Revisiting Variable Weapon Damage

Let's see...where was I? Oh, yeah...basic weapons.

[I suppose I should extend a congrats to the St. Louis Skaven this week...those tricksy, tricksy rats. Congrats. I was smart enough to only have a couple Fullers on hand this weekend so as not to get too tossed. Ugh...]

Taking a look at the Moldvay list, I find that I want to talk about variable weapon damage. Back in 2009, while working on my B/X Companion, I thought it would be a great idea to vary weapon damage by character class instead of by weapon (an option I included in the book), in order to allow PCs of any flavor to use whatever gear best suited their personal taste. Over 18 months later, after many actual games of awesome B/X play I came to the conclusion that I really preferred straight, Rules As Written, D6 damage for ALL weapons (with minor bonuses for two-handed weapons). I wrote why here, and have been using some variation of "standard D6 damage" ever since.

However, with some evolving ideas I have regarding the nature of hit points, I'm starting to reconsider my stance. Yes, it's easy (for me) to roll D6s when it comes to damage...but then, I've been working on getting rid of damage rolls, anyway. With that in mind, does a six point range of damage make sense?

So we come to that wonderful unit of measure, the hit die, and what it represents. Simply put it is a measure of attacking power, equal to one human scale soldier.

The ashcan that started it all.

There are no "hit dice" in Chainmail; at least, the explicit term is not used. The number of dice rolled for attack (and the target number needed to "kill") depends on what type of troop attacking and the type of troop being attacked. Hit dice, as explained in the second book of OD&D (Monsters & Magic) is described in terms of the default combat system (Chainmail, remember?) so that an ogre (with 4+1 HD) would roll 4 times, attacking the same as 4 men, and requiring the equivalent of 4 wounds (four successful attack rolls) to kill. The +1 gives the ogre a +1 on one of these attack rolls and +1 to the number of "hits" (i.e. HPs) possessed.

Again, these attack dice are not as straightforward as they might appear, as they depend on the type of troop being attacked to figure their relative value. Chainmail is explicit that an ogre fights as "heavy foot." With 4 HD, these attack dice look like the following against various defenders:

vs. Light Foot: roll 4d6, any 5+ kills.
vs. Heavy Foot: roll 4d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Armored Foot; Light Horse: roll 2d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Medium/Heavy Horse: roll d6, any 6 kills.

[remember, the ogre receives a +1 bonus on one die roll, so (for example) really only needs to roll a 5+ against a medium or heavy horseman]

Using OD&D's alternative combat system (the D20 system in place with every edition since, and which is the base for D20 in general), hit dice transforms to a probability of inflicting damage within one round of combat, and a measure of vitality (HPs) for a creature, each HD being equivalent to a single fighting man...the latter being made clear with the advent of Supplement I (Greyhawk) when both fighters and monsters were awarded D8 hit points per HD (and non-martial adventurers/humans being awarded fewer).

Here in Greyhawk we see the first "variable damage by weapon" chart, which is generally adapted in Moldvay. The only differences found (at least where the weapons on the two lists match) are the pole arm whose D8 damage in OD&D increases to D10 damage in B/X (matching the missing "halberd" damage type), and the spear which, in OD&D, has 3 different damage ranges depending on how it is used. Both sword and battle axe are given D8 damage...though note that a battle axe does not carry the "two-handed only" restriction found in B/X.

Just for review, here's how the variable damage types break down (in B/X, which contains a better "dungeoneering weapon list"):

D4 damage: torch, dagger, sling stone ("rock"), club ("stick")
D6 damage: arrow/quarrel, hand axe, mace/hammer, spear, "short sword"
D8 damage: battle axe, "normal sword"
D10 damage: pole arm, two-handed sword

The more I stare at this list, the more sense it starts to make for me...but only with a changing idea of what hit points are.

See, before I was looking at the D6 damage thing in light of the idea that all normal humans have D4 hit points...a range of 1 to 4. But this isn't entirely accurate. A human being in B/X (or OD&D + supplements) has a HP range of 1 to 8 (with a single hit die); however, most humans encountered aren't "worthies" sporting more than four. Allow me to break it down (a little different from my D6 post):

• 1 hit point: an individual on death's door. Any damage will slay this person. True invalids, babies, people without the will or strength to stand on their own. Such individuals may take no action in combat, save to crawl around on the floor.
• 2 hit points: small children or the elderly. People with diminished capacity, suffering from severe illness, or wounds. Such an individual might survive a weapon wound...if they're very lucky. Such individuals suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls in combat.
• 3 hit points: a "deficient" person...someone who's out of shape, lacks energy/vitality or a "will to live," but who is otherwise capable of normal (if weak) human action.
• 4 hit points: a normal person in full health.
• 5 hit points: a normal person in full health but one who is exceedingly healthy/strong in body OR incredibly strong-willed and spirited (able to fight through pain/illness, etc.).
• 6 hit points: a normal person in full health who is both exceedingly strong in body AND in willpower/spirit.

To this range of 1 through 6 use the following adjustment:

• If a character has had formal fight training (professional soldiers, noblemen, etc.) add +2 hit points.

This gives us the full range of 1 to 8.

This is what I'm currently using, by the way, to calculate HPs for creatures of all shapes and sizes (and by reverse applying these principles, for finding out what kind of monster is encountered based on the average number of HPs per HD the thing has). A normal "orc soldier" would have 6 hit points, for example...an exceptionally strong or cunning one would have 7, while a leader type with both size and an iron will would have the full 8 hit points. A soldier "past his prime" (perhaps retired based on injury in battle) would still have 5 hit points (3 HP category + 2) while even an elderly chap (if he can carry a sword) would still have 4 hit points.

