Healing Saturation

February 17, 2025

Here’s the 1e healing situation:

The 4th level party emerges from the dungeon, beaten and spent, but loaded with loot. They dump it at their surface camp, well-guarded by henchmen, and rest. Hit Points are Fighter: 1/22, Cleric 1/18, Thief 1/14, Magic-User 1/10. Next morning they wake, everyone heals 1 HP, and the Cleric gets back his 5 Cure Light Wounds spells. So he can heal 5d8 damage, and he spreads it around. On average, this group heals to full in 3 cycles of Clerical resting (rest 4 hours, pray for spells 1.25 hours, cast, repeat) and then we go one more cycle to refresh his spells for dungeon re-entry 21 hours after we left.

But he could have chosen to pile all 5 spells on the Fighter and healed him to full right away after the first rest, perhaps worried that the group might need a strong front-liner to engage if an enemy approached.

What if you have a higher-level caster, or multiple casters? You tend to see multiple healing effects done on each PC, and healing takes about the same time or faster as you gain levels, even though total damage taken also goes up.

In combat, it’s often not worth a Cleric’s round to cast a healing spell, but at high level the Heal spell is pretty awesome, and healing is often available from many sources (potions, Rangers, Paladins, Bards, ego swords). It tends to result in combats that feature mid-fight healing and the party’s ability to work together to prop up one front-line fighter who can endure the brunt of all the enemies’ attacks. I think that’s good?

Healing spells are powerful and valuable, but do we want casters to feel pressured to always take all healing spells? There are some fun alternatives on their spell lists and it would be good to give them the choice. An option often suggested is restricting a caster to memorizing only one copy of any particular spell at one time. Does that do what we want?

Let’s say you wanted healing of any one character to take longer without making any adjustments to the specific rules for the sources of healing. A house-rule that’s quick and easy to apply or remove later because you hate it!

Healing Saturation is something I’ve never actually seen implemented anywhere. When you get healed, write the amount down. That’s your Heal Saturation. If you get healed again, reduce the effect by your current Saturation, and if it’s higher, bump your Saturation up to that. Saturation wanes by 1 HP per day. So if you’re healed for 6, set saturation to 6. Then if a spell comes in rolling 4 points of healing, there is no effect and you are healed for zero. Then if you drink a potion for 24, you actually only get 18 HP back and set Saturation to 24. If you leave and hang out for 4 days before entering the dungeon again, your Saturation has waned to 20.

You can calibrate the effect by changing how much Saturation wanes daily. If you reduce it to per-hour instead of per-day you get a lot more bookkeeping, but I could see dropping all Saturation after 24 hours to still be impactful especially for everything that happens during that day.

  • This really tamps down on having excessive numbers of healers in the group (never a problem I’ve ever seen). If they have a lot of healing potential in the group, maybe the party will recruit hirelings or charm monsters to absorb some healing?
  • It can make a PC who is a Cleric et al. choose non-healing spells because extras won’t be too useful past a certain point (not an issue in 3e-onward games where you can spontaneously convert-cast healing spells, so you never memorize them in the first place!).
  • It also tamps down on resting 1 time to get all healing spells back and blasting the party with those, then resting again to recover those spells. Meaning a high level party actually has to rest naturally and maybe once per week pop more healing spells (if you wane 1/day) and there’s a good reason to use spells higher than Cure Light Wounds even though it takes more time to rememorize. Alternatively, it might just stretch out the process without making it easy to skip, if the Cleric is obsessed with trying to roll those d8s on people with Saturation 7 instead of just chilling out.
  • During a fight you can’t focus-fire all your healing onto one PC to keep them up and running. This helps mitigate the effect of an abundance of Heal spell sources at high level.
  • In the short term, you might have 2 CLW and have people in front of you wounded down to 10/22, 4/14, and 4/10 but the first one has 4 Saturation which makes it a more difficult decision.

Is this a good idea? I dunno. It’s a weird idea? It feels new, which makes it worth sharing. View it as a tool you could use to create a specific effect for your game. I really thought about using it in my game but then my feelings about it changed as I got the idea down on paper.

Maybe it’s good for use as a curse that can affect a single person via spell, or all PCs in the adventure area / dungeon level. Or a charged or permanent magic item with broad but shallow healing capabilities. Both of those would let you try it and leave it behind within an ongoing campaign so you can think about it some more.

If I were describing this as a house-ruled feature I’d call it “Healing Saturation All/day” if the wane was all HP every 24 hours.

Adventure Rhythm / Resource Consumption / Why Potions Work And Are Fun In 1e

February 15, 2025

A lot of people are bummed out about inexpensive magic-shop 5e potions and slurping them on bonus actions. I hear it feels like self-healing is always available and it’s not really even a choice; if you’re down HP, there’s little reason not to heal it.

With potions, what you’re looking at is an example of “interesting choices” which are the foundation of good games. A proper interesting choice must be a thing the player actually has the choice to do, and it actually has different outcomes depending on the choice.

1e does this well by (1) making consumables like potions expensive compared to 3e onward (although cheap for 1e high-level PCs with levels in the teens), (2) making it your entire round to drink a potion, and (3) the assumption that magic items can almost never be purchased (again, 7th level casters can make scrolls and potions, then other items with great investment at higher level such as charged wands at 9th and permanent items at 16th).

This means that at low level, when the healing potion is really impactful to your small number of HP, it’s rarely worth it to drink a Potion of Healing (400 GP sale value) at 2d4+2 … except to wake somebody back up when there is no alternative method of healing such as Cure Light Wounds at 1d8 or resting for days. And at high level, even a powerful Potion of Extra-Healing (800 GPV) may be relatively trivial in monetary value but it only heals 3d8+3 which is a decent chunk but not all of a Fighter for example. And it takes a round to drink which must be compared to the opportunity cost of a round of normal combat action or a cast spell.

Adventure Rhythm

The rhythm of the adventure is the gradual expenditure of resources and, when possible, resource recovery. The design of the adventure will determine when recovery is available and that indicates to players how they should pace themselves.

As for having enough resources to outlast in the adventure, you need cheap resources (HP, spells, torches, food, a charmed monster, animated skeletons) and expensive resources (a leveled henchman, potions, scrolls) and of course the really gnarly stuff you can lose without dying but which are very difficult to recover (levels, CON, aging). When presented with a challenge, good player skill is noticing when a resource consumption is needed to overcome it, and using that resource as soon as possible to prevent that challenge from gouging away at their other resources in uncontrollable ways. And choosing which resources to use, how to best use them, when to use them, are all good interesting choices.

