Tiefling Sorcerer: New B/X Class

[funny story; I had every intention of writing a post about the Drow -- don't ask -- and instead I ended up reading up on the whole damn tiefling species. To be blunt, the idea of a devil-blooded line of humanity only makes sense in an astral plane-hopping setting, and one that doesn't take itself too seriously (something akin to the late Robert Asprin's humorous MythAdventures fantasy series, for example). Looking back at the origin of the tieflings, I do see that they first appeared as part of the Planescape campaign setting, and that jives, but they take themselves O SO SERIOUS in a way that tries to copy the pseudo-edginess of early 90's World of Darkness. And why would they not? Planescape was published in 1994, and probably wanted to cash in on some of that angsty role-playing vibe.

[however, the "morph" that occurs between 3rd and 4th edition, making the tiefling a part of the Core character classes, is Not Good and I can only see it as having been directly influenced by the World of Warcraft, a popular MMORPG whose influence is all over 4E. Even the new look of the tiefling species in 4E (since carried over to 5E) directly apes the draenei character race of WoW, while keeping the blood elf character template's wardrobe and style sense. Is this any wonder when both the draenei and blood elf were released as a WoW expansion pack in January 2007 (WotC first announced the development of 4th edition D&D in August of that same year)? Is their any chance that the 4E brain trust looked at financial returns from the uber-successful WoW and said, hey, we need to put something like THAT in the new edition? Maybe? Regardless, the race has been part of the "core races" ever since, and has gone from a character who might have a single infernal stigmata (or even NONE!) to an obviously inhuman creature with fucking horns and flexible tail and pupil-less eyes. 

[oh, yeah...and so in writing this up for folks who want tieflings in their B/X game, I have to admit I really don't know how you'd use it. I mean, the idea that there are just small pockets of infernal-descended creatures hanging out in human towns (on the Prime Plane) is just so utterly ridiculous. It's a box of stupid. I can only imagine it working in some sort of gothic-horror fantasy world, where vampires, werewolves, and necromancers are accepted parts of society. Something like planet Nostramo (home of Primarch Batman) in WH40K, or some other world where "it's always twilight and/or foggy" (Ravenloft?). Still, I'm sure someone will figure out a way to do it. I mean, why not, right?]

*sigh*


TIEFLINGS

Tieflings are demihumans whose distant ancestors consorted with demons, devils, or similar creatures from the nether planes. Though they appear outwardly human, all tieflings bear some physical mark of their infernal ancestry: small horns, a vestigial tail, a cloven hoof, or oddly colored eyes, perhaps. Lawful creatures feel uncomfortable in their presence. Tieflings tend to be sneaky and underhanded; the world never gave them a fair shake so why should they return the favor? They are innately magical although their sorcery (described below) is different from that of a magic-user or elf. A tiefling's prime requisite is Intelligence; they earn a +5% bonus to experience points if their Intelligence is 13-15, and a +10% bonus if it is 16 or better.

RESTRICTIONS: Tieflings use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may advance to a maximum of 13th level of experience. Tieflings may wear leather armor, but do not use shields. Because of their slight build, they may wield only one-handed melee weapon and cannot use long bows. Tieflings use the same attack and saving throw tables as a thief of the same level. A tiefling character must have a minimum Charisma score of 9.

SPECIAL ABILITIES: Because of their infernal nature, tieflings have fire resistance (like the magic ring). Lawful characters are distinctly uneasy around tieflings, and reaction rolls with lawful NPCs are always made with a -2 penalty. They have infravision like elves and dwarves, allowing them to see 60 feet in the dark.

All tieflings are innately magical, automatically learning spells as shown on their advancement chart; these spells are chosen from the same list as magic-users. Unlike magic-users, tieflings need not memorize their spells; they draw their power from their own infernal nature and their sorcery is limited only by what their life-force allows, as determined by their level of experience. For example: a 5th level tiefling knows only seven spells, but may cast up to ten spells per day (a maximum of four 1st level spells, four 2nd level spells, and two 3rd level spells). Tiefling sorcery is powerful, but they lack the versatility of a magic-user.

Tieflings are solitary wanderers by nature. They never build strongholds or establish dominions, and they do not have clans like other demihuman characters.

				Spells Cast Per Day
Level	Exp. Points	Hit Dice	Spells Known	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	1d4	3	2
2	2,400	2d4	4	3
3	4,800	3d4	5	4	2
4	9,600	4d4	6	4	3
5	19,000	5d4	7	4	4	2
6	38,000	6d4	8	4	4	3
7	76,000	7d4	9	4	4	4	2
8	150,000	8d4	10	4	4	4	3
9	300,000	9d4	11	4	4	4	4	2
10	450,000	9d4+2*	12	4	4	4	4	3
11	600,000	9d4+4*	13	4	4	4	4	4	2
12	750,000	9d4+6*	14	4	4	4	4	4	3
13	900,000	9d4+8*	15	4	4	4	4	4	4
* Constitution adjustments no longer apply.

***EDIT: Had to change the table color because it wasn't showing up on the mobile device.***

Converting 5E to B/X

[this one is for Lord Gwydion]

Back in December, I wrote a post about introducing B/X (or older edition play in general) to new players. The thoughts I expressed were with an eye towards starting a new B/X campaign. One thing I hadn't considered at the time is that folks might be looking to convert an existing, late-edition campaign, not just their players, to a better (easier) rule system.

That's exactly what Mr. Laffey (Lord Gwyd) had in mind: converting his existing 5E game to Labyrinth Lord (a well-known retroclone of B/X). Only now, he's having some "second thoughts" on the matter.

Man. Where to start?

I've run many editions of D&D...six in all (I think) not counting retroclones. But I'm not sure I've ever converted campaigns between systems. Characters, sure...I converted my original (B/X) characters to AD&D, and I converted some "historic" AD&D characters to both BECMI and 3rd Edition to act as NPCs. Hell, I once ran a Marvel Superheroes campaign that converted a couple AD&D characters (that was pretty wild...) and I did have another group of characters that had a brief stint in Boot Hill (courtesy of the conversion rules in my old DMG and a plane-jumping artifact).

