4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

[pawsplay]

[*]Special moves/tricks for fighters and thieves. This one I'm on the fence about; after all, I just said one of the attractions of BECMI is stripped-down mechanics! But I do feel that non-casters ought to have some tricks up their sleeves that don't rely on stunts.[/list]

Well, in BECMI thieves get backstab. Fighters to get a smattering of, well, let's not call them feats: haymaker, parry, set versus charge, mounted charge, multiple attacks.

 

[Lanefan]

[*]A limited set of choices at chargen and level up.
[*]The classes are fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief. Elf, dwarf, and halfling are optional. Variants may exist, especially at high levels, but everything builds on the basic four.

Expanding this a bit to a more 1e-like list doesn't add much complexity but does add flexibility. In particular, adding Ranger, Druid, Assassin and Illusionist to the class list and allowing some non-Humans to fully function in some classes (e.g. Elves-as-race can be Elves-as-class, MUs, Thieves, or Druids) gives a lot more options at little cost of complexity.

[*]Low-level PCs are somewhat more fragile than in 4E. (They do not have to be as fragile as they are in straight-up BECMI, however!)

Wound-vitality (or body-fatigue as we call them) points work wonders here. Everyone gets a small number of w.p. (b.p.) - we use a die based on race (almost always d3-d6) with high Con. giving a minimum but not adding to the roll thus a Con. 17 Human rolls a d5 but if the roll is less than 3 it becomes 3. Your v.p. (f.p.) are what you roll by level as now.

We did add some complexity in that b.p. cure and rest back differently than f.p. but it's not the end of the system if you ignore this aspect.

(That said, I'm making Vancian casting an optional variant. The standard casting model will look like the sorceror from 3E. Vancian casting just grinds my gears.)

I was just about to suggest exactly this and then I saw you were already ahead of me! I've put Sorceror casting into my 1e game and it works just fine so far.

How about fudging that first one to handle the second one? That is, if Master-level PCs can crawl, why can't Basic-level PCs dip into vassalage and so forth, if only a little bit? Instead of a stunt, maybe a fighter has a follower? The dominion rules seemed to favor non-casters as a way to keep them competitive. So I don't see any problem with them getting a head start on that.

Easily done by simply making it easier for Fighter types to hire and retain henches right from the start; other classes don't find it nearly as easy until some later point.

Lan-"spontaneous casting, spontaneous combustion, pretty much the same"-efan

 

[P1NBACK]

Wound-vitality (or body-fatigue as we call them) points work wonders here. Everyone gets a small number of w.p. (b.p.) - we use a die based on race (almost always d3-d6) with high Con. giving a minimum but not adding to the roll thus a Con. 17 Human rolls a d5 but if the roll is less than 3 it becomes 3. Your v.p. (f.p.) are what you roll by level as now.

I was planning a system nearly identical to this for Constitution.

 

[Votan]

Expanding this a bit to a more 1e-like list doesn't add much complexity but does add flexibility. In particular, adding Ranger, Druid, Assassin and Illusionist to the class list and allowing some non-Humans to fully function in some classes (e.g. Elves-as-race can be Elves-as-class, MUs, Thieves, or Druids) gives a lot more options at little cost of complexity.

I agree. I kind of liked Elves, Dwarves and Halflings as classes, but this approach is definitely better for giving a broader range of options. These classes really seem to mix well with the originals and can be fun to play.

I was just about to suggest exactly this and then I saw you were already ahead of me! I've put Sorceror casting into my 1e game and it works just fine so far.

I suspect that it would actually work better at low levels. Do you make the spells known equal to the spells per day??

Easily done by simply making it easier for Fighter types to hire and retain henches right from the start; other classes don't find it nearly as easy until some later point.

I find this a natural solution and it fits the archetype of characters like Conan rather well.

I also find that it is worth noting that the rules do not appear to have been heavily playtested at very high levels. I keep in mind that everything over about a million XP is a higher level than Gygax's campaign was at the time of the books. So I don;t worry about magic users being too powerful at extremely high levels as I'd likely cap PC advancement somewhere around that point.

That seems to do the lion's share of the work for balancing Fighters and Magic-Users.

