The third and final installment in my series on modifying race-as-class demi-humans to use the same level scale as the human classes...I've saved the best for last. I know, a whole lot of people don't agree with me, apparently including the acknowledged father of the game, E. Gary Gygax himself, but I've always had a big soft spot for these little guys. Whatever the reasons for halflings being included in the game, and however grudgingly it was done, they've always been a part of my D&D. Anyway, without further ado: The Halfling.
The Halfling class as written, Moldvay and Mentzer editions
Hit dice: d6
Armor: Any, may use shields
Weapons: Any of appropriate size
Special abilities: Hide in wilderness 90%, hide in dungeons 2 in 6, +1 bonus to hit with missile weapons, -2 bonus to AC against creatures larger than man-sized, better saving throws.
Base XP: 2,000
Maximum level: 8
Beyond max level: Attack Ranks allow the halfling to continue improving attack rolls, to a maximum equivalent of a Fighter of level 22-24. Also gains the combat options for high level fighters, multiple attacks, and half damage from magic and breath weapons.
The halfling as written is pretty tough in a scrape, equal to a fighter in ability to hit opponents, and with hit points about equal to a cleric. Damage potential is a little bit inferior due to the size restriction on the weapons available to the class, but even so halflings have access to quite a few 1d6 weapons. The halfling's forte, in my estimation, is not his ability to dish out damage, however, but his ability to avoid harm. Halflings may wear any armor, and with Dexterity as a prime requisite, are more likely than most other classes to have an AC bonus, which makes them a little harder to hit, on average, than a human fighter. Against some of the heaviest-hitting opponents - those larger than man-sized - they get a further bonus of -2. Their ability to "disappear" in wilderness settings, and to a lesser extent in dungeons, is of course yet another way halflings can avoid harm. At high levels, they receive both the dwarf's extra resistance to magic and the elf's resistance to dragon breath.
The Halfling, revised
The Halfling class really isn't too badly in need of toning down, but it could match its literary origins a little better, specifically in the area of fighting ability. I'd definitely use the Cleric/Thief combat table progression rather than Fighter for a race which is rarely or never depicted with strong martial leanings. This helps prevent the humble Halfling from overtaking the Dwarf and Elf (both of which have higher XP requirements) in combat prowess.
The Halfling's stealth abilities, particularly outdoors, don't leave much room for improvement as the character gains experience. Since we've slowed the class's combat progression, it makes sense that halfling characters should have some other improvements to look forward to as they level up, so I've adjusted the beginning chances to 50% to hide in wilderness and 30% in dungeons, with incremental improvement as the character gains levels. Tolkien's hobbits are prominently described as being exceptionally quiet of movement, so it makes sense that the Halfling class should have the ability to Move Silently as a thief of equal level as well, penalized by -20% if the character wears medium armor (chain, scale) and -40% for heavy armor (banded, plate.)
What we end up with is a class that has some of the Thief's stealth capability, without intruding into the province of lock-picking, trap disarming, or backstabbing, and some of the Fighter's capability in combat without rivaling its damage potential or overall competence in battle. The strengths of the Halfling class are evasion and avoidance, making it distinct from both of those classes.
Higher levels
Beyond 8th level (the halfling's last hit die), a halfling gains 1 hp per level. I don't think the Fighter combat options are all that appropriate to the class, so instead I've added a couple abilities that build upon the Halfling's role as a master of avoidance and evasion. Fortunately there's no need to create a whole new XP table for the Halfling; at low levels it's identical to the Fighter table, and so the Fighter table will serve perfectly well all the way to level 36. Thus, only levels in which the Halfling gains or improves abilities are detailed in the table below. Hiding skills are standardized to use d% for both wilderness and dungeon.
Level Abilities Hiding: Wilderness# Dungeon#
1 -2 AC bonus vs. large, +1 to hit with missiles 50% 30%
2 55% 32%
3 60% 35%
4 64% 37%
5 68% 39%
6 72% 41%
7 76% 43%
8 +2 to hit with missiles 80% 45%
9 84% 47%
10 Half damage from magic, save for 1/4 88% 49%
11 91% 50%
12 Evasion*, Goad** 93% 51%
13 95% 52%
14 -3 AC bonus vs. large opponents 97% 53%
15 98% 54%
16 99% 55%
18 Half damage from dragon breath, save for 1/4
24 Two attacks per round@
27 -4 AC bonus vs. large opponents
30 +3 to hit with missiles
33 +4 to hit with missiles
36 -5 AC bonus vs. large opponents
* The halfling foregoes all attacks and spends the round evading the attacks of opponents. All attacks against the character are at -4 to hit. This does stack with the usual bonuses against creatures larger than man-sized.
** Rather than attacking with his or her own weapon, the halfling attempts to turn a large opponent's strength against it by getting so close to the opponent as to make any attack against the halfling risk hitting the attacker itself instead. The halfling rolls an unmodified attack vs. AC 5 to get close to a vulnerable spot and maintain a position there. This could be actually clinging to the opponent, or simply darting in and sheltering beneath its bulk, so close that it can't get a clear swing in. Each attack directed at the halfling, whether by the primary opponent or another, is made at a penalty of -2. If the halfling is hit, he takes normal damage, and is dislodged from his position, ending the Goad maneuver. On a miss, a new attack is rolled with no penalty against the primary opponent, causing full damage to the opponent if it hits. The Goad continues until the halfling is hit, makes a direct attack, or moves away from the opponent.
For example, a halfling fighting two giants uses a Goad maneuver and latches herself onto one's thigh. It foolishly swings its club at her and misses, so it must roll again against its own AC. It hits and damages itself. Its partner also swings at the pesky halfling and misses, thus the second giant ends up attacking the first as well. During the next round, the first giant lands a successful attack on the halfling, so her Goad is ended, and the second giant may attack her normally.