But I've never taken a long-running campaign and said, "hey, let's keep this thing going...just using a different, wildly dissimilar system." At least, not that I remember (it's possible I've forgotten something in the last 35 years). Usually, when we decided to run a new system, we'd create a new campaign to go with it; that was always part of the enticement of a new system, after all: exploring the bells and whistles. Seeing what kind of new characters we could make with the new, interesting system. If we were converting favorite characters, seeing just how they'd look, or how they might be modeled.

In those situations, however (converting existing characters), it was always a matter of converting forward, i.e. converting characters to a later, revised edition. And often (if not always) that meant converting to a game with MORE complications, more rules...not less.

'What do you mean, JB? BECMI isn't "more complex" than AD&D!' AD&D is plenty fiddly, but early 1E doesn't have nearly as many character options as RC/BECMI...at least, not if you're using weapon mastery and "general skills" found in the Rules Cyclopedia and Gazeteers. Not if you're converting high level characters and fiddling with the "proto-prestige classes" found in Mentzer's Companion set. With regard to character customization, BECMI has a lot more to offer a player than straight, unmodified AD&D. Later AD&D books (the Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival Guides, for example) offered their own no-weapon proficiencies, but AD&D weapon mastery never reached the level of granularity found in Mentzer. I saw 5th and 6th level BECMI characters sporting tremendous attack bonuses and special effects with their chosen weapons.

ANYway...converting backwards isn't something I've had much opportunity to do. None, really. And considering some of my characters (my 3rd edition duelist, my wild elf "fighter-barbarian" with his two-fisted hand axes of death), I can't see how I could get nearly the same "oomph" in a system that had less character customization. Not without adding whole swaths of house rules.

But if a player in an existing campaign is really married to the kewl powers that come with their customizable character, are they really going to be satisfied with stepping into a simpler game? I suppose it depends on the player but, man, I don't know.

Here are my thoughts: converting an existing campaign from 5E to B/X (or its equivalent) is a pretty easy step for a DM. Heck, most of the nuts-n-bolts of the system are a snap, yet you still have plenty of stuff that's recognizable from your 5E game, mainly because the bulk of 5E "content" (monsters, treasure, magic spells) has been converted directly from earlier editions. The only real problem is one of converting existing player characters (unless you have super-special-snowflake NPCs you want to convert), and that's all dependent on the attitude of the player. In my opinion, you've got four categories in this regard:

#1 Old School Enthusiast: this is the player who WANTS to play something like B/X or LL or OD&D, for whatever reason. This girl (or guy) is ready to saw off all the feats and skill checks and has no problem ditching their dragonborn warlock-battlemage-whatever for a "dwarf" or "thief." Yay...no issues, just give 'em the closest equivalent.

#2 I Hate Old School: this is the person who has experience with older editions and is playing 5E precisely because she (or he) wants the stuff 5E has that B/X (or whatever) can't provide. You can't please all the people all the time. If you, the DM, really wants to convert your campaign/system, you're going to have to resign yourself to the loss of these folks.

#3 No Great Loss: this is a player who's so new to the game, that "starting over" isn't all that big a deal. Their character is first or second level, and there's no deep attachment that's been formed. So long as they have no deep-seated resentment or preexisting dislike, conversion to a simpler system should be fairly painless.

#4 Can I Keep My Feats?: lastly, you've got the player who's not dead-set against the conversion, but who has played for a while in the "new school" and gotten used to a certain level of effectiveness in granularity in their character and doesn't want to lose that. They're willing to play a different system; heck, they might be wanting to play a different system. But they also want assurances that the conversion won't cost them much...and they've got more than a little to lose.

It's only players of the fourth type that require much work on the part of the DM (always assuming you're willing to compromise your conversion tastes to retain those players). Here's how it goes down:

First, explain that the system isn't just changing for the characters...it's changing for the world/NPCs as well. A character's AC, hit points, or attack bonus might be reduced from what the player's used to, but so are the combat stats of the monsters.

Second, explain it's a slightly different type of game. Magic is somewhat scarcer (wizards don't just throw "lasers at will," for example). The challenges players face will be somewhat different and there will be a period of adjustment. DMs will need to be on their game (i.e work doubly hard), especially for the first few sessions as they "break in" the players to the new way of gaming. Done right, you can convert the player from a #4 to a #1. Done wrong, the player will end up a #2 looking for someone else's table.

Finally, the house rules. Create and implement only as much as you need to give the player the equivalent of what they had in their 5E existence. Don't go overboard, but don't skimp, and never worry about all the things they didn't have (i.e. abilities that would have been gained at higher levels in the original system). For example:

A) One of Dennis's players has a 5th level elven fighter-battlemaster-archer. Mechanically (which is all I give a shit about) elves are nothing fancy; everything here is modeled fine with the elf class of B/X. The crazy-ass fighter class is a little trickier: first an "elf" in B/X (or straight Labyrinth Lord) is a fighter/magic-user...which this character isn't. Second, the "archer" designation gives the character a +2 bonus to attack rolls with any ranged weapon (hello, Ultimate Hawkeye). Third, the "battle master" designation (gained at 3rd level) makes her a kind of zen master of combat...mostly color, but she gets four "superiority dice" that can be expended to use any one of three special "maneuvers" she knows. Maneuvers are basically just fighter spells: she knows three and learns more at higher levels; she can cast four per day and learns more at higher levels.

[these are kind of stupid, in my opinion. If a fighter knows how to "disarm and opponent" or "feint" or "lunge," why is she limited in the number of times per day she can perform the action. This is the kind of bullshit this is left over from 4th edition and its "at will/encounter/daily" video game garbage. Even 3E wasn't so stingy with feats]

A 5th level elf gets five spells per day. The easy fix here is ask the character to make a straight elf and give her spells the equivalent of her maneuvers. B/X elves can, of course, engage in spell research at any time, so it's not an issue of her "learning weird spells." Regarding the bow thing: allow her to keep the +2 attack bonus (as a zen archer or whatever) but require the use of her bow as a focus for her magic (i.e. she can't cast her "spells" without it). The player gets to keep her mechanical bonuses AND her special archery color/style, and the re-skin isn't too far astray. I would NOT give the character any type of magic item that mimics the ability of the 5E character, as such a thing can be passed on, picked up by another character, etc. and the whole magic archer deal is this character's thing. It only works for her (or a similar archer).

B) Another character in Dennis's campaign is a 5th level human "war priest," a concept that I love (I've played a "war priest" in B/X before...it's called a cleric with a high strength). This cleric uses a flaming sword (a bonus of his war "domain").

