should not be able to chop down gnolls and hobgoblins with impunity, and if the DM ups the challenge of monsters thrown at 1st level groups, the other party members (who have the same combat abilities as ever) are far more likely to suffer. Plus PBR rules means that same fighter, even without double specialization had a potential average damage output 34 damage per round, due to double damage and adding STR bonuses (all part of the PBR rules) for shots fired within 30'. Back when we used the UA rules in my youth, we saw a LOT of bow specialists. 

Bad Len. Bad, bad, bad. 

Next terrible idea to discuss is the Method V version of generating ability scores. Ostensibly restricted for human characters, this method of ability generation all but assures you of achieving the scores you need to take whatever particular class you desire to play. Having also used this a bit when the UA first came out, I can tell you the PCs end up having a LOT of high scores, not just in the ones they need...far more so than any of the other methods found in the DMG. Rolling 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 dice (and taking the best three) for the five most important abilities of a particular class are going to give you much better scores than the DMG's Method I which has you roll 4d6 across the board...and who cares if MV makes you roll 3d6 for one (ONE!) ability score when that ability is, more often-than-not, Comeliness?

Method V appears to have originated in Dragon #63 with the introduction of the barbarian class. Originally, the barbarian had NO minimum ability qualifiers (probably a good thing, considering it's supposed to replace normal man types like the nomad, caveman, tribesman, etc. in the MM), but instead determined its abilities through a new method: 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON, 7d6 for DEX, 3d6 for INT and CHA, and 4d4 for WIS. The sea change here, however, is the choosing of the class before rolling the dice (i.e. before seeing if the player has achieved the dice rolls needing to qualify for the class). Gygax discusses this decision in Dragon #67:

A few wondered why a decision to be a barbarian character had to be made prior to rolling dice for attribute scores. The answer is simple: The game is based on role-playing principles, and it is easier to do so with a course determined in the first place. Method I of Generation of Ability Scores encourages the player to choose a character profession from a predisposition rather than dice determined statistics. It is but a step removed from there to deciding on play as a barbarian subclass fighter and rolling dice accordingly. Frank Mentzer suggests that the 4d6 system could be employed with minimum score requirements of 16 strength and constitution, 15 dexterity, and a maximum wisdom of 15. That will work, but it seems to beg the question. Playing as a barbarian is a determined choice, not as one of several possibilities -- or a mere afterthought. This is a part of the whole concept...

...In all truth, the sub-class is not too powerful. It is, in fact, under-powered unless some very good rolls are gained in the areas of strength, dexterity, and constitution. To have real prospects for long-range play, the character must have 18, 16, and 17 respectively. That, Gentle Readers, is why they are given 9d6, 7d7, and 8d6 for those categories. A low-level barbarian has a better than average chance of survival without such high rolls, but at higher level, he or she is not going to do well unless strength, dexterity, and constitution combine to give high hit points, low armor class, and superior punishment potential.

Indeed. So the lesson, Gary, is "don't play a barbarian if you can't roll the high stats," NOT 'give the players the ability to play whatever they want.' Sorry. After 40+ years of game play (more than Gygax had at the time he was writing), I've seen what coddling does to one's game. That ain't the way to go.

So, now we turn our attention to the cavalier...a class that may have had an interesting kernel of an idea, but then worked hard to make it work with these other concepts (like weapon specialization) to its overall detriment.

I mean, that's sugar-coating things. The class is a travesty.

