From multiple sources I've come to the conclusion (and pretty much confirmed) that most everything in D&D was just conjured from thin air. In other words, there is no rhyme or reason to Monster stats, or spell abilities, etc. Because of this, the best advice almost anyone has for converting or creating material is "eyeball it". This is a problem, not because of balance obsession, but internal consistency. I want my players to be able to use logic to play the game. I don't want them rushing in to fight a Giant Ram, because they've slayed a Dragon, and the Giant Ram should be easier to fight. (Just an example.)
Because of this I'm thinking it might be best to simply develop my own guidelines, possibly referencing D&D or trying to keep some level of similarity. I'm thinking (and redbaron at the ODD74 boards has a similar system) of simply making a Hit Dice by size chart (as in Human =1, Giant = 10, etc.), and possibly Hit Dice by human level chart (Peasant = 1/2, Knight = 5, etc.). Then have an armor class by type chart as an example (Leather/Natural Hide = AC12, Chainmail/Scale = AC14, etc.), and then maybe a few modifiers (Small = +1, Flying = +2, etc.). The same for damage (Natural attacks = 1d6, Fireball = HD x d6, etc.). Then you could obviously use the various XP determination charts from either 1E or 2E.
Spells would be a little harder, but you could still devise a similar system. Level 1 spells = 1dx+1/level, Level 5 = (level)dx, etc. Non combat spells might be a little harder, but I'm sure there is a metric you could devise and such.
This would obviously be a large undertaking, but I think it would be easier in the long run, to have nice guidelines for creating and converting monsters in a solid way.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Types of Classes
This is a quick discussion on the types of classes I've been able to discern from working on D&D. These are basically the abilities and progressions. I think they use a "Tier" system in 3.5/PF, but I'm not familiar with them. These types of classes can usually be combined in various ways, as with all D&D/derivatives, there is no cut and dry classifications.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
The first type is the "Simple" character class. Usually a one trick pony, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The best example is the Fighter. In AD&D he gets Exceptional Strength which makes him a general ass-kicker. He does a ton of damage, and can hit really well and really hard. The only thing "Simple" classes usually get as they progress is Hit Dice, and Attack ability; though sometimes they get an improving "ability", like how the Fighter gets extra attacks in AD&D.
I'm going to go with the "Powers" class, for second, because it was the second set of class in original D&D. This type of class is defined by a set of "powers" they can choose from, which they usually gain more of as they progress, but are usually expendable or only last a certain duration. This is the reason 4E is usually decried as homogenous (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing): all classes were defined by powers. This is also why 4E was said to be tons of fun (again, not agreeing or disagreeing). It's usually agreed the "Powers" classes, IE the Wizard, tend to be the most "fun", or at least most "customizable" (via spell selection). Powers don't necessarily have to spells, as shown in 4E or the Tome of Battle (IIRC). The original version of the thief, called the "box man" (IIRC), was a thief that got to use thief "powers" so many times per day.
The next type of class is the "Skill" class, or pejoratively the "Skill Monkey". Obviously the first example of this was the Thief. A class defined by a set of skills who could use in the game, which would improve when he progresses. The thief is also an example of the next type of class.
The "Ability" or "Feature" class, is a class defined by a set of features or abilities he can perform, that aren't expendable like powers; but pretty much constant, or in play when certain criteria are met. The Thief's "back stab" ability is the first example I can think of; wherein the Thief deals extra damage if he is able to sneak up on his opponent. The Monk, however, is the best example of a real "Ability" class. The Monk started with a set of abilities, and would gain new ones almost every level. Abilities such as break fall, detect poison, identify plant and animal type, etc.
Obviously most classes don't fall neatly into one type or another. The Monk for example has some basic abilities like the Fighter does, that would normally make it a one trick pony sort of class. However he also gets Thief skills, and then his defining abilities. The Paladin is a generally "Simple" class with a few abilities, but no where near as many as a Monk.