It’s acceptable that the players might overestimate one early encounter, spend too many resources, and be forced to exit the adventure zone to rest up. Disincentivizing this by making said journey arduous helps prevent the 15 minute adventuring day. It’s thus acceptable that PCs trivialize some encounters by overspending resources, because the balancing force is that later encounters are much more difficult. The material reward for excellent play is the under-use of nonrenewable resources like potions so they can be husbanded for use some other time.

(A concrete example of resource consumption: the 1e Sleep spell affects about 2d4 Hit Dice worth of low-level enemies with no saving throw (it’s complicated, there’s a special table, please don’t @ me). A party of 8 1st level PCs encounters 8 orcs, and the M-U has one spell, and it’s Sleep. Contrast three outcomes: (1) the M-U recognizes this is a tough fight immediately, and casts Sleep on the first round, dropping 2d4 orcs. The party mops up the remainder with little other damage. (2) the M-U waits to cast, and by the time the orcs have chewed through several party members it’s too late for him to cast because he’s in melee. Everyone dies. (3) the M-U doesn’t cast on round 1, hoping the party can win without it, but by round 4 it becomes clear the party is in serious trouble because everyone’s wounded and maybe someone is down. He casts, clearing the remaining orcs, but the party Cleric uses up all his magic to heal a couple party members. The group is now out of spells and hurt.)

You don’t need to adjust encounter difficulty for current party resource level. And that’s lucky, because you shouldn’t.

The whole approach to 1e style dungeoneering is that the party is a package of resources that the players cooperatively bring against an adventure scenario, but their ability to recover their renewable resources by resting is limited. Scenarios that offer more frequent resting opportunities can have each challenge cranked up to be more difficult, because a far higher proportion of encounters will be presented to a totally fresh party. In a scenario where resting is impossible, such as a trapped-in escape or there’s a psychic sleep-prevention emanation, the party must carefully conserve resources because they can’t renew them. In a typical dungeon delve the party knows it can’t rest anywhere in the dungeon because of the risk of wandering monsters, so they must carefully decide where to go and how deep to penetrate because if they overextend they won’t have the resources to get back out. Finding a secret room the monsters don’t know about feels a little bit like a shortcut to the surface! Lots of opportunities for player skill, lots of interesting choices.

Now compare to 5e style gaming, with short rests that take 1 hour, and long rests that are short enough to do in a dungeon, especially when the DM is generally advised to never actually do wandering monster rolls or to skip them if they’re not fun. The party can go in and feel free to alpha-strike that first encounter and blow all their spells, but don’t really get hurt because it was super easy. Then they grind-fight the next encounter, get real hurt, and short rest to get back all their HP, and the warlock gets all their spells back. Then they face-check the next encounter and get hurt again. Say they’re all at 1 HP and maybe carrying some unconscious members. They can safely just waddle out knowing they won’t be attacked by wandering monsters.

(Honestly, this is absolutely an adventure design issue, and one that exists in many of every edition’s adventures, but with the decline in use of wandering monsters it’s become an expectation in the current zeitgeist)

Because of this, a typical 5e adventure is set up to purportedly challenge a party with a level-appropriate “medium difficulty” combat that is actually trivial because they blithely burn through resources to defeat it. This exacerbates the problem of PCs being overpowered in relation to monsters. Then if there are magic shops, they’re able to load up on consumables that aren’t supposed to be renewable but become renewable because of their availability and low cost. One approach is to ramp up combat difficulty in 5e to where each fight is scaled as a boss fight against which the party will consume potions etc. But then you don’t have an achievable “final boss fight” because there is no greater amount of combat power they can marshal on special occasions. It’s just all max-volume from the PCs all the time. Also players will grumble about it because from their perspective every encounter in the adventure is “too hard” compared to 5e DMG scaling. Additionally, “easy” encounters where the party can make the choice to hold off on consuming even renewable spells will no longer exist because there’s no reason to bother holding anything back.

The point is that in 1e the party’s package of resources is pitted against an expedition scenario whereas in 5e the party’s resource package is generally pitted against each combat individually.

One solution is to run it like 1e: use wandering monsters even when it seems punishing (because you’re punishing poor play in the hopes they learn and improve), no magic shops, full-round action to heal, eliminate the short rest rule (no recovery of Hit Dice, everything else usually recovered on a short rest is instead recovered on a long rest), make 4-hour long rests heal 1 HP and allow recovery of spell slots if you memorize/pray for 15 minutes per spell level immediately after a long rest, and make it difficult and hazardous to leave the adventure zone to do that long rest.

Mitigating The Resource Difficulties

This is not to say that I expect high difficulty through resource scarcity in all situations for a 1e play style. Especially with younger players, sensitive or distractable players, players new to the game or new to the group, and in all introductory scenarios, it is wise to include a period of less complexity and difficulty to ease them into things. You don’t want to scare people off. And you can ramp things up to the comfort level of the group, and then occasionally vary it to spice things up.

One way to make it easier, to make resources less scarce, is to offer more opportunities to rest or fewer wandering monsters. An easy donkey-traversable exit from the dungeon vs. the cave opening that’s continuously blasted by a torrential waterfall that rips ropes, pops out pitons, snatches loose gear, sends the unlucky washing downstream into the depths, and leaves the rest just inside the dungeon tired and soaking wet.

Wandering monsters in disparate cultural groups that do not work together and may even relish the sight of someone beating down their local competition. Or actual conflict between them which can be exploited Red Harvest style. Unintelligent monsters that are more likely to pursue easy food than a fleeing party, and won’t coordinate with others of its kind or prepare new defenses for their return. Isolated monsters that can’t rely on out-of-theater reinforcements.

You can also seed resources in the dungeon to replenish the party mid-expedition. A cache of nonmagical equipment, a magic fountain that heals any person who drinks from it only once per week, maybe be a little more generous at first with potions and scrolls found in treasure hoards or jammed into unexpected crannies by adventurers past.

