D&D 5E Free 60+ page Guide to Sword & Sorcery for 5E D&D

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1) No raise dead/resurrection
(2) Wildly unbalanced encounters; ignore encounter-building guidelines and expect PCs to flee when overmatched.

Yes both good points.

I still feel there’s an element of danger missing from standard 5e play though. As it stands it models high heroics in high fantasy well. The lower levels still have a slight edge which I like, but higher levels tend to become quite bland for my taste as the risk becomes less and less.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want death for the sake of death, but as a device to create tension and excitement at all levels of the game. Sometimes a deadly threat is necessary to achieve this. If you fear the poison from a venomous giant snake, or the real threat of a knife wielding assassin then the mechanics are doing their job. If you approach those encounters knowing that your hit-point pool is going to be a safety net, the fear and tension has gone before the encounter has began.

In a game unlike the literature, I feel you need the opportunity to fail, or fear failure for this dark S&S atmosphere to be created, other wise it remains a high heroic, high fantasy game with little risk

But yes there’s more then one way to skin a cat.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess it depends on how you imagine the attack. A knife to a critically vulnerable area can be deadly, as can an axe blow to the head. One may look more spectacular though.
For me it remains a simple way to implement an exceptional critical, without disrupting the familar 5e game too much. All weapons can be deadly in the right circumstances. I feel this rule reflects that.

Maybe I didn't convey my point clearly enough?

"Instakill on max damage crits" means that a dagger has a 25% chance of inflicting that (when you roll a 20), while a battleaxe (a d8 weapon) has exactly half that chance (12,5%).

Why is that? It is because rolling a 4 on a d4 is much more likely than rolling a 8 on a d8. Twice as likely, in fact. A knife to a critically vulnerable area can indeed be deadly, as can an axe blow to the head. I don't contest that. What I do contest is that a knife is twice as likely to instakill your opponent as a battleaxe, not to mention a greataxe.

The only way to achieve parity here, so that the kill chance remains equal for all weapons, is either to not focus on the weapon die at all, or to change the criteria from "rolling max on the die". For instance, if you say a dagger needs to roll 4, a battleaxe needs to roll 7+ and a greataxe needs to roll 10+, then you have achieved parity. Now the chance of a crit instakilling your foe is equal for all three weapons.

I just expanded on that to make weapons more likely to inflict instakills as they grow larger and heavier.

Another way of implementing parity could be "if you roll even on your damage die". Then 50% of all critical hits kill the foe, regardless of weapon. Or you could (as already stated) forget about the weapon die entirely. "If you crit, roll a second d20. 16 or higher means an instakill." results in 25% of all crits kill the opponent, for instance.

Best regards and apologies for the statistical aside,
Zapp

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Maybe I didn't convey my point clearly enough?

"Instakill on max damage crits" means that a dagger has a 25% chance of inflicting that (when you roll a 20), while a battleaxe (a d8 weapon) has exactly half that chance (12,5%).

Why is that? It is because rolling a 4 on a d4 is much more likely than rolling a 8 on a d8. Twice as likely, in fact. A knife to a critically vulnerable area can indeed be deadly, as can an axe blow to the head. I don't contest that. What I do contest is that a knife is twice as likely to instakill your opponent as a battleaxe, not to mention a greataxe.

The only way to achieve parity here, so that the kill chance remains equal for all weapons, is either to not focus on the weapon die at all, or to change the criteria from "rolling max on the die". For instance, if you say a dagger needs to roll 4, a battleaxe needs to roll 7+ and a greataxe needs to roll 10+, then you have achieved parity. Now the chance of a crit instakilling your foe is equal for all three weapons.

I just expanded on that to make weapons more likely to inflict instakills as they grow larger and heavier.

Another way of implementing parity could be "if you roll even on your damage die". Then 50% of all critical hits kill the foe, regardless of weapon. Or you could (as already stated) forget about the weapon die entirely. "If you crit, roll a second d20. 16 or higher means an instakill." results in 25% of all crits kill the opponent, for instance.

Best regards and apologies for the statistical aside,
Zapp

Yes, good points.

Allowing the use of inspiration to achieve a special result on a critical seems a good fit for this. No extra rolling, and very player /hero facing.
Though I’ve no objection to making an extra roll, for the sake of evening out the probability.