 

[Keldryn]

This is not a "merge" idea. RC takes priority. Another way of looking at it, a little off I think, but for illustration: D&D has evolved over the years, right? 1E did some things the way it did because OD&D and Basic/Expert had them. Then 2E kept some thing just because they were in earlier versions. And so forth. 3E and 4E both went for increasingly cleaner breaks (at least by intent). However, since their design intents included keeping a similar complexity overall to Advanced D&D, those breaks were not focused on RC very much. Now, I think you can get some RC-entric play in 4E, but I'd never claim that simplicity was a point of similarity.

I see this as taking RC/BECMI D&D and applying modern game design to it. Frankly, that's what I was hoping that 4th Edition would be -- the modern design sensibilities of 3rd Edition stripped down and used to build a leaner, more streamlined D&D game.

I've considered lifting the 4e skill system directly for a B/X D&D game, but I think that's overkill and it also treads on the thief's niche.

One could simply fold the skill system into an ability check system, using some of the 4e skills as examples. Set DCs for easy/medium/hard/heroic and use the relevant ability score bonus as the check modifier (5/10/15/20 come to mind, but those might be too high when the modifiers only run -3 to +3). If the character's established background could reasonably provide a benefit then the DM could allow a +1 to +3 bonus (e.g. an elf or hunter might gain a +3 bonus to Wisdom checks made to track a deer or forage for food). A similar bonus could be applied if the check is relevant to the character's class (e.g. a magic-user could receive a +3 bonus to Intelligence checks made when knowledge of arcane lore might be useful, and a cleric would receive a +3 bonus to Intelligence checks when trying to identify a holy symbol found tattooed to the dead assassin).

This doesn't allow for general experience to have an effect on the check, but it's simple. The general skills in the Rules Cyclopedia and Gazetteer series allow for additional slots to be spent on an individual skill in order to receive a +1 "specialization" bonus, and that could be used here. Every 3 or 4 levels, a character could have the opportunity to specialize in a type of ability check, such as "Ride" (+1 to Dexterity checks to ride a mount).

I haven't actually tried this in play yet, but it's an alternative to rolling under an ability score, which is a bit clunky to modern eyes.

 

[Dausuul]

All right, here's a general outline of what I have in mind. I'll write all this up as a proper ruleset later, with all the little explanations like "What are ability scores?" and "What's a DC?" For now, I'm concentrating on how the rules work and what the thinking behind them is.

THE BASICS

Ability Scores
Your character has the usual six ability scores. You can generate them using any of the standard methods; however, the recommended method is:

1. Start with 12 in each score.
2. Roll 1d6. Add the result to one score of your choice, and subtract it from another. You cannot add to a score if it would raise that score over 18, or subtract if it would reduce it below 3.
3. Repeat 3 more times. (Do not roll all four dice at once; you decide where to put each die before knowing what the next roll will be.)

This system preserves the idea of "rolling for stats," producing some unpredictable results, while giving players a fair bit of control over the outcome and overall balanced numbers. It's also easy to understand and quick.

Ability scores don't have any direct impact on the core combat mechanics. You don't deal more damage for having a high Strength, or get more hit points for a high Constitution; those are functions of your class and level. The main use of ability scores is to make ability checks, which are simple: Roll 1d20 and add your ability score (not a calculated modifier, the whole thing). If you're making an opposed check, the DC is equal to 10 plus your opponent's ability score. Otherwise, the DC depends on what you're doing, with 20 being the standard.

Ability checks are used for:

• Resolving special combat effects. For instance, if you're poisoned, you make a Constitution check to resist. (As a general principle, you have to hit with an attack or spell before you can use an ability check against an enemy. This is to prevent low-level characters from exploiting ability check-based tactics to take down high-level foes, since ability scores don't scale by level.)
• Resolving "stunts." Typically, when you want to do a stunt-type move, you make an ability check at the start of your turn. If you succeed, you get to do the stunt. If you fail, you mess up and lose your turn. This is obviously subject to DM judgement and the stunt being attempted.
• Most noncombat activities. Stealth is a Dexterity check versus Wisdom; swimming a river is a Strength check; convincing the dragon not to eat you is a Charisma check; et cetera. There will be defined rules for a handful of these, while the rest will be left to DM judgement.