Here's what you get with the cavalier in its FINAL presentation (i.e. as it appears in the UA):

• It is not a subclass of fighter, but its own class...and it puts the paladin subclass beneath its banner (more on this later).
• STR, DEX, CON of 15+, INT and WIS of 10+ to enter; however, Method V in the UA makes these quite easy requirements (with 8d6, 7d6, and 9d6 dice rolls).
• Open to humans, high elves, gray elves, dark elves, and half-elves with NO LEVEL LIMITS. That's right...you don't like being limited to 6th or 8th level fighter? Be a cavalier (who still fights and saves as a fighter), and achieve whatever level you like.
• Hit points start at 1d10+3 at 1st level with D10s up through 10th (note: fighters only go through 9th) with +3 hit points thereafter (same as a fighter).
• Progressive "to hit bonuses" in lance plus two other weapons of choice (one a sword, the other a horseman weapon like a flail or military pick). This bonus starts at +1 and increases by +1 every six levels with no end. This bonus can be used defensively as part of a parry (and can also "parry" with a shield at the same time). Cavaliers may make multiple attacks as a fighter 5 levels higher than their actual level with these weapons of choice. High elves would be advised to select longsword.
• A bunch of horse/riding related skills that no one cares about in a dungeon.
• Each of STR, DEX, and CON are assigned a % number (similar to exceptional strength) and every level the cavalier rolls 2d10 and adds the number to the current percentage; when the number exceeds 00, they move up to the next number, eventually topping out at 18/00 in all three abilities (the percentage doesn't mean anything for DEX and CON, but an 18 is still an 18). How this interacts with the CON reduction from a raise dead/resurrection spell isn't stated, nor if these numbers can exceed racial maximums.
• Immunity to fear, +2 bonus to save versus illusions, a bunch of 90% chances to resist mind-effecting magic, etc.
• Ability to continue functioning at negative hit points (though cannot continue to fight).

All pretty swell, right? Like a fighter except more powerful (and potentially a LOT more powerful). You'd probably be thinking, man, that cavalier cat must need a ton of experience points to level up (as the barbarian does). HA! That's the kicker, son...the cavalier needs LESS x.p. to level up than the 'lowly' fighter...at least into the teens:

9th level --    fighter: 250,001       cavalier: 220,001

10th level --  fighter: 500,001       cavalier: 300,001

11th level --  fighter: 750,001       cavalier: 600,001

12th level --  fighter: 1,000,001    cavalier: 900,001

13th level --  fighter: 1,250,001    cavalier: 1,200,001

14th level --  fighter: 1,500,001    cavalier: 1,500,001

So, sure...after reaching 14th level, the cavalier will need more x.p. per level than the fighter to level up (an extra 50K per). But his 300K per level is still a damn sight faster than the ranger (325K), paladin (350K), or barbarian (500K). And to out-pace the fighter? With all those additional benefits? I mean, just what the hell was Gygax thinking? 

Elf? Probably.

This cavalier class makes the fighter all but meaningless in an AD&D campaign. It wrenches humans from their proper place at the center of the universe and allows elves to be ascendant (what is the incentive to play a human cavalier over a high elf?). Of course, it also radically changes the paladin class (now open to half-elves) giving the pally ALL the abilities of the cavalier PLUS all the abilities of the paladin (listed in the PHB), plus the ability to raise the character's CHA every level in the exact same manner as their STR, DEX, and CON.

This is not a complaint about "power creep;" this is simply stabbing the character economy in the heart with a red-hot (lance) point.

SO, NO. There will be no cavalier in my games, sir...not in the way they are detailed in the UA. Neither will there be any weapon specialization or "point blank range" for missile fire. Nor, will I be using Method V for the generation of ability scores (I remember axing that waaay back in high school...and having fierce arguments with my brother over the subject). No sir!  Method I will (continue to) do us just fine.

However, I might very well include the barbarian class...I'll just remove all minimum ability requirements for entry. You want to be a sickly member of your tribe/village, that's okay by me.

; )

Dagger Damage

For all those who downloaded my "Master Weapon List" the other day, I've updated the document. Daggers do 1d6 damage now in melee combat. They only do 1d4 damage when thrown (or when wielded by someone not proficient in their use).

Having played and run B/X for most of the last decade, I sometimes (often?) forget that OD&D retains the one minute combat "turn" found in the miniature war game Chainmail. As it is perfectly reasonable that a trained combatant could inflict sufficient damage to mortally wound a fellow human (or human) in this period of time...perhaps by striking multiple blows...I found it necessary to revise my (B/X-biased) assessment. So I did.