Conclusion

  • Resources should be available in tiers of renewability and their use tracked.
    • Cheap: Torches, rope, oil, arrows, rations, water (in dry or filthy environments).
    • Rest-required: spells, hit points, daily charges of special abilities or magic items.
    • Expensive / nonrenewable: potions, scrolls, wand charges.
    • Almost permanent loss: energy-drained levels, lost CON, magical aging.
  • Opportunities to rest to recover renewable resources should be carefully calibrated.
    • Easy: No wandering monsters or retreat to safe resting spot is trivial.
    • Medium: Wandering monsters, retreat to rest takes resources.
    • Hard: Observant coordinated communicative patrols, conditions make resting impossible.
  • Be about as much of a hardass as your players need for some good fun.
    • Be aware of how to calibrate resource-based difficulty.
    • Get feedback on how well your players are enjoying the game.
    • Adjust the difficulty of your content to what they’ll find fun – or give hints toward content that’ll be the right difficulty for their player intensity and PC level.

Thank you, please have fun gaming, happy Valentine’s. ❤

The Chimera Is The Best They Could Do

February 13, 2025

You’ll see an extremely common theme in mythological beasts, the combination of different animals or of animals and humans. I feel it must be the easiest (and thus first and most frequent) approach to describing mythological animals. Wikipedia categorizes this under the “hybrid beasts in folklore” page. There’s an entire separate discussion to be had about human/animal hybrids, especially the ones with a human body and animal head such as were extraordinarily popular in Egyptian art, but were widely popular elsewhere. These mythological creatures could conceivably spring from the practice of wearing animal masks in ritual, which were often worn to portray a spiritual connection to the creature or inhabitation by such a spirit. And so these human-hybrids have another layer of anthropological nuance.

But what if, in a D&D setting embracing the mythological tradition as literally true, these ancient people are trying their best to use the linguistic tools and natural references available, to describe a monster which does not look literally the way they’re describing?

Here’s an antique depiction of the Chimera, the Chimera of Arezzo, c. 400 BC, from Wikipedia.

Here’s a more modern Grenadier miniature of the Chimera, 6004(a), image from the Lost Minis Wiki. Remember the Grenadier miniature is 1/30th the size of the Chimera of Arezzo!

Here’s what the Chimera looks like in the 1e AD&D Monster Manual, and in 5e respectively.

The influence of the Chimera of Arezzo upon the Grenadier miniature is obvious. At some point depictions began to change to show the necks sprouting from the same set of shoulders as in the Monster Manual images.

What I think is clear is that these stories come from an older period. We can portray the originator as either inventing them or seeing something that looked weird and they were verbally describing them. It’s very possible the person didn’t have the artistic capability and materials available to create a high-quality image that looked as close as possible to what they saw or imagined. So the description passed on to other people, perhaps many transfers and much time, and at some point an image was made that became the standard.

Was that original witness / author seeing a creature and trying to describe it as closely as possible using the comparisons available? “A four-legged creature with a body like a lion, and a lion’s head, also a goat’s head, and there was a snake coming off of it too – and wings like those of a bat?” You could draw that a variety of different ways.

And we did. European bestiary-writers would get secondhand descriptions of real animals and draw something fantastical that looked very little like the real thing. Here’s a snail (looks a bit like a pig trapped in a coiled tube) by Jacob van Maerlant, and a beaver (which looks to me like a dog-bodied weasel with a fish tail) from Platearius.

And those aren’t the worst ones; people just combined a lot of creativity with a lot of confidence. This person tried to draw a horse, which they had presumably seen before:

What I find unsatisfying about mythological hybrids is that they tend to look stupid. Just jam a zebra’s head on a hippo’s body and attach a few extra limbs, and you’ve got a good campfire story that becomes heraldry and myth, and then possibly religion. In D&D the jammed-together depiction is taken as true and all kinds of explanations for the poor quality are given like wizardry, genetic experiments, and the meddling of uncreative deities. On the eighth day, He woke, but with a blistering hangover, and really phoned it in for a bit until the coffee and aspirin kicked in.

But what if the creature actually looked like a reasonable and uniform animal, but it was just outside the witness’s experience? “The head of a goat” might mean something completely different that actually looks decent. When describing the body, did the witness say it was like a lion because of its general shape, or because of the way it moved, or its hair, or the catlike leg structure with big haunches in back?

I’m no artist. And I believe we need to pay artists instead of publishing books with AI output. However, I don’t make money on this blog, so commissioning art is out of the question. So I threw a prompt into an AI generator (A chimera made up of a leonine body and a leonine head, plus a goat’s head, and a snake’s head, with a leonine tail. But painted as if it were a holistic and uniform natural creature instead of a combination of jammed-together parts of different animals. It should look like a living creature and not include any undead, skeletal, artificial, or robotic elements.) and it produced the following:

Interestingly, it moved in a direction I thought about earlier, where you combine elements of the different creatures. What if the verbal translation was something like, “It had a head like a lion, like a goat, like a serpent” and the artist interpreted that to mean 3 heads, when it was actually just one head with some of each of those elements?

Of course we have some real jammed-together animals like the platypus, which is just ridiculous.

Video game and movie aliens are often depicted with exactly the same methods. How many slimy, black and purple, tentacled aliens exist in SF? How many are a pulsating biomass that infects and alters human victims like in Dead Space (2008) and System Shock (1994)? Arrival (2016) was a fine movie but its aliens were basically just big squids (see also Cthulhu). The Blob (1958) is an amoeba or slime mold. The aliens in Starship Troopers (1997) are much like a cross between a spider and a mantis. The Thing (1982) et al feature shapeshifting aliens that take on elements of whatever they absorb. And an eyewatering number of “aliens” in SF are just humans with rubber foreheads, even in novels where the effects department budget is not a concern.

Let me give you the description of “Jean Jacket” (?!) the creature from Nope (2022), from Screen Rant [https://screenrant.com/best-sci-fi-movie-aliens/], reproduced here for an academic purpose and commentary:

“Jean Jacket from Nope is a clever reimagining of the classic UFO as an organic extraterrestrial creature that takes on several forms. Jean Jacket most prominently appears as a simple gray flying saucer the size of a medium aircraft with a gaping hole underneath, which it uses to suck in its prey or spill out its liquefied food. Jean Jacket can also unfold onto translucent strands, resembling an angelic floating jellyfish the size of a building. Jean Jacket can also mimic a cloud in the sky to hide from its prey. …”

You can describe an El Camino as a vehicle with the front of a sedan but the rear of an open pickup truck bed, and in reality it does not look like you cut two vehicles in half and welded the car front to the pickup rear. An airplane is a cylinder with a row of windows along both sides, two large wings about at the middle, with the cylinder ending in a sharp point at the rear and a rounded point at the front, and the rear also has a pair of small wings sticking out of the sides and a small wing rising from the end of the tail. I bet you could imagine a weird depiction that an artist could create based on that description if they had never seen an airplane before! Yet when we see a real airplane, it looks like a well-designed object, its parts all well-fitting and coherent.

