I really like the crit system I have for Spells and Steel - getting a crit means you've gotten an advantage in close combat that will let you do something nifty, like disarm, throw, or hold the enemy.
But I'm moving away from the idea of Fortitude checks at the moment, and away from armour as damage reduction.
With that in mind, I think I'm leaning towards exploding damage dice in addition to the existing system.
A roll of 6 on your damage die means you get to roll another damage die - keep rolling as long as you get 6's!
Your first roll goes to the foe's Armour HP, and the second and subsequent rolls go to the foe's normal HP.
13 May 2013
10 May 2013
Idea: Armour HP
Instead of reducing damage or making you harder to hit, what if armour had its own HP?
Any non-critical hits would first be taken from the armour's HP. Crits do two dice of damage - one to armour, one to the character's HP. I've been thinking recently about having two kinds of crits - one for 20's on d20, and one for 6's on damage dice, so this would be for rolling max damage. More on this in a later post...
Just like a character, the armour would be able to be "healed" - but in the case of armour, it would require time and tools.
This would give an advantage to the lighter armours - as the armour gets heavier, so does the repair kit! At the high end, you're not going to be making much in the way of repairs to your plate without a set of hammers and an anvil - hardly typical adventuring gear!
Thinking out loud here, but let's toss some numbers together:
Armour as HP
Repairs
Without proper tools, you can't repair the armour.
If you have the proper tools for a lighter armour (i.e. have Cloth tools but Chain armour), you can repair the armour to the level shown in the last column.
If you have the optional tools, knock 25% off the time.
All of these times are for field repairs - expedient, but probably not pretty.
Unbalanced Weapons
Unbalanced weapons would always do 1 point to the character's HP, even on non-critical hits.
Credit
I thought of this after re-reading this post on Untimately:
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/06/evasion-armor.html
Any non-critical hits would first be taken from the armour's HP. Crits do two dice of damage - one to armour, one to the character's HP. I've been thinking recently about having two kinds of crits - one for 20's on d20, and one for 6's on damage dice, so this would be for rolling max damage. More on this in a later post...
Just like a character, the armour would be able to be "healed" - but in the case of armour, it would require time and tools.
This would give an advantage to the lighter armours - as the armour gets heavier, so does the repair kit! At the high end, you're not going to be making much in the way of repairs to your plate without a set of hammers and an anvil - hardly typical adventuring gear!
Thinking out loud here, but let's toss some numbers together:
Armour as HP
Armour
|
Armour HP
|
Repair time (max HP without proper tools)
|
Tools Required
|
Max HP with lighter tools
|
Cloth
|
12
|
3 hours
|
Scissor, needles, thimble, strong thread
|
3
|
Leather
|
12
|
3 hours
|
Sharp knife, scissors, heavy needles, awl, thimble, strong thread
|
3
|
Chain
|
18
|
24 hours
|
As Cloth, plus:
Wire, wooden core, wire cutters, pliers (Optional - mechanical wire winder, specialised pliers and snips, premade rings and rivets) |
14
|
Plate and Chain
|
36
|
48 hours
|
All of the above, plus:
Several hammers, heavy snips, steel plate, files, anvil (Optional: spare plates, straps, buckles, etc., planishing stakes, dishing stump) |
27
|
Repairs
Without proper tools, you can't repair the armour.
If you have the proper tools for a lighter armour (i.e. have Cloth tools but Chain armour), you can repair the armour to the level shown in the last column.
If you have the optional tools, knock 25% off the time.
All of these times are for field repairs - expedient, but probably not pretty.
Unbalanced Weapons
Unbalanced weapons would always do 1 point to the character's HP, even on non-critical hits.
Credit
I thought of this after re-reading this post on Untimately:
http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/06/evasion-armor.html
8 May 2013
The 0-Level Man-at-arms
For some reason, D&D has gotten it into its head that men-at-arms would be 0-level. This trope dates back pretty far, and is taken as canon by many.
Let's examine this for a minute, though.
The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.
In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.
The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.
In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.
On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.
Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.
Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.
Let's examine this for a minute, though.
The historical term "man-at-arms" was used to denote a professional cavalryman in full armour. Knights would be an example of a man-at-arms, but many men-at-arms were not knights. In D&D, however, the term tends to be used to refer to any professional soldier, regardless of equipment.
In either case, though, the term refers to a professional.
The idea that a professional solder has the same odds of hitting in combat as an untrained peasant is, frankly, laughable. This professional, in fact, has lower odds of hitting in combat than your fresh-faced 1st-Level Fighter with 0 XP.