A thrown dagger is another matter completely...such an attack probably shouldn't even inflict 1d4 damage (more like 1-2 or 1-3). But it is heroic fantasy, after all. Since the only characters generally throwing knives are the PCs, I figure it's fine to cut some slack.

And speaking of death by a thousand cuts: my (O)D&D campaign limps on, but feels like it has Covid-19 and ain't doing so hot. The kids we were playing with haven't been able to meet with us for the last couple weeks, though they still express interest in continuing play...when they express anything at all (these particular 13 year olds are not big on responding to email, which is probably a good thing, but rough when trying to organize a game). My own kids have continued to play but the nuances of the game world are mostly lost on them: in the game (i.e. in play) they are fine at reacting to the needs of the moment, but outside-the-box thinking, long-term planning, and setting/world considerations are, for the most part, beyond them. Which, while somewhat frustrating to me, is totally understandable and appropriate given their ages and development.

[I consider my own youth and mindset at their age, and I doubt I was much different. Probably need to run them through a stripped down version of the Isle of Dread and stomp them with a cyclops]

"Somewhat frustrating" I said because I'm quite enjoying my world building and the moment, and am (hopefully) starting to build a world that will last beyond (and be used outside the bounds of) this "kiddie campaign." The more I refine it, the more enamored of the thing I get. I've recently picked up a fascination with the history of Vietnam (pre-French) and am muddling that a bit and serving it up as inspiration for the history of the Red Empire (with the sultanate of Zargoz being a stand-on for the kingdom of Champa)...lots of good ideas to be found in its 4,000 year history, so many that I'm tempted to simply use southeast Asia as my "world map." If only the mountains were on the other side... (*sigh*).

[it really is amazing just how much "world" there is to explore on our own planet. I think most would-be world builders bite off far more than we can adequately chew. While we are woefully ignorant about the history of many parts of the world (just what was going on in Paraguay for ten thousand years before European conquest?) many small areas have EXTENSIVE records going back at least as far...if not more so...than our poor Western archives that tend to collapse around the "Dark Ages"]

Anyway...

So the world building continues, even though the (current) campaign is on life support. And daggers do 1d6 damage in melee (or 1d6+1 for strength score of 15+). That's about all the updates I have at the moment. Hopefully more to share later.

Hey! Just realized I missed this year's April A-Z challenge! Ah, well...maybe next year.

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.

Round and Round We Go

I plan on getting back to the Karameikos subject this week; this is just an interlude.

Over the last ten years I've been posting to this blog, there are some subjects that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. One of my main areas of speculation/musing has been combat rules, specifically as they relate to the B/X system, and my various ideas, proposals, and thoughts on how best to tinker them to better model what I'd like to see.

Mm. Mm-mm-mm.

This post is a "placeholder" of sorts, so that when I am (once-again-sometime-in-the-future) wondering about my past thoughts on the subject and going through this blog by "tag," this particular post will come up FIRST and save me a bit of time. Here goes:

I like the B/X encounter ("combat") rules as written. For the most part, they model exactly what I want.

Variable combat damage by weapon? Yes, exactly as written. Two-handed weapons losing initiative? Yes (though among the missile weapons this only applying to crossbows, not bows). Armor class and ability score adjustments? Yes. Shields? Yeah, with some liberal interpretation of the "cover rules" when it applies to shield walls. Initiative and surprise? Yep. Hit dice and hit points and healing? Yes, though I reserve the right to change the way monsters heal damage, should the issue ever arise in play.

After all the "thought experiments," "practice runs," and actual table play, I am fine and dandy with the way the rules model the basics of combat. Every variation or adjustment I've made has all ended up being for naught....the simple, abstract system as it exists perfectly replicates the way I want my combats to run, right down to ten second beats (rounds).

