• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

Exactly. The one thing I don't like about BECMI is the Thief problem, where one of the four archtypes is defined by "being good at things outside of combat."

It may be unsolvable without deviating too much from the BECMI source material, but I would adopt some of the 3e/4e design conceits in which traditional thief skills were part of a (simple!) non-combat system and the Thief archtype received special maneuvers that let the character function in combat in a "tricky" capacity.

I haven't gotten much into the details of the thief yet--still banging on the magic-user--but my basic idea is to beef up backstab, front-loading most of the thief's combat damage into one single attack. The standard tactic for a thief is to pick a juicy target, sneak around the battlefield, move up behind that target and backstab for massive damage. After that, your top priority is getting back to your friends in one piece. Should you succeed, you can help mop up with regular weapon attacks.

If you can't backstab for whatever reason... so it goes. Try to come up with a clever stunt instead. However, I don't plan to make backstab immunity as widespread as it was in BECMI/AD&D, or sneak attack immunity in 3E. It'll be more like 4E, where sneak attack works on almost everything.

(I might rename it "surprise attack" or "murder attack" to avoid verisimilitude issues. I'd use "sneak attack," but people have a strong idea of how sneak attack works by this point. I don't want folks thinking they can deal a whole combat's worth of damage in one hit any time they're on opposite sides of an enemy.)

As just an initial thought concerning a simple non-combat system, I could imagine a list of "skills" (or areas of expertise) that provide a non-stacking +5 bonus to ability checks concerning that area. You'd need a starting list (the 4e skill list would be a start, but I might break arcana into schools of magic), but there'd be no rules other than a list of sample appropriate DCs. Characters pick a few at the start (based on class) and get more at relatively infrequent intervals. Maybe you can use two slots on the same skill to get a +8 instead of a +5?

Mmm... I would prefer to avoid skills altogether. Let regular ability checks (and in some cases, class features) do the job. I do have some ideas on professions, but I'd need a very convincing rationale to put in an entire skill system.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I just want to note that this whole thread is filled with awesome. I've always wanted to go back to old school simplicity, but with the design advances of the past 20 years...

As just an initial thought concerning a simple non-combat system, I could imagine a list of "skills" (or areas of expertise) that provide a non-stacking +5 bonus to ability checks concerning that area. You'd need a starting list (the 4e skill list would be a start, but I might break arcana into schools of magic), but there'd be no rules other than a list of sample appropriate DCs. Characters pick a few at the start (based on class) and get more at relatively infrequent intervals. Maybe you can use two slots on the same skill to get a +8 instead of a +5?

Mmm... I would prefer to avoid skills altogether. Let regular ability checks (and in some cases, class features) do the job. I do have some ideas on professions, but I'd need a very convincing rationale to put in an entire skill system.

To me the question is "how few rules do you need to get 60% of the benefit of a skill system?" Think of these as non-weapon proficiencies that act as ability check bonuses for relevant situations.

It's not a definitive list of skills. It's more like RISUS or Over the Edge. If you have an ability check and you can convince the GM that one of your NWPs apply, you get a +5 bonus. Other than a list of suggested NWPs (maybe Traits is a better term?), that's more or less the entire rule. Sure, "Stealthy", "Perceptive" and "Diplomatic" should be on a list of standard NWPs, but there's no reason you couldn't have "Sea Captain" or "Archmage's Apprentice" in the appropriate campaigns...

(Of course, you need a Page 42 guideline for setting ability check DCs, but you needed that anyway...)

The thing I like about this "system" (in as much as it qualifies as a system) is that it provides a very high level of character customization and a moderate amount of out-of-combat niche protection with less than a page of rules.

Of course, there is a massive amount of GM fiat going on, but you're always going to rely on that for this type of old school game. The objective here is to provide a framework for the GM to apply fiat fairly to the individual capabilities of the characters.

I haven't gotten much into the details of the thief yet--still banging on the magic-user--but my basic idea is to beef up backstab, front-loading most of the thief's combat damage into one single attack. The standard tactic for a thief is to pick a juicy target, sneak around the battlefield, move up behind that target and backstab for massive damage. After that, your top priority is getting back to your friends in one piece. Should you succeed, you can help mop up with regular weapon attacks.