12 to 14 HPs

This is per hit die, you understand. The aged gnoll warrior would have 8 HPs (2 HD at four each) compared to average adult warrior, who'd have 12 (6 per die). If they were hardened veterans, they'd have 14 apiece, while elite types (the chief's bodyguards and such) would have 16. A gnoll child would be pretty tough (4 hit points), but would not fight as well as a human warrior (-2 penalty to attack rolls, reducing Base Attack Bonus to +0).

OKAY...having given you an overview of this "HD reinterpretation," let's look at the weapons and their damage maximums.

First, change the term "short sword" for one-handed sword, and "normal sword" for longsword. Then consider the following:

1. Remember that damage range is based on "roll over" attack number and so die type (in this case) equals "maximum rollover" (i.e. maximum damage).
2. Battle-axes and longswords (both with a maximum length of c. 4') can be used one or two-handed.
3. When used two-handed (and only when used two-handed) these weapons bump their maximum damage from 6 to 8.
4. True "two-handed" weapons (zwiehanders and pole arms) have additional penalties when used within the close confines of a dungeon environment (even in a wide chamber, you're often dealing with a low ceiling, precluding the full range of motion...poleaxes and two-handed swords inflict their greatest damage when being swung downwards on an opponent). Personally, I would probably model this with a -2 penalty to both attack and maximum damage...but in an open space/chamber, these weapons could prove devastating).

Here we see the damage range of all weapons is enough to slay an adult human at least 50% of the time with anything bigger than a dagger, stick, or rock (these "lesser" weapons can still inflict death on a healthy adult person with a perfect strike of "4 over"). A perfect blow with a one-handed weapon will slay even a trained warrior ("6 over") and a perfect strike from a two-handed weapon will slay even an elite fighting man ("8 over").

The "Big Boys" (two-handed swords and pole arms) have the potential to deliver significant "over-damage," but rather than giving them a ten point damage range, this might be better modeled by having them decrease the effectiveness of armor by 2 (a +2 bonus to attack individuals wearing armor) and leaving their maximum damage at 8. Remember, wearing armor not only makes it more difficult for your opponent to inflict damage but reduces your opponent's ability to inflict significant damage (because the "roll over" target is higher). A +2 bonus to attack armor reduces armor's effectiveness, and increases the chance of doing good (i.e. "killing") damage.

Okay, that's about it for this series...though there might be a slight addendum tomorrow.

Side Note: Level Titles

Why is a 1st level fighter called a Veteran, when a 1st level thief is only an Apprentice, and a 1st level cleric is just an Acolyte?

Consider it in terms of my most recent post on henchmen (er...retainers). A normal human that earns any XP from an adventure must choose a character class in which to make a career.

So how is XP awarded? By surviving an adventure (defined in Moldvay's Basic set as a single session of play).

A normal man that survives an evening's delve is a blooded veteran, no doubt about it...if all he wants to do is continue swinging a sword and working on his combat prowess, that's a fine and apt description. For those individuals who decide to pursue other career routes, they have only just begun their path of higher learning.

Besides, even a fighter must achieve 2nd level before he is considered a full-on warrior, and 3rd level before he is a proficient swordsman...and of course "hero" isn't awarded until 4th level.

That's why.

B/X Charisma & Henchmen (Part 2)

[from here]

First off, we should probably define the term henchman, as given in B/X.

Found it? Ha! There's no such thing in B/X, which means I've already screwed up the title of these posts by my improper understanding of the concept!

Well, that's not entirely true. "Henchman" is the term used in the older AD&D books. However, by 1981 (I am guessing) many kids picking up the Basic rules may very well have associated "henchmen" with the helpers/cronies of super-villains and such. The concept of the "evil henchman;" or as wikipedia so succinctly puts it (under the topic of "henchmen in popular culture"):

Henchmen (occasionally henchlings) are common in mystery, fantasy, adventure comic books, and adventure novels and movies. They are the expendable adherents of the main villain, always ready to do the master's bidding, to kill or be killed, kidnap, or threaten, as needed. Often, they are killed by the hero before the master villain is reached, by the hero's sidekick in a dramatic battle, or even by the master villain as punishment for failure to comply with orders.

What heroic adventurer wants toadies and minions? Who wants their PC associated with someone who (in fiction) is inevitably going to get their ass kicked by the "real" hero?

Which is sad, really, because "henchman" used to be a term of respect for a loyal aid or attendant (look it up).

Anyway, Moldvay never uses the term henchman to describe hirelings; throughout the Basic rules, the term Retainer is used exclusively. The Cook/Marsh Expert set continues this practice in the two or three places it is mentioned at all. When we speak of a retainer, we often consider the idea of a counselor or consultant (like a retained attorney) or the "loyal servant" that has been with a family for years.

The origin of the term retainer comes from the English feudalism (such as it was) during the late middle ages, at a point when the traditional "vassal-swears-to-provide-military-service-to-lord-when-called" had been replaced with "vassal-gives-money-to-lord-in-lieu-of-military-service." The lord would take this money to "retain" hired mercenaries year-round (a private army of sorts). Later, any crony in the pay and/or favor of a noble might be called a "retainer."