The rolling evens on damage 50% of the time is a good streamlined option, but probably even more risky for pc’s then I would have gone.
Having said that there’s already a low chance of rolling a crit in the first place, so maybe a good solution too?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes both good points.

I still feel there’s an element of danger missing from standard 5e play though. As it stands it models high heroics in high fantasy well. The lower levels still have a slight edge which I like, but higher levels tend to become quite bland for my taste as the risk becomes less and less.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want death for the sake of death, but as a device to create tension and excitement at all levels of the game. Sometimes a deadly threat is necessary to achieve this. If you fear the poison from a venomous giant snake, or the real threat of a knife wielding assassin then the mechanics are doing their job. If you approach those encounters knowing that your hit-point pool is going to be a safety net, the fear and tension has gone before the encounter has began.

In a game unlike the literature, I feel you need the opportunity to fail, or fear failure for this dark S&S atmosphere to be created, other wise it remains a high heroic, high fantasy game with little risk

But yes there’s more then one way to skin a cat.

I sincerely recommend you to use lower hit points in that case.

It is the hit point buffer, and more specifically, the size of it, that is the root cause of your concerns. Instead of adding mechanisms that randomly bypass the hit point buffer, why not make it smaller?

As we seem to agree, D&D is plenty lethal and scary at low levels (up to perhaps 6th level as you suggest). I would argue that at 1st level, D&D is actually even more fantasy-fracking-vietnam:ish than WFRP! (Yes, not only old D&D obviously, but even more contemporary versions of the game)

If heroes gain hit points slower, the "sweet spot" is prolonged.

For regular D&D, general consensus seems to agree that's from perhaps 4th through 9th level, but that's because grim and perilous death at low levels isn't what most people want out of regular D&D. For S&S that is clearly different, at least for you. (@xoth.publishing what do you think - what's your idea of an ideal level to play D&D in your world?) If we were to agree, the tension is starting to lose its edge at sixth level in regular D&D, that means we're saying the turning point is when a fighter has more than ~55 hit points. Isn't the obvious solution then to delay that occurrence?

Details on how to accomplish this is maybe best discussed in a different thread, but if heroes only gain 75% as many hit points then that fighter only reaches 55 hp at level 9 instead of level 6, and the sweet spot has been prolonged. (Actually, it's probably prolonged even more than that, since damage output goes up. Having 70 hp at level 11 is still scarier than having 95 after all)

Actually I mean that "give them 75%" quite literally. Any direct change, such as reducing hit dice one step, or removing the Constitution bonus to hit points each level, impacts classes very unevenly: the first change is bad for Wizards, the second for Barbarians. Much better imo to keep calculating hit points just as usual, only to then reduce it to 3/4ths, since this keeps the ratio between classes.

 

[S'mon]

Yes both good points.

I still feel there’s an element of danger missing from standard 5e play though. As it stands it models high heroics in high fantasy well. The lower levels still have a slight edge which I like, but higher levels tend to become quite bland for my taste as the risk becomes less and less.

I agree, and my players do comment on this. My solution has been to go back to more 1e style (at least 1e UK style, eg '70s-'80s White Dwarf scenarios) where 1-4 is low level, 5-8 is medium to high, and 9+ is very high to 'endgame' levels - so King Conan might be Barbarian 11th or 12th, not 20th. Using the standard 5e XP rules (halved at 11+) with most fights being lots of weak enemies works very well to keep advancement slow and danger high. Also I now start all new PCs at 1st level, which gives death a nasty sting.

I was looking at advancement IMC yesterday, it looks like after 3rd level PCs are looking at around 3 months of weekly play to gain a level. The PCs who started in August 2020, played regularly (1-2/week) and haven't died, are at 4th level now.

 

[xoth.publishing]

(@xoth.publishing what do you think - what's your idea of an ideal level to play D&D in your world?)

I'd say the sweet spot -- where the gameplay and Conan-style S&S fiction generally overlap -- are between levels 3-8 or so. Anything below and the PCs are too fragile, and anything above (say, around levels 10-11) it starts to get too "far out" to resemble the fiction. It helps if you restrict magic items and the most genre-breaking spells, though.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

I sincerely recommend you to use lower hit points in that case.