If you can't backstab for whatever reason... so it goes. Try to come up with a clever stunt instead. However, I don't plan to make backstab immunity as widespread as it was in BECMI/AD&D, or sneak attack immunity in 3E. It'll be more like 4E, where sneak attack works on almost everything.

That certainly sounds better, although the balance depends on the convention of how many rounds of sneaking it takes to get into position. A little GM guidance could go a long way. My inclination would be to give the Rogue maneuvers (4e Executioner or Thief powers may be fruitful grounds for ideas) to provide some variety in the non-backstab turns. (I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's my inclination.)

-KS
 

The slots aren't assignable, except to the extent to which that a character can use a 2nd level slot to cast a 1st level spell (etc...).
Ah. So your 4-3-2 could actually cast 9-0-0 in a day if it wanted, then? This isn't something I do - you can't change slot levels like that.
Characters differentiated from one another based the spells they picked for their spellbook and their Int/Cha balance (Int/Wis balance for clerics).
First off, almost all Clerics of the same type run off the same list, with a few "deity-specific variants" here and there to spice it up. Wizard types start off with a few somewhat-random spells (as in the 1e PH) and after that they have to find and-or buy spells and then be able to learn 'em.
Incidentally, as a game design matter, I think there is a tremendous value to allowing players to make character-design decisions regarding the types of powers/spells they can use. On the other hand, I think mechanical customization (fiddling with to hit modifiers or the number of spells/day) is of much lower value. I care mostly about giving players the tools to create the type of character they want in the game world, and much less about having players adjust the knobs of game balance.
I see your point, though I'd counter that allowing players to pick spells (and powers, in games that use such) gives them way more control of the balance knob than you might think...unless, of course, all the spells and powers are reasonably balanced against each other - and that ain't happened yet. :)

Lan-"unbalanced to the point of falling over"-efan
 

To me the question is "how few rules do you need to get 60% of the benefit of a skill system?" Think of these as non-weapon proficiencies that act as ability check bonuses for relevant situations.
The only problem with a skill system is that either you have to get complex about who can use what skills to what extent (as in 3e), or you end up with everyone potentially able to do everything and bang goes the Thief's niche.
It's not a definitive list of skills. It's more like RISUS or Over the Edge. If you have an ability check and you can convince the GM that one of your NWPs apply, you get a +5 bonus. Other than a list of suggested NWPs (maybe Traits is a better term?), that's more or less the entire rule. Sure, "Stealthy", "Perceptive" and "Diplomatic" should be on a list of standard NWPs, but there's no reason you couldn't have "Sea Captain" or "Archmage's Apprentice" in the appropriate campaigns...
That might open up another can o' worms. The idea is good and worth pursuing as an optional side system, but I can't see how it can possibly work well and remain simple:

- what are the NWPs?
- how does one get 'em?
- can you get more as you advance?
- what classes get access to which ones?
- how does this interact with past professions or secondary skills?
- etc.

Lan-"I think we're going to need a bigger book"-efan
 

The only problem with a skill system is that either you have to get complex about who can use what skills to what extent (as in 3e), or you end up with everyone potentially able to do everything and bang goes the Thief's niche.

I agree with that analysis if you are determined to keep the Thief as it was in RC. However, I'd argue that the problem is not the skills, but the thief. The thief didn't even accomplish what it set out to do--make a good model of Cugel or the Gray Mouser. That is why "Rogue" is so much a better starting point for the base class.

"Thief" is a skill package, or a trait, or a theme, depending upon how you want to handle that aspect of the game.
 

The only problem with a skill system is that either you have to get complex about who can use what skills to what extent (as in 3e), or you end up with everyone potentially able to do everything and bang goes the Thief's niche.
That might open up another can o' worms. The idea is good and worth pursuing as an optional side system, but I can't see how it can possibly work well and remain simple:

- what are the NWPs?
- how does one get 'em?
- can you get more as you advance?
- what classes get access to which ones?
- how does this interact with past professions or secondary skills?
- etc.

Lan-"I think we're going to need a bigger book"-efan

I think 2E covered this in 4 or 5 pages. :)

I think the key to the NWP system was to still keep it at a high level of abstraction. If one gets too caught up in craft (X) and Lore (Y) then you get back the skill system of 3E and the inherent complexity. Things like blindfighting we simply bad ideas, as well, because they were really comabt abilities slipped into the NWP system. Rather you want to know, fairly easily, who is an experienced horseback rider and who simply points the horse in the direction they want to go (based on background alone).

