Problems, Annoyances, and Misconceptions

I watched this YouTube video titled "5 Things in D&D that Make No Sense" [Of course referring to 5E specifically], and I found it interesting that she found these specific things to be annoying: 

1. Falling damage in 5E caps at 20d6 (200' fall). She rightly points out that most mid-level 5E PCs will survive that. 

Of course, they are also going to survive around six or seven sword stabs or axe slashes at that level, and be fully healed after a good night's rest. So I don't know why this particular break from real world physics bothers her so much. I do wonder if the 20 dice cap is related to the 20 dice cap for high level magic users in BECMI/RC D&D? It is a fairly arbitrary number to place the cap upon. 

2. Shields. 5E treats all shields the same. Buckler or kite, round or tower, they all give a +2 bonus. 

Growing up playing BECMI, this was just a given (although only a -1 bonus to AC), and the reasoning was addressed in the rulebook. Smaller, lighter shields are easier to maneuver into place to block an attack, while large shields provide more cover. Again, it's an artificial simplification that aids gameplay, even if that leads to a loss of realism. 

And you could always go the AD&D route, where all shields give that -1 bonus, but only to specific attacks from specific directions, or a specific number of attacks in the round. 

3. Religion in D&D. Pantheistic religions don't work the way they do in D&D, where everyone is devoted to a singular deity within the pantheon. Also, how can there be atheists in a word where the gods actually sometimes walk the Earth?

Again, starting playing with BECMI, and even in AD&D, this isn't really a thing. Maybe it started to develop in the 2E days, but it wasn't until 3E hit the shelves that I noticed this about how gods/religions work in D&D. And yes, it is odd, and shows the likely monotheistic cultural bias of the setting designers. But this isn't really something that's hard-coded into the rules, really. It's more of how things are presented, and how many players role-play the situations. So long answer short: don't like it, change it for your table.

4. The Find Traps spell. This is the one that really made me want to write a post about this video. Apparently, in 5E, this spell doesn't actually find the traps for you, it just lets you know that there are traps in the area that you can roll skill checks to locate. 

OK, that is pretty lame. 

But once more, coming from an older edition background (particularly editions where the find traps spell actually DOES find the traps for you), this is one of my big beefs with 5E magic. Everyone thinks that 5E magic is much more powerful than old school spellcasting classes because of at-will cantrips, more spells per day (at low levels anyway), and all the special abilities involved. 

BUT... So many 5E spells are completely nerfed compared to how they worked in older editions. I can see why this spell in particular bugged the YouTuber, because it doesn't do what the name says it does, and it's fairly useless to cast this version of the spell. 

So why is it named this? Continuity of spell names across editions of the game. As mentioned, the spell used to do exactly what the name promises. It's not a problem with the spell name, it's a problem with lazy game designers who think that they need to reword the spells in every edition to take away their usefulness, and in particular with 5E, to make everything into something that requires a d20 roll against some arbitrary difficulty number. 

It's interesting to me that the YouTuber is mystified by this. And she probably doesn't even realize just how crappy so many 5E spells actually are. Anything that used to be an encounter winner spell in older editions has been depowered so that players won't get The Feels when NPCs or monsters use it against them. Or there are so many caveats on the use of the spell that interesting utility functions that creative players thought up over the years are now explicitly prohibited by the spell text. The only spells worth taking are just the boring "deal more damage" spells. Yawn. 

5. Advantage and Disadvantage. Her problem is not with the mechanic itself (which is handy), but with how different situations that grant advantage and disadvantage always just cancel out to zero. You could be trying to make a ranged attack while prone, tied up, blind, in a wind storm, and cursed (all giving disadvantage), but your buddy using the Help action grants advantage, so all those negatives are cancelled. Roll normally. 

Yeah, that is dumb. But if a DM really wanted to total up all the positive and negative factors in a situation, and make a rule that, say, 2 more advantage factors than disadvantage factors grants net advantage (and the reverse), who's stopping her? I don't think WotC can send Pinkertons to her door for that. Not yet, anyway. 

It's not something I need to worry about anymore, so whatever on this last one. 

_________________

Next week, I'm flying back to the U.S. with Flynn, so unless I get the itch to blog over the coming weekend, I probably won't have any content up here for a couple of weeks. As Arnold says, though, "Ahl be bahk."

Necessary Build-Up: Running High Level 5E

So you're a 5E DM, and you've been suffering many of the problems that that edition suffers at high level? Are combats a hit point slog? Do they take too long? Are players spending more time designing alternate PCs because they're bored with the ones they have? Is it too hard to balance combat encounters or design challenging adventures because of oodles of hit points and so many spells/powers? 

What to do?

Well, sit back and let me try to share some advice. It may not all be good advice, and some of it will definitely not be easy, but don't give up hope!

If you're a 5E (or probably any other more recent edition) D&D DM who isn't yet at the high level of your campaign but want to keep it going at that level, this will be much easier for you. 

The trick to building a long-lasting campaign that can handle high level play is to build up complexity into your game world as you go. Don't just focus on the "story" of this group of heroes. Also don't assume they're by default heroes, but that's a post for another day. You need to world build.

It's fairly easy to grab a map you like off the internet, or even to make your own. You could also use a published adventure setting like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Golarion. Now, you need to start filling in ideas about what is, could, or will be going on in those towns and kingdoms and monster-infested waters when the PCs aren't there. 

No, you don't need to keep track of everything. You don't need to play out the whole world. Take a breath. It's OK. We're gonna get through this. 

You do need to have ideas about who's in charge of what, and what the cultures are like in at least a general sense, and what wars might be brewing, and where powerful monsters lair, and where to find mysterious artifacts. And on the smaller scale, who are the power players in the local area? What are their beefs? How can they help or hinder the PCs? 

If you have a fleshed out game world, even if it's not completely fleshed out yet, and especially if it's sometimes inconsistent (the real world is after all!), you can leverage those elements to provide challenges for your players besides yet another quest to yet another dungeon to slay yet another set of 3-4 balanced encounters of monsters/traps, then a boss fight. 

Here's the trick though, and why it's easier if you're not yet at high level. You don't need all of this to start. You build it up little by little, and layer complexity and detail onto the game world as you play. 

I mentioned in the comments of my last post that I haven't actually run a high level game since I was in high school. And mostly that is because of two things: living the expat life where gamers to play with come and go often, and my own gamer ADHD due to having too many game systems or campaign styles that I'd like to run. With my current game, I'm committed to running it as long as I can, and getting it up into the high levels. I think I'll go into detail in a future post (or posts) on what I remember doing back in high school (lots of PCs were in the level 20s/attack ranks, a few made it into the 30s), as well as what I'm doing now to lay the foundations of long term play in my current campaign (highest PC currently is 4th level).

 For now, though, I'll say this. Pay attention to the game world. Have recurring NPCs and villains. Have at least some idea of the region's politics, even if it's all background and never effects play at low levels. Work on multiple factions/power centers/sides that the PCs may join or oppose (or even ignore), rather than focusing a grand narrative around defeating some Voldemort style baddie. Take notes on what the PCs have been doing, and how it may affect these powers that be. Every now and then, throw in agents of those powers. Have them notice what is happening with the PCs. When they get enough fame and fortune (upper mid levels is a good place for this), have them start getting recruitment offers or else people sent to actively oppose the PCs' efforts. Have townspeople recognize them when they introduce themselves by name, or even have them known by their appearance. If the PCs are antagonizing some power center, have wanted posters or bounty hunters show up. If the PCs are aiding a power source, have offers of aid arrive occasionally. 

Build up some detail in your game world over time. It doesn't have to be fully fleshed out yet. But it should be reactive to what the PCs are doing. Don't just have "town" be like in a video game, where every NPC has one line of dialogue, and the town simply exists as a place to buy/sell, heal, and rest up. Make the setting a character. Build it up as you go. Keep taking notes. Use those notes to make the game world richer in future sessions. 

If you build it up enough, by the time the PCs are high level, the offers of guild memberships, knighthoods, offers to be kept on retainer as a court wizard, etc. will help give them goals and make the players want to invest in the setting as well. And once they're invested, there will be more to do at high level than rinse-and-repeat dungeon raids and hit point slog combats.

Planescape and the Traveling Circus

Call me an old fuddy duddy all you like, but the majority of my D&D characters (when I get a chance to play rather than DM) are humans. I know that's not the norm these days. The big 5E West Marches game I'm in, with dozens of players and over 100 PCs (players are allowed multiple PCs in different parties) has all sorts of oddball races in it. 

Full disclosure: in that game, I have 5 PCs. A Half-Orc, an Elf, a Genasi, and two Humans. When in Rome...

I'm pretty sure that the emphasis on adding new races to the game started with 2nd Edition AD&D. Sure, there were sections talking about allowing monsters as PCs all the way back in OD&D, but no hard codified rules. I think it was 2E, with all the various settings like Planescape and Spelljammer, Ravenloft and Dark Sun, Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Birthright, plus plenty of splat-books with demi-human subclasses and new races (yes, in that era BECMI also had the Creature Crucible series that did this as well, and the GAZ series) that heralded the desire by many players to play an oddball race, rather than stick to the Tolkien cannon. 

Oh, and the Drizzt novels. Lots of friends wanted to play a "good Drow" back in the 90s/early 00s. Many people apparently still do.

Now, there's nothing wrong, in my opinion, about a specific setting having a different selection of standard PC races. Doing that sets the tone for that campaign world. But 5E is just sort of ridiculously overblown. It's not because it has so many options, it's because it seems like many DMs just allow all of them by default, rather than crafting a world with the selection that fits. And so we get a traveling circus as the adventuring party. Dragonborn, goliaths, tabaxi, genasi, drow, warforged, and more! Plus there are usually a few humans, dwarves, elves, halflings...