Clerics in 5E are all screwed up, having carried over all sorts of bullshit from back in the Defenders of the Faith splatbook days. They are also packing serious spell power: a 5th level cleric in B/X has four spells compared to 13 in 5th edition (including access to such spells as animate dead, create food and water, and revivify...a lightweight raise dead). But they only get to turn undead once per day (?!) unless they want to "channel their divinity" into a +10 attack (war priests only).

Here's a situation where the DM and the player have to have a sit-down talk about personal expectations in comparison to the cosmology of the campaign world. What is it the player wants? What's the priority here and where is the compromise? I hear "war priest" and I think "player who wants to kick ass and throw a couple spells around (in support of kicking ass)."

Give the player this: you can use edged weapons (like your flaming sword), but you can't turn undead. That's the price you pay for following the god of war. Be honest: you weren't going to use your one "channel divinity" per day to turn undead anyway...you were going to thump someone with it. Well, there's no spell equivalent of guided strike in B/X, but there is the 3rd level spell striking, which gives you an extra D6 damage (double damage for a cleric) for ten minutes (rather than a single attack)...and if you use Labyrinth Lord (instead of B/X), you can get that spell as a 5th level (as well as another 5-9 spells depending on your Wisdom score). And in LL, the number of striking spells you have access to will be much higher than the number of guided strikes in 5E. Just saying.

C) The final problem character is a tiefling sorcerer. Technically, he's a type #2 who preferred Pathfinder to 5E. For him, it's not about an accurate re-skin...he prefers a more complex system. But let's pretend (for the sake of this exercise) that he doesn't and it's really just about his character.

For me, rather than tweaking a spell list (as with example A) or a class (as with example B) I'd go ahead and create a whole new class...assuming I could stand to have such a species in my campaign. I'll make no bones about it: I'm not a fan of the tiefling. As a matter of fact, I'm not a fan of the sorcerer class either. So I'd create a single, unique class ("the tiefling sorcerer") that would be available for this single player. Oh, it wouldn't be that hard: sorcerers only use arcane (magic-user) spells after all. Fire resistance and some dumbshit magic...okay. Maybe a reaction penalty when dealing with lawful-types (because of the character's "infernal" origins). Give the character a couple more spells per day than a magic-user of the same level, but limit the total number known (duh). Apply 5E metamagic already learned in class specific fashion (with no new metamagic on the horizon). I would probably allow the character to use any weapon he'd already used (crossbows and such), but no more. I'd also probably drop hit dice to D4s and put 'em equivalent to magic-users. Probably.

This would be the only character of this type allowed into my campaign...one "grandfathered in" to preserve continuity. If (when?) the character die "the final death" I wouldn't necessarily allow another one to be created: maybe the gateway to the infernal realm has been closed, maybe Satan (or his fantasy equivalent) has come calling for the (souls? life-force?) of all mortal infernals and they're only present as NPCs...whatever. It was a one-time, one-shot deal...unless, of course, I found the character to be sufficiently wonderful that I wanted to keep seeing them show up in my game world.

[I've done this in the past, just by the way: gave into a player's request for some nutty addition to the game. Had a player who wanted a (male) Drow magic-user/assassin with non-standard psionics, specifically pyrokinesis powers. Actually, come to think of it, he might have simply been a Drow assassin that masqueraded as a magic-user using his pyrokinetic abilities as a cover (i.e. pretending to cast spells). It wasn't a bad ride: we figured out a way to "level up" his abilities over time, and it wasn't a gross travesty considering the campaign at the time and the fact that the character was usually used in side (solo) adventures. But it was a one-shot deal that was never repeated. I don't even have any written rules or records of the character in my old files (as far as I know)]

Of course, there are inherent dangers here, though "accidentally allowing a game-breaking class" isn't really one of them (DMs have many ways to remove problematic characters...and players!). But D&D as a game is written in a particular way...it's designed to function with a particular array of class options. And the main danger is: once you allow one unique character into your campaign world, you run the risk of MORE being requested, both by the player who originally craved such a character and other players at the table.

In my own games, this never became an issue. Usually only one of these "unique" characters would show up at a time, and no player ever ran more than one. The guy with the pyrokinetic? His other characters were a bog-standard magic-user and an elven thief (not even multiclassed), with a couple dips into other standards (an illusionist, for example). I played a 1E bard, so my character was already weird enough...I never felt the need to have a lizard man shaman or centaur mountebank or whatever. But I digress...the point is, you (the DM) can lay down rules and limits for this kind of thing, while still allowing PCs to have their "weirdness for a day." It just depends on how much work you're willing to do.

Fortunately, with a game like B/X (or Labyrinth Lord), most of the work is pretty easy.
; )

Kender

Four days?! Have I really gone four days without a post?

Welp, the holidays are well and truly upon us. I'm leaving town (heading to Mexico for what may be my last trip south for a LONG while) and I've been running around trying to get everything squared away for Christmas. Combined with fighting my annual bronchitis (and the morning grogginess that comes from chugging NyQuil) I just haven't had time to sit down and write.

[well, I did spend one morning writing several scathing paragraphs about Douglas Niles, but in the spirit of Christmas decided it would be best not to publish those remarks. Suffice is to say that Against the Cult of the Reptile God remains the only highlight of his TSR career...in my opinion]

All right, time to play out the string. This should PROBABLY be my last DL post for the foreseeable future.

At the beginning of most every DragonLance adventure (I don't recall one that doesn't...and I ended up reading through all of DL1-DL15 over the last couple weeks), the author takes pains to point out that the Krynn setting has several "important differences" from the standard AD&D play:

1. Gold has no value in the world (except that, in later modules, it has some value outside the starting region of the DL campaign).

2. Clerical spells have not existed for 300 years (though they become available to both characters and antagonists beginning with the second module in the series...still it colors NPCs attitudes toward clerics).

3. Dragons haven't been seen for a thousand years and are considered a myth (though this also changes following the first module as dragons run rampant over the setting).