Combat Basics
Characters have two defenses: Armor Class (AC) and Magic Resistance (MR). All physical attacks target AC, and all supernatural or magical attacks target MR. Both are determined by class and level. Your AC is also affected by your armor and shield, if any.

Attacks are made using a standard attack bonus; again, this is class- and level-based. When casting a spell, you make a spellcasting roll versus MR using your "spell bonus," which is analogous to attack bonus. Pretty simple stuff. The rate of scaling for both attacks and defenses is 1 per 3 levels up to level 12 ("name level"), then 1 per 6 levels thereafter. This is deliberately slow, so that you can have workable combats involving foes at a wide range of levels. A 20th-level character should be able to have a fun and dangerous combat against orcs... it just takes a whole lot of orcs!

When someone does hit you, you have life points and hit points (wound points/vit points, if you prefer). Hit points increase by level, are lost first when you are injured, and refresh with a 5-minute rest. Life points increase only very slowly, are lost only after you run out of hit points, and can only heal with clerical rituals or days of rest. If you are reduced to zero or less life, you fall unconscious until your life is positive again. Each round, you make a Constitution check at DC 20. Three failed checks and you die; roll a natural 20 and you stabilize but remain unconscious. Another PC can stabilize you with a standard action. If your life is reduced to negative (10 plus your level), you die outright.

Unlike some wound/vit systems, this one does not allow crits--or much of anything else--to bypass hit points. As long as you are conscious and able to move, your hit points form a near-impenetrable shield around your life. After all, the whole point of an ablative hit point mechanic is to prevent sudden arbitrary death! In the very rare case that something does bypass hit points (a wraith's attack, maybe), it will do so consistently.

Initiative and actions follow the 3E model for now: Fixed initiative cycle (initiative = Dexterity check), standard and move action each round. I'm trying to avoid adding minor actions. For purposes of this game, any mechanic that requires minor action is probably too complicated. I might experiment with a more old-school initiative system, where you roll each round and declare before acting, if it seems like it wouldn't bog down the game.

Races
Okay, I'll admit it: I don't like the standard races. I think they're a bunch of cardboard Tolkien rejects who get crammed into every damn D&D setting regardless of whether they contribute anything. So my first inclination is to say, "Screw it, humans only." However, elves and dwarves and halflings have a long and storied history in D&D, and it doesn't seem quite fair to just exterminate them. What do other people think? Are nonhumans sufficiently central to BECMI that they need to be included?

Next up: The fighter.

 

[Dausuul]

FIGHTERS

A few things for reference:

• Leather armor grants +1 AC; chain armor grants +3; plate armor grants +5. A shield grants +2.
• Weapon damage is similar to 4E. A dagger is 1d4, a shortsword is 1d6, a longsword is 1d8, a two-handed sword is 1d10. You don't normally get modifiers to your weapon damage, so if you attack with your longsword, you'll deal 1d8 damage no matter what your Strength.
• Fighters can use all weapons, armor, and shields without restriction.

Core Stats

• Fighters start with 8 life points and 5 hit points. Their hit points increase by 2 per level. Their life points increase by 1 every odd-numbered level (9 at level 3, 10 at level 5, et cetera).
• Fighters start with an attack bonus of +8. Their attack bonus improves at levels 2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 23, 29, 35.
• Fighters start with AC 12, MR 14. Their defenses improve at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, 19, 25, 31.

Class Features

Multiple Attacks. Fighters at higher levels can make more than one attack per round. Their number of attacks is as follows:

• Levels 1-5: 1
• Levels 6-11: 1+1
• Levels 12-17: 2
• Levels 18-23: 2+1
• Levels 24-27: 3
• Levels 28-31: 3+1
• Levels 32-35: 4
• Level 36: 4+1

You can roll all your attacks as a single standard action. When a number of attacks has "+1" after it, roll one extra attack die when you make your full complement of attacks. Discard one roll and keep the rest. For instance, if you have "2+1" attacks, make three attack rolls and keep two. (If you are attacking different targets, you must declare beforehand which rolls are aimed at which targets.)