What's the benefit to this classification? Personally, I intend to make sure that I use all of these types in my games, so that there is real variety. Why shouldn't the Fighter be a simple class? He doesn't have to be weak or "useless" in comparison to the other classes; but that also doesn't mean he needs to have as many options or choices. I know personally, when I want to just play a quick game, I want that simple kind of class to just pick up and run with. I don't always want to have to keep track of a million abilities, or make a million choices before I start playing.
On the other hand, I want to have options and classes available for players who do want more control, or choice in their characters. That's the real way to get "every D&D player" at the same table. Give them options that are meaningful. That's one thing I don't like about D&D NEXT. The Fighter is flavorful, and relatively simply compared to the other classes, but I still have to decide a path and pick specializations and combat tricks, etc.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Dungeon Crawl Revised; Playtest
I'm actually in the middle of writing another blog post (my fist Monster Comparison), but I figured I should post something positive for the first time in a while. I haven't blogged in a couple weeks because I am employed once again, which is nice. A lovely perk of my job (kind of working with computers), is I've met some other nerd friends, who also happen to play RPGs. One friend in particular is very fond of Old School D&D, the other (and his brother who joins us) play a lot of Paladium RPGs. Last weekend we got together, and they agreed to help me playtest my "Dungeon Crawl" rules.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
I didn't have any ink for my printer, so I kind of ran it all off the top of my head. It went great. All three of them had played Pathfinder a few times, so they had a decent point of reference. My old school friend said he actually enjoyed playing the Dungeon Crawl rules more than OD&D, and the other two said they enjoyed it much more than Pathfinder, particularly character creation.
I did end up switching back to using 3.5 D&D as the basis of the game. I've decided it's going to be easier to use 3.5, because there are guidelines for converting everything to 3.5, but not the other way around. For characters I've pretty much stripped out anything non-combat related. I've also trimmed the skill list down to just 8 skills. It's very much like Microlite20 in many ways as well; we've been using the one sentence spell summaries instead of the full descriptions; and monsters consist purely of Hit Points, Armor Class, and Attacks.
The way I've decided to handle experience is the 2nd Edition way for monsters, using the Level Advancement table from 3.5 D&D. It's actually working rather well, as there are a list of "monster level adjustments". I'm also using Swords & Wizardry's system for distributing treasure (2-3 times monster experience in treasure), as well as allowing gold to be spent on training for experience. It's all working out rather well.
There's still a large part of me that prefers OD&D, and the old school way of doing things, particularly when it comes to unique character abilities, skills, and racial abilities. The skill system is very limiting. I think this definitely works best as a "generic fantasy" role playing game, than it does a D&D style game (which I think are two different themes really). Hopefully with my monster comparison series of articles I can gain more insight into the difference between editions, and determine the best plan of attack. There is always the option of maintaining Monsters, Spells, and Magic Items from 3.5, while making characters function in a more old school fashion; though I don't like the dissonance that would involve.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Monster Comparisons
I'm going to start taking a bit more of a methodical approach to Arcane Adventures. I want to be able to use material from every edition. I have little desire to balance monsters against each other for game play purposes, because that's not fun, and balance fetish is something from later games. However, it is important to "balance" monsters against each other for the sake of logic and internal consistency.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
See in old school D&D it doesn't really matter whether your kobold has 1-4 hit points or 1-8 hit points, whether he has AC13 or AC15, because all of that is factored into his experience point value. It also doesn't really matter, because none of the stats are actually based off any realism factors. Though to the players it matters, because they need to be able to gauge the danger of the world. If they see a Dragon they should be able to learn from experience whether it's going to be difficult to fight, or practically impossible to fight. They also need to be able to judge whether a kobold is a weak (AC13, 1d4 HP) creature, or practically a knight (AC15, 1d8 Kobold being nearly identical to an old school Knight of AC15 and 1d8 HP).
In other words if I'm going to use 3E material next to AD&D material, next to OD&D material, there should be some consistency between monsters.Furthermore, monsters that should be logically weaker or stronger than others, should be so. A kobold probably shouldn't be as strong as a Knight (unless you really want that). A Dragon should probably be stronger than a Basilisk, and so forth.