Now this doesn't mean there aren't some existing "holes" in the system; there are, and they could sure stand to be plugged. Here are things that will (probably, eventually) need to be worked out and adjudicated in the long run, as they aren't found in the B/X system:

• Disarming
• Grappling
• Long-term injuries, maiming, scarring
• Partial or piecemeal armor
• Required space for maneuvering (long weapons)
• Stunning, knockouts
• Take-downs (overbearing, tripping, etc.)
• Weapon breakages

I'd also like to add some simple rules for multiple attacks (for fighters only) as B/X proper does not include any of the other editions' options. I can also see limiting the damage of a "normal sword" to 1d6 unless it is used with two hands...but probably not. Much more likely is simply giving a +1 bonus to attack rolls when using any melee weapon two-handed but...again...probably not (I don't want to be giving a low-strength character an advantage for using a heavy, two-handed weapon).

But other than "plugging holes," I have come to terms with all aspects of the Encounter rules (Chapter 5) of the B/X rulebooks. Other aspects of the game (evil clerics, alignment language, equipment costs) still need some adjustment, and I will almost certainly fiddle with monsters and magic items (if only to make the game a bit more interesting and campaign specific). But as far as combat goes, I'm just going to consider the matter SETTLED. It functions...both practically speaking and as a model. And after nearly a decade of tuning it, I am satisfied. Finally.

The ultimate justification for 18 strength receiving
a damage bonus is B/X...

Z is for Zweihander of Zeal

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Z is for Zweihander of Zeal. 

The zweinhander is the two-handed greatsword popular with Swiss and German mercenaries of the 16th century. For B/X play it is treated as a standard two-handed sword in all respects.

The zweihander of zeal empowers its wielder, transforming her into a nigh unstoppable force. In combat, the wielder is unaffected by mind control (like sleep, charm, and hold spells) and is immune to any type of paralysis or petrification effect. Even the complete reduction of her hit points will not stop the wielder of the zweihander of zeal; she will continue to fight until her body is completely destroyed (reduced to -10 or less hit points)...mangled and hewn to pieces.

When combat ends, the animating effects of the zweihander of zeal fades. If its wielder's hit points are zero or less when this occurs, she collapses and dies.

The final word in melee combat.

Y is for Yari of Yowling Spirits

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Y is for Yari of Yowling Spirits. 

The yari is a Japanese spear, and one of the premier weapons of the ancient samurai; from what I've read its mastery was considered #2 in the ol' book of bushido, a bit behind the yumi (#1) and a bit ahead of the katana (#3)...but katanas get all the love because they're, like, the samurai's soul, right?

Personally, I prefer the yari...they're awesome. But I'm weird.

Anyway...the B/X yari is treated in all ways as a standard spear (though I hope you'll treat it with respect...). The yari of yowling spirits is a ghost slaying weapon: any incorporeal creature (shadows, wraiths, specters, or vampires) struck by the weapon takes double damage and must make a save versus spells as if targeted by a dispel evil spell (including the -2 penalty). Failure to save results in most spirits' ties to the material world being cut and their "bodies" harmlessly dissipating (for all intents and purposes killing the creature). Vampires are a special case: a failed save reduces the creature to zero hit points, forcing it to assume mist form.

Spirits that observe a fellow spirit's disruption at the hands of the yari of yowling spirits must make a morale check (with a +4 penalty!) or flee the vicinity of the weapon's wielder.

So simple. So effective.

X is for Xiphos of Exasperation

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

X is for Xiphos of Exasperation.

The xiphos is an ancient blade that perfectly fits the bill for "short sword," being under 60cm in length and having a one-handed grip. For B/X purposes, it is treated as a short sword in all ways.

The xiphos of exasperation was crafted for a gladiator that was renowned for both his prowess and his cruelty when it came to toying with his opponents. No damage dice need be rolled for the weapon; it is enchanted such that it never inflicts more than minimum damage (2 points, including its +1 value), though any damage bonus for high strength is also added on a successful hit, accounting other punching, gouging, head-butts, etc. that might occur in the thick of melee. The original owner wanted to ensure (magically) that he would always exercise maximum restraint in his fights, drawing combats as long as possible to better entertain his admirers.