Now, I am running a Star Wars game, and there are tons more alien races that could be selected...but most of the PCs in my campaign are still human! We have one sentient droid (and the player ran an Umbaran in the fancy ball session where battledroids would not be welcome), a Caamasi (player usually can't join us anymore...Hi Tallifer!), and a Fosh (My younger son is now into eagles, instead of bulldogs, so he changed his Bulldogman Jedi into a Fosh birdman Jedi. Give him a break. He's 9, and possibly on the spectrum [I may be as well]. At least now there's a proper species he can pick to represent what he wants.). One player had a Duros pilot, but now plays a human scout. Oh, and one player made a Togruta Kid, but then she hasn't been able to play. There are seven humans, counting the aforementioned scout, although two of those players haven't joined a game session in quite a while so may be out. 

Getting back to D&D, I don't want my standard D&D tavern to look like the Mos Eisley Cantina. I don't want the city to look like the streets of Coruscant. I want them to look more like Lankhmar or Shadizar. Sure, there may be a few places off the beaten path that look more like a Star Wars background, but the standard of the campaigns I prefer is to be more humanocentric, with a few demi-humans for spice.

Anyway, back to Planescape. If I remember right, Spelljammer came out first, so that's probably what really kicked off the desire to make the adventuring party a circus full of weirdos, but I think Planescape really popularized it. At least that's my conception and memory of the 90s gaming mood. 

And there is a new Planescape for 5E coming soon. WotC put out a video promoting it, but I found it kind of laughable. 

I have already mentioned elsewhere (in the comments of noism's blog) that my take-away of the video was that WotC was really hyping the idea of Sigil being a place where angels and devils live side by side...but doing humdrum jobs. The angel, the servant of the gods of Law and Good, an eternal being whose essence is Alignment made physical reality, is a baker? Really? Why? Does it need to pay rent? 

If WotC wants the new Planescape to be a wild, concept bending, mind-expanding experience like the original 2E version apparently was (I never got into it), then they're gonna have to do better than that. 

The circus is already the default for 5E adventuring parties. We've already got Eladrin, Tieflings, Hobgoblins, and Tortles as a normal part of standard vanilla Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk (5E version). Getting to play an oddball species won't have the same effect anymore. It's just the norm.

And having a setting where the Outer Planes are just some weird capitalist style workplace realm but with medieval fantasy bolted on is just...lame. 

I've always struggled with the Outer Planes. Sure, the Great Wheel is a fine concept. But ever since I was a kid, I've had ideas to make Outer Planes like Avalon from Arthurian legends, or based on lyrics from Led Zeppelin songs, Land of the Lost, or otherworldly scenes from B grade horror and sci-fi movies inspiring what I think outer planes should be like, along with all the mythology that inspired the Great Wheel. It's hard to make my desires about what the Outer Planes should be into a reality in my games, but I have tried on occasion.

To quote Baylan Skoll in Asohka, the Outer Planes should be lands "of dreams and nightmares." But not the nightmare of having to get up at 6am every day because it's "time to make the doughnuts." 

We deserve better.

Choosing Your Ruleset as Difficulty Level

This is an idea that's been knocking around in my head for a while, but playing some emulated games with Steven (my 8 year old) this evening* reminded me about it. 

Video games used to have difficulty levels that you could choose before you started the game. I'm sure there are still a few games that use them, but one reason I don't play a lot of video games anymore is that they seem to be designed to either give you "an experience" or else they want you to subscribe/pay lots of microtransactions, so either they are too easy (experience or subscription) or too hard (microtransactions), with no choice. But back in the day, we had this.

So, here are my very subjective and probably wrong estimations of which version of D&D is at which difficulty level. This assumes a few things. One, it's difficulty for the players to play the game, not for the DM to run the game. Two, it assumes you're running things more or less by the book, at least as far as assumptions for things like encounters, healing, goals of play, and the like are concerned. If you play 4E in an "old school style" then that's outside of what I'm talking about here. I'm considering a group that plays 4E (or whatever edition) as the designers intended it to be played. Three, let's leave supplements out of the equation for now, they just complicate things. So no Skills & Powers, no Greyhawk/Blackmoor, no Unearthed Arcana, no Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Just the core rule books.

And I'll reiterate -- this is just my feeling about it. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am down in the comments. But the next time you start up a campaign, consider selecting the rule set that fits the challenge level you wish to give the players.

 I'm Too Young to Die (Very Easy Mode)

4th Edition D&D This is about as easy as it gets for the players. It's designed so that you would have to go out of your way to create a "suboptimal" character. The play assumptions are two to three easy fights then a tougher but still winnable "boss" fight as an adventure. Magic items are fairly easy to acquire, and you're not expected to have to do much more than ride the railroad from set piece battle to set piece battle, with a few "skill challenges" here and there to spice things up.

5th Edition D&D A bit more challenging than 4E, but still a lot easier than most other editions. It's possible to create a suboptimal character, but the rules tend to be a bit more forgiving with character creation. Advancement is very fast at low levels. Healing is ridiculously easy. And again, the adventures seem to be mostly an assumption of a few easy fights leading up to the boss battle. If players just go along and make sure to rest often, and the DM only places recommended encounter difficulties, it's not too hard at all.

Hey, Not Too Rough (Easy Mode)

2nd Edition AD&D The rules and systems for play, including character creation and character advancement, can lead to challenges for the players. You might get stuck with a suboptimal character through dice rolls as much as through character choice. But, the big mitigating factor of this edition is the design goal that players play "heroes" and go on epic narrative adventures. So while death is very much possible from the way the rules are written, the DM advice suggests that this be mulliganed or nerfed to serve the ends of the story. 

 Hurt Me Plenty (Normal Mode)

BX or BECMI D&D  I'm lumping these two together because while BECMI incorporates a lot more complexity of play at the high levels (not to mention Immortals level play being a completely different and more challenging game), at the earliest levels, play is pretty much the same in them. Character creation by the book can be a challenge (roll 3d6 down the line), but ability score bonuses are more generous than in the AD&D line. There aren't many choices to make at character creation, either. Adventure design assumptions are that encounters are not balanced, and it's up to the players to know when to push on for more and when to quit. But there are also rules that make treasure pretty generous, which speeds up advancement if the characters do survive.

3rd Edition D&D This edition has a lot of the design assumptions of the later editions. Character creation is generous with abilities and ways to optimize the character, but the complexity of the "exception-based rules" design, with all the skill points and feat choices and whatnot make it more of a burden to play than other editions. The adventure design assumptions are not quite so forgiving, but still, healing is fairly easy to get, magic items are easily purchased, and it's pretty easy to get around the "save or die" type effects. If the rules weren't so complex and fiddly, this would be in an easier tier.

Ultra-Violence (Hard Mode)

Original D&D It all started here, and it wasn't easy! Characters were randomly generated and didn't have a lot of "powers" to rely on. Monster encounters can easily be with overpowering odds. There's an assumption of thinking your way through encounters, rather than just hacking and slashing. You're dead at 0 hit points, and healing is not easy to come by. The incompleteness of the rules (remember, this is assuming the base rules only, not the supplements) may also up the difficulty a bit, as the DM will need to make a lot of guesses as to what's an appropriate challenge, and players will have to have their wits about them to survive.

1st Edition AD&D This edition has a good mix of difficulty in character optimization (it's got generous die rolling for ability scores but stingy bonuses for high scores, race/class combo restrictions, ability score restrictions, level caps for demi-humans, etc.) and difficulty in adventure assumptions. Monsters are challenging. Tricks, traps, and whatnot are expected, and can really mess you up. Sure, there are lots of opportunities to find powerful magic items, but the most powerful have serious drawbacks. And the level of detail in the rules give the DM all sorts of ways to make things difficult or more challenging for the players.

Nightmare (Extra Hard Mode)

Holmes D&D Rolling 3d6 down the line for stats and rolling your hit points randomly and you can only go up to 3rd level, but the book expects you might run into all sorts of dragons, vampires, purple worms, and the like? Yeah, this is the most challenging version if you play it straight.

*We have a Super Console X, an Android TV box with EmuElec, Retroarch, and about 30 systems emulated, with thousands of games. Tonight, we played some Twisted Metal on PS1 and Gauntlet 4 Quest Mode on Sega Genesis.

The 5E to OSR Pipeline

It may just be that my perception is biased due to the algorithmic nature of YouTube recommendations, but it does appear as if a lot of 5E players have become more interested in the OSR as of late. 

Again, I know it may just be that having watched one video about turning from 5E to the OSR, the algorithm is recommending more similar content to me. But all of the videos that have been recommended are fairly recent. Most have been made within the past few months, and none more than a year old. 

So, why is this happening? 

Well, for one, it may just be a YouTuber fad. One streamer or vlogger tries out an OSR game, and others feel curious to try it as well. People see one person's idea, and they will copy it. Expect more of these videos to be produced if this is true, but don't expect a huge increase in new OSR converts.

Another possibility is that 5E fatigue has set in. There's a reason WotC recently announced their "One D&D" revision/new edition/whatever it will be. People have explored the possibilities of 5E, and one more splat book of new options is not gonna hold their attention much longer. Part of this is baked into the design of 5E, which like 3E and 4E, was designed as a game of system mechanics exploration more than imaginary exploration within the game world. That gives it a limited (intentionally so?) lifespan with the players. 