Anyway, I'm going to be comparing monsters from across all the editions I can find. I haven't found it anywhere else. If it is somewhere on the web please point me to it, and save me the time. I'm going to be comparing OD&D post Greyhawk, Holmes, AD&D (1E and 2E if different), 3.5, and Pathfinder.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Quick Idea
So I'm just jotting this down here really quick, so I can keep it somewhere I can access rather easily.
All of that aside, a small note on my Dungeon Crawl! idea so I don't forget what happened. I did come up with a really simple and functional rule set, based off the d20 system. It worked perfectly fine, however I simply don't know the d20 (3.5/Pathfinder) well enough to complete it. I'm not seeing an easy way of distributing experience and treasure without the CR system. I'm sure there must be, but I can't find a way of determining a monster's CR without creating it, or just eyeballing it (that's the literal advice I read in the DMG). So for now, that's shelved.
My last idea for Arcane Adventures was to basically mimic Microlite20 in form and fashion, as a vehicle for my OD&D house rules, and supplemental material I found. I would really love to do that, and I'm tempted to still, however two things are keeping me from doing that. First is I really feel like OD&D is just OD&D, and there's no reason to try and replicate it. OD&D is pretty much, make it up as you go, and just do whatever you want, and I've found that too much supplemental material actually limits my and my players' creativity.
The second reason being, that almost everyone that plays D&D played/plays B/X, AD&D or a derivative thereof. After all that's what most of TSR era D&D was. OD&D was only around for a few years really. This is the primary reason for my current idea (which I'll get to in a second). The wealth of material out there (and I've said this before, as being my reasoning for making a B/X + AD&D hybrid) is geared towards AD&D, and B/X to a lesser extent. Both of those editions have what people expect in D&D as well; several classes, mechanical benefits for character descriptions, ability bonuses, etc.
What I'm wanting to do now, is basically make "MicroliteTSR" if you will. I'm aware of Microlite74/81 (and now 78, which I'm looking forward too), and I really love Mr. Stukey's work. I think it's a wonderful game, and I really love the fact he's not trying to write a "true clone". It's also exactly my inspiration for this. I realized "hey, he's using the Microlite framework, and gearing towards the system he's familiar with". (That's reason #3 for the above, I'm kind of stuck thinking in AD&D terms now, and can't shift into a 3E paradigm).
I'm going to take the Microlite framework, and just apply the math from AD&D and B/X. I'm going to try and stick to just the rules covered in Microlite20, but simply use the AD&D or B/X variants of those rules, or even simpler rules I might find, that still fit. I really want to stick to the simplicity of Microlite, like I did with my Arcane Grimoire.
Since I know the AD&D math and paradigm so well, I'll be able to convert most any material to this system, like I do on the fly when I game. The benefit, of course, will be that I have it all ready ahead of time. It will also cover most of the "essential" D&D concepts people want when they play. I really just want a game whose rules don't get in the way of playing. I feel like Microlite accomplishes that perfectly, however I just can't figure out the experience/treasure distribution in a way that I'm comfortable with. So why not just convert it to what I'm comfortable with.
All of that aside, a small note on my Dungeon Crawl! idea so I don't forget what happened. I did come up with a really simple and functional rule set, based off the d20 system. It worked perfectly fine, however I simply don't know the d20 (3.5/Pathfinder) well enough to complete it. I'm not seeing an easy way of distributing experience and treasure without the CR system. I'm sure there must be, but I can't find a way of determining a monster's CR without creating it, or just eyeballing it (that's the literal advice I read in the DMG). So for now, that's shelved.
My last idea for Arcane Adventures was to basically mimic Microlite20 in form and fashion, as a vehicle for my OD&D house rules, and supplemental material I found. I would really love to do that, and I'm tempted to still, however two things are keeping me from doing that. First is I really feel like OD&D is just OD&D, and there's no reason to try and replicate it. OD&D is pretty much, make it up as you go, and just do whatever you want, and I've found that too much supplemental material actually limits my and my players' creativity.