If the opponent does not attempt to attack the halfling before the halfling's next combat action, the halfling may attack with a +4 bonus due to its advantageous position. Note that a smart opponent may minimize the risk to itself by using grappling attacks to grab the offending halfling rather than swinging deadly weapons dangerously near its own body.
# Maximum hiding ability is reached at level 16.
@ Multiple attacks may be applied to sling, short bow, and thrown missiles as well as melee attacks.
Saving throws
Halfling saving throws are identical to those of the Dwarf class. Suggestions for handling high level Halfling saves are the same as for Dwarves, here.
Showing posts with label levels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label levels. Show all posts
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Breaking the limits: Elves
Continuing my project to rebuild the race-as-class demihumans of classic D&D to operate on the same framework of level advancement as the human classes, and at the same time distinguish them...I give you the Elf.
The Elf class as written, Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer editions
Hit Dice: d6 (+2 hp at 10th level)
Armor: Any, may use shields
Weapons: Any
Special abilities: Magic spells, infravision 60' range, immune to ghoul paralysis, find secret doors 2 in 6, bonus languages
Base XP: 4,000
Maximum level: 10
Beyond max level: Attack Ranks allow the elf to improve attack rolls up to the equivalent of Fighter level 25-27. Also high level combat options for fighters, multiple attacks, and half damage from dragon breath.
The Elf is a versatile and formidable character combining most of the abilities of the fighter and magic-user classes. Other than the level limit, the only balancing factor is the high XP requirement for advancement - twice that of the fighter class or 1.6 times that of the magic-user. Because of this, an elf character often lags a level or two behind the other members of an adventuring party. Fighters, dwarves, and even halflings are likely to have a full hit die or more over the party elf, and so are more capable of taking on high-risk opponents in melee. The magic-user is going to get the big bang spells well before the elf (20,000 XP to reach 5th level for the M-U vs. 32,000 for the elf.) On the other hand, the elf's armor and superior hit points make him a little more likely to survive to that level. Sometimes slow and steady really does win the race.
The Elf, revised
Looking at a class that offers the best of both worlds of fighter and magic-user, and a healthy smattering of perks on top of that, the first impulse is to tone it down considerably. I'm a bit reluctant to do that, though, for a couple reasons. One is that in most of the literary and mythic references, elves are held in awe by humans, so my impression is that they're supposed to be powerful. The other is that what I'm after is not absolute parity of power between the classes, but a unique experience and valid reasons for playing each one.
That said, I'm not aware of any source material in which elves can see in total darkness, so infravision could be jettisoned without a drastic reimagining of the Elf archetype. At most, elves are supposed to have sharper vision than humans, and to see better in low light like a moonlit night, not actual dark-vision. The bonus for finding secret doors represents that well enough.
Another way to differentiate the Elf from the Magic-user would be with modified spell lists. The Elves of Alfheim Gazetteer (GAZ5) has such a list. The Tall Tales of the Wee Folk supplement (PC1) has a list of Fairy Charms that would also serve nicely, and the free Companion Expansion from Barrataria Games has a "wildwood elf" class that uses the same spells as its druid class and would work nicely for the B/X elf as well. If none of those lists really feels right, the easiest solution while staying true to the archetype would be to simply delete all spells that cause direct harm to a target creature, either through points of damage (magic missile, fireball, etc.) or otherwise (death spell, cloudkill, power word kill, and so on.) This reserves the "weapon of mass destruction" role almost exclusively to the magic-user class.
Between those tweaks and the class's high XP requirements, I'd consider that done, but if that's not far enough for your taste, use the Cleric/Thief combat tables rather than the Fighter one. Unless you're operating on a very Tolkienesque vision of elf as legendary warrior, blunting its combat progression a little doesn't strain the archetype at all.
Higher Levels
Up until 10th level, an elf character is considered to be "finding himself," exploring his affinities for both magic and physical combat. At level 10, the elf must decide which vocation to pursue seriously. Either path uses the same XP table. An elf choosing combat as his or her primary vocation continues to advance on the Fighter combat matrix and gains 2 hp per level. An elf choosing magic continues to advance on the Magic-user spell table, and on the Magic-user combat table once that exceeds the skill of a 10th-level fighter (which occurs at level 21 in the Mentzer Companion attack matrix), and gains 1 hp per level.
Note that the Elf Warrior is still able to cast spells up to the 10th level of ability, and the Elf Wizard is still able to use weapons and wear armor.
The special abilities listed below apply only to Elf Warriors. Use the standard Magic-user spell tables for Elf Wizards.
XP Level
600,000 10
800,000 11
1,000,000 12 Parry,* Disarm.**
1,200,000 13
1,400,000 14
1,600,000 15
1,800,000 16
2,000,000 17
2,200,000 18 Two attacks per round.***
2,400,000 19
2,600,000 20
2,800,000 21 Half damage from breath weapons, save for 1/4.
3,000,000 22
3,200,000 23
3,400,000 24
3,600,000 25
3,800,000 26
4,000,000 27
4,200,000 28
4,400,000 29
4,600,000 30 Three attacks per round.***
4,800,000 31
5,000,000 32
5,200,000 33
5,400,000 34
5,600,000 35
5,800,000 36
* The Elf Warrior may forego one attack per round in order to block a single incoming attack with a weapon held in hand. The parry requires a successful saving throw vs. Death Ray. On a made save, the attack is deflected and causes no damage. Attacks from creatures larger than an ogre may not be parried in this way.
** A Disarm attempt requires a standard attack roll. If the attack hits, the target must save vs. Paralysis. If the save is missed, the target drops its weapon. Unarmed opponents may not be disarmed. Disarming an opponent wielding a two-handed weapon requires two consecutive successful disarm attempts, i.e. two in the same round or one at the end of a round and another at the beginning of the next round.
(Parry and Disarm are variations on the Fighter Combat Options of the same names from the official Companion Set; if desired, use those mechanics unaltered rather than the ones given here. Elves under these rules do NOT gain the Smash option.)