Final possibility? It's not a trend at all. There are a handful of people who have done this, and YT is just showing me all of the small number of videos like this. In a week, I won't be seeing any more because I'll have sampled all there is to sample.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is actually a trend.

Not every one of the videos I've watched has been positive towards the OSR games they've tried, but the majority have been. And these videos have spanned the gammut from playing the actual old editions from TSR to all the various retroclones (well, OSRIC, LL, OSE, S&W anyway), and OSR adjacent games like Black Hack and Dungeon World. 

Despite the bad reputation of THAC0, or Vancian casting, or high lethality, the fact that most of the older editions and their retro-clones encourage exploration of the game space more than exploration of the system mechanics is, I think, the reason why people are engaging with these rules again. That's what happened with me and a lot of other people 15 years or so ago. 

And then there are the folks that have been playing the old editions all along, and still are having fun with them. And new folks are joining these games, and finding out that you don't need a bunch of fiddly numbers on your character sheet, or kewl nu powrz! at ever level to have fun. 

I'm not gonna make a prediction that One D&D will flop. I'm sure there are vastly more people willing to take whatever WotC will give them. And it looks like WotC is gonna try for more of a subscription model rather than a purchase model of sales, at least for their online tools, this time. So they'll probably secure a decent revenue stream with their new version of the game. 

But I will say that the OSR is far from dead. I'd expect a lot of these 5E converts to be coming up with their own retro clones and modifications to the game and releasing them in the next few years! Even if it is just a handful of people splitting off from the 5E community (or straddling both), there's new blood in the OSR. And they will run (and create) games that attract even more people.

Magic: The Gathering, LEGO, and 5E

I started playing Magic: The Gathering pretty much as soon as it came out. A friend who lived down the hall in the dorm brought it back after Thanksgiving break 1993, and within a week or two a bunch of us on 3-North of Moore Hall had decks of our own. My first starter deck was, IIRC, Limited Edition (beta).

Every week, I had budgeted a certain amount of my paycheck for comic books, but if there weren't that many titles I wanted to pick up in a certain week, the remainder usually went into MtG boosters. Later, after moving to Japan and finally earning more than enough to live paycheck to paycheck, I started buying MtG cards again, and occasionally playing. I ended up with a pretty massive collection of cards, which I still have but don't play very often.

Back in the earliest days of the game, part of the charm was seeing what weird and strange cards you'd get in a pack, or what cards your opponents might bring out. We were so far from optimizing our decks. We'd just throw every card we had into them, decks with all five colors and 100-200 cards. The randomness of playing that way was part of the fun and challenge. Of course, over time, as we got more familiar with the game, the novelty factor would wear off...until the next expansion set would come out.

Later, though, and as access to the internet became more common, it became pretty easy to know what all the cards were in a particular set, if you cared to look them up. After I moved from one prefecture to another, the MtG scene was different in my new location. In Toyama, we'd played much the same as my friends back in college. In Yamanashi (circa 2001), the foreign players played with the local Japanese fans, and they were VERY focused on tournament play. I'd met a few Japanese players in Toyama, but didn't really get deeply involved with them. Looking back, it was also probably because they were very heavily tournament focused. Also, one guy who wanted me to trade a rare card for some other rare card of his that I didn't really want, but then got upset when I wouldn't trade...and everyone else seemed to think that I was the asshole because I didn't want to give up a good card for one that I wasn't interested in. ??? 

Back on topic: pretty much everyone but me in Yamanashi (that I knew of) who played MtG was interested in deck optimization. They'd clone decks of tournament winners. One guy went so far as to tape pieces of paper with the names of cards he didn't own over land cards to turn them into those cards (which I found VERY cheesy) so he could play the "winning deck." That guy nearly blew a gasket when I played a chicken card from the comical Unglued expansion on him. Those silly cards weren't tournament legal! Another friend said I was "screwed" when I bought a deck from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms expansion (which was an Asia only thing IIRC) because they were labeled as part of their beginner series (forget what they called them **just looked it up, Portal**) and again not tournament legal. Shit, I didn't care. I've got Liu Bei and Guan Yu in my Magic deck. And chickens. Screw it. I was having fun.

Needless to say, after a while I gave up on Magic. Especially after they did the whole "Volrath Saga" thing and were trying to tell stories with the expansion sets (to sell more of the shitty novels?) instead of presenting new worlds like in earlier expansions. I guess they went back to the world themes later, but WotC had already lost me as a customer. It had stopped being fun.

I had also long stopped caring about trying to familiarize myself with all the cards in every expansion that came out. And when they made major rules changes (7th edition I think), I was out.

I still have all those cards in my closet, though. And I've even used them from time to time for English teaching. 

Anyway, I preface this post with that, because my knowledge of the game is almost 20 years out of date. So take what I have to say about MtG from that perspective. No idea about rules changes or expansions after 6th or 7th edition. 

So, what's all this to do with 5E, other than WotC being the producer of both games? Well, as I mentioned in a comment about 5E over at BX Blackrazor, I see the character creation system of 5E to be a lot like the deck building mini-game of MtG. 

You've got a base set of rules in MtG. But certain cards (and a larger and larger percentage of the cards as time went on) had ways to bend, twist, or even break the normal rules. And the challenge was not just playing the right cards at the right time, it was having the right combinations of cards in your decks. Brilliant marketing. To have the right cards, players need to spend more money to buy more cards... Until they just start taping bits of note paper over their worthless land cards to turn them into the rare cards. Looking back now, I don't fault the guy so much for doing that. 

Anyway, 5E character creation is a lot like the deck building aspect of MtG. You have a book with the basic rules. Then you have races, classes, backgrounds, equipment, spells, and eventually magic items that you can use to "build your deck" and decide what sorts of special abilities you want your PC to have. There's a fun intellectual puzzle solving aspect of it that I quite enjoy. 

3E and Pathfinder are also like this, but since everything is more fiddly in those games, it bogs down. 5E does hit a good sweet spot of not being too complex. 3E and Pathfinder are a bit more like a big box of LEGOs. If you follow the instruction booklet (online optimization boards) you come out with the Hogwarts Castle or a TIE Fighter made of LEGO. Go it on your own, it will probably be a bit of a mess and not quite like what you were planning. This is a big part of why I have no desire to go back and replay these games.

Now, as a player, that puzzle-solving aspect of building a character is fun and challenging. But I'm only dealing with my character. It's not that hard to keep all my rules-bending Magic cards of special abilities in order. But as a DM? You've got to be well aware of EVERYONE's special rule bending abilities. Every player, every monster (and there aren't a whole lot of 1/1 no special ability Mon's Goblin Raiders among 5E monsters), every magic item, every NPC. And then they start adding in splatbooks. 

For me, trying to run 5E was like the latter days of my MtG play experience. There were games I was in against players with newer expansions where pretty much every card they played, I had to ask them to hand it over so I could read it, since I was unfamiliar with them. I felt that way a lot DMing 5E, and I kept my game limited to the PHB only! 

So, when Alexis asked me in the comments of JB's post (link above) why I quit 5E when I said I had fun with it, it's because I STILL have fun with it as a player. If someone else wants to run it, great. I'll play. But I don't have fun if I'm the DM. And that's why I quit it.

The End of Down Time

My covid-19 quarantine ends at midnight tonight (about 2 hours from time of writing), so I'm back to work tomorrow. We had a pretty good day. Played some emulated console games with son #2 after I finished teaching my online classes. Ordered delivery fried chicken for dinner. Rewatched Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings with the boys. Scheduled my Star Wars RPG session for this coming Sunday. All in all, a pretty good day. 

So, since I've been talking about my actual down time, why not discuss D&D down time a bit after all? 

I don't have much in the way of downtime activity in my West Marches games. Magic-Users can, per Holmes Basic, create a scroll given a week's time and a bit of gold. I rule that to 1 week per game session, but the scroll-crafting can only be done in town. So the past several sessions in White Plume Mountain haven't allowed the characters to replace scrolls used. But once they get back to town, that's one way they can spend their time/money. Also, those that don't have magical weapons or armor can commission +1 items (only) from Rupert the Town Mage or Sister Clarion, the town Matriarch (technically, they could also go to Toutates the Priest [druid] as well, but so far no one has). But each of these NPCs can only work on one item at a time, and it takes several game weeks (sessions) for the item to be completed. Once PCs reach Name level, they could then do these projects themselves. 

So not much for down time rules in my current game. 

In one of the 5E play-by-post games I am in, though, there are some rather extensive rules for down time.

First of all, it's also West Marches style (and the inspiration for me to want to run a WM game myself), but in the more traditional sense that there are multiple parties all exploring different areas simultaneously. But since it's play by post, it's slow and erratic. And while an adventure may take only a couple of days of in-game time, it can take literal years of real time to play out. My longest running character in the game (we're allowed multiples as long as they join different groups) is only on his second adventure after 5 years of actual real world play. But he is 8th level on the verge of 9th in that time...

Anyway, as Gygax would say, YOU CANNOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT or something to that effect. The GM does take careful records of time spent by each party, how many days/hours have passed, how many rations we've expended, etc. And how many days of real world time have passed since each expedition sets out to when it arrives back in town. 

But as mentioned, each party's progress can't really be tied together in one big calendar in this game. If an expedition that covers a day or two in-game time takes a year or more to play out, while another group can cover four or five game-days in the same amount of time, but both parties end up back in town at the same real-world time and switch party members, things won't add up. 