4. Halflings are unknown in Krynn; instead they are replaced by the Kender race.

Thanks to the popularity of Tolkien, "Hobbit-equivalents" have been found in fantasy gaming since the very beginning. OD&D originally had them (available as a fighting class with a maximum level of four...probably the most accurate modeling of the species ever to see print). DragonQuest makes them a more balanced adventurer (though still with tongue-in-cheek references to LotR). Palladium uses "gnomes" to fill the same ecosystem (I've see other RPGs use "brownie" in the same way). Warhammer Fantasy has perhaps my favorite depiction of the handling species (with the snarky wit typical of all GW games, they are grubby, gluttonous thieves and low-lives). As a fantasy race, the halfling is as ubiquitous as elves and dwarves.

The kender is the first re-skinning that really steps far from the hobbit archetype.

Kender look like "wizened 14-year olds" and unlike halflings (hobbits) they wear shoes. They are described as having an insatiable curiosity, and no real sense of property ownership (they tend to "borrow" anything they find interesting that isn't nailed down). They have two system/rule-based abilities: they are immune to fear (magical or otherwise), and they have the ability to taunt others (save versus spells or incite folks to attack with reckless abandon...and substantial penalties) with "verbal abuse."

The model for the 3E "halfling."

It's basically a character class that models your annoying little sibling who you forced to play a halfling thief, because no one else wanted to play one in a campaign setting that features a war against dragons and a profound lack of treasure (because, hey, gold is worthless).

Kleptomaniac, annoying children...empowered to stick their noses into trouble, steal shit that doesn't belong to them, and irritate people with a special mind control power. In the books, kender make a nice bit of comic relief from the grim-dark melodrama and hopeless odds of the setting. In gaming? Well...

As I wrote earlier, we never actually played in the DL setting, or ran any of the modules. However, we have halfling thieves in our campaign whose personality and behavior was modeled fairly substantially off the kender. Well, one was...the other one was closer to a gully dwarf (being a bit slower of wit). Here's the thing, though: both were NPCs in the campaign, run by the same DM (not me). Both were played (mostly), for comic relief, though they never upstaged the other PCs. One (the dim-witted one) was, in fact, the henchman of another PC and was both fiercely loyal and affectionate to her (though being none-too-competent). The other was more-or-less Tasslehoff in all but name (his name was "Mouse," for the record), but far more helpful than a hindrance.

Neither of these displayed any of the "kender skills:" they didn't taunt (at least, as a system for taking control of someone), they weren't immune to fear ("Shorty" the henchman was quite the coward), they didn't use "hoopaks" for weapons. They were curious and they did acquire a lot of items with their light fingers (all of which were stored in their multiple, bulging belt pouches)...and they did speak (squeakily) in a childlike fashion with a kender's wide-eyed innocence.

[and...on rare occasion...act as a deus ex machina. Well, one time at least: when Mouse liberated MY character from an eternity of torment at the hands of Lolth. However, I was left to rot (literally and figuratively) for several months prior to rescue]

But that was just a choice of how our DM wanted to run halflings in her campaign. None of the players were running halflings (well, only my kid brother who...once...ran the guy as an annoying, klepto-style, as only a 10-year old brat can do. And, no, he never read the DragonLance books. That character was a thief-acrobat...) so she was re-skinning simply to make the race interesting as an NPC. After all, we were slavishly devoted to the Rules As Written in those days...to simply CUT halflings (or paladins or monks or whatever) from the game, even though no one ever used them, was unthinkable to us. Better for us to find some way to make use of their existence in D&D.

So, I guess I have a bit of a soft-spot for kender...not as a playable race, but as an NPC personality. I enjoyed Tas in the DragonLance books, and I enjoyed Mouse in his similar role as an occasional traveling companion (he did not accompany us on ALL our adventures...he was more of a campaign personality that would wander into our party from time-to-time). Unfortunately, I don't think there are many people who could pull off playing a kender-type...either as a PC or even as an NPC. I'm pretty certain I couldn't; I just don't have the whimsical humor necessary to portray such a character (maybe I'm too mean-spirited).

If I were to run a DragonLance campaign (and at this point, I've all but decided against the idea), I would include kender as a B/X-style class. Fear immunity would simply be a +2 bonus to saves and/or Morale (there are plenty of times in the novels that Tasslehoff acts in all the ways as someone who is nervous, scared, or paralyzed with fright, despite his statements to the contrary). They'd all receive some thief skills (notably picking pockets and locks...probably with a substantial bonus), but they'd receive a negative reaction with most intelligent species in Krynn (after all, not all humans are thieves, but all kender...well, they do have a reputation).

Taunting would work differently: a kender would be able to force a reaction roll, and could apply their Charisma adjustment as a NEGATIVE, even if normally positive (a low CHA kender would apply their reaction normally). Creatures incensed to fight would suffer a penalty to attack (probably not AC). Other PCs would be immune to this sort of thing, as would NPCs with more levels/HD than the kender (and I would limit kender to eight levels of experience, just like the halfling class they'd replace in B/X).

I'd probably remove the halfling bonus to missile combat (leave the AC bonus), and would use their stealth ability for any type of "sneaky thief skill" (move silent, etc.)...all kender would have the same chance to be unobtrusive, regardless of level. Wearing metal armor would negate these bonuses/abilities, of course...no lenders clinking around in plate armor should be able to sneak up on someone and rob 'em.

Personally, I think such a species works far better in a B/X-based campaign. Despite being written for AD&D, nearly all the protagonists are "single class," and all are pretty "basic;" even the elves in the DL adventure modules are all of the fighter/magic-user type (with the exception of Laurana). Only the Plainsman, Riverwind, uses a non-B/X class (he's a ranger), and he's easily converted to a straight fighter (he never uses any ranger abilities in the novels anyway).

Hmm...maybe I will write another DL post, just to do some conversion notes for folks who like the idea of B/X DragonLance.

But not today. I'm leaving my house around 6am tomorrow and I've got lot still to do (including packing). I'm not sure I'll be taking my laptop (which would be a first), but even if I do, I'm not sure I'll be blogging again before the New Year. If you don't hear from me...well, hopefully you'll all have a happy, happy one (I'm pulling for ya!). I'll be back for sure in 2019.