In addition, in any round where its current wielder inflicts damage (i.e. makes a successful attack roll), the xiphos of exasperation confers a limited immunity to its owner: the opponent damaged by the blade automatically misses any attacks aimed at the sword's wielder. This special protection only lasts until the end of the round in which the xiphos struck...in other words, it is only effective if the wielder of the xiphos of exasperation both gains initiative (gets first attack) and lands a blow (makes a successful to hit roll). If the xiphos strikes at the end of the round, it does not confer immunity in the following round.

Similar to a Roman gladius, at least in form.

W is for Whip of Wounding

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

W is for Whip of Wounding.

This flexible weapon can be used by any character class save magic-users. It inflicts only minimal damage (1D4 points) and no adjustments are applied for strength. Attack rolls with a whip are modified by a wielder's dexterity instead of strength, though it is only used in melee.

Damage from a whip of wounding fester painfully and cannot be healed except by magical means (cure spells, potions of healing, etc.). The weapon is single-tailed and approximately 7' in length.

Good weapon for evil clerics.

V is for Voulge of Venom Venting

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

V is for Voulge of Venom Venting.

A voulge is yet another medieval pole arm and, in B/X terms, is treated as a standard pole arm in all respects (cost, encumbrance, variable weapon damage, etc.).

The voulge of venom venting was created specifically to combat creatures of poisonous nature. Any such monster (giant snakes, spiders, medusae, etc.) struck by the weapon in melee must save versus spells or permanently lose their ability to poison creatures (a remove curse spell will restore the victim's natural venom).

In addition, the weapon can be used to remove venom from any individual suffering from a poisonous attack (i.e. any creature that has failed a save versus poison), by drawing the edge of the blade across the wound. While this inflicts 1 point of damage, it acts as a neutralize poison spell, saving the victim from the effects that would normally be suffered. As with the neutralize poison spell, the voulge of venom venting must be used within 10 rounds of the target being afflicted in order to prevent the poison from working its mischief.

Pretty sure this is a voulge.

U is for Urumi of Unholy Unction

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

U is for Urumi of Unholy Unction.

The urumi is a long, flexible "whip-sword" used in the martial arts of southern Asia (specifically India and Sri Lanka); it is flexible enough to curl tight or wear as a belt. In B/X terms it has the same cost as a (normal) sword, but the encumbrance value of a dagger. It is light enough to be used by dwarves and halflings (despite its length), but its edge prevents clerics form using the weapon. Urumis are often "dual-wielded" (one in each hand).

Unlike a normal melee weapon, strength plays little part in the use of this finesse weapon. Wielders of an urumi should use their dexterity bonus (or penalty) as an adjustment to their melee attack rolls in place of strength; no damage bonus is added at all (if variable weapon damage is used, the urumi inflicts 1D8 damage). The urumi can be as dangerous to its wielder as to others; on any missed attack roll, the wielder must make a save versus wands or take damage as if struck by the urumi.

The urumi of unholy unction, is an evil weapon crafted to convert individuals to its blasphemous religion. Any opponent struck by the weapon must save versus magic or have their alignment shifted one step towards chaotic (lawful to neutral; neutral to chaotic). A chaotic individual that fails her save becomes a faithful servant of the weapon's demonic deity, and immediately surrenders to the wielder. The wielder of the urumi may take such an individual as a faithful slave and servant, if her allotment of retainers (per charisma) has not yet been exceeded. A remove curse spell restores a victim of the urumi of unholy unction to its natural alignment and/or religious worship. Clerics ensorcelled to serve the evil weapon will not be granted spells by their patron gods.

Yes, some urumi have multiple blades. Not all do.

T is for Trident of Torturous Tears

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

T is for Trident of Torturous Tears.

A trident is a two- or three-pronged spear, wickedly barbed. In most ways, it conforms exactly to a B/X spear (although, it costs five gold pieces to purchase); it may be thrown and is sometimes equipped with a line to retrieve the weapon; however, this is usually removed by adventurers as it is easily tangled in the cramped, close-quarters combat of a dungeon expedition.

