ver 8-28-10, Tacticon 2010

[Harley Stroh]

Just back from Tacticon, 2010. I ran a total of four 4-hour sessions: 2 for 0-lvl, 2 for 3rd lvl. All PCs were generated at the table.

Some observations, and my interpretations. Feel free to organize them in a way that fosters discussion.

Magic
Overall both the wizard/elf and cleric mechanics worked really well. The players of wizards liked being able to repeat spells, and players of clerics REALLY felt a connection with their deity. This inspired a lot of roleplaying at the table. Clerics and wizards were my best roleplayers, probably because they were engaged in a dialogue with their power source: We had conversions at the table, Orcus came for one PC's soul, and by the end, unprompted by the DM, the PCs were casting their lots with a gnomish god, giving Orcus the finger and taking up arms against the god of undeath. None of this had anything to do with the adventure --- it was a natural outgrowth of the PCs, supported by the system. They were generating their own adventure by the end of the session. Also this happened in 2 different games, so I don't think it was specific to the players.

(Regret: I didn't involve patrons as much as a I did Gods. This was a lost opportunity.)

Wizard/Elves were swingy, but it didn't seem like a bad thing. I had one caster who was hot --- his magic missiles were devastating. (Really, really strong. I ended up stepping back the magic missile table by one entry.) I had another who flubbed, and lost, every spell. Overall it did seem that powerful effects were very much in reach with good roll, especially for a 3rd level caster. Should spell effects be capped? (I.e. the best you can do with a magic missile, is a roll of 25, but a fireball can get up to 30, and a ice storm 35?) I don't think so. This might be a system distinction that separates DCC RPG from the Others. What is nice is that you don't need a lot of spells when a magic missile scales from a dart to a veritable blast from the heavens. (This is reminiscent of ICE's MERP.) However, to pursue this track, we need better spell names.

Magic Vs. Might
I added the rule that if arcane spellcasters take damage in a round prior to their casting, it increases the DC of their spell check, 1 per hp taken. This was devastating to one of my villains, but also produced dynamic combat: it forced him to retreat from the battle and spend a few rounds brewing up a really powerful spell.

Warriors/thieves felt a little weak beside the casters. (Although, we never hit a corruption roll on a spell either. That might have changed my impression. Perhaps, also, the super highest spell check on an arcane spell produces devastating results AND a corruption. "You've accessed the soul of the universe! And it has torn your mortal flesh asunder!" Every caster wants to do well ... but not too well. This is inline with the design sentiment that "powerful casters fear for their souls.")

Anyhow, warrior types. I want their players to have the same sort of unpredictable "WOW, did you just see that??!!" as the casters. So I added the rule that as they went up in level, it increased their odds of a critical hit. I think I went too far, too fast (a 3rd level warrior scored a crit on a 20-17), but I would strongly advocate for a crit adjustment of some sort. (See Crits below for more thoughts.)

Also, rogues: One suggestion from the players of a rogue was to follow 3.5's rule of static additional dice damage, rather than a multiplier. The reasoning was that he didn't want the rules to encourage him to use 2-hnd swords to backstab, when a well placed dagger to the throat was really what was called for. I agree with the sentiment --- either the backstabs should do +1d6 dmg at 1st lvl, +2d6 at 2nd lvl, etc. ...

... Or they could auto crit. I like auto crit. It seems more elegant, weaving rules back into rules.

Crits
I'm rethinking crits and would like the opportunity to rewrite them altogether.

Instead of the 1d12 roll, with scaling effects, I think a bell curve is a better model. Perhaps 2d6, with the middle range doing additional damage, with the effects building to either side of the probability table (12s and 2s are instant deaths, etc). Again, I'd love a shot at rewriting this, as the old MERP tables remain close to my heart, and I'd love to honor them in spirit, though not the letter.