[this is, of course, a gross simplification but I'm not a medieval history scholar and this isn't a blog about old European governance systems. You can research the English War of Roses more info on this period]

For the purpose of B/X, Moldvay defines retainers as follows:

A retainer (or hireling) is a person hired by a player character (PC) to aid that character on an adventure. ...Retainers are more than just men-at-arms, soldiers hired to fight and protect their employer but only expected to take reasonable risks. Retainers are lieutenants and assistants to a PC and are expected to lend their skills and knowledge to the benefit of the party and to take the same risks the characters expect to face.

Wow. The parenthetical note ("or hireling") is problematic as it implies an equal relationship between the term "hireling" and "retainers." Which is not the case: all retainers may be hirelings (i.e. hired individuals) but not all hirelings are retainers. Expert hirelings (called specialists in the Expert set) are explicitly stated to NOT be retainers.

Nor would it appear (from Moldvay's description) are men-at-arms...what many of us in the RPG biz commonly refer to as "meat shields." Retainers are "more than just men-at-arms," the latter being defined as:

"...soldiers hired to fight and protect their employer but only expected to take reasonable risks."

No, no, not meat shields at all. Retainers are "expected" to "take the same risks the characters expect to face" (and if the PCs are unwilling to risk, well...). AND they are likewise expected to contribute their "skills and knowledge" to the success of the dungeon endeavor, not just step forward and eat the first orc arrow or goblin spear.

Retainers are fellow adventurers in other words. Albeit NPC adventurers and thus controlled by the DM.

There is a clear distinction drawn between mercenaries and retainers. For example, in the Expert set it is explicit that elves and dwarves may only hire mercenaries of their own species, "but specialists and retainers of any race may be employed." A human adventurer can be the trusty retainer of an elven lord because the retainer is outside the norm of society...he is an ADVENTURER. Normal humans are well defined in the Basic set (page B40):

"A normal human is a human who does not seek dangerous adventure. A normal human does not have a class."

Player characters are not "normal humans." They each belong to an adventuring class, or they are a demihuman class. They DO seek "dangerous adventures" and profit because of it. Retainers are cut from the same cloth, gaining experience (though at a slower rate) and contributing their abilities while taking the same risks as the PCs.

Now, retainers may indeed start as "normal humans;" Moldvay writes:

A retainer may be of any level (0, 1, 2, 3, or higher) and of any class (normal man or character class). Retainers can never be higher in level than the PC who hires them.

Does this contradict the definition of a "normal human?" Not at all. In his description of normal humans, he writes:

"...some professions (such as merchant, soldier, lord, scout, and so forth) help in some adventures. As soon as a human gets experience points through an adventure, that person must choose a character class."

A retainer may start their career as a normal human, but the sheer fact that they are willing to sign on to an adventuring party means they have the grit and fire to advance in "level" and outpace the rest of human society with their prowess.

These aren't "meat shields." These are fellow adventurers.

But they are NPCs. Adventurers controlled by the DM, even if hired by the player characters. And it is for this reason, Moldvay makes the following pronouncement that I believe I have misinterpreted up until now:

Retainers are often used to strengthen a party which is attempting an extremely dangerous adventure. It is recommended that the DM not allow allow beginning players to hire retainers. New players tend to use retainers as a crutch, letting them take all the risks.

Now for whatever reason, when I've read that paragraph in the past, I interpreted "players" as "player characters." However, re-reading of the Basic set shows Moldvay is fairy specific to distinguish "players" from "characters" in his text.

I always considered "new player" and "beginning player" to mean low-level player characters (possibly 2nd level, but certainly 1st level). For example, in my most recent B/X campaign (which has run for a dozen sessions or so) I wasn't letting any PCs hire CLASSED NPCs until recently when they started hitting 3rd and 4th level. My reasoning? They were finally getting to the "status" where low-level adventurers would come seeking them out.

In retrospect, this is completely retarded of me. Not that my players questioned this...I assume they assume I'm some sort of "master of the B/X game" (possibly because I have a blog and act pretty arrogant most of the time). However, I am only now seeing the error of my ways:

• "Beginning/new players" are NOT the same as new (1st level) characters. When Moldvay talks about new players using retainers as a "crutch," I now believe he is referring to the fact that they are NPCs, and thus controlled by the DM. A NPC that is expected to contribute to the adventure by lending both skills and KNOWLEDGE? "Ah, yes, Mr. DM-controlled-character...what do you think would be the best course of action at this juncture?" Now that IS using the character as a crutch. For experienced players (as all mine are at this point after eight months of B/X gaming), this should be a non-issue.

• Well, what does a 1st level adventurer hire since he cannot hire since retainers "can never be higher in level than the PCs who hired them?" Answer: Normal humans and 1st level characters. It doesn't say the retainers can't be equal in level...and since retainers advance twice as slowly (earning 1 XP for every 2 XP a player character earns), they should never be able to outpace their employer. Well, except possibly for elves, but there are ways to address that.

• "Extremely dangerous adventures" include any adventure a 1st level adventure undertakes that doesn't involve mustard farming. Hiring a couple retainers for each PC might well have cut down on number of dead characters littering the Caves of Chaos. There IS a way to play this game from 1st level without the game looking like Russian Roulette, and including adventurous hirelings may well be one of the main ways.

Remember I said that all ability scores should carry the same weight and purpose? This is the whole point of Charisma. A player rolls 3D6 six times to get a set of ability scores. Some are high, some are low, most are (probably) average. For the player with the high Charisma and low Strength score, his (or her) advantage is the ability to hire more retainers...adventurers that will contribute to the party's fortunes and share in their dangerous risks.

We'll get to the actual usefulness of that in the next post. Right now, I'd like to apologize for all the extremely surly and risk-averse NPCs I've been providing for my players to hire. No wonder they don't give a shit what their Charisma score is!