It is the hit point buffer, and more specifically, the size of it, that is the root cause of your concerns. Instead of adding mechanisms that randomly bypass the hit point buffer, why not make it smaller?

As we seem to agree, D&D is plenty lethal and scary at low levels (up to perhaps 6th level as you suggest). I would argue that at 1st level, D&D is actually even more fantasy-fracking-vietnam:ish than WFRP! (Yes, not only old D&D obviously, but even more contemporary versions of the game)

If heroes gain hit points slower, the "sweet spot" is prolonged.

For regular D&D, general consensus seems to agree that's from perhaps 4th through 9th level, but that's because grim and perilous death at low levels isn't what most people want out of regular D&D. For S&S that is clearly different, at least for you. (@xoth.publishing what do you think - what's your idea of an ideal level to play D&D in your world?) If we were to agree, the tension is starting to lose its edge at sixth level in regular D&D, that means we're saying the turning point is when a fighter has more than ~55 hit points. Isn't the obvious solution then to delay that occurrence?

Details on how to accomplish this is maybe best discussed in a different thread, but if heroes only gain 75% as many hit points then that fighter only reaches 55 hp at level 9 instead of level 6, and the sweet spot has been prolonged. (Actually, it's probably prolonged even more than that, since damage output goes up. Having 70 hp at level 11 is still scarier than having 95 after all)

Actually I mean that "give them 75%" quite literally. Any direct change, such as reducing hit dice one step, or removing the Constitution bonus to hit points each level, impacts classes very unevenly: the first change is bad for Wizards, the second for Barbarians. Much better imo to keep calculating hit points just as usual, only to then reduce it to 3/4ths, since this keeps the ratio between classes.

Yes that’s certainly one way to approach it.
My only criticism of that is that it may go against the expectations of many 5e players that this is aimed at. 5e players are very used to the level progression structure of the game. Structural change like that might make them feel they’re not playing 5e anymore?

I’ve backed a game called Trudvang Adventures for 5e by Riotminds on ks. Really worth having a look for inspiration if you get the chance. They’ve developed a wound tracker (think exhaustion but for wounds) and a lowish wound threshold that only increases by proficiency bonus. The magic is really worth looking at too, very dark and dangerous.

edit: not saying it’s necessarily appropriate as is to this game, but it may spark ideas.

Also Beowulf for 5e (just released) is a marvellous example of clever use of the 5e engine. Innovative ideas with Inspiration and contextualising it into the game, amongst many other ideas. Highly recommended.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would probably go with the themes of blood and corruption.

Having slept on it, here's a draft for y'all:

Corruption Points

Each time you cast a spell, you gain corruption points equal to the spell's level. Cantrips count as half your level, rounded down. Yes, this means level 1 casters cast cantrips for free.

You have a corruption threshold that increases as you level up. For a quick and dirty idea of appropriate thresholds, use your maximum spell level squared. At level 1, your corruption threshold is... 1. At level 9, you can cast level 5 spells so it is 25.

Taking a short rest reduces your corruption total by your level. Taking a long rest resets it to zero, assuming you were able to meditate, pray or cleanse during the night.

Accumulating corruption is risk-free until you exceed your threshold. Then you must immediately roll a d20 adding the surplus corruption and face the consequences:

[Add table here with various S&S themed results. If there are changes to the environment, it's okay not to give the caster a way to prevent this. This should represent the risk of the caster getting mistrusted by villagers or thrown out of town. More direct results like twisted limbs or the spell being redirected to the wrong target should allow for a saving throw]

For instance, if Akiro the 5th level Wizard have 10 Corruption and casts a third level spell, his new total is 13, which triggers a roll on the Corruption Table since his corruption threshold is 9. To the d20 we add 13-9, so d20+4. If we roll 19, thus getting a result of greater than 20, that should definitely be outright crippling, I suggest permanently. Maybe we can entice the player of Akiro to turn to the dark side (see what I did there ) by offering him a save by transferring the crippling curse onto a hapless bystander, say a beautiful warrior named Valeria...

If you want you can even skip keeping track of spell slots, using the above as a variant spell point system.