*** To reflect the perception of Elves as graceful beings, multiple attacks are possible only with a one-handed, non-bludgeoning weapon. Multiple attacks can be applied to long or short bows as well, to simulate the Elf's fabled skill at archery.
Saving Throws
I strongly prefer the B/X saving throw progression over the Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia tables, as it leaves a lot more room for improvement after level 10. For Elf Warriors, use either the 10th level Elf saving throw or the Fighter save for the character's actual level, whichever is better. Elf Wizards use Elf or Magic-user saves, again, whichever is better. (As far as Fighter and Magic-user saving throw tables, I prefer the ones from The B/X Companion over the official tables given in the TSR Companion and Master sets or the Rules Cyclopedia.)
The Elf class as written, Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer editions
Hit Dice: d6 (+2 hp at 10th level)
Armor: Any, may use shields
Weapons: Any
Special abilities: Magic spells, infravision 60' range, immune to ghoul paralysis, find secret doors 2 in 6, bonus languages
Base XP: 4,000
Maximum level: 10
Beyond max level: Attack Ranks allow the elf to improve attack rolls up to the equivalent of Fighter level 25-27. Also high level combat options for fighters, multiple attacks, and half damage from dragon breath.
The Elf is a versatile and formidable character combining most of the abilities of the fighter and magic-user classes. Other than the level limit, the only balancing factor is the high XP requirement for advancement - twice that of the fighter class or 1.6 times that of the magic-user. Because of this, an elf character often lags a level or two behind the other members of an adventuring party. Fighters, dwarves, and even halflings are likely to have a full hit die or more over the party elf, and so are more capable of taking on high-risk opponents in melee. The magic-user is going to get the big bang spells well before the elf (20,000 XP to reach 5th level for the M-U vs. 32,000 for the elf.) On the other hand, the elf's armor and superior hit points make him a little more likely to survive to that level. Sometimes slow and steady really does win the race.
The Elf, revised
Looking at a class that offers the best of both worlds of fighter and magic-user, and a healthy smattering of perks on top of that, the first impulse is to tone it down considerably. I'm a bit reluctant to do that, though, for a couple reasons. One is that in most of the literary and mythic references, elves are held in awe by humans, so my impression is that they're supposed to be powerful. The other is that what I'm after is not absolute parity of power between the classes, but a unique experience and valid reasons for playing each one.
That said, I'm not aware of any source material in which elves can see in total darkness, so infravision could be jettisoned without a drastic reimagining of the Elf archetype. At most, elves are supposed to have sharper vision than humans, and to see better in low light like a moonlit night, not actual dark-vision. The bonus for finding secret doors represents that well enough.
Another way to differentiate the Elf from the Magic-user would be with modified spell lists. The Elves of Alfheim Gazetteer (GAZ5) has such a list. The Tall Tales of the Wee Folk supplement (PC1) has a list of Fairy Charms that would also serve nicely, and the free Companion Expansion from Barrataria Games has a "wildwood elf" class that uses the same spells as its druid class and would work nicely for the B/X elf as well. If none of those lists really feels right, the easiest solution while staying true to the archetype would be to simply delete all spells that cause direct harm to a target creature, either through points of damage (magic missile, fireball, etc.) or otherwise (death spell, cloudkill, power word kill, and so on.) This reserves the "weapon of mass destruction" role almost exclusively to the magic-user class.
Between those tweaks and the class's high XP requirements, I'd consider that done, but if that's not far enough for your taste, use the Cleric/Thief combat tables rather than the Fighter one. Unless you're operating on a very Tolkienesque vision of elf as legendary warrior, blunting its combat progression a little doesn't strain the archetype at all.
Higher Levels
Up until 10th level, an elf character is considered to be "finding himself," exploring his affinities for both magic and physical combat. At level 10, the elf must decide which vocation to pursue seriously. Either path uses the same XP table. An elf choosing combat as his or her primary vocation continues to advance on the Fighter combat matrix and gains 2 hp per level. An elf choosing magic continues to advance on the Magic-user spell table, and on the Magic-user combat table once that exceeds the skill of a 10th-level fighter (which occurs at level 21 in the Mentzer Companion attack matrix), and gains 1 hp per level.
Note that the Elf Warrior is still able to cast spells up to the 10th level of ability, and the Elf Wizard is still able to use weapons and wear armor.
The special abilities listed below apply only to Elf Warriors. Use the standard Magic-user spell tables for Elf Wizards.
XP Level
600,000 10
800,000 11
1,000,000 12 Parry,* Disarm.**
1,200,000 13
1,400,000 14
1,600,000 15
1,800,000 16
2,000,000 17
2,200,000 18 Two attacks per round.***
2,400,000 19
2,600,000 20
2,800,000 21 Half damage from breath weapons, save for 1/4.
3,000,000 22
3,200,000 23
3,400,000 24
3,600,000 25
3,800,000 26
4,000,000 27
4,200,000 28
4,400,000 29
4,600,000 30 Three attacks per round.***
4,800,000 31
5,000,000 32
5,200,000 33
5,400,000 34
5,600,000 35
5,800,000 36
* The Elf Warrior may forego one attack per round in order to block a single incoming attack with a weapon held in hand. The parry requires a successful saving throw vs. Death Ray. On a made save, the attack is deflected and causes no damage. Attacks from creatures larger than an ogre may not be parried in this way.
** A Disarm attempt requires a standard attack roll. If the attack hits, the target must save vs. Paralysis. If the save is missed, the target drops its weapon. Unarmed opponents may not be disarmed. Disarming an opponent wielding a two-handed weapon requires two consecutive successful disarm attempts, i.e. two in the same round or one at the end of a round and another at the beginning of the next round.
(Parry and Disarm are variations on the Fighter Combat Options of the same names from the official Companion Set; if desired, use those mechanics unaltered rather than the ones given here. Elves under these rules do NOT gain the Smash option.)