Character Deaths
We had a ton. Unlike my DMing in the past, I rolled out in the open (with the exception of find traps and perception rolls). It was devastating and very fun. We lost Magmar the Lucky to a writing tentacle of nothingness that unmade all it touched (Joseph, I'll send you the monster's 'stats' for review if want to include it) and it was brutal. The player had brought Magmar up from a roster of 0-lvl PCs, and when he vanished into nothingness, it made sphincters pucker and jaws drop. The player recovered, and came back with a new PC to have a phenomenal second half of the game, but he was on the edge of his seat the entire time, knowing that death drove a semi and doesn't stop for crosswalks.

Another player lost 4 PCs over the course of a 0-lvl game. He started giggling after the second death, and couldn't stop giggling after death 3 and 4. There were a few moments where I began to wonder if he (the player) was having a breakdown of some sort. It turned out he was simply really, really enjoying the game. Doug came back for another session and played the world's unluckiest wizard (missed every spell check, was knocked unconscious by a poisoned javelin) so by the end I had him rolling for the bad guys to keep him in the game.

Summary: "Roll in the open and damn the results" plays out well. It was a stretch for me, but it produced rewards. Fortunately it is fast to roll up PCs. The players take it as a real badge of honor when there is a stack of 50 blank PC sheets in the middle of the table. "We're playing this sort of game." Survival means something. (And normally, I'm the king of fudge.)

Monsters
None of my monsters had names. There were enormous rat things; crouching, naked humans in muzzles, spiked collars and leashes; reptilian men; the writhing tentacles of unmaking; a cave lizard that pulled flesh from bone with the sucker pads on his 6 legs; a priest wreathed in flames, that gouted elemental energy from his wounds; etc. Players were scared and PCs ran from encounters plenty of times. Sometimes, too often. At a table with 10 players, we had seven abandon their friends to face down the vine zombies, when --- had the party worked together --- the could have ganged up on the zombie things and prevented some deaths.

=====

...I need to go repair a canoe, but a follow up post coming later today.

//H

[goodmangames]

Magic
Overall both the wizard/elf and cleric mechanics worked really well. The players of wizards liked being able to repeat spells, and players of clerics REALLY felt a connection with their deity. This inspired a lot of roleplaying at the table. Clerics and wizards were my best roleplayers, probably because they were engaged in a dialogue with their power source: We had conversions at the table, Orcus came for one PC's soul, and by the end, unprompted by the DM, the PCs were casting their lots with a gnomish god, giving Orcus the finger and taking up arms against the god of undeath. None of this had anything to do with the adventure --- it was a natural outgrowth of the PCs, supported by the system. They were generating their own adventure by the end of the session. Also this happened in 2 different games, so I don't think it was specific to the players.

That's excellent!

Wizard/Elves were swingy, but it didn't seem like a bad thing. I had one caster who was hot --- his magic missiles were devastating. (Really, really strong. I ended up stepping back the magic missile table by one entry.) I had another who flubbed, and lost, every spell.

I've had the same thing happen...at the Anaheim mini-con, one guy managed to fail almost every spell check, and the cleric flunked 4 or 5 checks in a row, while another wizard was "hot hot hot"...

Overall it did seem that powerful effects were very much in reach with good roll, especially for a 3rd level caster. Should spell effects be capped? (I.e. the best you can do with a magic missile, is a roll of 25, but a fireball can get up to 30, and a ice storm 35?) I don't think so.

Interesting idea because I've been thinking a lot about demi-human level limits. The DCC RPG core rules only go up to level 5 so it's not relevant yet, but I've been pondering. The Appendix N reading list is OVERWHELMINGLY anthropocentric - it's all about Man. Always. I now understand why level limits exist; it's obvious once you digest a lot of that reading list. But, 35 years later, they're still hard to communicate. So what if the limits exist in the spellcasting?

Random idea: elves have a natural bonus to all spell checks (extra +1, maybe up to +2 at 3rd level) but can never achieve higher than a result of, say, 30 on any roll?

As for spells with progressively higher results, I've written a couple spells where the highest result has percentiles in it ("25% chance of X, 50% chance of Y, 25% chance of Z") which is sort of like a "higher than max" result.