Hit Me Baby One More Time

To understand the place of the adventurer in B/X Dungeons & Dragons, one needs to first wrap their mind around the whole concept of the “normal man.”

The Normal Man (NM) is one of the many monsters listed in the Basic rulebook. The monster represents any non-adventuring human except for certain, specific types that receive their own monster description (for example, the Noble or the Bandit). A Normal Man is any human one might find wandering around the game world…the innkeeper, the minstrel, the blacksmith, a town guard, a goodwife…whatever. From sailors to soldiers to sages, unless they fall into one of the human sub-categories (bandits, berserkers, buccaneers, etc.) they are ALL simply “normal men.”

A normal man has 1D4 hit points. He or she has the lowest line on the combat matrix (needs a “20” to hit AC 0 or better) and does 1D6 damage in combat. They have the worst possible saving throws. They have no other special abilities. In fact they have no “ability scores” at all…I suppose if necessary to make some sort of ability check, a normal man would simply fail.

Compared to these mooks, adventures are people of heroic proportion.

I wrote earlier about the power of the magic-user…how a person that can kill with a magic missile, sleep an entire cadre of guardsmen, charm the king himself, or magically decipher the runes of a civilization that vanished thousands of years before (think Linear A people) should be rightly feared and respected. The other human adventurer classes should be accorded that same respect in the game world.

Let’s compare ‘em, just for fun:

The Cleric: Now if this holy warrior doesn’t inspire awe and respect, something’s wrong here. The average NM should be incredibly deferential and humble in front of the pious cleric…even if the cleric is only 1^st level! Why? Well, for one thing, his faith and zeal makes him a fiercer combatant than any average person (D6 hit points, better saves, better attack matrix…even at 1^st level). For another, the power of the cleric’s faith alone is enough to repel the Walking Dead. Skeletons and zombies cut through normal men like a hot knife through butter…and a 1^st level cleric can make a cross out of two sticks and a piece of twine and send ‘em packing. Right there: actual physical evidence of the power of the gods. And by 2^nd level? The spells of a cleric ARE miraculous. A normal man falls under an out-of-control wagon and is lucky to survive with his life (1 hit point)…the 2^nd level cleric simply touches him and he rises in the peak of health! Resist cold? The 2^nd level cleric can stand naked in a snow storm and not freeze off his fiddly bits. Bless? A cleric can make a non-magical weapon capable of harming the supernatural creature that’s been rampaging the village un-hindered. And these guys only get more powerful over time (resisting poison and spells that would fell the average NM, gaining more hit points and becoming more proficient at attacking and turning undead). Even an “average” Priest of the 3^rd level can survive the greatest possible strike of the Normal Man (attack roll 20, maximum damage of 6, versus an average of 10.5 hit points). The normal man better be reverential!

The Thief: At 1^st level the thief looks almost like any other urban Normal Man…but it’s just an act. Even at 1^st level he has abilities that set him apart from the general populace. The thief’s cunning and grace makes him an excellent combatant compared to the Normal Man (better attack matrix), and his wit, luck, and powers of observation make him immune to hazards that the NM would suffer (better saving throws). In addition, the thief’s skills allow him to attempt stunts that no normal man could hope to accomplish…climbing sheer surfaces, becoming invisible in shadows, picking the most complicated locks. The thief is like a ninja assassin (+4 to hit and double damage from behind? Yowza!), and normal men should walk carefully (and with a bit of trepidation) around such dangerous men and women. Even the “average” thief of 3^rd level can survive the most inspired attack of a Normal Man (attack roll 20, maximum damage of 6, versus an average of 7.5 hit points). The normal man is going to be whispering the rumors of the thief’s exploits around the tavern fire, while glancing furtively about to see if the shadows have shifted unnaturally in the firelight.

The Fighter: It goes without saying that the true fighter stands head and shoulders above the Normal Man. The average fighter will generally have as many hit points as any two normal men…that makes a fight with any two teamsters an “even” fight for any career warrior, Actually a better than even fight, as the fighter has a better chance of landing a telling blow (better attack matrix) and will often use weapons that deal more damage (1D8 or 1D10). Normal men should be cowed and intimidated by a 1^st level fighter, quite frankly…they are battle-hardened veterans and a one-on-one fight will lead to swift death more often than not for the normal man. And their ability to fight a sustained combat simply improves as they gain experience. It is not a question of how many guardsmen it will take to subdue a 2^nd or 3^rd level fighter; it is a question of how many men will the fighter kill in the process of being subdued. How many souls is one fighting man (or woman) worth? Would three families giving up their husband/father be too many? Four? The average 3^rd level swordsman has 13.5 hit points…by comparison FIVE normal men have a total of 12.5 hit points. That’s five men that could be planting fields, paying taxes, raising families. The fighter has swagger for a reason. The normal man would do best to step aside (with a bow of the head!) when the fighter strides through the town.

Remember, this is Dungeons & Dragons, not World of Warcraft. In the latter game, you create a 1^st level character and find yourself a crippled infant in a world of Uber-Men. Most other players you meet are going to completely dwarf you in power, and the normal townsfolk you encounter? They often dwarf even the experienced players!