Later, Gators!
: )

Streamlining Palladium Combat

There are three levels of "informed opinion" when it comes to Palladium's combat system (and here I'm writing about the multiversal system found in such games as Rifts, 2nd Edition Heroes Unlimited,  Nightbane, etc.):

- Folks who've been played through the evolution of the game (a bit more than three decades worth)
- Folks who've come "late to the game" (circa 1990 or later)
- Folks who haven't played but know the system solely by reputation or cursory reading

[I suppose the latter category might include folks who listen to podcasts and such, though I've found few of those on the 'net, and many of those are already...mmm...100% "by the book"]

Here's the thing to understand: Palladium combat has never been all that different from old edition D&D with A) added complexity, and B) active defense. Wrap your head around those two things and its not that hard to get a handle on it...nor deconstruct the system. Complexity isn't all that big a deal...crunch (what some might call clunkiness) is largely a matter of taste. Furthermore, the evolution of the game....development of, say, robot piloting and missiles (Robotech), supernatural strength and knock-backs (Rifts), MDC (Robotech/Rifts), vehicle combat (HU Revised), etc....has necessitated the addition of complexity over the years the system has been around.

So let's talk about "active defense."

The basic sequence of Palladium combat works like this: attacker rolls to strike against a target number of 5 or better (8 in ranged combat, post-Rifts), using a D20. Defender than chooses a defensive action, most often a parry or dodge, and rolls a D20. If the defensive roll equals or exceeds the roll to strike, the defender avoids damage.

[the additional wrinkle of rolling with damage...basically a saving throw to resist non-lethal-types of damage (punches) for half damage...helps draw out and emulate slugfests of the superhero or martial arts genre, or (in the case of rolling with "missile strikes") the giant robot anime genre]

One melee round =
45 minutes actual play

D&D uses a passive defense for resolving attack actions in melee: the D20 roll is compared to a target number determined by a defender's "armor class." While this has the advantage of being simple and streamlined, plenty of folks have argued for a system that takes into account a defender's "combat ability" with regard to defense, hence the creation of systems like Palladium or BRP (which, while %-based, still has the strike roll followed by defense roll). D20 actually provided a system of accounting for "combat ability" that did not involve armor (or rather, de-emphasized armor) with their Saga edition of Star Wars RPG, where character level created the "defensive class" target number for attacks, and something similar can be done with Palladium.

I look to the old White Wolf World of Darkness RPGs for an idea of how to handle this. In some of WW's games (I'm thinking the original VtM and WtA, but I'm too lazy to pull the books at the moment), the system provided the option of using an "active" or "passive" version of defense. In the case of Palladium (with its D20 base), you simply provide a defensive class ("DC") of 10 + bonuses. Bonuses can come from ability scores (physical prowess), certain classes (maybe), and choice of HTH skill (the real determination of combat differential between characters, rather than class ("OCC") as it is in D&D). In a game like Heroes Unlimited, certain superpowers (super speed, extraordinary prowess, heightened senses, etc.) might factor as well.

There's really no need to have separate parry and dodge skills...the only practical difference between the two defenses is that A) parry cannot be used against bullets and energy attacks, and B) dodge uses up one of a character's melee attacks (see below) to execute. Since the bonuses for both tend to be about the same (pre-1987 this wasn't the case as the Speed attribute could add a hefty bonus to dodge in 1st edition TMNT and HU), folks almost always opt to parry unless they can't (because of the type of attack).

Now about those melee attacks: one of the defining complexities of Palladium's system is that nearly all characters receive a number of multiple actions per combat turn as determined by their level, HTH type, and character class (and don't forget the +1 if you're smart enough to take the boxing skill!). Depending on the specific game, it's not unusual for a 1st level character to have three or four actions (called "melee attacks") per round. Just like 3E (and later) D&D, Palladium uses individual initiative (uses a D20, too!) but a strict rotation to utilize those actions (so you don't get your second action till everyone's had a turn, in other words). Actions may be used up in defensive maneuvers prior to their number in the turn order (for example, when executing a dodge), but one is only allowed to execute an attack when their number comes up (unless executing a "simultaneous attack" maneuver). Initiative order does not change from round to round.

[while that may seem cut-n-dry, there are some sticky places. For example, first edition HU has a bit more info on melee attacks, describing them as actions taken in one 15 second round, everything from lacing one's shoes to disarming an explosive device; from page 124:

"Example: the hero unhooks his grappling hook from his belt (one action), throws it across the neighboring roof top (second action), tests the line to see if it's secure (3rd action), and then leaps off his building swinging down to the other (4th action) in an attempt to smash through a window in that building. To determine if he successfully hits and smashes through the window the player must roll twenty sided die to strike his target."

(I laugh a bit knowing that the most fragile glass window in the book is 20 SDC and the player is likely to go "splat" against it, rather than breaking it...but I digress)

How this would actually take place (assuming the character is executing such a complex maneuver in the midst of combat...the only reason to be concerned with actions/melee) is a little wonky. Does the player have to forgo defense to conserve actions while attempting this course? I'd assume so. Would successful (damaging) attacks distract the character to the point that he can't 'test the line,' (or makes an inaccurate assessment) or whatever? Probably. Probably it all comes down to a lot of GM rulings, but that's what you get with such a system]

I think I'm on record (multiple times) with my disdain for systems like this that attempt to model specific "blow-by-blow" actions in a role-playing game. Give me an abstract system that allows me add "narrative color" (making an exciting combat) based on success of attack rolls and amount of damage rolls. So what exactly is it that we stand to lose if we forgo the melee actions? Better yet, how can we try to model the same things while losing this (IMO) silly attempt to objectively quantify time and action in the subjective chaos of a combat encounter?

Well, if we eliminate the idea of "attacks per melee" completely (might as well if we've eliminated active defense from the equation and combined both parrying and dodging into a single "passive" target number), we can still give our player's some options with regard to combat maneuvers during their opponent's turn (which is really what most of those actions are being used for). For example, in addition to their one attack action per turn, each player is allowed to:

- perform an entangle move on a melee attacker
- execute a simultaneous attack while allowing the attacker to automatically hit
- take no action because the character was dodging (i.e. using her passive defense against bullets or ranged energy attacks)

But what about the character with the multiple attacks and the auto-parry who is engaged in hand-to-hand fighting who would normally make three or four strike attacks? I hear your concern, but this is a matter of balancing bonuses attack and damage rolls based on level and ability. Having the ability to make multiple attacks means having multiple opportunities to inflict damage, i.e. an IMPROVED chance to inflict MORE damage. This is a matter of re-writing the hand-to-hand tables to reflect bonuses to both (to hit and damage) at levels where extra melee attack actions would normally be gained. If I have a chance, I'll try to mock up a couple of examples for folks (in a later post).