So the GM decided that he just wouldn't worry about that part. But when players asked to spend downtime days for stuff (5E allows for item crafting, earning money with professional skills, learning a new tool proficiency or language, etc), he came up with the following:

*The number of real world days that pass while in the Marches equals the number of downtime days the character has to spend while in town. They must still spend any gold required for the training desired. 

That seemed to work OK. My oldest PC in the game traded in some of his hard won gold and a lot of that downtime to learn some new languages and tool proficiencies. 

But some people weren't going to use those downtime days, so the GM came up with the following:

*You may convert downtime days to XP at the rate of 3XP per 'day' spent. 

This led to a few problems in that one of the players (or maybe two) were trying to keep track of all the members' XP totals for them, with big complicated charts. But the player(s) started assuming that all downtime days were being converted to XP, so when my PC, for example, spent quite a few days on learning stuff, it messed up the charts. Also, there were questions of when these bonus XP amounts should be added, who was adding what when, etc. It got to be a mess.

So recently, after discussion with all the players, the GM has decided to get rid of tracking the downtime days. If PCs return to town and want to do some downtime activity, they can just declare it and spend the gold needed for training (or supplies). Not sure how he's handling profession skills...none of my characters have bothered with that sort of thing. 

Long story short, 5E has some interesting rules for managing down time, but unless strict time records for the campaign are kept (or there's only one party in the campaign), they can be a hassle!

How Wizards Work

 A friend of mine who runs an AD&D game online recently got into a 5E game and decided to play a Wizard as his first character. And he was pretty confused. There are spells in your spell book, spells you prepare, spell slots, cantrips that are at-will, and ritual spells that are sort of at-will, but take time. 

So he asked me to explain it to him since his DM couldn't in a way that made sense to him. 

Honestly, I flailed around at this for a bit, even though I get 5E and how it runs spell casters. 

The way I finally explained it was to break down for the first three levels how many spells you get in the spellbook, how many of those spells you prepare each day, and then how many spell slots you have to cast prepared spells. Plus, then reminding him of ritual spells and how they work. (He had cantrips down, they're easy.)

I was more wordy than this, but it broke down along these lines: 

At 1st level, you have 6 spells in your spellbook. You prepare any 4 of them (assuming a +3 Int bonus at 1st level). You can cast twice. That may be two different spells you prepared, or the same spell twice. 

At 2nd level, you get two more spells in your spellbook. You prepare any 5 of the 8 spells. You can cast three times, in any combination of the 5 prepared spells.

At 3rd level, you get two more spells in your spellbook, probably but not necessarily 2nd level ones. You can prepare any 6 of your 10 spells. You can cast six times, four times MUST be 1st level spells, and two times could be 1st or 2nd level spells, in any combination of your 6 prepared spells. 

And then you can cast any ritual spell without spending a spell slot as long as you have the time to cast it, but since they're mainly out of combat spells, you usually will.

While the flexibility of this is nice (utility spells don't need to be ignored and never prepared until after the need for them is known), it is fairly complex. 

Preparing X spells of each spell level per day, and then just casting those spells old school style is just so much simpler.

Using my noggin

Nate, who has been playing Tusken Tumble, the Half-Orc Acrobat in my West Marches game, started a 5E game using the free content WotC has been putting out during the coronavirus lockdown. He started us as 1st level PCs in the Lost Mines of Phandelver module, which is I guess the 5E equivalent of Keep on the Borderlands.

I rolled up a Wizard (Conjurer specialist now that he's 2nd level). And among his spells, only one cantrip does direct hit point damage. It's called infestation, and it summons up fleas, mites, etc. to bite and annoy the target. All of his other cantrips and spells are 'utility' magic.

Out of four sessions Nate has run, I've only played in two (the most recent last Friday night). So I just hit level 2 after this past session while everyone else is level 2 or 3 already. But that didn't really matter. I've been a pretty effective character when I've been there.

Minor Spoilers for Lost Mines of Phandelver below:

In my first session (second of the campaign), we were exploring a goblin cave to rescue some prisoners and stolen goods. The goblins had wolves (dire? worgs? not sure) as guards. Dean's Gnomish Bard and I combined our minor illusion cantrips to get the sound and image of a cat, to lure them out, which worked. We were able to take them on more easily as some were chained and some were not. Later, inside the cavern, my familiar (a Raven, not the most optimal familiar, but stylish!) scouted out a chamber that was up a hill of bones and rubble, and found several goblins, a bugbear, stolen goods, and a prisoner. Some of the party climbed up, but then retreated when they saw how tough the opposition was. I cast my second spell (the first being mage armor) to grease the slope, and the goblins that pursued slid down into our waiting warriors' axes/swords/pummeling fists. Then we all went up the slope, rescued the prisoner (Jeff's character, as he joined the session late), and when reinforcements arrived, I was back to using infestation and minor illusion to distract.

Last night, I felt like I was a bit more creative with my spells. We started out in town, seeking information on the Red Brand bandits who the party had tussled with in the third session which I missed. We ended up impressing a farm boy who knew the secret location into the lair by my mending cantrip and Bumblesnick's minor illusion cantrip. Once we got in the lair, we encountered a creature called a nothic (one-eyed twisted former mage with mental powers) and decided to fight it. The Ranger and Monk did most of the work there.

But after we killed it, we found a room with some red cloaks. They were filthy, maybe diseased, but a prestidigitation cleaned them. But since they wouldn't be much good as disguises shiny clean, more prestidigitation gave them cosmetic soiling.

The final room we investigated had three sarcophagi with armed skeletons leaning on them. With the help of both my and Bumblesnick's unseen servant rituals, we had the servants thread ropes gently through the bones of the skeletons to tie them up. When Denis' Tortle Monk entered the room, they animated of course, but the ropes kept them from mobbing Chell the Monk while we battled them.

Finally, we had a cache of weapons, beaver pelts, and the treasure from the nothic. It was a lot to carry. So I cast Tenser's Floating Disk to carry the loot out.

Dustie, playing a Half Orc Ranger, was wondering why I wasn't blasting away at things. I just laughed and in character wondered why any spell-caster worth his salt would be so crude.

Considering that a very high percentage of spells in 5E are damage dealing spells, I don't think Dustie was overreacting. I just found it amusing that I was getting by without much in the way of direct damage spells, and definitely making things easier for the party.

______________________________________

Story Two!

In my West Marches game this afternoon, the party was asked by the local king of the Fair Folk to wipe out a lair of river sahuagin (piranha people instead of shark people), in exchange for help transporting their large piles of treasure taken from the fledgling dragons last session. Justin's character, Queeg, is an antiquarian (MU/Thief).

On the way to the dungeon, they met hostile satyrs, but Queeg's phantasmal force spell (or was it the wand of illusion?) of frolicking nymphs distracted most of them.

Queeg has a stone of earth elemental control which he used to summon an elemental to battle the sahuagin (until it was dispelled by the sahuagin priestess of Blibdoolpoolp). That weeded out a fair number of sahuagin guards.

Then the party waded in. The remaining front room guards were reinforced by the priestess and her retinue, plus they had a giant crab. While battling, Queeg made good use of continual light to blind the priestess, his wand of paralyzation, and his mirror image spell to even the odds a bit (very necessary, as the priestess had used hold person and paralyzed Abernathy the Dragonborn Fighter/Magic-User, and Calvin the Half Orc Cavalier) [Yes, home brew Classic D&D!]. He also used a staff of dispelling to remove the paralysis of the hold person spell.

Later, fighting the Sahuagin Baron and his bodyguards, Abernathy finally got to shine, with sleep spells (Queeg also used sleep) and magic missiles.

Two things are clear from this: One, Justin is also using utility magic well to solve problems. Two, Queeg has a lot of magical gear (being the only MU in the party for some time, he got a lot by default).

Does Edition Matter?

Big question, and I don't have a definitive answer (that's your TL/DR), but a few recent things have got me considering the effect of an edition on the play experience.

While I was in Illinois, Dean started a third campaign (still using his fractured fairy tale Eberron setting, I think) but using 4E. Now that I'm back in Korea, he asked if I wanted to join, and I declined because I'm just not that fond of 4E.

Then Jeremy started asking me if I'd play in a 4E game that he wants to run, only instead of using a standard array or point buy for ability scores, adapting my West Marches Classic D&D house rule. My rule is as follows:

• Players may choose one of two methods to roll ability scores: roll 3d6 six times, and place the scores where you want them to go, or else roll 4d6-lowest die, in order.

This forces players to choose between slightly higher stats but not where they might like, or being sure to play the class you want, but having slightly lower scores on average. It doesn't always work out. As dice are random, sometimes a 3d6 PC has better scores than a 4d6-L PC. It happens. But in general, it works.

Now, for 4E, which was carefully crafted to be "balanced" and not easily allow you to make a crappy character, and every PC should be equally useful in a fight, I wonder if Jeremy's switch would break the game. Not enough to play in it, though, but it did help me think of this topic for a blog post.

The edition matters, I think, in this case. 5E could definitely be played that way without much hassle. The online play-by-post West Marches game that inspired my own uses random ability score rolls instead of point buy, and it plays just fine. 4E, though, I think might break down. Maybe not, though, as it does also seem to be designed for each character to rely on only one primary ability score (or at least to allow you that luxury if you choose your powers right). The fact that the game was designed assuming all characters would have equivalent scores (through the standard array or point buy limits) makes me think randomizing it wouldn't work.

Maybe I'll give it a try and see.

The other thing that got me considering the effects of edition choice on the game was my reading through 1E Dragonlance Adventures. The more I read it, the less likely I think I'd be to run a game set in Krynn using 1E. I much prefer Classic D&D over AD&D anyway, but I don't hate AD&D.