What would your chimera look like if you drew it with that in mind? What would your centaur be like? Your pegasus?

The strengths of Strength

October 6, 2024

I can tell you why, from a design standpoint, 1st Edition AD&D STR attack and damage bonuses are lower than other bonuses at a given score value.

(1) You want ability scores to all be about the same usefulness. Yes it’s true that for some characters WIS is not very important, but that’s also true of STR for some characters. The existence of an ability score’s derived modifiers should signal to the DM what to include in the game. If WIS seems like a dump stat because all it gives most people is a save bonus against mind-affecting magic, perhaps the DM should include a little more mind-affecting enemies (note that many mind-affecting spells seem to be save-or-lose such as Hold Person and Charm Person and appear on low-level spell lists, so when you do encounter them a saving throw is highly impactful).

(2) STR does a lot of things. Attack bonus, damage bonus (both in melee with narrow exceptions), carrying capacity, Open Doors, Bend Bars / Lift Gates. Because it does so many important things, if it gave all those things the full bonus (+1 at 15, +2 at 16, etc) it would be a very powerful ability score. Note too that while Monks in 1e PHB don’t benefit from the STR score, that doesn’t mean they use some other stat in exchange.

That 3e stuff doesn’t exist in 1e. There’s no Finesse weapon using DEX so you can follow a DEX-monkey build with 5 dump stats. If you’re physically weak, that makes you suffer in melee combat, as is true in reality.

Some DMs might not recognize that STR does multiple important things, if they improperly de-emphasize encumbrance, Open Doors, and BB/LG. Thief skills are useful largely to overcome specific adventuring challenges (locked doors, traps, elevation change) and establish surprise. Fighter-types, especially those with exceptional STR, are good at overcoming stuck and locked doors and chests. Picking vs. bashing are two valuable approaches to some of the same challenges, with their own benefits and drawbacks. Picking takes longer but is quiet and failure doesn’t alert the enemy on the other side, and can’t be used to lift a portcullis or dislodge a stuck door for example. Bashing is an immediate blow-through that can use multiple people at once, but entering like that uses those people’s actions on that surprise segment so they can’t immediately take advantage of possible enemy surprise – while bashing with just 1 person reduces success chance and a failed bash alerts enemies inside before you can try entry again. The point is, if the DM isn’t making a large minority of dungeon doors “stuck” or including a few bars to bend or portcullises to lift, they’re not including enough of that challenge type and it’s unsurprising that players ignore that column of the STR chart.

Encumbrance is the old bugbear of D&D paperwork, and there are tons of creative ways to make it easier and integrate it better into other gameplay. Note that Gygax’s game design telegraphs to players that treasure was the objective of the game by setting the XP tables to assume the award of 1 XP per GP, and carrying capacity to “how many coins can you carry out”. If the DM ignores encumbrance by handwaving it, or giving everyone Bags of Holding AND ignoring it, it detrimentally impacts so many other aspects of the game that it shifts the entire thing. It’s as impactful as playing Monopoly without money. It’s also common for a DM to short-circuit the encumbrance puzzle by making treasure very light. By design, it’s not until mid-levels (when PCs’ carrying capacities are also higher) when treasure starts showing up that’s very value-dense such as gems, jewelry, and magic items. At low levels it’s piles of gold coins, heavy silver ewers, furs, nonmagical arms and equipment, etc. The DM must also include environmental difficulties that make transporting the heavy loot back to civilization a compelling puzzle, such as vertical climbs, tight squeezes, gaps like pits and crevasses, resetting traps, monster activity, and wilderness treks with terrain and weather – and the possibility of getting lost or unwisely sidetracked at any point. Having great carrying capacity is thus highly valuable to an adventuring party, not only because far more equipment can be brought in per trip, but because far more treasure can be hauled out.

The second, separate issue with rationalizing STR attack and damage bonuses to the same progression as other ability scores, is that an attack bonus increases average damage output. If you have +1 to hit, your average damage during that campaign will be about 5% higher. A Longsword +2 gives average damage 6.5, but with 3e’s 18 STR modifier of +4 to hit and damage from STR that would become 12.6 (+4 for the damage bonus, +20% for the additional hit chance). If we use the 1e STR modifier at 18 of +1 to hit and +2 damage, it’s only 8.925. The average damage bonus gained from an attack bonus applies to all other damage modifiers, too, so inflation in damage is exacerbated by inflation of attack value. The missile attack bonus from DEX is higher than the melee attack bonus from STR, and also doesn’t include a missile damage bonus. This is not an oversight. Note too how DEX in 1e offers multiple extremely valuable benefits, so its bonus progression is slower than INT, WIS, or CON.

As for CHA, DMs should really use the reaction adjustment and loyalty rules, and encourage hireling and henchmen use by portraying them in the campaign and including their costs in the player equipment handout alongside rope and horses. But you’ll notice that when comparing the CHA modifiers to other ability scores’ by converting to d20 odds, the CHA bonuses are very high, with an 18 CHA giving a +8 in 20 to reaction adjustment and +7 in 20 to loyalty base. CHA is an incredibly powerful ability score, if the DM is using the tools laid out for them!

To compare 1e AD&D with Basic’s 1991 Rules Cyclopedia, which uses the 3e-style combined ability score modifiers (albeit with a slightly slower progression to +3 at 18 and a MUCH slower progression thereafter up to +20 at 100 in the Immortals set). Combine that with a slower THAC0 progression, and different rate of attack by Fighter-types. It’s difficult for me since I’m no Basic expert, but it feels like removing EX-STR and nudging everything else regarding melee combat around, was a pretty good design choice.

5e XP Advancement Tables

August 12, 2023

This game design grease monkey has been under the hood of 5e tearing it apart to figure out how to get it to run like 1e, preferably with strictly DM-facing house rules, and only the minimum of those. And let me tell you, this XP advancement has problems. So many in fact that rejecting XP completely and surrendering to milestone leveling is extremely common.

Refer to PHB 15 for character XP required to level up, DMG 82 for expected XP budgets to build an encounter, and MM 9 for XP by CR.

When you throw the tables into Excel it seems like they were constructed in a totally arbitrary fashion.

Fig. 1: XP advancement by level, with the equal-level CR monster’s XP value, and how many of those monsters the party will need to defeat to level up.