In an older edition like BECMI (my old stand-by), a professional soldier with training and experience should probably be around level 3 - greater odds of hitting, and much more survivable than an untrained peasant.
On average, a peasant (AC 9, 1-6 HP, Attack +0) will take around 5 rounds to kill a Level 3 fighter (AC 9, 3-18 HP, Attack +3). The Level 3 fighter will only take around 1 or 2 rounds to kill the peasant. The difference swells, obviously, if you give the man-at-arms armour.
Conclusions? City watchmen, mook guards, anyone with no real training - 0-level or Fighter 1.
Serious men-at-arms, with training and experience? Probably Fighter 3-5.
20 February 2013
Dungeoneering Tools: The Candle
Candles were bloody expensive. Consider that in the 14th-15th C. a cow was worth about 8 shillings, or about 96 silver pennies (basically a gp). From that cow, you could probably get 300-400lbs of meat (you can get more from a modern steer, but 600 years of selective breeding have made cows bigger), so that's about a farthing (one-quarter of a silver penny) for a pound of beef (not counting butchery, etc., as people often did that themselves back then).
Compare that to tallow candles at about 2d/lb, or wax candles at about 6d/lb.
Keep in mind, that in this period, wages for unskilled labour were in the range of 1d/day.
Making a wildly inappropriate comparison to modern-day minimum wages, that's the equivalent of paying something like $250 for a pound of candles.
So you can see why many people using rushlights (reed stems soaked in fat or pitch) or splinters (splinters soaked in fat or pitch), both of which were more or less free (if you were willing to pick the rushes and gather the pitch yourself).
But back to dungeoneering.
Candles are a not really a great source of light, probably comparable to a period oil lamp, but you can get a candle lantern for them. This helps with dazzling, and with the candle going out from the wind of walking around (seriously, that's enough to put out a candle, or at least make it pour scalding wax on your hand - candles suck).
Even a big double-wick candle isn't throwing enough light for you to see OK-ish more than about 10-15', with dim shadows twice that. Reading requires a candle to be within a foot or so.
But at least you're not blinding your friends with your torch, or worrying about spilling the oil out of your lamp.
EDIT: Forgot to include burn times. A one-pound candle would burn for about 70 hours. Not too shabby.
Compare that to tallow candles at about 2d/lb, or wax candles at about 6d/lb.
Keep in mind, that in this period, wages for unskilled labour were in the range of 1d/day.
Making a wildly inappropriate comparison to modern-day minimum wages, that's the equivalent of paying something like $250 for a pound of candles.
So you can see why many people using rushlights (reed stems soaked in fat or pitch) or splinters (splinters soaked in fat or pitch), both of which were more or less free (if you were willing to pick the rushes and gather the pitch yourself).
But back to dungeoneering.
Candles are a not really a great source of light, probably comparable to a period oil lamp, but you can get a candle lantern for them. This helps with dazzling, and with the candle going out from the wind of walking around (seriously, that's enough to put out a candle, or at least make it pour scalding wax on your hand - candles suck).
Even a big double-wick candle isn't throwing enough light for you to see OK-ish more than about 10-15', with dim shadows twice that. Reading requires a candle to be within a foot or so.
But at least you're not blinding your friends with your torch, or worrying about spilling the oil out of your lamp.
EDIT: Forgot to include burn times. A one-pound candle would burn for about 70 hours. Not too shabby.
17 February 2013
XP for Gold: Trade
Trade is a little trickier to handle, and I think the notions of personal bodily risk and martial skill will be helpful in determining whether or not to give XP for wealth gained through trade.
Two polarized scenarios present themselves immediately.
Milanese Trader
The first is a wealthy merchant living in Milan. He inherited an estate, a large sum of coin, and five ships from his father. Now, obviously he does not level for his inheritance.
But neither should he level from the profits he reaps from shipping finished suits of armour to England. There is no factor of personal bodily risk, and no application possible for martial skill.
Medinan Caravan Leader
The other is a caravan leader from Medina, carrying spices to Egypt. The caravan leader personally accompanies every caravan, and plays a part in defending the camel train from the numerous bandits on the way.
In this case, the caravan leader has taken on personal bodily risk, and demonstrated martial skill. These are the things which are being represented by the XP for gold mechanic, and therefore the caravan leader should be receiving XP towards his character class not only for the bandits killed and driven off along the way, but for the net profits reaped by the sale of the spices.
Note that only the net profits should be used for the calculation - otherwise you're potentially giving XP out for the same gold twice! Imagine our leader had obtained 1000gp from a dungeon delve (and received XP), sunk that whole 1000 into a caravan laden with spices, and sold the whole lot for 1250 in Egypt. Our dusty caravan leader would only get 250XP for the sale, as he's already received XP for the initial 1000gp investment.