*** To reflect the perception of Elves as graceful beings, multiple attacks are possible only with a one-handed, non-bludgeoning weapon. Multiple attacks can be applied to long or short bows as well, to simulate the Elf's fabled skill at archery.
Saving Throws
I strongly prefer the B/X saving throw progression over the Mentzer/Rules Cyclopedia tables, as it leaves a lot more room for improvement after level 10. For Elf Warriors, use either the 10th level Elf saving throw or the Fighter save for the character's actual level, whichever is better. Elf Wizards use Elf or Magic-user saves, again, whichever is better. (As far as Fighter and Magic-user saving throw tables, I prefer the ones from The B/X Companion over the official tables given in the TSR Companion and Master sets or the Rules Cyclopedia.)
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Breaking the limits: Dwarves
Since this is the first post in this little mini-series, let me state right up front what I'm going for. My objective is a retool of the classic demi-human race/classes so that they're balanced with the human classes at all levels. By "balanced" I don't mean, for example, that the dwarf class should be exactly equal in power with the fighter class, but that playing a dwarf should be a distinctly different experience, rather than just a fighter with a few extra perks. Demi-humans in high level play should still advance in honest-to-Bob levels, not with clumsy kludges like Attack Ranks.
The Dwarf class as written (Moldvay and Mentzer editions)
Hit Dice: d8 (+3 hp per level after 9th)
Armor: Any; may use shields
Weapons: Any except long bow, two-handed sword
Special abilities: Infravision 60' range, 2 in 6 chance to detect slanting passages, traps, new construction, and shifting walls in underground settings, improved saving throws, bonus languages
Base XP: 2,200 (equivalent to fighter +10%)
Maximum level: 12
Beyond maximum level (Mentzer edition): Advancement in Attack Ranks which improve attack rolls in steps, reaching equivalent of Fighter level 25-27, multiple attacks and combat options for high level fighters, half damage from damage-causing spells and magical effects
A freshly rolled-up dwarf character can do just about everything a human fighter can do, with the exception of using a few large weapons. With racial special abilities and better saving throws, the dwarf is the objectively superior character, at least in terms of game mechanics.
The Dwarf, revised
The dwarf class badly needs some tweaks to make it more than just "Fighter Plus."
The most obvious difference that comes to mind is in size and proportion. A dwarf's short stocky frame is built for endurance, not for speed nor athletic feats. A dwarf's base movement rate is 90'(30'). A dwarf character moves as if his or her encumbrance is one category heavier than it actually is, with a minimum of 30'(10'). Additionally, a dwarf can jump only half as far as a similarly encumbered human character, however high or far that is in your campaign. (I have it on good authority that they do not suffer themselves to be tossed, either.)
Dwarves can't mount steeds larger than a pony or donkey without assistance, and can't comfortably ride a war horse. I've seen this alluded to in a few sources, but so far as I know it's never been codified into an actual rule in classic D&D or its clones, so...here it is.
Those factors, plus the 10% XP penalty of the dwarf class relative to the fighter, differentiates the two enough for my taste. If desired, though, a further handicap can be added which is an outgrowth of dwarves' resistance to magic: A dwarf character could be required to fail a save vs. spells in order for beneficial magical effects, including spells, items, and potions, to have full effect. Making the save halves the duration. (This has no effect on magics whose duration is either instantaneous or permanent, such as a healing spell or gauntlets of ogre power.) This means that the more levels a dwarf character gains, and the more its natural magic resistance tends to counter beneficial magic too.
Higher levels
Unfortunately, the similarity between dwarves and fighters at low levels has been extended at high levels. Rather than allowing the two to grow apart, the official rules just give the dwarf the same suite of new abilities that they give the fighter. I've left a few of the fighter abilities to preserve the dwarf's warrior role in an adventuring party, while expanding upon some other archetypal traits.
Dwarves above 9th level with this option gain 2 hp rather than 3. Level advancement and additional abilities are as follows:
920,000 14
1,050,000 15 Metal sense improves to 3 in 6.
1,180,000 16
1,310,000 17
1,440,000 18 Magical attacks do 1/2 damage, save for 1/4. Detection improves to 4 in 6.
1,570,000 19
1,700,000 20
1,830,000 21 Two attacks per round.
1,960,000 22
2,090,000 23
2,220,000 24 Detection improves to 5 in 6.
2,350,000 25
2,480,000 26
2,610,000 27 Metal sense improves to 4 in 6.
2,740,000 28
2,870,000 29
3,000,000 30 Detection improves to 7 in 8
3,130,000 31
3,260,000 32
3,390,000 33 Metal sense improves to 5 in 6.
3,520,000 34
3,650,000 35
3,780,000 36 Metal sense improves to 7 in 8.
* The affinity that dwarves feel for precious metals is not merely psychological but physical as well. For the average dwarf this attraction is instinctive and unconscious, but dwarves of name level and above become consciously aware of this "sixth sense." The dwarf must concentrate for a full turn to use the ability, but it cannot be blocked except by magic. Within 5' this detection takes only one round, and the dwarf can distinguish between different kinds of metals and even alloys. Even with only very casual inspection, it's near impossible to fool a high level dwarf with debased coins or other inferior alloys.
** A dwarf wielding a weapon in both hands (including one-handed weapons with long hafts that can be gripped in two hands, like maces and war hammers) can deliver a crushing blow by taking a -4 penalty to the attack roll and a +4 penalty to AC. If the attack hits, the dwarf adds his or her entire Strength score, rather than the Strength adjustment, to the damage rolled. The manuever may be attempted with a weapon wielded one-handed, but only half the Strength score is added to damage. (This is a modified version of the maneuver of the same name in the official Companion Set. Use that iteration instead, if you prefer. Dwarves do NOT receive the other Fighter combat options under these rules.)