Things like modern (firearm) combat (aimed, short burst, long burst, etc.) can likewise be streamlined to simple attack/damage adjustments based on ammo expenditure. Similarly with rocket/missile attacks.

What about robot pilot combat (and the extra attacks afforded the martial artist robot pilot), i.e. the Max Sterling Emulator gambit? Look, there's a lot of problems with using the Palladium system (or other "old school" type RPGs) to attempt to model manga-style anime. Trying to accomplish that and then reverse-grafting said model onto other Palladium systems that utilize dudes wearing mech-suits in combat (see Heroes Unlimited 2E and Rifts) is doubling-down on the clunk. Personally, I'd treat a heroic dude (or dudette) in a robot chassis as no different from any non-pilot hero, simply providing augmented stats based on the power suit being sported. I mean, this whole post is about streamlining, right?

All right, that's enough for now. Might need a follow-up post or two on the subject.

Adapting A Song of Ice and Fire

[apologies...last week was sick kid and this week it's...well, it's sick kid again. So it goes...]

Been spending a lot of time with Game of Thrones the last few days. That is to say, with George R. R. Martin's epic A Song of Fire and Ice. Probably...no, certainly...because Ye Old HBO took to playing back-to-back marathons of the TV show's four seasons a few days back (only just ended last night). Normally, my television watching is confined to late (and I mean really late) evenings watching something on the computer with the spouse...Downton Abbey or House of Cards. But Game of Thrones is that kind of television crack that you can just throw on and wallow in. It's like Sex and the City for the Tolkien crowd.

But the TV show's not really what I've been spending my time with...instead I've been spending my time in Martin's world. Not the books, no...I don't have any of 'em here and I pretty much stopped reading after the second novel. They're really not my thing. They're too big and too slow developing (because of the multitude of story lines and characters one has to track on). And too dark. I mean, I dig on "gritty fantasy" but its just a little too rape and pillage...too sadistic. And I mean authorially sadistic (as in, Martin's a damn sadist to his readers). Why do all the people have to be so gross to each other? It's fine writing, I suppose, but after a few thousand pages I'm done with not coming up for air...the TV show's enough, thanks. And usually THAT's too much for my taste (at least, the weekly injection of soft porn that comes with an HBO episode).

No, what I really dig is the setting Martin's created. I find his particular "fantasy world" to be a really nifty adaptation of your typical fantasy RPG tropes. There's quite a nice mix of stuff one could pull out of any Old School D&D game...and least one in which the "magical elements" have been toned way the heck down. Of course, in a world without much in the way of "undead" do you really need clerics? No, of course not.

[I also think Martin's version of the "ranger" is the best I've seen in game or fiction since Tolkien first introduced Aragorn into fantasy. I love everything about the Night's Watch and their Wall]

Anyway, what I've been spending most of my free time reading has been Martin's backstory for the novels, all that "stuff" leading up to the drama in the books/show. That's been care of the A Wiki of Ice and Fire web site, which is quite well done. For me, the history of Martin's world is far more interesting than the "current events" of the books' timeline. Perhaps because I don't have to deal with the soap opera of personalities, or perhaps because it tickles my love of reading history (even fake and fictional history), or perhaps because that history has Melnibonean-style dragon lords flying around and conquering shit. It's just great stuff.

And it once again leads me to think about adapting Martin's Westeros world to the Pendragon role-playing game. I wrote about this before (back in 2012) before deciding against it (a few days later...my reasons for dropping the project isn't exactly clear, I'm afraid). But Pendragon is one of those few RPGs I brought with me down to Paraguay, and I've been re-reading it a lot recently. For my mind, it really is just about the perfect system to adapt to such a setting.

[why did I bring Pendragon down here at all? I was actually considering it as an adaptation of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern books...but that's a subject for a different post]

Sometimes you stumble across a system that really feels "right" for a particular setting or IP: Traveller for Firefly, for example. It's not that the game's own setting (assuming it has one) doesn't work or fit. But the design just seems so well suited, you wonder why a fan of the "world" wouldn't just take the easy road of adapting the system.

[on the other hand, there ARE some systems that are a terrible fit for their settings...Cadillacs and Dinosaurs comes immediately to mind. Just God awful]

Not that it's entirely perfect, mind you. Pendragon doesn't have a personality trait for "perversion" which is probably a must for all the incest, sexual deviance, and gross violent tendencies found in Martin's fantasy world (lust and cruelty might not quite cut it). Knights appear to win their spurs around age 16 or 17, not 21 (see Gregor Clegane, Jaime Lannister, Rhaegar Targaryen, etc. Ned Stark was  18 when he participated in the Tourney at Harrenhal, so was presumably knighted prior). Battles happen more frequently than "once a year." And if you really want to model the characters found in Martin's book, you probably need an "Intelligence" stat tied to skills (which Chaosium uses for its similar BRP system, but which isn't present in Pendragon). It would otherwise be tough to make a character like Tyrion.

[Pendragon's default assumption that player characters are composed of "first sons of first sons" would need to be changed as well, in order to fit into Martin's less-than-Camelot-ideal setting. But if you were playing A Song of Ice and Fire...with the associated soap opera intrigue and civil war...such an adjustment would be pretty small. You'd probably want multiple playable characters from each family, due to the violence of the Seven Kingdoms. Maybe a group point buy is necessary...that would explain why Jaime Lannister is such an excellent fighter, while his brother is deficient in size and strength (hard to justify otherwise in a game that doesn't include random stat generation). Just an idea...]

But aside from these "tweaks," the system seems exactly what's needed to model the epic scale of the drama in the Seven Kingdoms. The relationships with family, the traits, passions, and Glory, the combat stylings, the "low magic." Actually, I have to say I find the (conspicuous lack of) magic system in Pendragon to be more in line with what one finds in the Martin books than what one finds in King Arthur fiction (which often throws quite a bit of supernatural "stuff" on the pyre). Though I suppose it really depends on what's your preferred favorite interpretation of the Arthurian saga.

I've really been missing gaming the last week or so, and not just gaming for play testing, but gaming for gaming. I find myself really wanting to get into an epic, long-term game (like Pendragon)...if I was back in Seattle, I think that's probably what I'd be trying to setup. That or, maybe, Traveller. *sigh* Some day we'll be back.