In general, I like the idea of different spells having different caps because it's non-systematized and a little weird in an OD&D way. But it might be hard to execute.

Maybe something for the "advanced rules" - higher-level spell results for select spells? But not for others?

This might be a system distinction that separates DCC RPG from the Others. What is nice is that you don't need a lot of spells when a magic missile scales from a dart to a veritable blast from the heavens. (This is reminiscent of ICE's MERP.) However, to pursue this track, we need better spell names.

Early on I had very creative spell names, and it became a communications barrier with the players. I think this was at either CondorCon or GaryCon, but I assigned the spells and the players were like, "WTF??" It was basically a magic missile spell, a shield spell, etc., but everyone felt they had to read the full details to grasp it. Next game I gave out "magic missile" and explained "there's a random table that goes with it" and it went 10x faster.

There are the random visual effects for each spell, the goal of which is to allow different variations, and confuse the players - a magic missile being cast against them may resemble a swarm of meteors or a blast of cold. Maybe there should be alternate spell names to go with those?

Magic Vs. Might
I added the rule that if arcane spellcasters take damage in a round prior to their casting, it increases the DC of their spell check, 1 per hp taken. This was devastating to one of my villains, but also produced dynamic combat: it forced him to retreat from the battle and spend a few rounds brewing up a really powerful spell.

Awesome idea! It's in.

Warriors/thieves felt a little weak beside the casters.

You're right that they're definitely not as exciting. I want to capture Conan - hurling furniture, shattering doors, jumping across walls, scaling towers. But I want to avoid adding feats or anything that adds complexity, which is the challenge. Open to ideas.

(Although, we never hit a corruption roll on a spell either. That might have changed my impression. Perhaps, also, the super highest spell check on an arcane spell produces devastating results AND a corruption. "You've accessed the soul of the universe! And it has torn your mortal flesh asunder!" Every caster wants to do well ... but not too well. This is inline with the design sentiment that "powerful casters fear for their souls.")

That's the idea behind spellburn, actually -- not so much corruption, but you can sell your soul for extra power. Did anybody give spellburn a try?

Anyhow, warrior types. I want their players to have the same sort of unpredictable "WOW, did you just see that??!!" as the casters. So I added the rule that as they went up in level, it increased their odds of a critical hit. I think I went too far, too fast (a 3rd level warrior scored a crit on a 20-17), but I would strongly advocate for a crit adjustment of some sort. (See Crits below for more thoughts.)

Cool idea. Advancement is too fast (level 10 fighter = 50% chance of critical with every hit) but cool idea. But, somehow, not quite as cool as the spellcasting. What about this: what if, at each level, a fighter CHOOSES a "style" of critical? And he gets extra threat range only with that style of critical? Spitballing here...but imagine tables like this:

Head shots (any weapon)
Dismemberments (slicing weapons only)
Parries (slicing or piercing weapons only)
Ripostes (piercing weapons only)
Eviscerations (piercing weapons only)
Mighty blows (any weapon)
Paralyzing shots (piercing weapons only)
Disarming blows (any weapon)
Precise shots (bows/crossbows only)
etc.

So the fighter chooses a "critical type" (in Gygax tradition they can be Type I, Type II, Type III, etc.)...and gets a bonus threat range when using the appropriate weapon...but then MUST roll on the appropriate table? If he uses a different weapon, or opts not to use the improved threat range, he rolls on the regular table? Or 50/50 chance?? You get the idea...

Also, rogues: One suggestion from the players of a rogue was to follow 3.5's rule of static additional dice damage, rather than a multiplier. The reasoning was that he didn't want the rules to encourage him to use 2-hnd swords to backstab, when a well placed dagger to the throat was really what was called for. I agree with the sentiment --- either the backstabs should do +1d6 dmg at 1st lvl, +2d6 at 2nd lvl, etc. ...

... Or they could auto crit. I like auto crit. It seems more elegant, weaving rules back into rules.

Both good ideas. If we can work out the crits we might be onto something...maybe thieves have different crit tables? By alignment? Assassin vs. thug?