[why is this exactly? Actually, nevermind -- I really don’t give a shit]

Even Pathfinder has 8^th level laborers and 5^th level craftsmen and whatnot…what a bunch of crap. Because a 60 year old human seamstress should have the fighting ability to receive and resist multiple blows of my two-handed war axe? Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Dungeons & Dragons, especially B/X D&D, does an excellent job of modeling the characters of proper heroic proportion, right from the get go. The mistake that many of us make (and I’ve been guilty of this as well) is down-playing how F’ing competent adventurers are, even at 1^st level. They should NOT be treated as “amateurs” or “apprentices;” these characters are ALREADY a step ahead of their fellow humans. The fact that they get killed so quickly down in the dungeon is simply evidence of how dangerous their particular line of work is…and with a dangerous line of work should come ample compensation.

“Ample compensation” ain't just a matter of wealth; booty pulled up from the depths, the gold and jewels of lost treasure hordes already enables characters to live quite richly compared to normal folks (per the Expert rules, a two story house costs a couple grand in gold, and adventurers pull that out of a good-sized horde in a single evening…how long does it take YOU to earn enough money for a house?!). When asking people why they do the things they do, however, one of the reasons oft stated (right up there with money) is the status that their chosen career affords them.

Adventuring humans (clerics, fighters, thieves, and DEFINITELY magic-users) should be treated with deference, respect, fear, and hero-worship by the general population…and these feelings should simply GROW as a character gains levels of experience. Actions of PCs that affect the towns they visit (from rescuing people to off-handedly killing stable-boys in a Chaotic fit of mean-ness) should have the consequence of HEIGHTENING these feelings. There should never be a “what have you done for/to me lately” attitude when an adventurer holds the power of life and death in his (or her) hands…and adventurers DO hold that kind of power, compared to the 1D4 hit point Normal Man.

When the villagers ask adventurers to save them from a group of local bandits (a la The Seven Samurai) or fight a manticore or owl bear that has been terrorizing the town, it is not simply a matter of convenience to the populace. This is Life & Death to them…the average rampaging harpy will KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE before the normal men even ruffle her feathers…and a supernatural creature that is immune to normal weapons (like a werewolf or vampire) will absolutely run rampant over the town. Even if the town guardsmen have a “silver sword” or whatever lying around, the werewolf need only kill its Normal Man wielder and the population becomes sheep for the slaughter.

Normal Men need adventurers…adventurers are the only ones capable of holding off the threats of the fantasy world. Adventurers are the CHAMPIONS of the average human population, they should never be considered “lesser” to anything but a greater hero or champion (if one even resides in the region, which isn’t terribly likely). If PCs are having a hard time hiring porters or men-at-arms it’s due to the inherent danger of their expeditions (and the projected likelihood of survival) not any disdain or disrespect of the characters themselves. In the real world, if a group of mercenaries wanted to hire me to go to Iraq with them, I’d probably turn ‘em down, too…no matter how good the money they offered for me to “just drive the jeep.” I’m not trained for that kind of action!

ANYWAY…1^st level demi-humans, with their superior abilities and racial talents, should receive an equal or even greater amount of fear and respect from the average human townie…at least dwarves and elves should; Halflings will probably be underestimated as usual (something I’m beginning to think is actually an advantage of the class). How their own demi-human community feels about them will vary depending on the campaign world, but if they can’t find high status in one place they should certainly find it in another.

SO THERE. Magic-users aren’t the only 1^st level characters allowed to swagger (though as stated, they have plenty about which to swagger). ALL adventurers should all be allowed to strut, from 1^st level on up to their level cap. DMs? We should give ‘em that. It’s a nice bit of gravy/reward…when adventurers get back to town, give ‘em priority at the inn/stable, a couple free drinks at the tavern, and the respect of any Normal Men they encounter.

: )

Friday Morning: Blog Musings

Let’s face it: D&D is a damn fine and interesting game. I’ve been asked by readers a couple times how I have so much to post on this blog, and it’s just amazingly easy for me. There’s so much to talk about!

Since I’d kinda’ like people to read what I write I try to hold off on more than 1 post every few hours…but as it is I’m keeping a running list of topics by the computer that I hope to someday get to. But they just keeping coming up.

For instance, I’d like to blog a whole week about the Normal Man, praising this monster class, and how to use it in a game. How adventurers were perhaps NMs once themselves, and should start with an extra D4 hit points. How, when designing monsters, a 1D20 to damage means a NM has a chance to survive a blow, while 3D6 damage means the creature will destroy a NM with every single blow…that colors how a monster is perceived by the populace.

I’ve got a Top 10 list for adventure Modules (already composed), a Top 10 list for monsters (still being ruminated on…difficult to choose who makes the top 10, let alone their order of appearance), an In Praise of the Purple Worm, as well as some Delightfully Whimsical monsters that are definitely appearing in the B/X Companion.

There’s an extremely easy to use Alternate XP System that will allow for high level play without (hopefully) crazy Monty Haulish-ness. And of course, several more planned posts on Blackrazor, White Plume Mountain, RETURN to White Plume Mountain, Alejandro & Co., and other ramblings from childhood.

I’ve got magic-user stuff falling out of my ears! I’ve finally got some ideas for magic items in the B/X Companion! I’ve got more stuff to say about thieves (crap!)!

Oh…and the post that really excites me is this one: How Bilbo Baggins Ruined Everything. But I said Halflings are being reserved for next week. And that includes Hobbits and Kender as well.

Makes my little fingers excited to type!

Anyhoo that’s all the stuff from the post-it list…I still have stuff from my original list of 100+ blog item as well as the ability to cannibalize from around the blog-o-sphere. Ugh…and this is only D&D-related! I might not start examining my (several years long) Vampire saga till 2010! Plus all the Old School goodies: Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Top Secret, more Boot Hill. And dozens more…Shadow Run, Battle Tech, Rifts…hoo-boy, them’s just the “pop” ones, too, not even the indies.