I think I might just futz around a bit with converting Martin's books to the Pendragon system. I kind of wish I had the Green Ronin book now...not for its system, but for its maps and setting information. But with a helpful wikia at hand (thanks to all the fans who update this), I can probably make do. I'm even considering picking up a copy of the old Knights Adventurous (available in PDF from Drivethru), to check out how their rules for creating non-knightly characters. Not that I want players to have the option of being "maesters" or "wildlings," mind you but...well, you know.

If I do any real work on this, I'll post it to the blog. Just for interested folks.
; )

Don't you want your Pendragon to look like this?

B/X Compatible?

Looking over The Complete B/X Adventurer (as I put the new book together), I am of course struck by the awesomeness that sometimes spews forth from my brain (duh) and the creativity that spews from the pens of my artists (double-duh). It’s a nice little bit (or bunch) of “extra stuff” to throw into anyone’s B/X or Labyrinth Lord campaign…heck, it would probably work with BECMI or the RC or even the LBBs with minimal fuss and muss...and it’s neat enough to make me want to break out the ‘ol B/X books again and stop messing around with all these play-testing shenanigans.

But, but, but (isn’t there always a “but?”)…BUT then I went and opened up my old D&D Mine documents to look through my own “5E Variation” rules I’d been working on a couple months back. And the reason I was doing that was because I had a fantastic brainstorm of how to make the combat system into a simple, yet cinematic, D6 base system that still utilized levels and Hit Dice while cutting out all the extra dice rolling that goes into combat. And I wanted to see what I’d done with the combat system before so that I had something with which to compare the new idea…and, well, I couldn’t well remember what I’d thrown in the ol’ D&D Mine book previously.

[yes, yes, I’ll explain how this relates to the new book soon]

Let me take one more step off into a blue tangent before pulling this back and tying it all together.

I’m kind of tired of D&D combat. I know I’ve written about this before (to varying degrees) and certainly planned several blog posts (that I haven’t had a chance to write) on the subject, but I’ve been finding the base mechanics of D&D’s combat system unsatisfying of late. And I’m talking about the base system, found in pretty much all editions:

- Roll Initiative
- Roll D20 to attack
- Roll damage
- Subtract damage from hit points
- Rinse and repeat ad nauseum

Without active narrative, the system is pretty gutless. Against larger (or large numbers of) opponents, it can become tedious in the extreme…just a long series of dice rolling to see who wins the war of attrition. In the old days, fights could be sped up with judicious use of morale rules; later editions rely instead on critical strikes to help finish fights quicker. But those are just patches on a system issue.

Why should it take me 10 or 20 minutes to fight an orc? As we strive to get initiative from each other and then roll-roll-roll until we finally hit and then subtract a couple points and then roll-roll-roll, over and over hoping our luck (with rolling) will overcome our opponent’s armor class…just for the sake of a few coins in the creature’s belt pouch.

Recently, I’ve been participating in a play-by-post game using (slightly modified) Labyrinth Lord. As people who’ve tried PBP know, it can be sloooow going, even with the DM making the dice rolls. Our characters are 1st level, we’re in the middle of a dungeon delve…the usual fare, in other words. And I have found the only thing that makes the combats short enough to be bearable is A) the hefty attack/damage bonuses we receive (using the standard B/X ability adjustments) coupled with B) the very low (3-5) hit points (and AC) of our opposition. My character has a 16 strength and gains a +2 to attack and damage bonuses, meaning he hits AC 6 (average goblin) 50% of the time, often killing the suckers. But if I miss, then Ope! Got to wait till next round. And my character has one of the higher strength scores. Via PBP, a combat with half-a-dozen sprogs takes a couple-three days to play out.

And that’s just too long. I mean, heroes in stories (or movies) mow through runtlings like they’re reaping wheat, even when they’re not using “magic swords.” Even at mid-levels this kind of scene isn’t really possible in D&D, unless your character is ‘roided out (huge strength bonus) and/or armed with magic gear. Even then, if your opposition is “scaled up” (say, a handful of ogres) you get bogged down in the same tedium of attrition, unless your party contains spell-casters sporting beefy area-effect spells.

[which aren't very Sword & Sorcery might I add? Just as an aside...]

Look, I’m sounding harsher than I probably mean to sound…but when my imaginary character FINALLY hits someone in the game, I want the opponent to go down with a crushed skull, not hang around taunting me to hit it again. Assuming we're not talking about some sort of giant troll or dragon or something.

Which is why I started thinking up a whole new method of combat.

But then (as I wrote earlier) I started reading through my beautifully scripted Book 1 of my "new edition" of D&D and the very nicely written combat rules and I realized, gosh, not only would I have to over-haul everything to include this new “D6 system” in the book, but:

1) The already written, close-to-B/X-rules are pretty well done as is, and
2) If this really IS supposed to be “D&D,” shouldn’t it resemble D&D?

In other words, shouldn’t it include an Initiative roll, a D20 attack roll, and a damage roll (with said damage being subtracted from a hit point pool)? Isn’t that what D&D combat is all about?

And THEN I was thinking: wow, even though I do NOT plan on publishing my D&D Mine for any type of monetary gain, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make it at least moderately B/X compatible? Not just so other people will use it, but so that it can be used in conjunction with my other B/X books like the B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer?

[see, I told you this all tied together]

And now I come to the point of this post, in the form of a question: How compatible do you want your D&D “stuff” (i.e. books, supplements, retro-knock-offs) to be with your preferred version of the Original Fantasy Role-Playing Game?

I mean, you don’t need to use “kits” when playing 2nd Edition AD&D…you don’t need to add non-weapon proficiencies to early editions. Monsters in earlier editions are nearly all covered in 3rd and 3.5 edition books (with the possible exception of that three-headed monstrosity from module B3)…it’s not hard to convert back-and-forth between most editions. Plate mail and shield comes up AC 3 in all editions with descending armor class and a +3 dwarven thrower is always a +3 dwarven thrower.

Do you need your D20 roll to hit? For that matter do you need dice of unusual sidedness? Certainly it’s fun (and novel) to play a game requiring dice of different sides, but is it NECESSARY for the game to “feel” like D&D and not, say, GURPS Fantasy?