But what I would possibly do would be to try and run a game set in Krynn using 5E.

I'd posted about that idea a few years ago, even came up with rules for the white/red/black robe mages and Knights of Solamnia in 5E.

And I'm thinking 5E might be a better fit, especially for the original module series, for a few reasons. First of all, adventures in Krynn don't seem to be strongly "murderhobo." The nations use steel coins, but any ruins or monster lairs are likely to have pre-Cataclysm gold/silver/copper coins, which are pretty much useless to Krynn PCs. And since AD&D relies on treasure for the bulk of XP earned, it's harder to get in Krynn. 5E awards most XP for combat, so that's not a problem there. It actually fits better if you want a game that may actually see mid- to high-level play some day.

Secondly, the more streamlined 5E rule set is probably more suited to the more "narrative" style of an adventure path (or railroad if you prefer that term) series of adventures. Since 1E was designed with streamlining tournament play, IMO it's bogged down with a lot of rules minutia that don't really help make the game better (feel free to disagree, I know some of you will) EXCEPT in the case of tournament play, where exact and consistent rules are needed across multiple, competing tables.

For a home game? Meh.

The only thing that stops me from starting a 5E Dragonlance campaign setting right now is that I really didn't have much fun DMing 5E. But I am considering the following and wondering if it might be fun:

• Play through the original module series
• Using 5E with a few modifications for the setting
• Players who are familiar with 5E and adventure path style games, but not with DL/Krynn

To the Mountain's Heart

To the Mountain's Heart

Being an Excerpt from the Journal of Jack Summerisle, Paladin and Green Knight of the Eldeen Reaches, concerning his adventures with his companions various and sundry as they seek the Heart of the Mountain, moving from the Hollow World of Pellucidar back towards the Overworld of Eberron, in a quest to awaken the Heart of the Mountain and defeat the Ghoul King.

We pressed on into the bowels of the Temple, going down many flights of stairs, and passing under the surface. It boggles the mind to think that we are in truth headed up when we do so. We have been in the hidden world of Pellucidar for so long now seeking this very temple.

Within the temple, we first encountered a chamber with a large altar made of piled stone. Three guardian creatures, made of stone but resembling the creatures known as dinosaurs here in Pellucidar, greeted us. They asked us to pledge ourselves to always battle the demons. This was an easy pledge for all of us to make, as we have already aligned ourselves to that cause.

The next chamber contained two giant suits of armor and two strange masks. The masks spoke to us, asking us to leave behind all worldly possessions. We refused, and the masks and armor animated, then attacked. We battled hard, and destroyed the spirits animating the items. Unfortunately in the battle, my armor was disintegrated by the touch of one of the giant suits. Fortunately, after the battle, the very same suit of winged armor that I was battling changed its size down to fit my body, and I now wear it. I am struggling to learn how to operate the wings, but I get the feeling that I will have the hang of it soon.

The third chamber contained another alter and three stone bird creatures. They demanded that we each impart some of our vital life force and experiences, to become more like children in order to pass. Again, we refused, and battle took place. We were victorious.

The fourth chamber was ornate, with numerous artistic wall carvings and inscriptions. There were five strange vessels on or near the altar, making strange noises. While some companions were stunned by the sounds from the vases, Pelar the Blade-Singer poured sand in one to mute its insane mumblings. I inspected the altar and found that a second pledge, this time against the Far Realm, was needed. I of course quickly pledged, as the Greensinger sect is already dedicated to just that. Other companions followed suit, although it took much effort to get Jade to commit, as he was entranced by the mumblings.

As we take a quick break to rest up and catch our breath, Yuv, with his legendary lore, informed us that beyond the next door should be the final altar. Could it also be the home of the mountains? We shall see.

A Response to Esper the Bard's 5E Class Rankings

I mentioned a few posts ago that this YouTube video rating the 5E classes was worthy of a response. While I've moved away from 5E as a DM, I still enjoy it as a player, so I think it's worth my time to consider what Esper thinks, why he thinks it, and point out where I agree or disagree with him.

First of all, here's the link to his video. Feel free to watch it now and come back here, or read this first and then watch his video (or alternate between the two!) as you like.

My first impression of his video was one of mild annoyance. First off, he has his tiers of ranking based on Guns n Roses songs which is fair enough. But his decision of where each class goes on that tier system is vague. He has a rating system with five criteria for evaluation. But he NEVER explains what these are. The first sign of a weak taxonomy system or ranking system is a failure to explain HOW you're classifying or rating whatever it is.

Now, granted, anything like this sort of video will, 99% of the time, boil down to post hoc justifications for the presenter's subjective opinions. But a carefully defined rubric of evaluation gives justifications for the subjective judgments and helps the audience with their own evaluations of the material.

I had to go looking at some of Esper's other videos to find his criteria spelled out in his ranking undead video. I didn't watch the whole video, just long enough to get his criteria.

So before I dive into the meat of the Character Class ranking video, I want to discuss this rubric a bit.

Mechanics apparently means a variety of combat options. Note that the description gives the highly subjective descriptors "interesting" and "fun." The undead video gives a picture of a camel vs a beholder as examples of low and high mechanics. Ignoring the fact that camels, as real world animals, are a low level threat at best while beholders are among the most powerful creatures in the game, I get what he's saying here. He thinks a simple attack roll/damage roll is boring, while having a dozen options to choose from each round is interesting.

Style is completely subjective. There's no way around this. Appearance and tone? His example pictures are a giff (I think that's the name - a Napoleonic monocle wearing hippo man from Starjammer) as low style and a roaring balor demon as high style. So goofy and unusual is lame, "metal" is cool. Got it.

Roleplaying is one that makes sense for rating monsters -- how high is the potential that you could have social interaction with the monster? His pictures are an ochre jelly and a lammasu. Obviously, you're going to fail to convince the ochre jelly that 'you're actually the telephone man come to fix the line so please let us into the treasure vault' with a Persuasion check or any amount of role play at the table. As a rating for character classes, though, I'm still mystified about what this is actually supposed to measure.

Lore seems to be a rating of not just how much total description of the monster there is, but its precedents in real world myth and legend. His example pictures are a carrion crawler (low lore) and a medusa (high lore). Since 2E went all out on monster lore for just about everything, it's hard for me to figure out if he's comparing in-game lore or real-world lore for monsters, or if again it's just a smokescreen for "I like how this monster is described, but not that one." And again, for character classes, I'm not sure how it translates exactly or how it's different from Style or Roleplaying.

Flexibility would seem to be a mechanical evaluation of the monster/class and how different you can make them within the rules. He gives pictures of a poisonous snake as low flexibility, and two elves (one a mage, one a warrior) as high flexibility. But I'm still a bit baffled when it comes to character classes. How is this different from Mechanics? Personally, I think flexibility has a lot to do with player creativity and ingenuity. I've seen plenty of "flexible" spellcasters who just spam fireballs and magic missiles all day long. And we've all had to deal with the player who thinks a cleric should be a walking cure wounds dispenser. Anyway, Esper seems to equate "lots of options to choose from on the character sheet" with flexibility...which is pretty much the same as his Mechanics category above.

So, we really have two categories for rating the classes, according to Esper:

• Do the game rules give this class lots of options to choose from? (Mechanics/Flexibility) 
• Do I think it's cool to play this class? (Style, Roleplaying, Lore)

So, on to his ranking.

The only bottom tier (E) option according to Esper, is the Fighter/Champion. And basically it's there because he sees this class option as a "long, long road filled with basic attacks" and nothing else. Well, if as a player of a Fighter/Champion you don't get creative, sure, that's possible. But a creative player will be looking at the rules (there are more things to do in combat in 5E, I mentioned the whole long list of allowed actions in my post the other day), not to mention equipment that could be used to make encounters more interesting. Sure, any other class could do those things, too, but since they have all these built in options to choose from, how often will they take advantage of them? When it comes to style, Esper sees this class as a blank slate...which is bad somehow. I guess being able to style the class any way you want is too much work for a 5E player these days? I shouldn't be snide. But really, he says there's no lore attached. I'm looking at just about all of human mythology/legendry/history and seeing all sorts of inspirations. I guess if it didn't come from Gygax as filtered through 3E and then 5E, it doesn't count.

Now, granted, the Champion is fairly plain and simple. It's not "sexy" but that's kind of the point. The Fighter throughout D&D history has not been a "sexy" class. But it's still one of the most common because it's effective and fun.

The next tier up (D) again has one subclass, the Barbarian/Berserker. His evaluation is that mechanically it has a few more options than the Fighter/Champion, but will still just be looking to make lots of normal attacks each round. He gives it high points for style (because bulging muscles are cool, I guess?) but says there's no lore or built in RP hooks for the class. So again, apparently we have our difference of Style with Roleplay/Lore. Style means "I think the art looks cool" while RP/Lore means WotC gave me my character concept for me (and I like what they gave me, but this part is in parenthesis because it only becomes obvious later).

Moving up to the next tier (C) we get a few: Fighter/Battlemaster, Barbarian/Totem Warrior, Fighter/Eldritch Knight, and Ranger/Hunter

The Battlemaster is as lame as the Champion, but gets more mechanical tricks. It apparently is visually more appealing (one step higher than Champion on Style) I guess because the art is more dynamic than the motionless 3E Fighter pictures used with the Champion section? And having the ability to define your character with mechanics to back it up is apparently what Roleplay/Lore is about in this case, instead of just role playing to define your character.

The Totem Warrior is better than the Berserker because...the rules for the totems are better than the rules for berserking? And apparently having these semi-magical abilities gives you more to base your RP on than being a warrior who goes crazy in battle.