I actually prefer the secondary skills system because it was random. it added flavor to the character, gave a vague background from which reasonable proficiencies at different tasks could be infered and then let game experience take it from there.
 

Re: sorceror-like casters in 1e: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

I am generally concerned with open slot system and power point systems for high level casters (as they grant extraordinary flexibility to high level casters). For low level casters (levels 1 to 4) they radically improve the effectiveness of the character and make the class much mroe fun. But around level 15 or so, it turns into "an option for every problem" coupled with "I have so many spells I can never imagine running out".

The sorcerer was an interesting experiment in constraining that high level flexibility in 3E. I rate it a mixed success.

But higher levelAD&D without prememorization is a tricky thing to balance unless you shift or alter the spell lists.
 

I am generally concerned with open slot system and power point systems for high level casters (as they grant extraordinary flexibility to high level casters). For low level casters (levels 1 to 4) they radically improve the effectiveness of the character and make the class much mroe fun. But around level 15 or so, it turns into "an option for every problem" coupled with "I have so many spells I can never imagine running out".

The sorcerer was an interesting experiment in constraining that high level flexibility in 3E. I rate it a mixed success.

But higher levelAD&D without prememorization is a tricky thing to balance unless you shift or alter the spell lists.

I anticipate the major limiting factor for high-level magic-users will be component costs, not spell slots. Utility spells especially will be a drain on the budget--another 4E import.
 

Ah. So your 4-3-2 could actually cast 9-0-0 in a day if it wanted, then? This isn't something I do - you can't change slot levels like that.

I never found a reason to disallow it. Once you let the PCs pick from the list of spells they know, I couldn't see how it was unbalancing to use a 3rd level slot to cast a 1st level spell. With metamagic, you can almost do it RAW.

First off, almost all Clerics of the same type run off the same list, with a few "deity-specific variants" here and there to spice it up.

One of my realizations was that clerics get a huge advantage if you give them the entire list to choose from, particularly if you bring the spell compendium into the game. To handle that, I also required clerics to pick a list of spells they could cast spontaneously.

I see your point, though I'd counter that allowing players to pick spells (and powers, in games that use such) gives them way more control of the balance knob than you might think...unless, of course, all the spells and powers are reasonably balanced against each other - and that ain't happened yet. :)

Yeah, that's a huge issue. I mitigated it by letting the PCs pick 2/3rds of their spells. If they focused on the best spells, I'd fill out their book with the "random bits they picked up." If they focused on less powerful spells that fit closely with their character, I'd fill out their book with the spells they needed to be effective. It's not a great generic rules system, but it worked for one game with a hands-on GM.

It's a little off track for this thread, but I've included the rules in the sblock.

[sblock]
Spontaneous Wizards

Wizards
Wizards know a number of spells equal to the spells/day table with their Int bonus added to each level.

Wizards can cast a number of spells equal to the spell/day table, but do not gain an Int bonus to the number of spells they can cast.

Specialists:
Specialists know the same number of spells as wizards.

In addition to the spells that ordinary wizards can cast, specialists may cast 1 extra spell per day out of their school.


Sorcerers
Sorcerers cast spells normally. However, at the level 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17, they gain a “0” on their spells/day chart and a “1” on their spells known chart for the spell level they would normally get at the following level.


Clerics & Druids
Clerics and Druids know a number of spells equal to the spells/day table with their Wis bonus added to each level. Those spells may be chosen from the normal cleric list and the cleric’s domain spells. In addition to the spells learned from the table, Clerics and Druids also know the spells they could normally cast spontaneously (healing for clerics, summon animal for druids).

Clerics and Druids can cast a number of spells equal to the spell/day table, but do not gain a Wis bonus to the number of spells they can cast. In addition to those spells, clerics may cast 1 extra spell per day from the cleric’s domain spells.

As an ad hoc balancing mechanism, domain spells that are not on the cleric spell list may be subject to the restriction of only being cast once per day. Consider all spells presumptively under this restriction, although many of the weaker ones will be released.

Bards
Bards cast spells normally.