The second reason being, that almost everyone that plays D&D played/plays B/X, AD&D or a derivative thereof. After all that's what most of TSR era D&D was. OD&D was only around for a few years really. This is the primary reason for my current idea (which I'll get to in a second). The wealth of material out there (and I've said this before, as being my reasoning for making a B/X + AD&D hybrid) is geared towards AD&D, and B/X to a lesser extent. Both of those editions have what people expect in D&D as well; several classes, mechanical benefits for character descriptions, ability bonuses, etc.
What I'm wanting to do now, is basically make "MicroliteTSR" if you will. I'm aware of Microlite74/81 (and now 78, which I'm looking forward too), and I really love Mr. Stukey's work. I think it's a wonderful game, and I really love the fact he's not trying to write a "true clone". It's also exactly my inspiration for this. I realized "hey, he's using the Microlite framework, and gearing towards the system he's familiar with". (That's reason #3 for the above, I'm kind of stuck thinking in AD&D terms now, and can't shift into a 3E paradigm).
I'm going to take the Microlite framework, and just apply the math from AD&D and B/X. I'm going to try and stick to just the rules covered in Microlite20, but simply use the AD&D or B/X variants of those rules, or even simpler rules I might find, that still fit. I really want to stick to the simplicity of Microlite, like I did with my Arcane Grimoire.
Since I know the AD&D math and paradigm so well, I'll be able to convert most any material to this system, like I do on the fly when I game. The benefit, of course, will be that I have it all ready ahead of time. It will also cover most of the "essential" D&D concepts people want when they play. I really just want a game whose rules don't get in the way of playing. I feel like Microlite accomplishes that perfectly, however I just can't figure out the experience/treasure distribution in a way that I'm comfortable with. So why not just convert it to what I'm comfortable with.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Clash!
So I made some progress with "Dungeon Crawl!", with the help of my lovely wife. We took a bit of inspiration from "The Fantasy Trip", and have made what we're calling "Clash!". Right now it's just the rules for creating warriors to fight out combats, kind of like "Melee!" from back in the day. It's based off Microlite20, so there is just enough rules to play, but no filler. Since it's based off Microlite20 that means that it's compatible with d20/3.5/Pathfinder, so you can just use the "stuff" from those games (namely the free SRD and PFSRD online).
I've made two major changes to the game (which I'll be posting below). First is the removal of the class ability scores. Instead there are five stats for everything; Defense (Armor Class), Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and Ability. I was mostly inspired by Searchers of the Unknown in this regard. The second major change of the game is the "Ability" stat. Instead of Saving Throws or Skills, there is the "Ability" stat, that functions as a bonus to every non-combat roll in the game (unless otherwise specified). Players can then choose "Talents" (like feats) to grant bonuses to specific situations, or they're free to create classes with specific bonuses.
I won't go into the why's and where-to-fores. Suffice it to say I find this to be a simple enough game that doesn't get in the way of having fun for me, and requires the least conversion of any system I've found. I'm not saying it's a major improvement over other systems, just that it's what I like. Anyway, here you go:
I've made two major changes to the game (which I'll be posting below). First is the removal of the class ability scores. Instead there are five stats for everything; Defense (Armor Class), Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and Ability. I was mostly inspired by Searchers of the Unknown in this regard. The second major change of the game is the "Ability" stat. Instead of Saving Throws or Skills, there is the "Ability" stat, that functions as a bonus to every non-combat roll in the game (unless otherwise specified). Players can then choose "Talents" (like feats) to grant bonuses to specific situations, or they're free to create classes with specific bonuses.
I won't go into the why's and where-to-fores. Suffice it to say I find this to be a simple enough game that doesn't get in the way of having fun for me, and requires the least conversion of any system I've found. I'm not saying it's a major improvement over other systems, just that it's what I like. Anyway, here you go:
Clash!
STATS
There are 5 stats: Defense, Hit Points, Attack, Damage, and
Ability. Defense starts at 10, Hit Points start at 15, Attack starts at +1, Damage
is determined by weapon, and Ability starts at +1.