Those are not rhetorical questions: I'm looking for feedback.
; )

Hmmm…for a moment there, I thought I was going to end this post with my queries, but I decided I wanted to bring up one more bit of thought to consider:

When D&D was first published (in the format we now call OD&D, consisting of three Little Brown Books or LBBs), the rules presumed its participants would be using the Chainmail rules to resolve combat, though it presented an “alternate system” of combat. Over the years, the alternate has become the standard, all the way down to the 21st century (with a lot of add-ons and doo-dads). It wasn’t always the form of “roll D20 to hit, roll for damage” and who’s to say that is (or ever was) the best method of resolving small-scale skirmishes? At the time, it allowed players to use those neat new dice (Chainmail only rolled D6s) and the level of simplicity in OD&D allowed it to move pretty swiftly (roll, check table, subtract D6 damage from characters/monsters whose hit points had not yet been terribly inflated). But since then, those two (small!) pages of combat rules have suffered the most amazing amount of “rules bloat” I can find in any RPG published in multiple editions. How many pages are needed in 4E to provide a primer on combat in comparison to the game's original form? That’s kind of disgusting.

Okay, end last aside...now, back to the compatibility question (and thanks for your indulgence).

Duty, Family, Honor

So I’ve been Jonesin’ to play Pendragon lately.

I’ve never actually played Pendragon. I’ve owned a copy for awhile (the 3rd edition, which, I suppose is technically a 2nd edition, seeing as how there was never a 2nd edition printed). I’ve owned it for awhile…picked it up used a couple years back…but just haven’t had the opportunity to set up a Pendragon campaign. These days it’s difficult enough to set-up a game where everyone can commit (and show up) to a regular weekly game. A generation-spanning game like Pendragon (even with 1 year per session) seems more than a little ambitious…it sounds like an f’ing pipe dream. And that’s assuming I can find some folks who are as big of King Arthur nerds as myself.

We’ll get back that in a second…perhaps a better question is: why the hell am I so weird? I mean, I AM willing to make the time to play and show up every week, despite family and friends and work and age and injury. I mean, 4 hours of sleep (which is what I get on game nights since my dogs wake me up before dawn every morning) is a small price to pay for a night of role-playing. At least for ME it’s a small price to pay. Is it so strange? I still have dinner with my fam, go on trips, walk the dogs, watch ballgames, pay taxes…but one night a week I set aside for my burning desire to escape reality. I guess I’m just a freak.

Okay, enough o that…Pendragon. Truth be told, I’d actually prefer the chance to PLAY Pendragon, but I’d settle for running the game. It really is too bad that we didn’t have this game as kids (i.e. pre-1986). I guess the first edition was published in 1985, but I certainly don’t remember it. Still it would have been a great game to have as the play appears to describe the type of campaigns we were interested in running back in the day (generational conflicts, issues of heredity and heirs and power, rather than just dungeon-delving). Instead we were left floundering with AD&D at a time when TSR was more concerned with patching together a skill system in the form of “non-weapon proficiencies” (see Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneering Survival Guide, etc.) to fatten one character sheet.

Is it much wonder we switched to Marvel? At least we could use THAT to emulate the soap opera stories found in X-Men comics.

Why Pendragon; why now? I think I can lay the blame squarely on my new interest in Game of Thrones. Just finished watching Disc 2 last night of the first season last night. Unfortunately, I’ve reached a point where I no longer enjoy the show. See, I made the mistake of borrowing the Martin book for my recent trip to Washington D.C. and spent most of the plane ride home reading the first 400 pages or so. Although I’m (roughly) at the same point in the TV series as I am in the novel, I find I vastly prefer the book…and I find myself frustrated with the “abridged” version so necessary to make a visual weekly program. Cool as it is to see The Wall in all its HD/CGI glory, I love reading all the extra “stuff” that goes into making Martin’s world a living, breathing world.

[understand that they’re two different mediums. The TV show IS admirable, which is what brought me to the book in the first place. It’s not my fault I just prefer the book…]

And it’s that “extra stuff” in Game of Thrones that suggests Pendragon to me. There’s something very much Arthurian Saga-like about Game of Thrones. Sure, sure…there are shades of Moorcock’s Elric books (with those all-conquering dragon lords of yesteryear), but knights in their twilight, the lords and their intrigues, the One King trying to unite a nation at war with itself against a pending invasion of Dothraki/Saxons…and the impending tragedies one can see on the horizon… Yeah, it feels very Arthurian to me.

Oh…that and I totally dig on how every kingdom has its own animal sigil. I am a big fan of (simplified) heraldry.

Now, if I could REALLY have my druthers, I wouldn’t simply be playing Pendragon…I would instead be playing Pendragon in the Game of Thrones SETTING. Because THAT’s what I really want. Keep the same system, but nix all the Great Britain stuff and ‘port over all the Great Houses and personalities from Martin’s books. Instead of starting as Knights of Salisbury, players could start as sons of Bannermen to one of the Great Houses (perhaps the Starks of Winterfell since so much adventure seems to lie in the North, otherwise one out of the East). The random annual tables would have to be adjusted a bit to take into account the years-spanning seasons, but pretty much everything else, system-wise, could be uses as is. And that would be cool.

It makes me wonder…knowing that Mr. Martin at one time played Superworld (the Chaosium “superhero game”) that was used as the inspiration for the Wild Card books, is it possible that the Game of Thrones arose from a modified Pendragon game (also published by Chaosium) with a similar system?

Of course, there already IS a Game of Thrones RPG – or rather, A Song of Fire and Ice based on the series as a whole. I did have the chance to page through that book a few weeks ago but wasn’t very impressed/thrilled with the system mechanics perused. Of course, that was before I had the chance to get into the book. Now that I’ve had my interest piqued, I’m considering picking it up, or at least giving it a second glance. NOT because I think my impression of the game would change, but because of the background material it might be able to provide for a game set in Martin’s fictional world.

My family’s out-of-town for the next few days…I’m not really interested in talking about that at the moment…so I have some free time on my hands. Maybe a little Pendragon-Game of Thrones conversion could be ironed out over the course of the weekend, seeing as I have nothing else on my plate. And if I DID get something set-up perhaps I could entice some players to play a weekly, saga-style game. King Arthur might be “old hat” to these young(ish) players…but GoT is a totally hip and happening bunch o hotness.

Just something I’m thinking ‘bout.