Saving Throws
I highly prefer the saving throw progression from the Moldvay Basic Rules, which starts dwarves off at values of 10-11-12-13-14 (poison/death ray, magic wands, paralysis/petrification, dragon breath, and rod/staff/spell, respectively) from which JB extrapolates in his B/X Companion, instead of the 8-9-10-13-12 which inexplicably shows up in Cook Expert and persists in the Mentzer edition rules.
With the B/X Companion, just use the numbers provided, with the two bumps after level 12 occurring at levels 18 and 30. If you're using Cook Expert or Mentzer tables, subtract 1 from each category at level 18. At level 30 and above, all saving throw values are 2.
That's it (for now) for dwarves. Next up: The elf class gets a makeover.
The Dwarf class as written (Moldvay and Mentzer editions)
Hit Dice: d8 (+3 hp per level after 9th)
Armor: Any; may use shields
Weapons: Any except long bow, two-handed sword
Special abilities: Infravision 60' range, 2 in 6 chance to detect slanting passages, traps, new construction, and shifting walls in underground settings, improved saving throws, bonus languages
Base XP: 2,200 (equivalent to fighter +10%)
Maximum level: 12
Beyond maximum level (Mentzer edition): Advancement in Attack Ranks which improve attack rolls in steps, reaching equivalent of Fighter level 25-27, multiple attacks and combat options for high level fighters, half damage from damage-causing spells and magical effects
A freshly rolled-up dwarf character can do just about everything a human fighter can do, with the exception of using a few large weapons. With racial special abilities and better saving throws, the dwarf is the objectively superior character, at least in terms of game mechanics.
The Dwarf, revised
The dwarf class badly needs some tweaks to make it more than just "Fighter Plus."
The most obvious difference that comes to mind is in size and proportion. A dwarf's short stocky frame is built for endurance, not for speed nor athletic feats. A dwarf's base movement rate is 90'(30'). A dwarf character moves as if his or her encumbrance is one category heavier than it actually is, with a minimum of 30'(10'). Additionally, a dwarf can jump only half as far as a similarly encumbered human character, however high or far that is in your campaign. (I have it on good authority that they do not suffer themselves to be tossed, either.)
Dwarves can't mount steeds larger than a pony or donkey without assistance, and can't comfortably ride a war horse. I've seen this alluded to in a few sources, but so far as I know it's never been codified into an actual rule in classic D&D or its clones, so...here it is.
Those factors, plus the 10% XP penalty of the dwarf class relative to the fighter, differentiates the two enough for my taste. If desired, though, a further handicap can be added which is an outgrowth of dwarves' resistance to magic: A dwarf character could be required to fail a save vs. spells in order for beneficial magical effects, including spells, items, and potions, to have full effect. Making the save halves the duration. (This has no effect on magics whose duration is either instantaneous or permanent, such as a healing spell or gauntlets of ogre power.) This means that the more levels a dwarf character gains, and the more its natural magic resistance tends to counter beneficial magic too.
Higher levels
Unfortunately, the similarity between dwarves and fighters at low levels has been extended at high levels. Rather than allowing the two to grow apart, the official rules just give the dwarf the same suite of new abilities that they give the fighter. I've left a few of the fighter abilities to preserve the dwarf's warrior role in an adventuring party, while expanding upon some other archetypal traits.
Dwarves above 9th level with this option gain 2 hp rather than 3. Level advancement and additional abilities are as follows:
XP Level Notes
270,000 9 Gains ability to sense precious metals within 100', 2 in 6 chance.*
400,000 10
530,000 11
660,000 12 Detection abilities improve to 3 in 6. Smash attack.**
790,000 13920,000 14
1,050,000 15 Metal sense improves to 3 in 6.
1,180,000 16
1,310,000 17
1,440,000 18 Magical attacks do 1/2 damage, save for 1/4. Detection improves to 4 in 6.
1,570,000 19
1,700,000 20
1,830,000 21 Two attacks per round.
1,960,000 22
2,090,000 23
2,220,000 24 Detection improves to 5 in 6.
2,350,000 25
2,480,000 26
2,610,000 27 Metal sense improves to 4 in 6.
2,740,000 28
2,870,000 29
3,000,000 30 Detection improves to 7 in 8
3,130,000 31
3,260,000 32
3,390,000 33 Metal sense improves to 5 in 6.
3,520,000 34
3,650,000 35
3,780,000 36 Metal sense improves to 7 in 8.
* The affinity that dwarves feel for precious metals is not merely psychological but physical as well. For the average dwarf this attraction is instinctive and unconscious, but dwarves of name level and above become consciously aware of this "sixth sense." The dwarf must concentrate for a full turn to use the ability, but it cannot be blocked except by magic. Within 5' this detection takes only one round, and the dwarf can distinguish between different kinds of metals and even alloys. Even with only very casual inspection, it's near impossible to fool a high level dwarf with debased coins or other inferior alloys.
** A dwarf wielding a weapon in both hands (including one-handed weapons with long hafts that can be gripped in two hands, like maces and war hammers) can deliver a crushing blow by taking a -4 penalty to the attack roll and a +4 penalty to AC. If the attack hits, the dwarf adds his or her entire Strength score, rather than the Strength adjustment, to the damage rolled. The manuever may be attempted with a weapon wielded one-handed, but only half the Strength score is added to damage. (This is a modified version of the maneuver of the same name in the official Companion Set. Use that iteration instead, if you prefer. Dwarves do NOT receive the other Fighter combat options under these rules.)
Saving Throws
I highly prefer the saving throw progression from the Moldvay Basic Rules, which starts dwarves off at values of 10-11-12-13-14 (poison/death ray, magic wands, paralysis/petrification, dragon breath, and rod/staff/spell, respectively) from which JB extrapolates in his B/X Companion, instead of the 8-9-10-13-12 which inexplicably shows up in Cook Expert and persists in the Mentzer edition rules.