Grey Areas
I think that by applying the tests of personal bodily risk and demonstration of martial skill, the GM should be able to intelligently make rulings on grey areas. Consider on one hand a trade route where a caravan is almost certain to be waylaid by well-armed and organized bandits or dangerous monsters, and another where there is no risk of banditry or creatures, and interpolate between the two.
Two polarized scenarios present themselves immediately.
Milanese Trader
The first is a wealthy merchant living in Milan. He inherited an estate, a large sum of coin, and five ships from his father. Now, obviously he does not level for his inheritance.
But neither should he level from the profits he reaps from shipping finished suits of armour to England. There is no factor of personal bodily risk, and no application possible for martial skill.
Medinan Caravan Leader
The other is a caravan leader from Medina, carrying spices to Egypt. The caravan leader personally accompanies every caravan, and plays a part in defending the camel train from the numerous bandits on the way.
In this case, the caravan leader has taken on personal bodily risk, and demonstrated martial skill. These are the things which are being represented by the XP for gold mechanic, and therefore the caravan leader should be receiving XP towards his character class not only for the bandits killed and driven off along the way, but for the net profits reaped by the sale of the spices.
Note that only the net profits should be used for the calculation - otherwise you're potentially giving XP out for the same gold twice! Imagine our leader had obtained 1000gp from a dungeon delve (and received XP), sunk that whole 1000 into a caravan laden with spices, and sold the whole lot for 1250 in Egypt. Our dusty caravan leader would only get 250XP for the sale, as he's already received XP for the initial 1000gp investment.
Grey Areas
I think that by applying the tests of personal bodily risk and demonstration of martial skill, the GM should be able to intelligently make rulings on grey areas. Consider on one hand a trade route where a caravan is almost certain to be waylaid by well-armed and organized bandits or dangerous monsters, and another where there is no risk of banditry or creatures, and interpolate between the two.
13 February 2013
XP for Gold: 20th-level Kings?
There have been Kings who have been great warriors. Richard I comes to mind. Henry VIII took his martial arts pretty seriously, if I understand correctly.
But they don't have mad levels in Fighter because of their enormous incomes.
That's because gold for XP only really makes sense for plunder. The inherent assumption in the system is that the gold in question was *guarded*, whether by traps, tricks, or monsters. It required some skill - whether in cleverly avoiding the threats, or by battle, etc. etc.
On the other hand, the income coming to a landed knight, baron, earl, count, king, etc. is due to the office, and requires no special skill, ability, or even action on the part of the earner. Similarly, if someone's father dies and leaves the 2.5 million gp, that person doesn't suddenly skyrocket 5 levels (or even one, if you're playing that you can't go up more than one level in a go). That's because they didn't do shit for it.
Windfalls, rent, investment incomes - none of these should generate XP in a gold for XP system.
Because of that, kings should be modestly levelled, if at all. An average man-at-arms or landed knight would likely have more Fighter levels than a king. (That reminds me to rant about the 0-level man-at-arms - the idea that a professional fighter doesn't have a few levels of Fighter is laughable).
King-as-class
At this point, some may be tempted to say, "OK, so kings aren't 20th-level Fighters, but maybe they're 20th-level Kings!". Well, let's examine that.
What class abilities would a King have? What do Kings do? Well, they drink and feast and hunt and whore, but those are well within the reach of anyone who has the wealth. Those don't need to be class abilities.
They conduct diplomacy, and manage the affairs of the kingdom. Or they appoint someone to do that for them. You could maybe argue that levels in King increase reaction rolls and increase kingdom revenues.
When you come right down to it, though, being a King is pretty much just being a normal guy, only richer. I have a pretty hard time accepting there's enough for a whole class there.
Where does that leave us?
Well, kings are just normal guys. They get power not through class levels, but through the dignity of their office and through the vast wealth and incomes that come with the title.
Gold is its own reward. Gold brings its own power.
You don't need to add personal power on top of the economic power wealth provides, unless there's some factor of personal bodily risk.
But they don't have mad levels in Fighter because of their enormous incomes.
That's because gold for XP only really makes sense for plunder. The inherent assumption in the system is that the gold in question was *guarded*, whether by traps, tricks, or monsters. It required some skill - whether in cleverly avoiding the threats, or by battle, etc. etc.
On the other hand, the income coming to a landed knight, baron, earl, count, king, etc. is due to the office, and requires no special skill, ability, or even action on the part of the earner. Similarly, if someone's father dies and leaves the 2.5 million gp, that person doesn't suddenly skyrocket 5 levels (or even one, if you're playing that you can't go up more than one level in a go). That's because they didn't do shit for it.