Crits
I'm rethinking crits and would like the opportunity to rewrite them altogether.

Instead of the 1d12 roll, with scaling effects, I think a bell curve is a better model. Perhaps 2d6, with the middle range doing additional damage, with the effects building to either side of the probability table (12s and 2s are instant deaths, etc). Again, I'd love a shot at rewriting this, as the old MERP tables remain close to my heart, and I'd love to honor them in spirit, though not the letter.

Assigned. Go!

Character Deaths
We had a ton. Unlike my DMing in the past, I rolled out in the open (with the exception of find traps and perception rolls). It was devastating and very fun. We lost Magmar the Lucky to a writing tentacle of nothingness that unmade all it touched (Joseph, I'll send you the monster's 'stats' for review if want to include it) and it was brutal. The player had brought Magmar up from a roster of 0-lvl PCs, and when he vanished into nothingness, it made sphincters pucker and jaws drop. The player recovered, and came back with a new PC to have a phenomenal second half of the game, but he was on the edge of his seat the entire time, knowing that death drove a semi and doesn't stop for crosswalks.

Another player lost 4 PCs over the course of a 0-lvl game. He started giggling after the second death, and couldn't stop giggling after death 3 and 4. There were a few moments where I began to wonder if he (the player) was having a breakdown of some sort. It turned out he was simply really, really enjoying the game. Doug came back for another session and played the world's unluckiest wizard (missed every spell check, was knocked unconscious by a poisoned javelin) so by the end I had him rolling for the bad guys to keep him in the game.

Summary: "Roll in the open and damn the results" plays out well. It was a stretch for me, but it produced rewards. Fortunately it is fast to roll up PCs. The players take it as a real badge of honor when there is a stack of 50 blank PC sheets in the middle of the table. "We're playing this sort of game." Survival means something. (And normally, I'm the king of fudge.)

Awesome. I've had a similar experience. The guys with lots of dead PCs always enjoy it.

Monsters
None of my monsters had names. There were enormous rat things; crouching, naked humans in muzzles, spiked collars and leashes; reptilian men; the writhing tentacles of unmaking; a cave lizard that pulled flesh from bone with the sucker pads on his 6 legs; a priest wreathed in flames, that gouted elemental energy from his wounds; etc. Players were scared and PCs ran from encounters plenty of times. Sometimes, too often. At a table with 10 players, we had seven abandon their friends to face down the vine zombies, when --- had the party worked together --- the could have ganged up on the zombie things and prevented some deaths.

AWESOME. I have had similar great experiences - I ran a group of very experienced players through Citadel of the Emerald Sorcerer, and they explicitly commented that it was "weird" and "cool" to have no idea what monsters they were facing -- unlike in 4E where they've all memorized the stats of everything.

(And the best part was about 5 rooms in when they remembered that they could search for secret doors, which they never did in 4E anymore...then they went back and searched all the previous rooms.)

Great feedback. I am glad my experiences are not just from "me" being the judge - the rules transfer. Very, very good!

Good luck with that canoe.

[Harley Stroh]

Early on I had very creative spell names, and it became a communications barrier with the players. I think this was at either CondorCon or GaryCon, but I assigned the spells and the players were like, "WTF??" It was basically a magic missile spell, a shield spell, etc., but everyone felt they had to read the full details to grasp it. Next game I gave out "magic missile" and explained "there's a random table that goes with it" and it went 10x faster.

Ah ... that makes sense. I think the mercurial magic might be sufficient.

You're right that they're definitely not as exciting. I want to capture Conan - hurling furniture, shattering doors, jumping across walls, scaling towers. But I want to avoid adding feats or anything that adds complexity, which is the challenge. Open to ideas.

Agreed. Feats aren't necessary.

By the end of the sessions, we definitely got to this point --- the dwarf took an attack for the chance of reaching, grabbing the animated skeleton king by the face and hurling him into a flaming brazier. (And, thankfully, he got a 19!)

But there were definitely times when the fighter types were only "I roll to attack." I think it can be managed by play style, through encouraging the fighter/thief types to think creatively. Perhaps a sidebar in the DM's section.