The Eldritch Knight, he says, could have been in B tier because 1/3 wizard, but being 2/3 fighter is lame. Because all it does is fight. (Um, if that's the case, why are 2 of 5 criteria based solely on your ability to fight?)

To be clear, he's talking about the "revised Ranger" variant which he praises, so by the book Rangers are probably down with the Berserker in D tier. He gives the Hunter good points for combat and exploration mechanics, but says the RP/Lore is limited. How? I'm still not sure.

Anyway, Esper says that all of the above classes/subclasses lack for mechanical flexibility and/or RP hooks hard coded into the class.

Moving up to B tier, we get the Monk (all subclasses), Ranger/Beastmaster, Paladin (all subclasses), Rogue (Assassin & Thief).

Monks have lots of unique mechanics that he likes. Loves, even. But unfortunately, they are low on RP potential. Because he's never seen anyone create a more interesting Monk background than the default given by the book. So here's one of my biggest criticisms of this video. Monks are apparently sucky roleplay options because of how the book suggests they are played. But moving forward, classes like the Paladin or Bard get high marks for being played the way the books says you should play them.

Beastmasters are sucky Rangers, but having an animal is cool and metal. So bonus points.

Paladins are cool because they have a hard-coded RP story in the class (which is why Monks suck).

Rogue, at least the Assassin and Thief subclasses, get high ranks for style (cool dark edgy art), and real world lore is cool (from Han Solo to Jack Sparrow)...although real world lore for lower ranked classes was ignored. Apparently not having spells is enough to limit these edgy scoundrels to B tier because...

Tier A, the top, the best of the best! Here we have the Rogue/Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and at the top the BARD!

This is getting long, and you can basically boil this down to A tier (aside from Rogue/Arcane Trickster who are at the bottom of the tier) are full spellcaster classes. That's it, folks. According to this video, spellcasters are where it's at! Even though he seems to again waffle on the "real world lore/game lore" thing. And is inconsistent about what constitutes good hard-coded RP hooks and what doesn't.

Probably no surprise that a guy who calls himself Esper the Bard puts the Bard class at the top of the chart.

So what can we learn from this? If you want to actually rate classes, come up with some sort of well-defined criteria for the ratings and explain your ranking system in detail. Offer up arguments to defend your rating with specific examples or some sort of data, rather than "I just like this."

OR, from the beginning, just tell us straight up, these are the classes ranked by my personal preference of what/how to play and what seems cool to me, and give up the pretense of some sort of objective ranking system.

Trying to mush the two together leads to disappointment in your audience.

The Action Economy is a Bad Concept

I was watching a video on YouTube where a guy was evaluating the 5E classes from worst to best, as he saw them. I may watch it again and write down some comments/criticisms of it, as he has some rather vague criteria and his reasoning for why certain classes are good is also cited as a reason why at least one class is bad in his opinion. I won't link the video yet. If I do critique it, of course I'll link it then.

As I was watching it, I was trying to figure out how he was rating each class. And really, it boils down to three things: how versatile is the class, how "cool" did he find it to role play, and how well did it take advantage of the "action economy."

The concept of the action economy is a relatively new one in D&D, but it's been around in games like the Palladium system for a long time. If you pretty much stick to OSR blogs/forums, you may not be familiar with the term. The action economy is the idea that characters can take X actions in a turn, and if they don't take full advantage of these actions each round in combat, they are letting the side down by being inefficient.

In 5E, on your turn each round you can move your speed, perform one "action" and possibly perform one "bonus action." I think you can get one "free" object interaction as part of the move and/or attack, like drawing a weapon or opening a door. And during other players' or the monsters' turns, you can get one "reaction" per round.

5E of course has a predefined list of possible "actions" one can take. And yes, scare quotes because you can't just do any old action you can think of. Well, you can, but whatever it is it will fit into one of the predefined categories of action in the book. That list is: Attack, Cast a Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, Use an Object. (Higher level warrior types get an ability called Extra Attack which lets them make more than one attack when they take the Attack action but it counts as just one "action" for the action economy.)

Bonus actions are not to my knowledge ever listed out precisely, because they are basically exceptions to the normal rule. If a class ability, racial ability, or spell grants you a bonus action you can take it. Otherwise, you get no bonus action. Monks, for example, can always make an unarmed strike as a bonus action IF they take the Attack action. At 2nd level, Rogues can always choose to use a bonus action to Hide, Disengage, or Dash. Clerics who cast Spiritual Weapon use a bonus action to make the hammer attack.

Reactions take the place of "attacks of opportunity" in 3E. And they aren't always just attacks, although some are. Many are class abilities that let you avoid or reduce damage (Monks can deflect arrows, Rogues can reduce damage from one attack, Wizards and Sorcerers can cast the shield spell).

In good old D&D/AD&D, you don't have to worry about all this. Everyone can move and do one thing on their turn. Much simpler. And in a fight, not every character in the party was expected to do something each round.

The action economy does add a layer of tactical complexity that many people enjoy. I understand its appeal. The problem is that the action economy seems to be one of the main considerations people like the guy who made the video I referenced above have for rating both the classes of 5E but also how people play the game.

If you don't take full advantage of the action economy, if you don't take a class that makes use of bonus actions and reactions, if you squander your turn, it's seen as letting down the side. Not pulling your weight. Being lame and useless. Totally sucking at the game.

It all comes back around to the fault WotC had when they created the game. It's all about combat.

The by the book primary source of XP awards are for combat. Most character abilities are designed to help you in combat. Most spells are designed to help you in combat. The action economy is designed to help you optimize combat.

Computer RPGs are all about combat because it's still difficult to program into a game the sort of freedom you get with a tabletop RPG. Why WotC decided to limit their design of 5E to mimicking a computer RPG is beyond me. I mean, shouldn't they have learned their lesson from doing that with 4E?

OK, I feel like I"m starting to ramble. It's getting late. Let me wrap this up.

The concept of an action economy is fine in and of itself. It does add a level of tactical variety to the game, which many people like. And yes, it can be fun to take advantage of it. But what started as a tool to add variety and fun has become a yardstick or straight jacket on the game. Too many people are looking at and evaluating game mechanics and more importantly game play based primarily on how well a class or build takes advantage of the action economy. Bonus actions are not seen as a bonus, they're seen as a necessity. And the attitude I'm seeing more and more is that if your character isn't taking advantage of bonus actions and reactions as often as possible, you did something wrong or are playing wrong.

It's valuing system mastery over immersion and creativity, prioritizing optimal combat efficiency over playing your character. That's why it's bad for the game.

Using 5E to run OA themed games

I'm in a discussion on The Piazza forum (slow moving but still part of it) about what parts of 5E would work in an Oriental Adventures style game.

While others were posting about whatever explicitly Asian fantasy bits and bobs there were for 5E (samurai path for Fighters, kensei path for Monks, etc.) I posted my ideas for how to re-fluff the existing PHB classes to fit OA. I'll copy/paste that here for convenience:

Honestly, a lot of the "generic" options are just fine for OA style play. Just looking at the PHB options:

Berserker Barbarian -- works for a Zhang Fei (Three Kingdoms general) style wild and reckless warrior
Totem Warrior Barbarian -- just use more Asian themed animals names instead of the Euro/North American defaults, keep the abilities the same

Valor Bard -- works for a geisha/gisaeng sorceress type
Lore Bard -- wily strategists like Zhuge Liang/Kongming or Sima Yi (again from Three Kingdoms)

Clerics are a bit hard to squeeze in, but a Light or Tempest Cleric could be a Yang-themed magician while a Knowledge or Trickery Cleric could be a Yin magician. War Clerics might be one type of wandering Xia.

Druid -- either type could be an animist shaman: Shinto, Mongolian, etc.

Champion Fighter -- run of the mill samurai or stalwart warriors from other cultures
Battle Master Fighter -- kensei/weapon masters
Eldritch Knight Fighter -- wandering Xia with mystical kung fu

Monk -- the class is already OA themed, any subclass fits

Devotion Paladin -- samurai champions of bushido
Ancients Paladin -- maybe doesn't fit so well
Vengeance Paladin -- a warrior out for revenge against old enemies is a standard plot of many wuxia and manga stories

Hunter Ranger -- also fits really well for a wandering Xia warrior
Beast Master Ranger -- make sure the animal companion is an Asian animal and you're good

Thief Rogue -- a yakuza, ninja, or wandering Xia
Assassin Rogue -- another good choice for a ninja type
Arcane Trickster -- the more mystical ninja, or another wandering Xia type

Draconic Sorcerer -- ancestor is a lung dragon instead of a chromatic/metallic dragon
Wild Magic Sorcerer -- those kooky hermit/immortal magicians with their unreliable magic!

Warlock -- mix and match Patron and Boon to get a Xia warrior type or a crafty Taoist magician type

Wizard -- again any school can work with just a few tweaks to flavor to make a Wu Jen or other OA style magician.

Most of the Backgrounds are generic enough to work as is as well, I'd think.

The idea's been on my mind since then. As others later pointed out, that works for classes, but not really well for races. That's a whole other kettle of fish, but as you could probably guess from both Flying Swordsmen and Chanbara, I'm fine with a 'human only' OA style game. Nothing wrong with the various demi-human races in 1E and 3E OA, but since there aren't any official versions yet, they'd need to be homebrewed which can be tricky/time consuming to get right.

So not only have I been considering how to run a game of OA style fantasy with 5E, I've been considering doing just that. Exactly what I don't need as my players are clamoring for more Chanbara and I've been slow to get that going.