MMmm…I realize that blogging about my blog isn’t exactly “fair play.” I’ll be writing a more substantive post later this morning.
; )

Prost!

B/X Satisfaction: A King's Ransom

Here’s what I love about old school D&D:

EXAMPLE CAMPAIGN

PCs start out as young adventurers living in the kingdom of an oppressive tyrant. He is aged. He is rich. He is greedy of his wealth and power. He is paranoid and Chaotic.

After the PCs first adventure they are rewarded. After the next they are subjected to insults and snide remarks. After the next they are heavily taxed. Finally, they are faced with torment and exile.

Their home village is mercilessly taxed. One PC’s husband is killed. Another sees his wife dragged off by the king’s soldiers. A third PC’s parents are indentured as servants, their farm burned to the ground. A Halfling PC is beaten and tortured for sport.

The PCs hide in the wilderness. Outcast they adventure to help those who suffer more than themselves. They organize a resistance; they begin a guerilla war.

Eventually, the now mid-to-high level adventurers storm the tyrant’s castle. They burst into the stronghold throne room and confront their enemy. Words are shouted, guards are hewn down. Finally the king stands alone.

The PCs do unto the tyrant as to Julius Caesar…what I like to call the “Charley Manson Special.”

How does a DM run this final encounter?

If you’re running BECMI, the elderly tyrant is probably a 9th+ level fighter. He hops from the throne swinging his +3 sword and bellowing bloody murder. Fight ensues and after many, long rounds (complete with the octogenarian delivering Smash Attacks!) the PCs manage to lay out the old man. ‘He was a lot spryer than he looked,’ quips the halfling.

If you’re running some version of D20, the Old Man is of a commensurate Challenge Rating to the PCs throwing out feats and skill use, tumbling and sundering, feinting and cleaving. Eventually the PCs shut down the Encounter Level and the elderly tyrant lies sprawled in a pool of blood. ‘Hmm…that was kind of cheesy,’ quips the halfling.

With 4th Edition the Old Man is probably bigger and badder, being a Boss Fight (like those dragon/turtle critters in Super Mario Bros!). After a heroic surge and a lot of frantic use of all available combat options, the PC gives the old geezer down for a dirt nap. ‘That took longer than our last Raid in Northrend,’ quips the halfling.

If you’re running B/X, the tyrant is probably either a Normal Man or at most a 2HD Noble. The former’s reign can be ended with an arrow through the eye by the party halfling, the latter dies after a couple sword thrusts through his scrawny frame. Robes of state awash in blood, the PCs stand over their nemesis. ‘He wasn’t worth much XP,' quips the halfling…and the halfling is right. Cutting down an old man at the end of his life, Chaotic tyrant or not, should NOT net you a lot of adventuring experience. But as the culmination of a campaign plot arc, there ARE rich XP awards…in the form of the late king’s treasure chamber. Every gold piece split between the PCs is an XP, and there’s plenty for them all to rise in level, even after distributing much of the wealth to the downtrodden populace. Plus they now have a castle, which any fighter can claim as his own, and which most Name level characters can make use of, if they so desire.

Old School B/X D&D connects the character’s rewards (wealth) to the player’s rewards (XP/game effectiveness) to the campaign’s rewards (adventure goals). And it does so very efficiently. OD&D and 1st edition AD&D are much the same, and (except for some strange level inflation) so does BECMI. Later editions of the game do not.

No Such Thing as Normal: Magic-Users and Thieves

While any Normal Human in B/X can pick up a sword and be fitted with a helm and shield, and temple priests are nothing if not Normal Humans (any powers they receive coming from their deity), the Thief and Magic-User both have abilities not found in “Normal” Humans.

A first level fighter or cleric is little different from a Normal Human. Slightly better to hit and saving throws, and a couple more hit points are the main points. But magic-users have the ability to memorize and cast spells, and thieves have a cluster of special skills. Does this mean there’s no such thing as a Normal Man thief or magic-user? Yeah, I think that’s what it means.

Thieves and magic-users are adventurers by default. If an adventurer is someone that proactively seeks glory and riches, then the magic-user and thief fit the mold.

For the thief, this is fairly obvious: they are seekers of treasure, ill-gotten or not. They don’t work “day-jobs;” even one that lives modestly as a pickpocket in the local village risks something every time he plies his trade…imprisonment, maiming, branding, death…depending on the local law. There is nothing safe about the thief’s chosen occupation. He is adventuring every day of his life. And as such, the career thief gains experience every day of his successful thieving life.

Of course, the average town pickpocket is never going to rise very high in level: say 2d6 silver pieces per day = average 7 = 2555silver/year = less than 6500 XP over a 25 year career, which is a little more than 4th level. And that would be an extremely fortunate thief that was successful every day and spent little down time (say, in prison or the stocks). Robbers and burglars will average more per take (the former because of combat XP, the latter because of larger “lair” treasure), but have to spend more time planning heists with less chance of success. And solo adventurers…even in a rather safe, “town” setting will have more difficulty than a party of adventurers.

Of course, a group of thieves may have more success, but they will have to split XP and treasure between themselves…they still won’t be rising in level nearly as fast as PC thieves.

The life of the magic-user is the hardest to rationalize, except by saying there are few mortals with the gift that allows the practice of magic. Whether that “gift” is something in the blood or simple literacy in a medieval world is best left to the individual DM. Whatever it is, it sets magic-users apart from Normal Men, and requires them to adventure to grow in power. Is their “gift” only strengthened by gaining experience and confidence? Is spell research and study only possible through the defeat of monsters (for their vitals as components) and the acquisition of treasure (for purchase of tomes and lab supplies)? Perhaps all of these things in some combination.