Let’s also look at the chart of columns D, E, F.

Fig. 2 CRXP

Fig. 3 CRXP INC

Fig. 4 ENC/LVLUP

Assumptions

Let’s assume, first, the tables were well-considered and the outcomes are intentional. Second, from these charts we can deduce intentional game design imperatives. Third, I am assuming that the CR assigned to monsters is realistic to describe the purported difficulty.

From Fig. 2 it looks like there was an effort at smoothing the XP awarded by CR. Designer probably used a formula to generate 20 numbers, then had to manually adjust most of them to achieve clean round memorable numbers.

From Fig. 3 we see that the increase in CR does not follow the curve. That becomes important when you look at the data in Fig. 1 and look up the dips. What the chart is suggesting is that the XP value (the reward commensurate with the challenge) increases in a jagged counterintuitive way that is only acceptable if the actual challenge actually increases in the same weird way.

From Fig. 4 we see the way the CR values impact actual advancement. Leveling at levels 1 and 2 is extremely fast, becoming more difficult at 3, and spiking into the teens from 5-10. Then advancement speed swoops to a fast single-digit number of encounters through to 20th.

What we must assume is that either (a) the designer thought that low-level PCs would fight very low-CR monsters, way under their numerical weight class, and so would earn XP slower and end up taking just as long to level. And also that after 10th PCs would rarely be fighting encounters of their level, instead just waltzing through lower-level encounters. Or (b) that the designer felt players would consider levels 1-2 and 10+ really boring, and it’s best to speed up advancement during those times.

Regardless of the intent, do we want that?

Time Spent At Level

5e was balanced to broaden the “sweet spot” where it’s easy to build appropriate adventures and the game contains rich content. In 1e for example this sweet spot feels like 3rd-14th to me. Low-level play involves low-level hazards and treasure, and many players and DMs are eager to get into what they perceive to be the meat of the game. Usually, in doing so they’re signaling boredom with or non-use of such lowbie challenges as adventuring supplies like food, climbing, darkness, holding your breath, encumbrance, having to walk everywhere, etc.

I think advancement should be fairly smooth in terms of gameplay per level-up. And some time should be spent at-level before rising. If content is available to be experienced, players ought to be given the chance to experience it at or close to the intended level. They also should have time to enjoy and understand their newly acquired abilities and power level, which means testing those against known and novel challenges in the campaign. Wizards for example ought to spend enough time with a given spell level to acquire new and interesting spells and explore the uses of the current ones before gaining access to the next spell level.

Consider too that this is exacerbated by the length of game sessions; previously an 8-hour game session was normal, while these days people meet on a weeknight for 3 hours. And many groups will burn through Level 1 in those first 3 hours and meet up next week (or next month?) at Level 2.

5e focuses on improving low-level gameplay by bumping up 1st level PCs and tamping down later levels. It makes sense then not to rush through low levels. Elsewhere besides the XP chart the game is signaling that levels 1-3 can be fun and spending time there is worthwhile.

Video games have established a pattern of easy early rewards, especially level-up, to the point that some video games consider leveling up to be part of the 5-minute tutorial. I’ve played games with a 1-100 level scale where leveling to 8th in the first play session is easily achievable. This doesn’t continue linearly, though; the designer intends to make you jolt yourself with dopamine and form an attachment to the game before advancement slows down to acceptable rates through level 40 and then to a crawl thereafter. It’s all part of the Skinner Box game design philosophy.

But D&D is a game for friends, there’s no need to use psychological trickery to addict players, and there’s no profit motive to do it. And it certainly doesn’t make the game better to cause fast advancement at low level; if a group wants to skip levels 1-3, why not just start at 4th?

There’s an NPC demographic problem too. Adventuring needs to be a process fraught with hazard and uncertainty, otherwise peasants would flow into dungeons to make a few hundred GP or die trying (especially when the alternative is working your limbs to the bone in slavery to the turnip harvest). And it needs to be slow because whatever achievement the PCs reached in a year of adventuring is probably about what every other adventuring group, mercenary company, military unit, and ship crew managed – or at least a quarter that XP if they’re actively avoiding adventure instead of seeking it out. I don’t want a frontier town to have 8th level pawnshop owners and innkeepers. But what applies to PCs will apply to NPCs, which means leveling up has to take a little while.

The House Rule

Looking back at my house rule imperative, I want this to be DM-side. This is because a particular character should be portable into the campaign or out of it, and player shouldn’t have to fill their PHB with amendment slips.

The math is also easier if we adjust XP values for each CR instead of adjusting the XP advancement table. Use my Fig. 1 above, use column C “XP/LVLUP”, and divide that by the number of encounters you want the party to face to gain a level. If you want to follow the RAW table in Fig. 1 and expect 202 even-CR encounters to reach 20th, that smooths out to 10 even-CR encounters per level. Then CR 1 XP value needs to be 120 XP (30 per PC). CRs below 1 have fractional awards as usual. If you think there should be a breakpoint at each play tier, where it should take 10 encounters at Tier 1 (Level 1-4), 12 at Tier 2 (5-10), 14 at Tier 3 (11-16) and 16 at Tier 4 (17-20) then you know what to do. If you think the advancement speed of 5e is blazing fast and you prefer 3e’s 13 encounters per level (which includes hazards like traps), or 1e’s roughly 18 encounters per level (including treasure XP), use that denominator.

REMEMBER to still consider CR as-written for purposes of balancing encounters. Just because less XP is awarded doesn’t mean you have more monsters in your encounter budget.

Fig. 5 House-Ruled CR XP by Encounters Needed Per Level-Up

By the way, this also highly devalues monsters CR 2 and under, while normalizing later monsters, because the XP advancement chart requires so little XP at level 1 and 2 that those CRs will be of negligible value to high-level PCs. Which makes sense, because they’re also of negligible threat to a high-level party with area-effect spells and good AC.

My plan is to include an “ad hoc” XP award for discovering treasure on an adventure. I want treasure XP to be roughly 75% of the total, monster XP 25%. Not that you’d see all that treasure carried by those monsters; getting the loot with less risk is part of the player skill, and treasure will be generally scattered in forgotten corners or held in lairs. Wandering monsters offer threat and burn resources but little or no treasure. And I can place more treasure that’s well-hidden and might not be found except by very thorough players. I don’t want advancement to be as slow as 1e, so let’s assume a 1:13 rate.