With the B/X Companion, just use the numbers provided, with the two bumps after level 12 occurring at levels 18 and 30. If you're using Cook Expert or Mentzer tables, subtract 1 from each category at level 18. At level 30 and above, all saving throw values are 2.
That's it (for now) for dwarves. Next up: The elf class gets a makeover.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Demi-human levels
Well, here's a topic that hasn't been done to death, huh? And not controversial in the least! To limit, or not to limit, that is the question!
First, in the interest of full disclosure: I love demi-humans. Yes, even halflings. Alright, especially halflings. For myself, I find the standard arguments in favor of level limits to be unconvincing at best, and completely off the mark at worst.
Balancing special abilities and perks: In campaigns that don't advance to high levels, level limits are obviously a moot point. When a campaign does run into epic levels, demi-humans are quickly outclassed by their human counterparts. Perhaps even worse, there's nothing left for them to look forward to, no greater heights to strive after. They just hit the wall, and that's it. It's a two-wrongs-make-a-right theory of game design, and there's nothing of balance in it. There's simply an imbalance at low levels, and an imbalance in the opposite direction at high levels.
Maintaining a human-centric focus in the campaign: Using level limts for this purpose seems like a jerk move to me, a way to weasel around just barring non-human PCs outright. It's perfectly legit to run a campaign for human characters only if that's your bag. And if it is, why compromise in a way that really satisfies neither your desire for a human-based campaign nor the player's desire to run a non-human character? There are other ways to limit non-human PCs, using diegetic and role-playing means rather than dissuading players from choosing them by capping their levels. Some referees allow only human PCs at the start of a campaign, and then allow the players to "unlock" new races as the party establishes contact with non-human populations. Even if demi-human PCs are allowed from the start, the campaign can be steered into a more or less human-centric track by playing up the prejudices and misconceptions that demi-humans would endure in an overwhelmingly human population. This is certainly a hindrance, and maybe a deterrent to some players, but it's something that a player can work with if he or she choose to take on that role, not a hard-and-fast cap on how good their characters can become.
Maintaining the supremacy of the human race in the campaign world: It's sometimes argued that the extremely long-lived demi-humans, having so many more years to gain experience, would vastly overpower the humans. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that a greater proportion of them will take up adventuring careers and attain high levels. Most dwarves, elves, and halflings are going to be unexceptional farmers, laborers, and crafters who will never see Level 2, just like most humans. Among those who do, the mortality rates are going to be pretty close to what they are for humans, and the longer an adventuring career continues, the greater the cumulative chance of it ending badly. A 25th level elf has about the same chance of dying while trying to reach level 26 as a 25th level human fighter. The members of those species who are most likely to live out those long life spans are precisely the ones who don't go chasing dragons for fun and profit.
If the overall balance of power in the campaign is still a concern, there's no reason why you can't decide that the long-lived races tend to lose interest in improving their class skills over the decades or centuries. It may be prevalent in the halfling spirit to give in to the lure of hearth and home around level 8 or so. Perhaps the average elf tires of violence and strife relatively quickly, and turns to a life of song and merriment or quiet contemplation of nature. Dwarven adventurers may succumb to their inborn urge to craft things of lasting beauty and trade in the battle axe for a smith's hammer. Defining demi-human cultures this way can not only help to explain the relative power and prestige of the races in the campaign but add color and life as well. What it shouldn't do is straitjacket player characters, who are, whether human or demi-human, fundamentally exceptional examples of their kind. It should define the behavior of NPCs, not player characters. It's essentially the referee telling the player, "Your character wouldn't do that."
There is one possible justification for level limits I can think of that does have some merit. It doesn't apply to classic D&D with race-as-class demi-humans, but it's worth mentioniong anyway.
Curbing min-maxing behavior: When race and class are separate, and thus demi-human characters choose from the same set of classes as humans, there could be a tendency to choose the race that's naturally superior in a given class. This is probably exacerbated by a system that differentiates races by adjustments to ability scores, and further if an "arrange to taste" method of ability score generation is used. If you have the choice to play your preferred class as a human with no adjustments, or as another race that gets a bonus to the class's prime requisite at the cost of a point or two from another less important ability, who's going to choose human? A hard limit on level advancement, though...that stings a bit, and makes the choice far less obvious. I'm still not saying it's a good reason for level limits. There are certainly better ways of going about balancing the races than that.
I do understand the need, even in a race-as-class system like B/X, to make playing a demi-human really feel different. I'll grant that level limits do that. Knowing that your dwarf is going to hit the wall at 12th level really does give it a different feel from playing a fighter. I just don't think it's the best way to accomplish even such a worthy goal as that, either.
Over the next few posts, I'm going to take a look at ways of breaking the level limits without breaking the game, and make playing a dwarf, elf, or halfling character feel special and different from the human archetypes sometimes associated with them.
First, in the interest of full disclosure: I love demi-humans. Yes, even halflings. Alright, especially halflings. For myself, I find the standard arguments in favor of level limits to be unconvincing at best, and completely off the mark at worst.
Balancing special abilities and perks: In campaigns that don't advance to high levels, level limits are obviously a moot point. When a campaign does run into epic levels, demi-humans are quickly outclassed by their human counterparts. Perhaps even worse, there's nothing left for them to look forward to, no greater heights to strive after. They just hit the wall, and that's it. It's a two-wrongs-make-a-right theory of game design, and there's nothing of balance in it. There's simply an imbalance at low levels, and an imbalance in the opposite direction at high levels.