//H

[Harley Stroh]

Also came up in the session: our thief wanted to wield 2 weapons. I cribbed off of AD&D, and used the thief's agility bonuses to mitigate the penalty. It was something like -2/-5 for primary and off hand weapon when the weapons were "light" (they were both daggers). Wielding two swords would be -4/-7, and a sword/dagger combo would be -3/-6.

Now that I'm home I should take a look at what AD&D did for this.

//H

[goodmangames]

So I had a cool idea on crits, warrior abilities, and other such things.

The more I thought about having warriors choose a "style," the more I disliked it. It's too much like powers in 4E, feats in 3E, and weapon specialization in 2E. Plus there's no OD&D precedent for it - the further back you go, the LESS distinction there was was for weapons. In OD&D every weapon did 1d6 damage! I do like the idea of Rolemaster-esque crit tables, but we have to get to them a different way.

So what mechanism did exist in the olden days?

Attack matrices. The d20 system effectively eliminates their need, but if we did one for a special purpose, such as crits, it could serve as a subsystem, kind of like the spell checks. So how about this:

First, the critical hit matrix table.

Code: Select all

Cross-reference character class (Y axis) to monster’s HD (X axis) to determine critical threat range and crit table.
Class vs. Monster HD
          <1          1          2          3          4          5          6-7          8-10          11+
Wizard    20/I      20/I      20/I      20/I      N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A
Thief	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II
Cleric	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Elf	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II
Halfling	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	N/A	N/A	N/A
Dwarf 1-2	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Dwarf 3-4	19-20/III	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Dwarf 5	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 1	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 2	19-20/III	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 3	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 4	17-20/IV	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 5	16-20/V	18-20/V	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III

Table I = lucky shots that cause stunning, dropped weapons, or small amounts of additional damage (up to x2)
Table II = finesse-based attacks that cause paralysis, blindness, unconsciousness, crippling, lost mobility or motion, and potentially severe additional damage, up to instant death (perhaps with Fort save to resist)
Table III = brute strength attacks, associated with clubs, maces, and morning stars, that cause severe additional damage and broken limbs
Table IV = wounds that only an experienced, strong fighter can create – significant additional damage, always a crippling injury, Fort saves for various extreme effects, significant possibility for enemy’s death
Table V = called shots table. Unlike the other tables where you take the roll you get, on this one the warrior can choose an effect equal to or lower than his roll. Wide range of specialty effects ranging from disarm to cripple to kill.

$!#$#*(* This freaking HTML is driving me nuts. I'll email you the Word version. But do you get the idea? Class and level vs. monster HD defines threat range. Then it also defines which crit table is used. Thieves get finesse, warriors get brute force. And higher-level warriors against weaker opponents can mow them down.

This could also tie into the thief backstab - reference crit table II on a backstab.

Another idea: you mentioned 2d6. Maybe class level (or weapon?) also influences the die chosen. 3d6 with a pole arm, 1d6 with a dagger?

Luck has to be involved too - maybe as a modifier on the crit table?

[Harley Stroh]

Attack matrices. The d20 system effectively eliminates their need, but if we did one for a special purpose, such as crits, it could serve as a subsystem, kind of like the spell checks. So how about this:

First, the critical hit matrix table.

Code: Select all

Cross-reference character class (Y axis) to monster’s HD (X axis) to determine critical threat range and crit table.
Class vs. Monster HD
          <1          1          2          3          4          5          6-7          8-10          11+
Wizard    20/I      20/I      20/I      20/I      N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A
Thief	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II
Cleric	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Elf	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II	20/II
Halfling	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	20/I	N/A	N/A	N/A
Dwarf 1-2	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Dwarf 3-4	19-20/III	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Dwarf 5	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 1	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 2	19-20/III	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 3	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 4	17-20/IV	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III
Warrior 5	16-20/V	18-20/V	18-20/IV	19-20/IV	19-20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III	20/III