Windfalls, rent, investment incomes - none of these should generate XP in a gold for XP system.
Because of that, kings should be modestly levelled, if at all. An average man-at-arms or landed knight would likely have more Fighter levels than a king. (That reminds me to rant about the 0-level man-at-arms - the idea that a professional fighter doesn't have a few levels of Fighter is laughable).
King-as-class
At this point, some may be tempted to say, "OK, so kings aren't 20th-level Fighters, but maybe they're 20th-level Kings!". Well, let's examine that.
What class abilities would a King have? What do Kings do? Well, they drink and feast and hunt and whore, but those are well within the reach of anyone who has the wealth. Those don't need to be class abilities.
They conduct diplomacy, and manage the affairs of the kingdom. Or they appoint someone to do that for them. You could maybe argue that levels in King increase reaction rolls and increase kingdom revenues.
When you come right down to it, though, being a King is pretty much just being a normal guy, only richer. I have a pretty hard time accepting there's enough for a whole class there.
Where does that leave us?
Well, kings are just normal guys. They get power not through class levels, but through the dignity of their office and through the vast wealth and incomes that come with the title.
Gold is its own reward. Gold brings its own power.
You don't need to add personal power on top of the economic power wealth provides, unless there's some factor of personal bodily risk.
10 February 2013
XP for Gold: Reputation and Confidence?
XP for gold has a venerable history, and is a totally workable mechanic.
What bothers me is some of the justifications I've seen for it.
As I see it, XP for gold is an abstraction specifically suited for adventurers, and the idea is that if you are recovering treasure, you are encountering danger, and therefore learning. More treasure usually means more danger. Fair enough.
The mechanic stops making sense if you try to extend this mechanic to non-adventurers. Some lordly Baron sitting in his keep is in no danger and is learning nothing about being a fighter by sending out tax collectors to collect money from his tenants.
Where things break down is when people start trying to find some kind of further real-world justification for it. Some, for instance, consider XP for gold to represent reputation and confidence. I find this explanation to be indefensible. If this were true, you could level up by bragging, or by drinking whiskey. The fact that you can't become a better wizard by partaking of a little Dutch Courage exposes the internal inconsistency of such an explanation.
Fact is, neither confidence nor reputation correlate with ability. I remember a martial arts class - we'd drilled defending against dagger attacks for a couple hours, and I was getting a good feel for it, and felt really confident in my abilities.
Then we tried some free-play, and in my first match, I went up against one of the most experienced guys at the salle. Well, long story short, my skull would have looked like hamburger if we'd been using real daggers. My new-found confidence helped *exactly zero* against a skilled opponent.
Similarly, even if I have a reputation far and wide as the fastest draw in the West, that won't help me one whit if that whole reputation is built on bravado, and the exaggeration of one sloppy victory. When push comes to shove, my reputation counts for *exactly zero* in a real duel against a skilled opponent.
Long story short: XP for gold good, XP = confidence and reputation bad.
What bothers me is some of the justifications I've seen for it.
As I see it, XP for gold is an abstraction specifically suited for adventurers, and the idea is that if you are recovering treasure, you are encountering danger, and therefore learning. More treasure usually means more danger. Fair enough.
The mechanic stops making sense if you try to extend this mechanic to non-adventurers. Some lordly Baron sitting in his keep is in no danger and is learning nothing about being a fighter by sending out tax collectors to collect money from his tenants.
Where things break down is when people start trying to find some kind of further real-world justification for it. Some, for instance, consider XP for gold to represent reputation and confidence. I find this explanation to be indefensible. If this were true, you could level up by bragging, or by drinking whiskey. The fact that you can't become a better wizard by partaking of a little Dutch Courage exposes the internal inconsistency of such an explanation.
Fact is, neither confidence nor reputation correlate with ability. I remember a martial arts class - we'd drilled defending against dagger attacks for a couple hours, and I was getting a good feel for it, and felt really confident in my abilities.
Then we tried some free-play, and in my first match, I went up against one of the most experienced guys at the salle. Well, long story short, my skull would have looked like hamburger if we'd been using real daggers. My new-found confidence helped *exactly zero* against a skilled opponent.
Similarly, even if I have a reputation far and wide as the fastest draw in the West, that won't help me one whit if that whole reputation is built on bravado, and the exaggeration of one sloppy victory. When push comes to shove, my reputation counts for *exactly zero* in a real duel against a skilled opponent.
Long story short: XP for gold good, XP = confidence and reputation bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)