COMBAT
Roll d20 for initiative order. Everyone can do one
interesting activity each turn; move a short distance and attack, move a great
distance, cast a spell, etc. Some actions, such as quaffing a magic potion, are
considered a “minor action” and can be performed in addition to a normal action.
Add a character’s “Attack” bonus to a d20 roll. If higher
than the target’s “Defense” score, it’s a hit. A natural 20 is automatically a
critical, doing maximum damage.
Characters can wield two weapons and attack with both in a
round, if they take a penalty on all attack rolls that round. If both weapons
are light there is no penalty, if one is light and the other one-handed the
penalty is -2, if both are one-handed the penalty is -4.
If “Hit Points” reach 0, characters are unconscious and near
death. If “Hit Points” are brought below 0, players can make an “Ability
Check”. A successful “Ability Check” means the character is stabilized at 0
“Hit Points” and unconscious, a failure means death.
ABILITIES
Anything that is not an attack roll is usually an “Ability
Check”. When making an “Ability Check” add your “Ability” score to a d20 roll.
You can also add any specific bonuses your character might have from talents,
items, magic, etc. There are no skills or saving throws in “WARRIOR!”, instead
the “Ability Check” can be used when necessary.
TALENTS
Each level, including 1st, players may select a “Talent” for
their characters. “Talents” are small bonuses or abilities characters have in
certain situations. The most basic “Talents” are simple bonuses to character
Stats.
+1 Defense: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Hit Point: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Attack: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Damage: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
+1 Ability: can be taken multiple times. For example, if
taken twice, the bonus is +2, if taken three times the bonus is +3, etc.
LEVEL ADVANCEMENT
Each level adds: +5 Hit Points, +1 to “Attack”, +1 to
“Ability”, and a new “Talent”.
OPEN GAME LICENSE
Version 1.0a The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright
2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved. 1. Definitions:
(a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative
works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other
form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute”
means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute;”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open
Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
(e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and
special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and
which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names,
mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or
the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise
create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in
terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating
that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You
must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added
to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or
conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of
the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors
grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of
this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open
Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You
have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this
License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content
You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game
Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication
as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with
the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity
in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity.
The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title
and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions
of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this
License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any
Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the
Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content
using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor
to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this
License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or
governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms
herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses
shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision
shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the
Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan,
Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on
original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Microlite20 © 2006, Robin V. Stacey
(robin@greywulf.net)
This product is 100% Open Game Content except for Product Identity, as per the Open Game
License above. Product Identity includes Microlite20 and Robin V. Stacey, Darrell King and Al
Krombach. Product Identity also includes "Clash!".
Version 1.0a The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright
2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved. 1. Definitions:
(a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open
Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative
works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification,
correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other
form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute”
means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise
distribute;”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures,
processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open
Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
(e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and
special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural
abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and
which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names,
mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or
the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”,
“Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise
create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in
terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating
that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You
must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added
to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or
conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of
the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors
grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of
this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open
Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You
have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this
License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content
You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and
the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game
Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication
as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with
the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing
Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity
in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity.
The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title
and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions
of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this
License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any
Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the
Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content
using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor
to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this
License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or
governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms
herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses
shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision
shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the
Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan,
Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on
original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Microlite20 © 2006, Robin V. Stacey
(robin@greywulf.net)
This product is 100% Open Game Content except for Product Identity, as per the Open Game
License above. Product Identity includes Microlite20 and Robin V. Stacey, Darrell King and Al
Krombach. Product Identity also includes "Clash!".
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Alternate Combat Systems
I came up with a general concept of an alternate combat system for D&D the other night. It's not thought out very well, and it's just a rough idea at this point. I doubt I'll ever use it, but I thought I'd share it none the less. One major drawback to this system though is it makes some monsters "untouchable" if you have a very low attack. I don't actually view this as a problem though, as it's actually more realistic. Sometimes there's just a creature/adversary that you look at and go "well damn, I'm running".
Note I just thought of this the other night. If someone else has already come up with this, or if it's a common thing, sorry. I'm unaware of it. If it is found elsewhere, I wouldn't mind being pointed in the direction.