So for my example, I would want a typical adventure for a 4-person party of 1st level characters to contain CR 1/4 and 1/2 enemies, maybe a CR 1 “boss” monster and/or maybe a CR 2 optional (if you don’t take it out at this PC level, but clear the rest of the dungeon first, it probably leaves with its loot to inhabit some worse neighborhood before you can beef up and return). The 4 CR 1s contribute 368 XP to my total, the 16 CR 1/2s contribute 736 XP, the 32 CR 1/4s contribute 736 XP. Total is 1,840. If they take out the CR 2 optional it’s worth another 185 XP, 10% of the rest of the adventure!

But if I want to do treasure XP, I should rejigger the table instead of recalculating all the time. 23 XP per CR 1, with the understanding that there’s also 69 XP worth of treasure elsewhere in the adventure. Since the CR 2 is worth 46 XP for defeat, I want to put the related 139 XP worth of treasure in its lair so you have to address that particular monster to get that hoard.

Treasure XP

In 1e treasure XP is 1 XP per GP value. I suspect the XP advancement tables were built with a certain amount of loot in mind so that the very easy 1:1 XP:GP standard would still work. Unfortunately, it means a very large amount of treasure beyond level 10 is necessary to proceed at the same advancement rate. However, perhaps by design, the XP needed to gain each level past “name level” (about 10th) is flat, meaning that if treasure accumulation doesn’t speed up considerably then neither will level advancement, but if accumulation remains steady then advancement will too. That is, slowing advancement beyond name level would have demanded faster accumulation to compensate.

Regardless, I need magic item sale values which 5e was not kind enough to supply, which means I’ll fall back on1e and 3e values and gauging how different items are from those other versions to come up with a value. Others have done this, https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?424243-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices being one, and I’ll have to review to see if any of them are a good starting point for me. Ideally I want to have values similar to 1e because I have written a LOT of material that’s 1e compatible.

Because 5e XP advancement is rather different from 1e, it will mean I might not be able to use a 1:1 ratio for treasure XP. At level 1, there’s a 1:7 XP advancement difference from 1e (fighter) to 5e. Over level 1-20 it averages out to about 1:5. Looked at another way, suggested Wealth By Level guidelines from 3e compared to 5e XP advancement hover close around 1 GP/XP to 0.75 GP/XP, with major outliers at levels 2-4 (5e would be too rich) and 17-20 (5e would be too poor). Which suggests that I could just write low-level adventures/areas that have less treasure and more monsters. Or put forth more single-use consumable magic items at low level vs. permanent ones, because if something gets used up it no longer affects WBL. If a party is too rich at levels 2-4 it’s also not a huge deal because that imbalance gets muddled in the numbers of the next couple of levels. It’s just a possible problem of building inaccurate player expectations. Some combination of the three might conceal the problem at low level and let me go with a 1:1 award.

How To Do It Differently

So many of the problems I’m encountering relate to very low XP requirements for leveling at 1-3, and if I were willing to adjust the players’ XP chart I could fix several things on my end at once. But I think it’s worth me going through more effort so that players can still refer to their PHB, characters remain portable, etc.

Been a While

August 2, 2023

Moved from Tacoma to Sacramento last year. I don’t know how common my experience is, but I didn’t do any tabletop gaming during the pandemic and am just now getting back into it. I’ll be DMing a 1e D&D campaign starting next Saturday. I’ve been working on it since 2019.

As someone who is rarely anxious, I’m getting some butterflies about DMing again. Feels weird.

I plan on writing session summaries here like I did for the Ruins & Ruffians game at Game Matrix. I had stopped writing those halfway through, but it’s really not much work, so I’ll try to be more comprehensive for this one. I also ran a yearlong Dragonslayers campaign from late 2018 through start of 2020, which ended maybe 6 sessions from the finale, and I didn’t write about it at all. It was such a bummer that it fizzled like that.

Looking back on the past 3 years there’s a lot I would have done differently, but the important thing is to motivate myself and do better moving forward. It’s finally time to get some things started.

The Elf is Hardcore Mode

March 16, 2020

In 1E, elves can’t be brought back by 5th level Raise Dead, but they can by 7th level Resurrection or an expensive set of charges from a Rod of Resurrection. Seems like few groups actually used this rule, allowing easy Elf Raising. I sure always ignored it.

Many tabletop games don’t have Raise Dead type effects at all. Car Wars lets you save your XP progress by encoding a clone. But Shadowrun has nothing; dead runners stay dead.

Later, when Roguelike games became popular, there was a more-common concept of permadeath in video gaming as a feature of the game or more often a special gameplay mode.

Some games have a lineage system where your success during a life impacts your future lives. See: upgrading the town in Heroes of Hammerwatch. The 1E Oriental Adventures hardback has a family system where your honor score affects your family so that other PCs you roll up in your family start with benefits.

And of course in an ongoing D&D game, the dead PC’s impact will be felt in future sessions. His equipment may have been salvaged by other party members or else strewn about the dungeon by looting monsters. Nethack features a “bones” level, where a dead player’s remains and loot are haunted by his ghost and whatever killed him still stalks the area! But bringing that dead hero back is still not an option. In a D&D game progress will have been made by the now-dead PC, such as puzzles completed and treasure looted, even if already-cleared areas may repopulate with monsters and eventually treasure.

But focusing strictly on the concept of a “hardcore mode”, if you die you don’t get to respawn; you reroll a new character. This is the expectation at low-level D&D play just because no PCs can cast Raise Dead (until you’re a 9th level Cleric), and the group can’t gather the resources to hire someone to cast it, and possibly because even if they could spend that money they wouldn’t want to since your PC is only level 3 and it’ll take no time at all to re-acquire a few thousand XP on a new character. After a certain point, though, a Raise Dead is expected.

So playing a Hardcore Elf who can’t be Raised makes a difference only during a level band between about 7th and 12th. Before then a Raise wouldn’t happen anyway, and after that a Resurrection is on the table. That’s a fairly limited slice.

What if we extended the Hardcore Elf playstyle indefinitely upward? Say that no magic, not even a Wish, can bring back an Elf. We could extend the playstyle downward too, if we made some limited Raise Dead available to characters level 2 and upward. Include a magic pool that takes a level and brings you back, so it’s not usable for 0-level townsfolk who represent 99%+ of the population, and it becomes a worse choice the higher level you get, eventually making a Raise Dead spell very preferable if you can get it. The Elf would be unable to use the pool because it’s not a Resurrection effect that bypasses his racial detriment.