Any attack roll with a trident that exceeds the target "to hit" number by 4 or more results in the weapon being firmly lodged within the target. While the weapon can be broken off and easily removed once the combat is finished, removing the barbed weapon quickly during a fight requires a successful open doors roll and results in the target taking an additional 1D6 damage (the same rules apply for an attacker who wishes to dislodge the weapon, though if removing a trident from a dead opponent there is no need to break the tines...the dead don't mind chunks of flesh being pulled from their corpse).

The trident of torturous tears is the weapon of a sadist who enjoys inflicting pain and agony. Any damage roll of 3 or more indicates the target has suffered a painful, bleeding laceration that burns like fire. In addition to losing one extra hit point per round from blood loss, the victim must save versus paralysis or advance through one of the following stages of pain, suffering the listed results:

• Stage 1 - Extreme Discomfort: character suffers -1 penalty to attacks and saving throws until finding time to bind wounds (after combat) or receiving magical healing.
• Stage 2 - Distracting Pain: characters suffers a -2 penalty to attacks and saving throws; NPCs must pass a morale check or break off from combat. Spell-casters lose concentration of sustained spells.
• Stage 3 - Burning Agony: character must make a save versus paralysis to take any action at all; those that do face the same penalties as for distracting pain. NPCs must pass a morale check (at -1) or surrender.
• Stage 4 - Excruciating Torment: character falls writhing to the ground. No action possible.

Please note: in order for a victim to progress to ANY of the stages (including Stage 1) two things must happen: the wielder of the trident must inflict a wound in which the damage roll is 3+ AND the target must fail a save versus paralysis. Each application of magical healing (even a cure light wounds spell) will reduce the pain by one stage, or by all stages if the magical healing takes the victim to full hit points. Alternatively, once a victim is removed from combat, she may make a full recovery from any stage of pain with liberal application of wine (both ingested and to her wounds) and wrapping the injuries with clean bandages.

The scratches and cuts from the trident of torturous tears leave permanent scars, even if magically healed.

Ideally, this would be covered all
over with fantasy barbs and spikes.

S is for Scythe of Swift Slaying

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

S is for Scythe of Slaying [aka the Scythe of Smug Smiting]

A scythe is a weaponized version of an ancient farming implement. In combat it handles like a battle axe with respect to encumbrance and damage (and, as it is a two-handed weapon, it always strikes last in melee except when facing zombies). The weapon, however, is cheap to purchase, costing the same as a spear. A scythe is fairly long and unwieldy, and may only be used by fighters, elves, and thieves.

This scythe of swift slaying may have been forged by The Reaper himself. On any attack roll of 19 or 20 (before adjustments for strength and enchantment), the defender must make a save versus death ray or die. This power only functions against humanoid monsters of nine hit dice or fewer (though including humans and demihumans of any level). It has no effect on undead, constructs, or plants, nor will it effect creatures from other planes (djinni, demons, etc.).

Unlike a non-magical scythe, the scythe of swift slaying moves quickly and easily in the hands of its wielder, and does not suffer the normal two-handed weapon penalty of striking last in the round. What's more, if its wielder kills an opponent (whether through its slaying enchantment or normal damage) she may make an immediate additional melee attack against any opponent within 10'. If this additional attack downs its opponent, the wielder may make an additional attack against a third opponent, though no more than three opponents can be so targeted in a single round (or four if acting under the effects of a haste spell or potion of speed).

Victims of the scythe of slaying may be raised as normal.

Something scary looking, like this.

R is for Rapier of Reckless Ripostes

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

R is for Rapier of Reckless Ripostes.