My latest train of thought on the 5E OA topic, though, has been to rework the Backgrounds and leave (as my quoted post above shows) the classes alone. Maybe disallow a few classes or subclasses. But most of the flavor needed could come from slight tweaks/renames of the Backgrounds available. Here's what I'm thinking now (new ideas in blue):

Acolyte: fine as is, change the name if you really want
Chalatan: also fine as is
Criminal: needs two types. Normal criminal (as in the PHB) for people who were arrested and have facial brands/tattoos, and Yakuza for organized gangster/Triad types. Yakuza would get Intimidation and Sleight of Hand for skills. Yakuza would also get an organizational feature similar to the acolyte's, only for their gang.
Entertainer: no mechanical changes, but call it Artist or Geisha or Gisaeng or what have you.
Folk Hero: no changes needed. The name could be changed to Ronin easily, to model all those wandering samurai do-gooders and ne'er-do-wells.
Guild Artisan: no changes mechanically, but make some edits to the list of guilds.
Hermit: no changes needed
Noble: normal nobles are just nobles. Knights (variant) become Samurai.
Outlander: again, not really needed to change this for characters from more barbaric neighboring lands or those who grew up in remote locations. A Foreigner option, for those in the mood to play the gaijin in a strange land would be good. You'd probably want to give two different skills than Animal Handling and Survival, but I'm not sure right now which two would be best.
Sage: Rename this as Scholar. For people who've taken, been studying for, have passed but not taken office, or have failed the Civil Service exams. It's a big deal in Confucian cultures.
Sailor: no real change needed.
Soldier: no real change needed. This should be for rank-and-file troops, mercenaries, or the like though. Officers get their own dealio below.
Urchin: as with many options, no real changes needed. An alternate version for Shinobi would be good, though, replacing Sleight of Hand with either Investigate or Perception.

New Backgrounds:
Civil Official: similar to the Sage but with a special feature more like the Noble. Persuasion and History as skills. Mandarins were the elite class of commoners in China.
Military Official: similar to the Soldier but again with a feature more like the Noble. Athletics and History as skills. This is for military officers, who had to go through an exam process similar to the Civil Officials to gain their posts.

A Solution to my Conversion Problem?

So my last post, about how the blogosphere seems to be picking back up again, got me thinking about old posts. I've never been the most popular blogger in the OSR. Don't really care to be either. JMal dropped Grognardia because of the flack he took for being the most popular guy around. Well, that and the kickstarter fiasco. Anyway, I'm happy to keep my head down and just plug along. Which is why a post that gets more than 2~3 comments for me is a success.

Anyway, scrolling down my list of posts, I saw this one from a year and a half ago discussing the exact same topic I'm on now -- conversion of the West Marches to Classic D&D.

And it has lots of comments.

Among them, FrDave commented that he lets the players run 5E PCs but he uses Labyrinth Lord for everything on his side of the screen.

I already use a few old school systems in my game. XP for GP. 2d6 Morale checks. 2d6 Reaction Roll checks. I randomly flip between 5E and BECMI treasure tables for loot and magic items.

FrDave mentioned that he gave monsters maximum hit points. Even then, though, 5E monsters have a lot more. A max HP goblin in BECMI has 7 hit points. In 5E, that's the average, the max is 12. A BECMI gnoll has a maximum 16 hit points. In 5E, the average is 22, maximum 40. That's not so different, since I tend to use the averages instead of rolling to save time.

However, when we get to even slightly bigger monsters, it gets stranger. An ogre in BECMI has a max of 33hp, while in 5E its average is 59 and maximum is 91. A gorgon has a max of 64hp in BECMI but an average of 114hp and a max of 164hp.

And of course, it's all about the dragons, really, so let's compare.

A small white dragon (6HD) could have 48hp, but the rules say you can give plus or minus 3, so one with 3HD could only have 24hp and one with 9HD could have 72 hit points. If we use the Masters Set/RC, a huge white dragon (12HD but let's bump it up to 15) could have a max of 120. In 5E, a wyrmling white has average 32hp, maximum 50. The young white has an average of 133, and a maximum of 196. We're at the second age category and already the average hp is higher than the very tip top maximum for a white dragon in BECMI. To make a long story short, the 5E adult white has an average of 200/maximum 288hp, while the ancient white has an average of 333/maximum 504hp.

So at low levels, using 5E PCs with Classic D&D behind the screen might work out alright, it's not suitable to long-term campaigns, unless you like the high level PCs mowing their way easily through flights of dragons and squads of giants the way mid-level PCs go through orcs in older editions.

Still, there's an appeal to doing this. Let the players have their 5E PHBs with their tieflings and eldritch knights and skills and feats and more damage dealing spells than you can shake a stick at. Let me use simple, elegant rules behind the screen.

There's one more hitch, though, which I mentioned to FrDave in that thread and he gave a sort of vague answer. That's saving throws. 5E has you roll d20+ability score to roll over a target number. Old school just has you roll d20 vs a target number that changes as you level up.

So even if I use BECMI or LL behind the screen, players making saving throws are going to want to know the DC to beat. When they cast spells, they expect me to have to roll vs their character's DC. As 5E characters get higher in level, and they boost their stats and proficiency bonus, the DC monsters need to beat goes up. But in BECMI, high HD monsters' saves go down. So if the monster only needs a 5 or better to save by BECMI, but needs a 10 or better to save in 5E, it's not really fair, is it? Lots of spell effects will get saved against.

And the spell effects are different. BECMI sleep spell has no save. 5E lets you roll a save every round. A 5E fireball spell's damage is keyed to the spell slot level used to cast it. A BECMI fireball is keyed to the level/HD of the caster. A 12HD monster can cast fireball for 12d6 damage as a 3rd level spell, while a 5E wizard would need to use a 7th level spell slot to get it to do 12d6 damage (or is it 12d8 in 5E? If so, it's still a 4th level spell slot to get roughly equivalent damage instead of a 3rd).

OK, I started this post out thinking I'd found a workable solution. Now I've convinced myself it's not so workable after all. Or at least at low levels it would be workable enough, but just enough hassle that I might as well stick to the full conversion to my house-ruled Classic D&D system. 100%

Answers for JB

In my previous post, I mentioned that I'm wavering in my idea of converting my West Marches campaign to Classic D&D/BX/BECMI rules because not every player is on board with the idea. JB of the BX Blackrazor blog posted a few questions to clarify my feelings on this.

Here are his questions (in bold) and my answers.

1) You say you might lose one, and possibly three players over a conversion. Have your players actually expressed disdain for the conversion and a desire to "not play?"


I started the campaign with the original West Marches idea of not having a solid play group, but just running for whoever showed up to game. Of course, over time, the core coalesced, especially since my son was one player and two other players bring their daughters. Now it's become the "family" game.




Of the current regular players, my son and one father/daughter combo are cool with the changes. The father has some trouble keeping up with all the mechanics, and his daughter is just there to have fun, meaning he has to keep up with the mechanics for two very different characters to help his daughter (who is only 8 going on 9). I think Denis (Gnome Rogue) and Renee (Fairy Princess [reskinned Tiefling Warlock]) won't mind simpler characters. Both tend to prefer narrative interaction over mechanical interaction anyway.

A regular who recently stepped away due to starting grad school says she's also fine with old school gaming when she comes back. Another guy who played early on may be enticed to come back since he prefers old school games anyway.



One player, Greg, has always been upfront about preferring new school games to old school games. We first gamed together in a Pathfinder game, and I remember him saying "Why would I want to play in another game when I have Pathfinder?" Of course, then 5E came out, and it still has enough of what he likes (character building mechanical options, the optimization metagame) to keep him happy. Most likely nothing I do will keep him around, which is too bad, because he also is one of the strongest players for getting into character and making his characters interesting. He could still do that, but seems to feel (my speculation here) that he needs mechanical effects to back up the characterization. Greg currently plays a Tiefling Sorcerer.


The other player in question is Paddy, who is the other father. He doesn't have much experience with old school gaming, if I remember right. He started at the tail end of 2nd edition AD&D and was big into 3E. He says he's not so much against playing an old school game, it's just that (his words) he's playing in two other 5E games right now, and doesn't want to have to learn a new system. But he's enjoying this game and his daughter is also enjoying it, so he is willing to give it a try, just with massive reservations. Paddy plays the Human Cleric (war domain) while his daughter Ahra plays the Elf Fighter (battlemaster archer).


So one is disdainful of old school play, one thinks it's a hassle to convert, and the third depends on the second for access to the game and I'm not sure how she'll take to losing her cool character powers.

2) Assuming they have is it based solely on their inability to continue playing the race-class combo they desire?
I guess I answered this above. For Greg, yes, but not only. It's the lack of defined skills/abilities/mechanics, the inability to craft the character mechanically to taste.

For Paddy, no, it's just the perceived unfamiliarity of the rules.

I'm not sure if Paddy has asked Ahra about it (I'll message him) but I suspect that in her case, if she is unhappy with the change, losing her "superpowers" will be why.



3) If not, is the desire to convert these strange classes ("battle archers," tieflings, etc.) simply YOU wanting to keep a certain continuity to your campaign, or are you just trying to head off anticipated problems before they arise.
Both to be honest. We've had a few character deaths, a few players deciding to try a new character concept, etc. in the campaign. Most players are attached to their PCs but willing to try something new. So while I could just tell everyone to roll up a new character using the new rules, that would probably kill the campaign, even if we started at higher levels. Maybe not, but I'm afraid it would.