Maintaining a human-centric focus in the campaign: Using level limts for this purpose seems like a jerk move to me, a way to weasel around just barring non-human PCs outright. It's perfectly legit to run a campaign for human characters only if that's your bag. And if it is, why compromise in a way that really satisfies neither your desire for a human-based campaign nor the player's desire to run a non-human character? There are other ways to limit non-human PCs, using diegetic and role-playing means rather than dissuading players from choosing them by capping their levels. Some referees allow only human PCs at the start of a campaign, and then allow the players to "unlock" new races as the party establishes contact with non-human populations. Even if demi-human PCs are allowed from the start, the campaign can be steered into a more or less human-centric track by playing up the prejudices and misconceptions that demi-humans would endure in an overwhelmingly human population. This is certainly a hindrance, and maybe a deterrent to some players, but it's something that a player can work with if he or she choose to take on that role, not a hard-and-fast cap on how good their characters can become.
Maintaining the supremacy of the human race in the campaign world: It's sometimes argued that the extremely long-lived demi-humans, having so many more years to gain experience, would vastly overpower the humans. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that a greater proportion of them will take up adventuring careers and attain high levels. Most dwarves, elves, and halflings are going to be unexceptional farmers, laborers, and crafters who will never see Level 2, just like most humans. Among those who do, the mortality rates are going to be pretty close to what they are for humans, and the longer an adventuring career continues, the greater the cumulative chance of it ending badly. A 25th level elf has about the same chance of dying while trying to reach level 26 as a 25th level human fighter. The members of those species who are most likely to live out those long life spans are precisely the ones who don't go chasing dragons for fun and profit.
If the overall balance of power in the campaign is still a concern, there's no reason why you can't decide that the long-lived races tend to lose interest in improving their class skills over the decades or centuries. It may be prevalent in the halfling spirit to give in to the lure of hearth and home around level 8 or so. Perhaps the average elf tires of violence and strife relatively quickly, and turns to a life of song and merriment or quiet contemplation of nature. Dwarven adventurers may succumb to their inborn urge to craft things of lasting beauty and trade in the battle axe for a smith's hammer. Defining demi-human cultures this way can not only help to explain the relative power and prestige of the races in the campaign but add color and life as well. What it shouldn't do is straitjacket player characters, who are, whether human or demi-human, fundamentally exceptional examples of their kind. It should define the behavior of NPCs, not player characters. It's essentially the referee telling the player, "Your character wouldn't do that."
There is one possible justification for level limits I can think of that does have some merit. It doesn't apply to classic D&D with race-as-class demi-humans, but it's worth mentioniong anyway.
Curbing min-maxing behavior: When race and class are separate, and thus demi-human characters choose from the same set of classes as humans, there could be a tendency to choose the race that's naturally superior in a given class. This is probably exacerbated by a system that differentiates races by adjustments to ability scores, and further if an "arrange to taste" method of ability score generation is used. If you have the choice to play your preferred class as a human with no adjustments, or as another race that gets a bonus to the class's prime requisite at the cost of a point or two from another less important ability, who's going to choose human? A hard limit on level advancement, though...that stings a bit, and makes the choice far less obvious. I'm still not saying it's a good reason for level limits. There are certainly better ways of going about balancing the races than that.
I do understand the need, even in a race-as-class system like B/X, to make playing a demi-human really feel different. I'll grant that level limits do that. Knowing that your dwarf is going to hit the wall at 12th level really does give it a different feel from playing a fighter. I just don't think it's the best way to accomplish even such a worthy goal as that, either.
Over the next few posts, I'm going to take a look at ways of breaking the level limits without breaking the game, and make playing a dwarf, elf, or halfling character feel special and different from the human archetypes sometimes associated with them.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Why I hate character customization options
If you've played D&D very long, and I assume anyone reading this blog has more than passing familiarity with the game, you probably know what I mean by character customization. Both Classic and Advanced D&D spawned a seemingly endless series of supplemental materials brimming with new classes, sub-classes, kits, skills, weapon mastery, combat maneuvers, character backgrounds, etc, etc, etc.
I understand the desire to play a particular sort of character. A good deal of the fun of D&D is in fleshing out your character and making him or her unique. Where I disagree is the notion that every variation on an archetype must be codified in game mechanics.
In the first place, all those extra classes, sub-classes, kits, and what-have-you rarely or never add anything truly unique to the character creation and development options. A swashbuckler, an archer, a barbarian, and a soldier all fit squarely within the fighter archetype. All can be realized in game simply by equipping and playing a fighter character in a fitting way.
Given that, why the enthusiasm for mechanically distinguishing sub-classes? My hypothesis is that it's a convenient excuse to hand out bonuses. Far more often than not, customization options, in game mechanic terms, are little more than bundles of bonuses. Attack or damage bonuses with certain weapons or in certain situations, defensive bonuses, hit point bonuses, saving throw bonuses, movement bonuses, bonus spells, bonus skills - you name it, there's probably a specialty class or an optional skill that grants it.
But why give players extra perks for playing their characters as they would have anyway? If I want my fighter to be a barbarian, he's going to use an axe whether or not he gets +1 to hit with it. If I want to be a swashbuckler, I'll deal with the disadvantages of light armor and play up the advantages, rather than demand an AC bonus while lightly armored. I don't need bonus spells to have my magic-user learn and memorize fire spells to play a fire mage, nor do I need special powers to play a cleric as a witch hunter or a scholarly monk.
True, you may say, it's possible to differentiate characters that way, but what's wrong with distinguishing them with special bonuses? Shouldn't a professional archer be a better shot with a bow than a plain old fighter? I have two answers to those objections. Firstly, it's a step down the road toward what I might call combat inflation. By name level, if not before, a fighter is already able to hit pretty much any AC more often than not, especially if he's got a strength bonus and a magic weapon. That +1 bonus may seem small by itself, but they add up, especially if you allow multiple modes of customization to stack. Add ability score adjustments to the mix, and you're looking at a character that's hitting a lot more often than the baseline for someone of his class and level. The inevitable breakdown in the rules that creeps in at high levels is brought a step nearer.