Fighter Maneuvers. At levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, and 34, a fighter learns a new maneuver from a list of options. Maneuvers are special tricks the fighter can use, often specific to a particular weapon or situation. From level 14 onward, a fighter can choose not to learn a new maneuver, and instead learn an advanced version of one she already knows.

Some examples follow. All maneuvers are standard actions and do not allow multiple attacks, unless otherwise stated. When a maneuver refers to your number of attacks per round, count only the base number of attacks, ignoring "+1."

• Mounted Charge: Usable with sword, axe, hammer, mace, lance. You must be mounted and move at least 50 feet in a straight line before you attack. Make one attack. If it hits, you deal your weapon's maximum damage times your number of attacks per round.
• Mounted Charge (Advanced): As Mounted Charge, but you deal your weapon's maximum damage plus 2 times your number of attacks per round.
• Disarm: Usable with sword, flail, staff. You and your opponent each make attack rolls. If yours is higher, your opponent's weapon is thrown 5 feet in a random direction.
• Disarm (Advanced): As Disarm, but the weapon is thrown up to 10 feet and you choose where it lands. If you have a free hand, you can catch it.
• Whirlwind: Usable with sword, axe, staff. Make one melee attack for half damage against every opponent within 5 feet of you.
• Whirlwind (Advanced): As Whirlwind, but you attack for full damage.
• Fencing: You gain +1 to AC when wearing chain armor, +2 when wearing leather or no armor, and +1 when you have one hand free. No action is required.
• Fencing (Advanced): As Fencing, but your AC bonus for having one hand free increases to +2, and your bonus for wearing no armor increases to +3.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: sorceror-like casters in 1e:

I suspect that it would actually work better at low levels. Do you make the spells known equal to the spells per day??

Probably not, but let me explain the background I'm coming from.

For years and years we've used a spell point system rather than full Vancian memorization. Works great until about 5th level whereupon the wheels start to come off; by 9th level the wheels are over in Farmer Giles' field somewhere and the casters rule the world. Clerics were fully "wild-card" - if it's on your list and you have the points you can cast it. Arcane types had to memorize their highest two levels worth of spells and were wild-card below that, just had to assign a number of spell points as wild card. Spell points were randomly rolled much like hit points, I liked this.

I wanted to achieve several ends all at once:
1. - have low-level arcane types cast spells other than the usual three or four
1a. - keep it that 1st-level casters get more spells than 1e RAW allows
2. - dial back the power of high-level casters of all types from what I was used to
3. - completely do away with pre-memorization (it annoys me to no end)
4. - keep some variability and-or randomness (I don't want every caster of a given level to have the same number of slots available) but dial it back
5. - keep it relatively simple.

So, I went back to slots...but made them spontaneous. If it's on your list or in your spellbook and you have a slot of that level available you can cast it, period. You get a fixed amount of new slots each level, but to keep some randomness (and this is a bit complex, ignore if you like) I put in a roll at each level* (say, d3 or d4) with a small bonus for high relevant stat; you add your roll to the total of previous levels and if it reaches or goes over a certain number (in my case, 5) you knock off that same amount (5) and give yourself one extra slot in whichever level you like that already has at least one slot provided no level ever has more slots than any lower level.

3 years and about 5 levels in I'd say goals 1, 1a, 3 and 4 have been achieved. Goal 2 requires some future tweaking - Clerics are still able to do too much now and the jury's out on how this system will work for all casters at higher levels. Goal 5 has been achieved in play but trying to explain how the random bonus roll system works at level-up has been a headache - it's simple to me but some of my players just don't get it.

* - one very pleasant side effect is that this gives me a nice easy way to cut back the power of multi-classed casters: only single-class characters get the bonus rolls.

Lan-"this experiment continues every time I run a session"-efan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Initiative and actions follow the 3E model for now: Fixed initiative cycle (initiative = Dexterity check), standard and move action each round. I'm trying to avoid adding minor actions. For purposes of this game, any mechanic that requires minor action is probably too complicated. I might experiment with a more old-school initiative system, where you roll each round and declare before acting, if it seems like it wouldn't bog down the game.