First thing, this idea uses the ascending armor class system presented in d20/3E. The way it works is you attack like normal in that system, and whatever you beat your target's armor class by (margin of success), is how much damage you deal. Weapons could be represented by static bonuses, or you could roll 1d20+weapon dice as well.
There you have it, pretty simple and straight forward. It boils combat down to one die roll, which is kind of nice.
I thought of an alternative for this system as well, which I'll share now. It's the same thing, but you take the ascending armor class, and subtract 10. You now have a "Defense" score that can be as low as 0. You keep the base attack bonus and you can just call it "Attack", and it can also start at 0. Instead of rolling 1d20, you just roll the weapon's damage dice, adding the "attack" bonus, and however much it beats the "defense" score, is how much damage is scored.
This means two things: attack skill and weapons damage are far more important, and initiative is way more important. Lets look at two (kind of three) examples.
Assume two untrained, and unarmored individuals (no attribute bonuses), with daggers (1d4). Their attack and defense scores are both "0". These means whatever they roll for damage is how much they deal. This is actually pretty realistic from experience, as defense is usually the harder skill to learn. You give someone a weapon, and they can tear people up, whether out of shear fear from target, or just aggression. If you do use attributes, those initial bonuses (to armor class, or attack/damage) become extremely important to low level characters.
A second example would be a full armored knight (say AC 16), against a untrained peasant with a spear (1d6). Even if the peasant rolls a 6, he's not doing anything to that knight. The knight on the other hand will probably cut down the peasant extremely easily. There is something you could do to remedy such situations, and that's exploding damage. Anytime maximum damage is rolled on a damage die, you roll again and total, and you can do this infinitely if you wish. This is cool, because statistically critical hits would be more frequent (1/6 or 1/12 even, instead of 1/20).
So there's some fun ideas to toy with, if you're interested. Personally I'm heavily considering toying with the second concept for making a stand alone game, that could use D&D monsters with little conversion.
Note I just thought of this the other night. If someone else has already come up with this, or if it's a common thing, sorry. I'm unaware of it. If it is found elsewhere, I wouldn't mind being pointed in the direction.
First thing, this idea uses the ascending armor class system presented in d20/3E. The way it works is you attack like normal in that system, and whatever you beat your target's armor class by (margin of success), is how much damage you deal. Weapons could be represented by static bonuses, or you could roll 1d20+weapon dice as well.
There you have it, pretty simple and straight forward. It boils combat down to one die roll, which is kind of nice.
I thought of an alternative for this system as well, which I'll share now. It's the same thing, but you take the ascending armor class, and subtract 10. You now have a "Defense" score that can be as low as 0. You keep the base attack bonus and you can just call it "Attack", and it can also start at 0. Instead of rolling 1d20, you just roll the weapon's damage dice, adding the "attack" bonus, and however much it beats the "defense" score, is how much damage is scored.
This means two things: attack skill and weapons damage are far more important, and initiative is way more important. Lets look at two (kind of three) examples.
Assume two untrained, and unarmored individuals (no attribute bonuses), with daggers (1d4). Their attack and defense scores are both "0". These means whatever they roll for damage is how much they deal. This is actually pretty realistic from experience, as defense is usually the harder skill to learn. You give someone a weapon, and they can tear people up, whether out of shear fear from target, or just aggression. If you do use attributes, those initial bonuses (to armor class, or attack/damage) become extremely important to low level characters.
A second example would be a full armored knight (say AC 16), against a untrained peasant with a spear (1d6). Even if the peasant rolls a 6, he's not doing anything to that knight. The knight on the other hand will probably cut down the peasant extremely easily. There is something you could do to remedy such situations, and that's exploding damage. Anytime maximum damage is rolled on a damage die, you roll again and total, and you can do this infinitely if you wish. This is cool, because statistically critical hits would be more frequent (1/6 or 1/12 even, instead of 1/20).
So there's some fun ideas to toy with, if you're interested. Personally I'm heavily considering toying with the second concept for making a stand alone game, that could use D&D monsters with little conversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)