The rapier is a specially designed dueling sword, made to pierce an opponent through a vital organ by concentrating force into the tiny pointed tip. In this way, it was similar to the estoc, though many possessed an edge (and least the latter half of the blade) and the weapon was of lighter construction than the robust estoc, allowing for finer manipulation and swordplay. In B/X terms, it has the same stats as a normal sword (though it inflicts 1D6+1 damage if using variable weapon damage) and is much too long to be used by a halfling (though they shorties could use the similar smallsword...treat as a short sword but with variable weapon damage of D4+1).

The rapier of reckless ripostes heightens the speed of its wielder's hand and footwork such that when ever the opponent misses an attack roll in melee, she is allowed an immediate bonus attack against the faltering opponent. This bonus attack does not take the place of the character's normal attack, it represents an aggressive, lightning-fast lunge at an opponent whose blade has missed the mark or been deftly parried. Unfortunately, the riposte is indeed reckless: if the riposte misses the defender, then the defender is allowed an immediate bonus attack against the wielder of the rapier of reckless ripostes...she has left herself wide-open to an easy counter-strike. If this follow-up attack misses, the rapier wielder does not make another riposte; no more than one reckless riposte is allowed in a single combat round.

The weapon's enchantment only function against opponents that wield a melee weapon, never against an unarmed combatant or monster using claws and bites.

Such a beautiful weapon.

Q is for Quarterstaff of Quieting

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

Q is for Quarterstaff of Quieting

The quarterstaff is different from the staff found in the B/X (Expert set) rules, being a true weapon, sometimes even capped in iron, though the bulk of its 6'-9' length is carved from hardwood. While it is a two-handed weapon, it is quick to use and does not suffer the normal two-handed weapon penalty (i.e. it does not require its wielder to strike last). Because of its length, it may not be used by dwarves or halflings (and never by magic-users); if using variable weapon damage it inflicts D4+1 in addition to any bonuses for strength and enchantment.

It is quite possible that the quarterstaff of quieting was created by a cleric, for it appears to incorporate a very localized version of the spell silence 15' radius. Any opponent struck in combat will find herself completely silenced (though there is no extended radius) and unable to speak for six turns. The weapon is thus extremely useful against spell-casters, who must speak to perform their magic.

A very effective weapon, historically.

P is for Poleaxe of Powerful Penetration

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

P is for Poleaxe of Powerful Penetration.

The poleaxe is yet another example of a two-handed pole arm purposefully designed to pierce heavy armor. For many knights of the plate armor era in Europe, it was the heavy melee weapon of choice. In B/X, the weapon is treated as a pole arm in all respects.

The poleaxe of powerful penetration has been magically enchanted to tear and rend armor like a hot knife through a kicking, shrieking victim. Every successful attack roll against an armored opponent reduces the value of armor worn by two points (so plate mail would be reduced from AC 3 to AC5 on a successful attack); a shield-using opponent may choose to sacrifice her shield to the poleaxe instead. Against opponents in magical armor, the poleaxe of powerful penetration removes one "+" from the armor's value with each hit (again, the defender may choose whether this comes from the shield or suit, if both are magical), and armor is only reduced after all enchantments have been removed. This destruction is permanent.

In addition, if the damage roll comes up the maximum number on an attack (a "6," or "10" if using variable weapon damage), the attacker may roll an additional die (without bonuses) and apply the roll as extra damage. If the second roll comes up with the maximum number, roll a third dice (though no more than three total).

[I will be traveling to Argentina tomorrow, but I will schedule my A-Z posts to roll out over the next few days]

Yeah, yeah...they don't all look like this.

O is for Otsuchi of Obvious Opulence

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

O is for Otsuchi of Obvious Opulence.

Hammer time.

The otsuchi or o-tsuchi is a two-handed wooden war mallet used in ancient Japanese warfare. Statistically, it can be used for any similar sledgehammer like weapon. For B/X play, it has the same cost and encumbrance as a battle axe, and it may be used by any class but the magic-user and halfling. If variable weapon damage is used, it inflicts 2D4-1 points of damage on a successful hit; as with all two-handed weapons, it strikes last in melee unless fighting zombies.