Secondly, by asserting that an archer should be better at archery than a vanilla fighting man, we're moving the game away from a class and level-based system and toward a skill-based one. Skill-based games are fine if that's what you like, but bolting it onto the class and level system creates some problems and redundancies. In the class and level system, a character's competency in all areas is represented more abstractly. Level advancement models the character's increasing skill generally, implicitly encompassing skill with all weapons and techniques he can employ. A skill-based system attempts a more granular approach; instead of a general aggregate of skills, it aims at tracking each individual skill separately.
It's not unrealistic to suppose that a fighter might train more intensively with a bow, and less with other weapons, but bolting on elements of a skill system to a class and level system doesn't model this very well. The archery specialist gets his bonus with bows stacked on top of his overall skill growth represented by his level - he gets to double-dip, as it were. He has an advantage with his bow, and he can use every other weapon allowed him with all the usual proficiency of his class and level. Meanwhile, the generalist fighter gains nothing for his choice not to specialize. He's worse than the archer with bows, and no better with sword, spear, mace, or axe. The same holds true for situational bonuses - a cavalier sub-class might have a bonus fighting from horseback, making him superior to a standard fighter when mounted, and no worse on foot.
One might be tempted to solve this double-dip syndrome by imposing a penalty on non-specialty activities. Consider, though, how often a character in your game is forced to use a weapon other than his weapon of choice. Not very? Then a penalty to other weapons really doesn't balance out a bonus with a preferred weapon. As noted above, you're just granting a bonus for using the weapon the player would already choose, and penalizing others that won't be used anyway. The logical result is for everyone to play some sort of specialist, everyone gets a bonus, and the baseline level of ability gets bumped a step toward that inevitable breaking point.
All of this is not to say that I necessarily think all attempts to expand options are bad, but the urge to codify every possible variation has consequences to game play that I don't think are very often given full consideration. It may add a touch of realism and some extra bells and whistles, but at the expense of added complexity and bonus inflation that skews game balance. Is it worth it? Not to me, but of course, your mileage may vary.
I understand the desire to play a particular sort of character. A good deal of the fun of D&D is in fleshing out your character and making him or her unique. Where I disagree is the notion that every variation on an archetype must be codified in game mechanics.
In the first place, all those extra classes, sub-classes, kits, and what-have-you rarely or never add anything truly unique to the character creation and development options. A swashbuckler, an archer, a barbarian, and a soldier all fit squarely within the fighter archetype. All can be realized in game simply by equipping and playing a fighter character in a fitting way.
Given that, why the enthusiasm for mechanically distinguishing sub-classes? My hypothesis is that it's a convenient excuse to hand out bonuses. Far more often than not, customization options, in game mechanic terms, are little more than bundles of bonuses. Attack or damage bonuses with certain weapons or in certain situations, defensive bonuses, hit point bonuses, saving throw bonuses, movement bonuses, bonus spells, bonus skills - you name it, there's probably a specialty class or an optional skill that grants it.
But why give players extra perks for playing their characters as they would have anyway? If I want my fighter to be a barbarian, he's going to use an axe whether or not he gets +1 to hit with it. If I want to be a swashbuckler, I'll deal with the disadvantages of light armor and play up the advantages, rather than demand an AC bonus while lightly armored. I don't need bonus spells to have my magic-user learn and memorize fire spells to play a fire mage, nor do I need special powers to play a cleric as a witch hunter or a scholarly monk.
True, you may say, it's possible to differentiate characters that way, but what's wrong with distinguishing them with special bonuses? Shouldn't a professional archer be a better shot with a bow than a plain old fighter? I have two answers to those objections. Firstly, it's a step down the road toward what I might call combat inflation. By name level, if not before, a fighter is already able to hit pretty much any AC more often than not, especially if he's got a strength bonus and a magic weapon. That +1 bonus may seem small by itself, but they add up, especially if you allow multiple modes of customization to stack. Add ability score adjustments to the mix, and you're looking at a character that's hitting a lot more often than the baseline for someone of his class and level. The inevitable breakdown in the rules that creeps in at high levels is brought a step nearer.
Secondly, by asserting that an archer should be better at archery than a vanilla fighting man, we're moving the game away from a class and level-based system and toward a skill-based one. Skill-based games are fine if that's what you like, but bolting it onto the class and level system creates some problems and redundancies. In the class and level system, a character's competency in all areas is represented more abstractly. Level advancement models the character's increasing skill generally, implicitly encompassing skill with all weapons and techniques he can employ. A skill-based system attempts a more granular approach; instead of a general aggregate of skills, it aims at tracking each individual skill separately.
It's not unrealistic to suppose that a fighter might train more intensively with a bow, and less with other weapons, but bolting on elements of a skill system to a class and level system doesn't model this very well. The archery specialist gets his bonus with bows stacked on top of his overall skill growth represented by his level - he gets to double-dip, as it were. He has an advantage with his bow, and he can use every other weapon allowed him with all the usual proficiency of his class and level. Meanwhile, the generalist fighter gains nothing for his choice not to specialize. He's worse than the archer with bows, and no better with sword, spear, mace, or axe. The same holds true for situational bonuses - a cavalier sub-class might have a bonus fighting from horseback, making him superior to a standard fighter when mounted, and no worse on foot.
One might be tempted to solve this double-dip syndrome by imposing a penalty on non-specialty activities. Consider, though, how often a character in your game is forced to use a weapon other than his weapon of choice. Not very? Then a penalty to other weapons really doesn't balance out a bonus with a preferred weapon. As noted above, you're just granting a bonus for using the weapon the player would already choose, and penalizing others that won't be used anyway. The logical result is for everyone to play some sort of specialist, everyone gets a bonus, and the baseline level of ability gets bumped a step toward that inevitable breaking point.
All of this is not to say that I necessarily think all attempts to expand options are bad, but the urge to codify every possible variation has consequences to game play that I don't think are very often given full consideration. It may add a touch of realism and some extra bells and whistles, but at the expense of added complexity and bonus inflation that skews game balance. Is it worth it? Not to me, but of course, your mileage may vary.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)