---

Dev notes:

The intent is to allow a caster to be able to use up roughly half of the daily allotment of the official spell point variant, and then have to take two short rests to get access to the other half. Without risking corruption rolls, that is. I know it doesn't come across from the above, but that corruption results table is definitely intended to be bad news. It's not like the Wild Magic Sorcerer which is built on the assumption you want to roll on its table!

I know that's not exactly what the above simplified system results in, but I didn't like the idea to actually use the spell point numbers in a first draft like this since I feel those are overly complicated (hard to remember). I mostly wrote it up quickly to get the idea across, not present it as a carefully calibrated publication-ready submission

---

Blood Points

You can supercharge a spell by accruing Blood Points instead of Corruption Points. (An equal amount)

Each time you get to cast the spell at one spell level higher than your maximum and with +2 to your DC.

Blood points are summed together with your corruption points when comparing to your corruption threshold.

The difference is that it's far harder to get rid of blood points. Assuming you run episodic adventures (rather than counting exact days during downtime), the GM might let you halve your total at the end of each adventure. At the heroic end of the scale, you might be allowed to remove 1 blood point for each long rest, though this is likely too good if there's long uneventful journeys or long stretches of downtime where you count the days between scenarios.

Dev notes: The intent here is to compensate casters for the reduced variety in spells by allowing them to supercharge their casting for the cost of increased risk of corruption.

Do note that if HP totals are reduced, this might not be necessary assuming the caster still has access to some multi-target damage spells.

---

As a final note, both corruption and blood points should be possible to transfer elsewhere - having somebody else pay the cost, to explain why most sorcerers are dark and evil in this setting.

For corruption, this is probably best handled when resolving Corruption table rolls, rather than actually tracking corruption points injected into NPCs. (See example above).

For blood points, simply say you can substitute blood points for hp damage and an equal reduction in maximum hit points. (Paying with actual Constitution points isn't appropriate for 5E the way it could work in 3E). The easiest approach is to say this damage can't be healed (short of Regenerate spells etc), since the point isn't to boost player character casters, but to lure them to (ab)use NPCs.

It is when the game mechanics explain why villains drag along sacrificial victims you have a rule set that supports S&S.

Also note that there is no rule such as "if you do this too much your alignment shifts to Evil". In S&S, your actions might come to haunt you later, or they might not. But that's between the GM and the player, and not for the game rules to moralize over.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd say the sweet spot -- where the gameplay and Conan-style S&S fiction generally overlap -- are between levels 3-8 or so. Anything below and the PCs are too fragile, and anything above (say, around levels 10-11) it starts to get too "far out" to resemble the fiction. It helps if you restrict magic items and the most genre-breaking spells, though.

Great - then you can easily translate that into actual hit points.

A 3rd level fighter have maybe 25-30 hp or thereabouts, and at 8th level ~70 hp.

So if anything, replace the instant death rules with rules that start you off at (or quickly reach) 25 hp and then slowly inch upwards to 70 at the upper bounds of the campaign. For a fighter that is.

Do note I'm assuming you'd be alright with still playing the Xoth campaign at higher level than 8 - that the fighter should reach 70 hp at level 11 or level 14 or wherever your actual pain threshold is. (Note: If what you're really saying is instead "the campaign should end at 8th level and its fine for characters to have the core amount of hit points" then obviously we're discussing different things! )

Good luck with your rules design

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes that’s certainly one way to approach it.
My only criticism of that is that it may go against the expectations of many 5e players that this is aimed at. 5e players are very used to the level progression structure of the game. Structural change like that might make them feel they’re not playing 5e anymore?

Well, in my suggestion nothing about the structure of level progression changes, it's just slightly smaller numbers.

I’ve backed a game called Trudvang Adventures for 5e by Riotminds on ks. Really worth having a look for inspiration if you get the chance. They’ve developed a wound tracker (think exhaustion but for wounds) and a lowish wound threshold that only increases by proficiency bonus. The magic is really worth looking at too, very dark and dangerous.

edit: not saying it’s necessarily appropriate as is to this game, but it may spark ideas.

This is an example where the structure of level progression changes. (And yes, I agree this is likely much more invasive measures than what XOth intends with the product of this particular thread).

Also Beowulf for 5e (just released) is a marvellous example of clever use of the 5e engine. Innovative ideas with Inspiration and contextualising it into the game, amongst many other ideas. Highly recommended.

Thanks!