Why would we do this? Elves live a long time, so this becomes an Achilles style roleplaying choice: live a long boring life or a short one full of excitement, heroism, and success. But also Elves just have so many racial benefits for which this can be a balancing detriment. To make the distinction way clearer I’d lower Dwarf and Gnome age categories closer to Halflings. And finally it’s an interesting choice (and interesting choices should abound in D&D) and players who hate it can 100% avoid it.

What to do if the player just really likes Elves and wants to play one? Maybe he’s willing to drop most of the Elf racial abilities and penalties if he can just keep those pointy ears. Allow me to introduce the Half-Elf.

 

Dragon Scale Armor

October 15, 2018

Running a 1e campaign now featuring a dragon (a few, actually, but one main dragon). So dragonparts will be on the treasure menu eventually.

If the PCs get hold of discarded scales, I wouldn’t give the remnants any magical value. Too shabby, like cooking and eating the dry outer layer of an onion. Also from a game perspective the players might have believed they were taking a big risk exploring the cave but actually there was no risk – so there should be little reward.
 
Dragonscale armor is incredible mainly because Druids can use it. Depending on the rules you use, it can also be very powerful. Any players would of course prefer to skin the dragon and produce as many suits of armor as possible, at least one per PC and perhaps a few to throw at favored henchmen, and several for immediate sale to supplement the inevitably disappointing dragon hoard. 
 
The Dragon Magazine / Encyclopedia Magicka way is to make it poor-AC but give energy resistance.
 
The white-bound Monstrous Manual 2e method is no special energy resistance but amazing AC value rivaling even magical platemail, but as light and non-bulky as leather armor – clearly desirable for 1e Barbarians, Thieves, etc. 
 
In both above examples you could get at least a full suit, maybe more, and some shields, out of one dragon carcass. But heavy use of slashing weapons and energy spells like Fireball or Lightning Bolt would destroy the hide and make it impossible to get armor out of it. Up to the DM how much damage that takes.
 
DDO lets the player pick whether the armor will end up light, medium, or heavy, and gives good AC and energy resistance, but you have to kill 20 dragons to get the scales needed for one suit. I think we can chalk that up to the typical MMO grind. But it’s certainly not 1 dragon = 10 suits!
I want the players to have to make a decision regarding the hide. They shouldn’t get everything they want. The hide shouldn’t be worth more than the hoard. Here’s my take on it: 
The armor must be made from certain specific scales, so any dragon can provide only enough hide for one primary purpose. That purpose could be one suit of armor OR three shields. If the dragon is smaller than average, there’s a 50% chance of one armor, OR you can always get one shield. If bigger than average, you can for sure get 1 armor, with a 50% chance of a second suit of armor, OR you can get 5 shields. You need to decide whether to go for armor or shields and then make your rolls, and then the pieces are already cut up and you can’t switch. Even with a big dragon you can’t get both armor and shield. All the extra hide and small scales left over can be used for decorative things without any bonus. This is how you end up with treasure like a bronze coffer laminated on the outside with dragonhide. 
 
Secondly, the armor must be made by a team of expert hirelings. Because the material is so rare and strange, a normal hireling won’t be enough: roll d% for each hireling to determine his ability to work with exceptional materials. The player can discover what the 10s place for his hireling is, after a full year of employment, but knowing the exact skill is impossible. You’ll need an armorer, alchemist, and leatherworker.
 
Third, the armor will take 1 year to complete. Historically it wasn’t unheard-of for really elaborate armor to take that long. Dragonscale should be the armor of heroes and emperors.
 
Fourth, the armor will not always come out perfectly. The armor will normally be equivalent to chainmail with a magic bonus equal to the age category of the dragon. But, skip categories 3 and 6. At each of these points, instead of an AC bonus, the armor grants the wearer +2 to save and -1 HP/die of damage (to attacks of the dragon’s breath type). So, armor made from an Ancient (8) Red Dragon will be Chainmail +6 with Fire Resistance. BUT, the armor could drop in age-category-equivalent if the hirelings are low-skill. For each of the three, roll d% trying to get under the “exceptional material” percentage. Each of them who fails will reduce the age-category of the armor by 1 place.

I rather prefer the armor being “fairly bulky” because it prevents Thieves from getting access to truly incredible AC values. But the magic armor will offer MV 12″ so it’s desirable for anyone who can use it. 

 
Use the same process for PCs trying to get dragon-horn bows, dragon-claw daggers, dragon-tooth spear heads, etc.
 
So, here’s how it works out in play: the PCs slay the dragon, HUZZAH! They begin carving pieces off the dragon immediately while its eyelids are still drooping. But they quickly realize the Fireballs and Lightning Bolts they fired during the battle not only fused the hoard into a mass of precious metals they’ll need to chisel apart to transport, and ruined half or more of the magic items in it, but the many sword wounds they inflicted ruined all the dragonparts. No armor for them because they took the easy route in the battle. I’ll make them roll (because it’s more painful that way) a % chance of ruined hide based on what percentage of the dragon’s HP were cut or burned vs. hammered. 
 
Next dragon, these players are more cautious and clever. They resort to maces and flails, Magic Missiles, etc. to end up with an undamaged hoard and pristine dragon hide.
 
They can’t make the armor themselves, clearly. So they go around trying to find expert hirelings. They won’t know the hirelings’ skill level, unless they hire a bunch and work them for a year to discover it. So maybe they employ their contacts as high-level adventurers and pay heavily to borrow some NPC lord’s expert hireling, because he would know the worker’s potential.

After securing three hirelings with good percentages, work begins, and the party must employ them for a year without any other benefit from them. Finally, the work is done, and they end up with armor that’s probably better than the best armor found in the hoard. But if you had to make a choice between getting the hoard or the hide, you’d probably choose the hoard. 

Unless you’re a Druid.

Separately, it’ll be interesting if the PCs decide to drink or bathe in the dragon’s blood …

First Level Treasure Placement, and Weapon Proficiency Slots

August 9, 2018

I’ve talked a bit about this here: https://wordpress.com/post/1d30.wordpress.com/970

I recently came across a small problem with a new 1st level group for a 1E campaign. They went through a dungeon, got some XP, and later on did a second small dungeon. Here they found a forgotten armory behind a secret door, containing two weird +1 weapons.

Because the PCs didn’t have proficiency in the two weapons, they decided to sell them to get XP and level up to 2nd. This is just fine, because as I described before they get to make that cost-benefit analysis.