Races
Okay, I'll admit it: I don't like the standard races. I think they're a bunch of cardboard Tolkien rejects who get crammed into every damn D&D setting regardless of whether they contribute anything. So my first inclination is to say, "Screw it, humans only." However, elves and dwarves and halflings have a long and storied history in D&D, and it doesn't seem quite fair to just exterminate them. What do other people think? Are nonhumans sufficiently central to BECMI that they need to be included?

Side versus side on initiative would be a good way to keep it simple and fast. The one drawback to 3E (and 4E) initiative is that the firm turn order can bog down player reactions. I keep a tight lid on it using index cards for initiative, and by ad hoc combining of several players' turns. I'm not more specfic on how side versus side initiative should be done in your version, though, because it depends on whether there is anything else you want to achieve. For example, if you want the early D&D flavor of initiative making spell casting risky, then that leads to different solutions than if you don't.

Races, I think you've pretty much got to have dwarves and elves in some form. And if you do that, might as well have halflings too, in an RC clone. However, I don't see any problem in making them more generic in mechanics, and then having some optional flavor. Elves are the "fey" race. Then you have "high elves", "wood elves", and perhaps some more exotic alternatives. Dwarves are the "underground race". Sometimes they are more sinister, sometimes not. Halflings are the "short race", and obviously can get replaced by gnomes, but also kobolds. Then ask the DM (or group) to pick one flavor for each mechanical package, up front. It's a little extra space and complexity, but once you start the game, it's done.

You can roll all your attacks as a single standard action. When a number of attacks has "+1" after it, roll one extra attack die when you make your full complement of attacks. Discard one roll and keep the rest. For instance, if you have "2+1" attacks, make three attack rolls and keep two. (If you are attacking different targets, you must declare beforehand which rolls are aimed at which targets.)

This however, seems like too much complexity, too recurring. Also, the whole N+1 thing is covering for something that could be mathematically simulated with a simpler model. If you really like the idea of the fighter getting to choose attacks, say that he gets N attacks all the time. He has to allocate how many go to a given target before he rolls. Some of these will miss, in any kind of tough fight. In an easy fight, who cares? The fighter benefit comes in that after he rolls, he can decide to allocate the misses to any relevant target.

I think the handling time will be less intrusive in play that way than how you have it, though only playtesting would say for sure. Of course, you could always go with a simple damage bonus by level, too. But if you want a little fighter choice, some variation on your idea is a good option.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Expanding this a bit to a more 1e-like list doesn't add much complexity but does add flexibility. In particular, adding Ranger, Druid, Assassin and Illusionist to the class list and allowing some non-Humans to fully function in some classes (e.g. Elves-as-race can be Elves-as-class, MUs, Thieves, or Druids) gives a lot more options at little cost of complexity.

Here is where I think a clean break with the past, mechanically, would still fit RC very well. Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing (with the caveats listed in my earlier reply to Dausuul). Classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue (or thief, though I think "Rogue" is a better label for what the RC thief was). Any race can be any class.

For everything else, go with 4E themes, adapted to this game (i.e. keeping the themes as short as possible, just enough to be mechanically interesting and flavorful without going on too long). For that matter, you could do class and race themes. Lots of customization options.

It has long been my opinion that a good way to keep mechanics simple but effective, while allowing maximum flavor, is to have at least three orthogonal dimensions, with each dimension consisting of a relatively short list. To really follow this through, you deliberately make each theme applicable to any race/class combo. So you could have an elven/rogue/druid or human/wizard/assassin, for example. And why not, don't those combinations spark interesting ideas?

Even if you have only 4 themes, that is 4x4x4=64, very simple character templates. If races also have themes, that's 64x4=256. A lot easier than making your class and race lists long, and more flexibility too. (In practice, you'd probably have more class themes and fewer racial themes, but the multiplicative effects would be similar on the final number of combinations. It shouldn't arbitrarily be limited to 4 on each list, anyway.) You don't even need multiclassing in such a system.

There's nothing like this in RC. But I think the spirit of RC having simple options that can be put together quickly, but enforce niche protection, can easily be preserved with such a system (a lot easier than with the long class lists and multiclassing), while allowing some PC character types that were never outside the RC spirit, but were discarded for mechanical simplicity.