Table I = lucky shots that cause stunning, dropped weapons, or small amounts of additional damage (up to x2)
Table II = finesse-based attacks that cause paralysis, blindness, unconsciousness, crippling, lost mobility or motion, and potentially severe additional damage, up to instant death (perhaps with Fort save to resist)
Table III = brute strength attacks, associated with clubs, maces, and morning stars, that cause severe additional damage and broken limbs
Table IV = wounds that only an experienced, strong fighter can create – significant additional damage, always a crippling injury, Fort saves for various extreme effects, significant possibility for enemy’s death
Table V = called shots table. Unlike the other tables where you take the roll you get, on this one the warrior can choose an effect equal to or lower than his roll. Wide range of specialty effects ranging from disarm to cripple to kill.

$!#$#*(* This freaking HTML is driving me nuts. I'll email you the Word version. But do you get the idea? Class and level vs. monster HD defines threat range. Then it also defines which crit table is used. Thieves get finesse, warriors get brute force. And higher-level warriors against weaker opponents can mow them down.

This could also tie into the thief backstab - reference crit table II on a backstab.

Another idea: you mentioned 2d6. Maybe class level (or weapon?) also influences the die chosen. 3d6 with a pole arm, 1d6 with a dagger?

Luck has to be involved too - maybe as a modifier on the crit table?

Nice!!! Great thinking. This is really, really good.

I'll crib something together in the next couple days and post a link to the forum.

This is great because it also allows us to assign scaling crit tables to monsters. One of the comments from the playtest was how a goblin and Orcus shouldn't be using the same crit lines. So either a monster's stat HD defines the crit table or there is an entry in the stat block "Crit I" that determines which table to use.

//H

[goodmangames]

Also came up in the session: our thief wanted to wield 2 weapons. I cribbed off of AD&D, and used the thief's agility bonuses to mitigate the penalty. It was something like -2/-5 for primary and off hand weapon when the weapons were "light" (they were both daggers). Wielding two swords would be -4/-7, and a sword/dagger combo would be -3/-6.

BTW, I have two-weapon rules in there -- near the end of the combat section -- I used -4/-6 reduced by the character's Agility modifier. Same basic idea.

[goodmangames]

This is great because it also allows us to assign scaling crit tables to monsters. One of the comments from the playtest was how a goblin and Orcus shouldn't be using the same crit lines. So either a monster's stat HD defines the crit table or there is an entry in the stat block "Crit I" that determines which table to use.

Great point. Crit tables could advance with monster HD and we could even have some custom tables that can only be reached by crazy-powerful monsters. And this also allows an easy mechanism for creating customized crit tables - dragons could be table XI, for example, which includes things like being suffocated under a wing or dropped from a great height.

[Harley Stroh]

Early on I had very creative spell names, and it became a communications barrier with the players. I think this was at either CondorCon or GaryCon, but I assigned the spells and the players were like, "WTF??" It was basically a magic missile spell, a shield spell, etc., but everyone felt they had to read the full details to grasp it. Next game I gave out "magic missile" and explained "there's a random table that goes with it" and it went 10x faster.

Ah ... that makes sense. I think the mercurial magic might be sufficient.

Reading Vance and my mind is spinning.

Anyhow, perhaps the core book's spell names are traditional, but there is a paragraph in there encouraging PC wizards (or Judges) to rename their spells along the lines of their mercurial magic – every pompous wizard would claim the spell for his own. So the PC's spell sheet has a line for the "true" name of the spell (and its page number for reference) as well as a more grandiose, florid line for what the PC calls it.

//H

[goodmangames]

Anyhow, perhaps the core book's spell names are traditional, but there is a paragraph in there encouraging PC wizards (or Judges) to rename their spells along the lines of their mercurial magic – every pompous wizard would claim the spell for his own. So the PC's spell sheet has a line for the "true" name of the spell (and its page number for reference) as well as a more grandiose, florid line for what the PC calls it.

Awesome idea. I was planning to eventually do some class-specific character sheets. This could be part of the wizard character sheet.

[goodmangames]

A couple other random thoughts on crits.