Scholarly Bards
Bards may choose to learn more spells at the cost of casting fewer of them. Bards who make this decision may apply their Int bonus to the spells known table instead of their Cha bonus to the spells cast per day.

When the Bard has a 0 on the spells cast per day table, the Bard may cast 1 spell per day provided the Bard’s Int bonus is at least equal to the spell level in question. A Bard may not add his Int bonus to the number of spells known until the spells cast per day table reads at least 1.

Rangers & Paladins
Rangers & Paladins may add their Wisdom bonus to the spells cast per day table to determine the number of spells known. Where the table reads 0, the Ranger/Paladin may cast 1 spell per day of that level if the Ranger/Paladin’s Wisdom bonus is at least equal to the spell level.

Alternatively, Rangers & Paladins may choose the “non-spellcasting” options from the Complete Warrior’s Handbook.

Spell Preparation
Spellcasters from classes who normally prepare spells (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, wizards and scholarly bards) may use spell preparation to cast spells that they do not “know” but have access to through an appropriate prayer or spell book.

Preparing a spell is done through the normal D&D rules. You can prepare spell one in 15 minutes or as many as you would like in 1 hour. Preparing a spell uses a spell slot of the appropriate level, and once prepared, that slot can’t be used for anything else until the prepared spell is cast.

Preparing a spell has an XP cost equal to Spell Level * Caster Level * 0.5, the same XP required to scribe a scroll.

Spellcasters who wish to prepare spells from strange books must first decipher the spell normally. (Spellcraft check, DC 20 + spell level)

Arcane Preparation (Feat)
Sorcerers may take the Arcane Preparation feat to gain the spell preparation ability.

Extra Slot (Feat) – You can cast an additional spell
You gain one extra spell slot in your daily allotment, at any level up to one lower than the highest level spell you can currently cast. (Compete Arcane)

Extra Spell (Feat) – You learn an additional spell
You learn one additional spell, at any level up to one lower than the highest level spell you can currently cast. (Complete Arcane)

Metamagic
Spellcasters may apply any metamagic feats they have to spells by using a high spell slot than would otherwise be required.

It does not take additional time to apply a metamagic feat to a spell. (Spontaneous spellcasters no longer have this penalty.)
[/sblock]
 

The only problem with a skill system is that either you have to get complex about who can use what skills to what extent (as in 3e), or you end up with everyone potentially able to do everything and bang goes the Thief's niche.

To be fair, one of my objectives to creating a skill/nwp/trait mechanic is that, IMO, the thief doesn't really have a proper niche. This is probably because my D&D games rarely venture into a dungeon, but I see one of the advances in 3e/4e is the realization that all character classes need to have a way of being effective in combat. This comes with the corresponding (if less well executed) idea that all character classes need to have a way of being effective out of combat.

To me, allowing any character class to act as the face, trap-man or scout (with the appropriate ability scores) is a feature.

That might open up another can o' worms. The idea is good and worth pursuing as an optional side system, but I can't see how it can possibly work well and remain simple:

- what are the NWPs?
- how does one get 'em?
- can you get more as you advance?
- what classes get access to which ones?
- how does this interact with past professions or secondary skills?
- etc.

I addressed that briefly up-thread. I figure that each character class would start with a small number of Traits/NWPs (3-5?) and would gain additional ones at a slow rate determined by class. In particular, I would expect each class to define one trait that represents the character's background, and allow the character to choose a few others.

For example, a clerics might all gain "Ordained Priest" as a trait, which would allow them to use the bonus for knowledge about religion or for social roles in the appropriate contexts. (GMs would be encouraged to allow players to come up with different appropriate substitute backgrounds -- e.g. hedge mystic or touched by the divine.) Clerics might begin with two other traits (for a total of 3 to start), and gain another 3 as the character goes to level 20. For the thief, a character might begin with "Born on the Streets", "Stealthy", "Trapmaster", plus three more, as a default starting set.

Incidentally, I am far from certain that this is right for a 4e Muscle / BECMI Bones style game. The more I'm thinking about this, the more I think it borrows more heavily from Over the Edge and Dogs in the Vineyard than it does from 4e or BECMI. That's not to say that we can't benefit from other major areas of design improvement in the past two decades, but it's definitely a change of scope.

-KS
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top