The point is that magic-users unlock the mysteries of the cosmos…and they only do this by exploration of the world (i.e. “by adventuring”). No magic-user can become powerful by hanging out in town all day, reading books. Why not?

Because the rules say so.

But in justifying the rules (rather than re-writing them to look like Ars Magica) one has to define how and why magic works the way it does in the game world. In B/X, power comes from XP. XP is gained from defeating monsters and finding treasure. So, for whatever reason, the most powerful magic-users are those that defeat the most monsters and gather the most treasure. Why is that the case? That’s up to each individual campaign to decide.

A guard, knight, or noble may be a Normal Man with the arms and armor of a fighter. A priest may be a Normal Man granted the power to heal by his (or her) god. But “Normal Humans” never display the abilities of the magic-user or thief class…those abilities belong only to adventurers.

Rise And Be Healed!

Here I was going to write about my Tomb of Horror experiences, but I guess I should throw in another two cents on D&D spirituality by continuing my discussion of the power of the Normal Man.  In this instance, the Divine power of the Normal Man.

Anyone ever play Bard's Tale?

Bard's Tale is pretty obviously based on Dungeons & Dragons.  You put together a party of adventurers, each one being a different race-class combo with a set of familiar stats, levels, experience points, hit points, etc.  All very recognizable to the average old school D&D player.

However, there are a couple major differences.  One is the lack of any kind of "alignment" characteristic. Another is the complete absence of any kind of cleric/priest class. Oh, there's a paladin, and at least a couple of the magic-user classes (there are four: conjurer, magician, sorcerer, and wizard) have spells that "heal" or duplicate traditional clerical spells.  But otherwise, there's no "representative of the gods;" at least not one that joins your adventuring party.

That doesn't mean the game is atheistic or even monotheistic...there are temples and shrines all over the game, each dedicated to a particular patron god.  Mechanically speaking, they are all the same: they serve the purpose of providing healing services (to any who can afford it). Turning stone to flesh, removing poison, exorcising possession, raising from the dead...all can be had at any temple for a price.

Who the heck are these guys?  They're not adventurers or you'd certainly hire one to tag along. They seem fairly amoral...as long as you have the gold, they aren't asking where you got your wounds, and if you don't have the money, they'll turn you away at the door, nevermind the "good" quest your on. Alignment be damned!  What kind of alignment do you think the "Thief Temple" has?

Earlier, I wrote how I believe the whole idea as clerics as church leaders is kind of a big steaming pile.  Clerics (the class, not the clerk) are the crusading templars, the holy (and unholy) zealot warriors, the champions of their patron deity.  This isn't St. Augustine...this is Joan of Arc, people. A little crazy, and powered by faith.

In my last post, I expounded a bit on the place of the Normal Man in relation to the PC adventurer.  Basically, the adventuring character (PC or NPC) is an exceptional person that learns from experience, growing in power, while the Normal Man does not.  He may be a peasant or a blacksmith, a soldier or a king, a (B/X) bard or a beggar...with the appropriate skills for his profession. But he does not have the extra combat abilities that are gained from surviving perilous adventures.

What's to say that the high priests and ministers of the temples aren't Normal Men as well? I mean, the bishop that ministers to his diocese is no different from the stay-at-home duke; that is, he is too concerned with the day-to-day administrations of running a church to run around slaying dragons.

I think the problem most people have with accepting this paradigm shift (and it requires one...ever since 2nd edition AD&D started calling clerics "priests," or ever since performingthe Marriage sacrament became a clerical spell in the Unearthed Arcana) is in fact the way spell acquisition is handled.

Clerics gain spells by going up in level, therefore priests (who, in a fantasy world, provide magical healing through spells) must also rise in level.  Otherwise, whose performing all those raise dead miracles at the local shrine?

Um...how about the deity of the shrine worshippers?

How about THIS for an idea.  Temples are staffed by Normal Men...from the lowliest acolyte on the totem pole to the Pontiff himself (or Reverend Mother...whatever).  All are Normal Men, who know only the duties and doctrines of their god(s).  However, by following the doctrines of their deity, they can ask for intercessions on behalf of the faithful (either the truly devout or those willing to pay for the service).  The deity grants the healing power (removes a curse, cures the lycanthropy, heals the disease), and the adventurers are free to go their merry way.

Doesn't that make more sense?

It does to me.  Clerics are the crusading knights; it's difficult for them to learn powerful healing spells (they have to be "high level" to raise the dead), because they spend so much of their time in weapons and combat training.  Yet once they do prove their faith to their god, they have the miraculous ability to perform healing magic "in the field."  The Normal Men (priests) of the temple need to perform long-winded rituals, light incense, sacrifice animals...all that stuff that takes time and money.  The cleric (paladin-templar) simply "lays on hands" and the miracle is granted!

Now onto the subject of alignment.  I already said that the idea of evil in a D&D world is kind of absurd: there are player character actions which can be compassionate or reprehensible, and there are opponents of player characters that may or may not be intending harm (see detect evil in the B/X game).  There is a third piece to be considered when it comes to deities, one I think Raggi gets pretty close to in his last couple posts even if he doesn't make it quite this succinct:

Deities don't care about alignment. Deities care about people following the tenets of their (the deities) doctrine.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions after all. Look at all the discussions around the blogs about how following Good sometimes means killing a lot of people (normally considered Bad, right?). Good, bad, that's not what the deity cares about.  At least not in D&D which draws so much from old swords and sorcery literature.  And those use Old Time religion of the pre-Vatican II variety.  If you don't show up for Church, you're going to hell (unless you atone).  If you sleep with the wrong person, there's going to be a stoning (with rocks, friends).  And that sacrifice to Ares or Zeus better be the right type and at the right time or you can count on a plague or drought smiting your land.