Also, as you say, I have a desire to keep as much continuity in the campaign as I can. I think the transition will go more smoothly if they can keep the personalities they're playing and as close as possible the roles/skill sets they bring to the party.


Part of it, though, is that I also enjoy character customization. I've been working on a Classic D&D set of house rules that is basically BECMI but with separate race and class, and simplified versions of most of the popular AD&D and 3E/5E classes not in BECMI.


The big reason to convert, from my perspective, is to make prepping the game faster and easier, as well as running the game. I've spent I don't know how many hours converting classic modules to 5E to use in the campaign. I could save a lot of time by converting. During play, since I'm still not an expert on 5E and most encounters are based off of random encounter charts, I spend a lot of time leafing through the Monster Manual at the table. Converting to Classic would allow me to more easily keep track of monster stats, and fewer fiddly special abilities for monsters. Converting will allow me to speed up prep and play.


Using my house rules to allow the 5E races to remain, and to still have Rangers and Bards and stuff, shouldn't be a problem, since I've already done the work to streamline the classes/races for Classic play.

4) Finally, what is the current experience level of the player characters in your 5E game? That makes a difference for any conversion attempt!
All the characters are currently 5th level, I think. One may still be 4th level. My son's Half-Orc Paladin is only 150xp away from 6th level (he's the most regular attendee, obviously) -- but he's also in America for the next six months so everyone else has a chance to catch up.


I've already got a rule in place that when characters die, or if the player wants to roll up a new PC to replace the old one, they keep their level but start at the minimum for the level. I'll keep that for the conversion, so we'll need to adjust some XP totals to fit. I'll probably figure the percentage of advancement they've made to the next level and give them an equal percentage towards their new level once everyone's decided on what to play.

Regardless of the answers to these questions (and any possible follow-up on my part), one thing to consider is this: if your have experienced players...i.e. players who have experience playing early edition D&D...it may be that they WANT to play 5E, for its extra bells and whistles. They might not want to convert at all! I know DMs who prefer LL/BX but who run 5E play who simply prune the extra "dross" from their campaigns, and that might actually be an easier way to get to the simpler game you want...at least, if your players are unwilling to budge.
Again, in Greg's case, that's true. He's "moved on" from old school play and doesn't want to go back. For Paddy, it seems like he's willing to give it a shot if it's not too much of a hassle.

I've already kept this campaign fairly simple. The players are limited to the PHB only for races, classes, archetypes, and spells. And on my side, I already use a few tricks from BECMI (2d6 reaction/morale rolls for example). I could limit future PCs to the downloadable Basic Rules pdf options, but then I'd still have to deal with 5E mechanics for prep time and while running the game.

I'm not adverse to stealing some good ideas, though, like advantage/disadvantage, and I'm not adverse to grandfathering in SOME of the 5E abilities for existing characters. But for new players or replacement characters I'll make them stick to my house-rules or by the book Classic D&D/LL characters.

Low Level Characters with Nothing to Do

Over on MeWe (yes, I'm on it, not sure I like it though...), Steven Fowler in the OSR community posted about how older players see newer edition PCs as superheroic, while younger players look at older edition PCs and see them as powerless (aside from the Fighter).

Apparently the complaint is that the 1st to 3rd level PCs have only a few spells, poor skill chances, and next to no combat ability, so what should they do in a fight?

IMO (and judging by the types of comments I get, most of my readership is likely to agree) that's a feature of older editions, not a bug.

Of course, we older folks know exactly what you're supposed to do in a fight at low levels - find a way to stack the deck in your party's favor, stay back and support the front line, or just get out of the way. When combat's over, there's time for all characters to participate in exploration, NPC interaction, and problem/puzzle solving (or not if the player doesn't want to).

My son, and the other kids in my 5E game, have been pretty creative overall. They're learning from adults with a mix of experiences and preferences for games, and it's been pretty good for them. They don't instantly look to the character sheet to solve problems, and they try interesting things in combat. The two girls in the group especially enjoy turning dangerous animal encounters into a chance to collect more pets. My son is a creative problem solver, thinking about the creatures we fight and the environment, and trying to come up with interesting solutions (or just smiting things - he is playing a Half-Orc Paladin...).

If anything, it's the other adults in the group who focus a bit too much on what skills they have trained, what spells they have prepared, etc.

In combat, 5E allows every character to be competent, which is fine. But the game is not only about combat.

Every character isn't expected to contribute to a role-play encounter. Sometimes it's best to have the drunk, aggressive, crude Dwarf Barbarian just stay quiet in the back while the party negotiates safe passage across the Withered Wastelands with the Duke of Death. Why should everyone be expected to pull equal weight in combat?

A few complaints about DMing 5E D&D

In general, I've found that as a player I really enjoy 5E. The system is fairly slim, the options aren't overwhelming (at least if you stick to the PHB only), and it feels like D&D again (sorry 4E fans, you know I wasn't a fan myself, and although it's not a terrible game, it just isn't what I want out of D&D). As a player, I really like it.

But a few months back, I started DMing a face-to-face game again, using 5E. My son wanted to play in a game, and our normal Saturday night G+ games are too late for him to finish. So I started up a West Marches game using 5E. And while it's not a bad system, I keep constantly saying to myself, "Why didn't I just try to run this with my Classic D&D houserules, or Labyrinth Lord?"

Basically it comes down to a few points. I may elaborate on each later in their own blog posts (I need some impetus to get back into blogging semi-regularly). For now, it's just a list with a bit of commentary for each based on my WM game.

• Lack of Morale rules. I've been estimating what I think a creature's Morale score should be, and rolling 2d6 like in Classic D&D. Yes, I could just wing it and have creatures flee or surrender when I feel like it, but I like the uncertainty of the dice.
• Not much variety in treasure. There's no risk/reward analysis when it comes to deciding to face a monster or not, it's simply a threat assessment. 
• Spell lists are too combat focused. This is actually something I chafe at as a player as well. It's hard to plan interesting encounters where magical utility spells might make the difference between an easy encounter and a too tough one (something I like to do) when there are so few utility spells, and spell durations are for the most part just not that long. As a player, it's hard to come up with that creative solution with a well-used spell when most just do damage.
• Too much player rolling, not enough DM rolling. Maybe some DMs like that. They can focus on the details of the adventure, the NPCs and monsters, the "plot" and whatnot. Let the players make all the rolls. As a DM, though, sometimes I want to build suspense by making the roll myself (and having the option to ignore a result I don't like). This applies to things like getting lost or foraging in the wilderness. 

None of these things are terrible in and of themselves. I can work with them, and we're all having fun with 5E. And it's working out fairly well, actually. But I have worked in some old school mechanics into how I run the game because I feel it's just better that way. 

And I'm still wondering if I can convince the group to switch to my "D&D Mine" rules. And if I should try to convince them, or just let this campaign play out in 5E and when it's petered out try something else. If I want to get my son on board, though, I'm going to have to come up with a Dragonborn equivalent for my D&D Mine rules. He doesn't want to play anything but a dragon-man.

The Table of Doom

Based on Jeff Rients' Triple Secret Random Dungeon Fate Chart of Very Probable Doom (scroll down for it), I've come up with my own table for the West Marches campaign that will be starting up next weekend.

As you can see, I borrowed lots of ideas from Jeff, but made it a bit different to fit a wilderness hex crawl. I wonder how some of the players will react to it. I mean, as long as they can make a return trip to town (or another safe haven) by the end of a session, they don't need to worry about it.

TABLE OF DOOM

Roll a d20 if in the wilds at the end of the session 

1 You were slain, and all of your gear and loot was destroyed (or stolen). Roll up a new character.
2 You perished attempting to return. Escaping party members know the location where you fell, and your gear may be recovered there. Roll up a new character.
3 You were slain and raised as an undead creature (or polymorphed into a monster of some type), haunting a random hex. Your former gear and loot is now the treasure you guard. Roll up a new character.
4 Lost and presumed dead with all gear and loot. Roll up a new character.
5 Lost in the wilds, DM determines a random hex where you can be found with all of your gear but no loot.
6 Petrified, trapped in a crystal cave, put into a magical slumber, charmed by a dryad, or the like. Escaping members have no idea where you are trapped.
7 Petrified, trapped in a crystal cave, in a magical slumber, charmed by a dryad, or the like. Escaping members know the general location where you are trapped.
8 Captured! No one is sure what captured you, or where it might be located.
9 Captured! Escaping party members know what captured you, but not where its lair is located.
10 Captured! Escaping party members know where you were captured, but do not know exactly what captured you.
11 Held for Ransom! Humanoids demand 1000gp x your level to release you. Local thieves can arrange the payoff (1 in 6 chance the money never gets delivered).
12 Taken in by friendly creatures. You have all of your gear and loot, but are located in a random hex and in no hurry to return home.
13 Wild Man or Woman of the Woods. You've gone mad and wander in a hex known by any escaping party members. They will need to heal your insanity to convince you to return to a life of adventure.
14 Wandering in the wilderness for weeks before you manage to find your way back to town with your gear but no loot. The player must use a different character for one session before playing this PC again.
15 You return to town! Or do you? Something about you seems different. Replaced by a doppelganger or some other shape-shifter. DM rolls again secretly to learn your true fate.
16 You contract a disease, get poisoned, or fall victim to a curse before returning to town with your gear and half of your loot.
17 You crawl into town, with nothing but the clothes on your back. And those clothes are torn to shreds.
18 You make it back, barely. All loot and half of your gear is gone.
19 You gave up your loot to escape your enemies. All gear intact, but no loot.
20 You lucky dog! You make it safely back to town with all gear and loot!