(1) There's a strong precedent in appendix N for barbarian rage. I think the barbarian class actually came from a character in Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, and of course Conan had his blood-drenched furies. Perhaps some form of barbarian rage could be an entry on a crit table - not only do you cause some sort of crit, but it sets off some rage that gives you a bonus for the next 1d4 rounds of +2 damage.

(2) Another idea: a "reverse spellburn" for warriors where they sacrifice Int or Personality for a corresponding bonus to damage on this round only. Get a high enough crit and you induce a battle-madness! Allows the player to actually make a decision associated with the crit result: "OK, I sacrifice 3 Int for an extra +3 damage this round." Lost ability scores heal at normal rate (1 point per day or 2 points with bed rest).

(3) Another idea: very high crit results carry into forward rounds. "You impale your opponent on your blade, restricting his motion. You continue to receive a +1 bonus to attack this opponent on all future rounds, and he cannot move more than 5' from you unless he takes an additional 1d4 damage in order to rip your blade free."

[Harley Stroh]

These are cool ideas for crits.

One thing I am wary of, though, is asking PCs/Judges to track effects over multiple rounds. It's not impossible, other iterations of D&D ask for it, but it should be a conscious design choice.

Maybe we test it out, and see if players can manage to remember. I'll send you the new tables by the end of the weekend.

Re: remembering – for clerics I just checked off spells cast myself, so that I could call out what the modifier was for the cleric's spell/lay on hands. It seemed to work really well, though I could see it getting complicated in a party w/ multiple clerics. How do you handle it at the table?

//H

[Harley Stroh]

(2) Another idea: a "reverse spellburn" for warriors where they sacrifice Int or Personality for a corresponding bonus to damage on this round only. Get a high enough crit and you induce a battle-madness! Allows the player to actually make a decision associated with the crit result: "OK, I sacrifice 3 Int for an extra +3 damage this round." Lost ability scores heal at normal rate (1 point per day or 2 points with bed rest).

This is super sexy, but I think it should be burning stats for additional dice. I want to give warrior types the chance to really go big, even if it is only once or twice a session.

Maybe each stat point buys you 1d8. You can apply that to the hit roll OR the damage roll, but you have to call it prior to the attack. So I could burn 4 personality, apply 1 to my hit roll and 3 dice to my damage.

Also, perhaps this is separate from the crit table. Just as wizards have SB, warriors have "battle fury" or something.

//H

[Harley Stroh]

Minor thought from halfway through the night:

So that players don't lose track, perhaps the character sheet has a small line or box for recording crit matrix.

//H

[goodmangames]

For clerics, I had people make hash marks on their character sheet for every spell/turn/healing. Then subtract the hash mark count from next spell check.

Cool idea on the extra dice. I like that. Huge potential - could be a +1 or a +8! I think it should still be somehow associated with crits, to maintain the original "building blocks" of OD&D.

Good point on tracking effects over multiple rounds.

[Tavis]

I really, really like matrices. I think they're super powerful and flavorful. Mail me the Word file so I can make sense of this one!

What if you can customize your own matrix as you develop? Like in the way you used to fill out your THACO stats. What if each of those was a character stat - so that instead of getting a +1 to hit infrequently, you'd get a +1 vs. AC 2 or 3 more often? There could be a rule where they have to be linear - it'd never be that your roll to hit AC 5 would be worse than your roll to hit AC 6, so you could still read out the line: "I hit an AC 6 or above."

This would avoid the conditional problem you see in 4E, where you have to remember if your bonus applies in this circumstance. That remembering is hidden in the table, you just have to know how to read it out and modify it with experience.

The gameplay effect here would be that some fighters might be specialized against fighting armored types, some against unarmored. Or, with your matrix, that some would be super at crits against high-hit dice monsters, some against low.

Do you already have a rule that, when you kill a monster, you get to roll the damage over to any other monster you can hit? If not you should, esp. so that training to crit against low-HD monsters is not unfun wasted damage. Maybe something where you can heal or get XP from excess-kill damage, so that it's never wasted?