Wow, hopefully I got my point across.  This post is getting long, so I better sign off and let it stew a bit.

Another Reason For A B/X Companion

Much as I like Frank Mentzer’s Companion set, especially the dominion rules, there are some problems with it…especially with the dominion rules!

I’ll get to this in a moment.

This has to do with something I’ve been gradually realizing the more I’ve delved into Old School gaming: D&D, as originally conceived and written, is a game of heroes. And I mean old school heroes (not Old School heroes…ugh! Semantics!). The game doesn’t need any help for the PCs to be heroic…they don’t need extra feats and kewl powers unless one wants to play a comic book super hero-type fantasy game (and doesn’t White Wolf already have Exalted?).

Here’s what I’m talking about: PCs (and any NPC with a “class” that gains “levels”) are EXCEPTIONAL individuals. Non-exceptional elves are HD 1 elves; dwarves and Halflings are the same, just like orcs, goblins, etc. Non-exceptional humans (i.e. humans that are not clerics, fighters, magic-users, or thieves) are classified as Normal Men.

And that’s it…that’s all you need to run a whole D&D society (at least in B/X). A Normal Man could be a priest, or a sage, or the ruler of a kingdom. But if he’s not an EXCEPTIONAL character (like ALL the player characters are!) then he’s still easily killed by a single sword thrust or arrow. HE AIN’T SO IMPORTANT TO THE STORY THAT HE NEEDS TO FIGHT AND ENDURE LIKE A HERO.

The PCs are heroic. Their capacity to learn from experience, gain levels, and increase their hit points give them the ability to take on more and last longer than other Normal Men. The increase of their abilities (i.e. increase of effectiveness) shows them as heroic forces to be reckoned with. Whereas a Normal Man priest could ward off a vampire with a holy symbol, a heroic crusading cleric can actually force the vampire to run away…or explode into dust! THAT’S power.

All the sentient humanoids have exceptional individuals…these are the “chiefs” and “sub-chiefs” present in monster descriptions. Only PC races (human, dwarf, elf, and Halfling in B/X) have the ability to actually “gain levels;” that is why they’re player allowed races.

(yes, I realize that may not have been the designer’s original intent, but that’s how it works out)

There’s no need to have bullshit like 3rd level nobles, 6th level blacksmiths, or 12th level peasants. There’s no need to stat up every monster with PC-like stats. This is needless complication and actually TAKES AWAY from the heroism of the player characters! Or forces them to need extra “super hero” abilities to make them “more special” (this ties into a related topic: Why I Hate Skills).

But let’s bring this back to Mentzer and his excellent Companion set. Excellent that is, except for the inflation of Normal Men to the ranks of PCs. And by this I mean, the rules whereby rulers of dominions gain experience points for sitting on their duffs.

At first glance, this seems like a reasonable set of rules. There’s a trade-off between characters that go out and adventure for experience and treasure (especially magic items), and those that stay home and “take care of business.” Shouldn’t these landowners gain something? And it’s not like they gain XP from ALL revenue. Mainly, just what they tax (and taxes affect Domain Confidence levels…tricky balance there). What’s wrong with this?

Well, a couple things , both part of the same whole: the de-protagonising of Player Characters. Here’s why:

#1 NPC Inflation: Check out the example tournament-feast adventure. Look at all those knights and lords, all high level fighters. That’s a lot of clout to be plying the lists…enough to make the PCs small by comparison. It’s one thing to have a high level EXCEPTIONAL person as an antagonist; it’s quite another thing to have all individuals born to nobility to be “exceptional” by dint of collecting taxes over the years. Not every ruler has carved out an empire with his or her own sword arm. Some are Normal Men born to their position.

#2 Retirement = Death: Only PCs that are actually out adventuring should be gaining XP, not guys sitting at home, handling the administration of a barony or county. Exceptional abilities are honed in the field (or the dungeon), and in life-and-death situations…not through practice with the castle guard captain. Once an adventurer has settled down, he (or she) has effectively been “put out to pasture.” A cleric’s deity isn’t going to see the need to reward the cleric with more powerful spells (why would the ruler cleric need them?) and a thief guildmaster is going to be too busy counting his money and training apprentices to improve himself. Complacency does NOT give a person better saving throws…hell, it should probably PENALIZE them.

#3 Encouraged Lethargy: From a design point of view, experience points (XP) are a reward mechanic. In RPGs, reward mechanics encourage and inspire behavior in play. If one can grow in power and wealth with little risk by NOT adventuring, then manning one’s throne will take precedence over heroic questing. Less risk means less loss means more gain…and a fairly boring campaign.

If a group wants to run a dominion based campaign where everything is intrigue and political maneuvering and little “adventuring” that’s fine…but characters have no need for “high levels” in that kind of game anyway (there’s little direct confrontation, save perhaps through proxies or assassins, and most armed conflict will be through war machines and military maneuvers). The rewards for characters in a game aristocratic intrigue are wealth, land, power, influence, and favors…NOT hit points, attack rolls, extra spells, or better saving throws! An individual (PC or NPC) can be feared or respected by the weight of his or her actions, not simply their “level.”