The otsuchi of obvious opulence appears encrusted with precious stones, inlaid with gold leaf and silver wire, and handsomely carved with all sorts of martial figures. Though it would seem to be of incredible value as a treasure item, these are simple illusions, and no amount of prying and gouging can remove the "treasure" from the weapon.

N is for Nunchaku of No Worries

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I was sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I am trying to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

N is for Nunchaku of No Worries.

Nunchaku are very similar to the morning star in both form and function, but they are composed of hard wood (sometimes reinforced with metal or rivets) and are lighter in weight than the heavier morning star. With the exception of magic-users, any character class can use nunchaku; however, characters with a dexterity less than 13 have a chance to injure themselves with the weapon (any attack roll of "1" before modification results in the wielder taking damage). If using variable weapon damage, nunchaku inflict 1D4+1 points on a successful attack roll.

The wielder of the nunchaku of no worries is immune to any and all magical fear effects.

[finished my tax return for 2015. No worries]

Flogging the heck out of my financial records.

M is for Morning Star of Malevolent Maiming

[over the course of the month of April, I committed to posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. While I am sorely tired of the challenge after only 15 days, I will try to "stick to it." Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

M is for Morning Star of Malevolent Maiming.

The morning star has been (historically speaking) an ill-defined weapon. For purposes of B/X play, the morning star is considered to be a spiked ball or weight, attached to a long handle by a length of chain. Because of its length and size, halflings and dwarves may only use the weapon with two hands (and suffer the normal penalty for using a two-handed weapon when wielding a morning star). Due to the spikes and their purpose of drawing blood, clerics are restricted from using the morning star at all, as are magic-users due to the usual taboos. For those who can wield the weapon, they find it frightfully effective, dealing 1D6+1 points of damage on a successful attack (the damage is the same even with the variable weapon damage rule).

The morning star of malevolent maiming is a vicious weapon, enchanted to inflict terrible, permanent injury on an opponent. Whenever its wielder inflicts maximum damage (a D6 roll of "6"), the DM should roll an additional D8 to determine the specific type of permanent injury its victim suffers:

1-2 Severe ugly facial scarring (-1 penalty to reaction rolls with humans)
3 Loss of an ear (-1 penalty to listen checks)
4 Loss of an eye (-2 penalty to missile attacks)
5 Loss of 1D4 fingers from one hand
6 Loss of hand at the wrist
7 Loss of nose (-3 charisma)
8 Kneecapped! (permanent movement reduction of 3")

There is no saving throw against the malevolent maiming of the weapon, though non-humanoids and incorporeal creatures (like specters and vampires) will be unaffected by its power. As with the axe of indifference, some kind-hearted DMs may allow the effects of the weapon to be healed with a cure serious wounds spell; otherwise, victims of the morning star of malevolent maiming will need a wish spell to recover their lost appendages.

Not a clerical weapon.

K is for Katar of Karma Killing

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic this month? Magical weapons for a B/X campaign. All such weapons are +1 to attack and damage rolls unless, unless specifically noted otherwise. Each of these weapons should be considered unique items]

J is for Katar of Karma Killing.

The katar is the infamous Indian "punch-dagger;" it is useless for throwing (i.e. cannot be used in missile combat), but is extremely effective in hand-to-hand fighting, receiving a +1 bonus to damage rolls in addition to any bonuses for strength and enchantment (if variable weapon damage is used it inflicts 1D4+1).

The katar of karma killing is even more deadly as it drains the luck and good fortune from its victims. On a successful attack roll, the victim suddenly finds her spirit crushed, and her energy ebbing; she  immediately loses additional hit points equal to her own level of experience, and suffers a -1 penalty to all saving throws. Further strikes from the magical katar will increase the saving throw penalty by a cumulative -1 per successful attack, in addition to inflicting normal weapon damage.

The magical effects of the katar of karma killing (both the saving throw penalty and the level-based hit point loss) are permanent until a remove curse spell has been cast on the victim. The damage inflicted by the weapon itself can be healed and/or recovered as normal.

I've always loved the katar.