The two weapons turned out to be higher-value than magic swords, probably because of their relative rarity on the magic item tables. So the group of 4 split 6,000 GP and 6,000 XP. With their activity in the rest of the dungeon it was enough to bump some of them just short of 3rd.

Then, enjoying the success of that choice, they proceeded to sell off everything they found. I don’t know how it happened, but they convinced the party Thief it would be a great idea to sell a pair of Gauntlets of Dexterity for the XP. Seems crazy from my perspective.

Anyway, by now they’re level 5 and 6, and grumbling about how they don’t have any magic items. When I point out they sold almost everything, they claim none of the items that they found were “useful” and would have preferred to find a bunch of magic swords, bows, and armor instead.

I bet. I started thinking about how I could have done this better.

Recently I’ve been thinking that the existence of monsters with a “+ Required To Hit” ability suggests the quality of magic weapons players should have if they are of the right level to fight that HD of monster. To have a satisfying fight, where the monster’s ability comes into play, some but not all of the party should have weapons that can hurt it. If everyone has +1 weapons, a Gargoyle fight is just like any other, but if none have them the fight becomes impossible and (while still acceptable to include in the game), less satisfying.

Secondly, I’ve been thinking about placement of magic items vs. money treasure. I usually prefer to include more magic item treasure, considering 1 GPV of magic item = 1 GPV of treasure to be included, meaning if they keep the items they’ll get less XP than expected. I prefer that because the players can choose to sell the magic item if they want, but generally they can’t choose to buy magic items with the gold they find. It doesn’t work the other way.

Third, level advancement speed. I think there’s a lot of fun gaming to be had at each level. If the PCs lunge through levels, they don’t have a chance to become acclimated to their new abilities and find interesting uses for them, and player skill doesn’t have a chance to grow to match character level. Players don’t get a chance to ease into an understanding of the varying danger of the obstacles they face in each new adventure. Also, too-fast advancement reduces the sense of accomplishment at earned acquisition.

This brings me back to a recommendation to Future Me: for low-level parties, carefully limit the value of magic items the PCs encounter. Instead of a 3000 GP Polearm +1, include a 500 GP Dagger +1. Gauge the total treasure value of the adventure with the assumption they will sell it!

I don’t think it’s necessary to “beef up” later adventures if PCs sell magic items unexpectedly and end up higher level than you intended. After all, they’re less powerful than their level would suggest because they lack those magic items.

There’s also the proficiency issue. If you want them to keep magic weapons instead of selling them, place magic weapons they’re likely to have proficiency with. Don’t assume they will be willing to blow a proficiency slot on the new weapon, because they will expect that eventually a weapon will come along that they are proficient with. The player won’t hold onto the item just in case he encounters a monster with +1 Req. To Hit defense. He probably won’t keep the item and spend his next weapon proficiency slot on it. He’ll just sell it.

To help reduce this problem (and this is something I’ve always done anyway), don’t require players to spend all their proficiency slots as soon as they get them. They might want to spend them all, but it’s a good idea to save one so you can learn a new weapon if you find a good magical version.

An M-U will want to spend his one slot on dagger or dart. A Thief will need a sword and either sling or dagger. A Cleric will likely want one blunt weapon and be willing to save another slot. A Fighter, depending on whether you use the Weapon vs. AC table, might be OK with two weapons out of four starting slots.

To actually learn the new weapon and spend that slot, I’d require that the player either go up a level (so it’s part of the week of training), or spend a week just practicing with the weapon in town, or use the weapon in five significant combats. Remember this is just for spending an empty slot you already earned.

1E Fighter Exceptional Strength

August 3, 2018

Here’s the skinny in case it’s been a while:

In 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, if you’re a Fighter (but not a subclass like Paladin or Ranger), and you roll 18 Strength, you then roll d% to get an exceptional strength result from 01 to 00. Normally, an 18 STR has +1 to hit and +2 damage in melee, while a 19 STR gets +3 to hit and +7 damage. In between this huge gap the exceptional strength fills in with five categories, as follows:

STR Table

I’ve been watching a conversation on Dragonsfoot about this, and read a few old threads, and I kind of have a problem with EX-STR as presented.

First, I believe most Fighter players will end up with an EX-STR character; if the PC rolls up with a 16 STR the player will end up getting the PC killed off through “brave” play and get another crack at it. Another DFer suggested that when the player rolls up the character, with the +1 STR from the age modifier, anyone with 17 STR might play a human Fighter, while those with 16 might play a Half-Orc Fighter (another +1 coming from the racial modifier), because they’d be bumped up to 18 and trigger the EX-STR roll. Those with STR 15 or lower might play some other character. If they can arrange to suit, and don’t roll an 18, they might instead play a Ranger or Paladin if they qualify.

Essentially, EX-STR is a Fighter class ability, but only a minority of Fighters will have access to it. (Side note: I would exclude 0-level humans from rolling EX-STR. Gain a level, buddy, then we’ll talk)

However, I find that most players have a character they want to play before they roll. In a group of 12+ players everyone can just fill in various roles. But in a group of 4-6 players that doesn’t work as well.

So what I see happening at my table is a player who wants to play a Fighter rolls 13-15 STR and doesn’t get the EX-STR benefit, and it’s a bummer, because it’s this huge binary for Fighters; those with EX-STR are effective and those without fight like Clerics.

Matthew- at DF proposed using the EX-STR roll regardless of base STR. So it would be possible to have a 15/76 STR for example. For 1E that might look like this:

EX-STR

The EX-STR stats are additive to the base STR stats. For example, a Fighter with STR 17/33 would have +1 to hit and +2 damage; a Fighter with 9/00 would have +2 to hit and +4 damage. I like that this makes Fighters better at carrying heavy armor and treasure, and bashing down doors, and tearing stuff up – all typical Fighter activities. In this way Fighters are enabled to interact with the environment in certain ways more effectively and on a regular basis, an outcome similar to how Thieves work.

Another argument is that this essentially gives Fighters a higher effective STR; why not just bump up their STR score and delete EX-STR? Partly because 19 STR (from the 1E Deities & Demigods or the 2E PHB) gives +3 to hit and +7 damage; without the gradient given by EX-STR that 1 point has a huge impact that isn’t seen in any other stats. Someone who managed to start with an 18 STR then gaining a bonus from the Fighter class would be launched to a much higher power level.

If you look at the actual effect of EX-STR layered on, as above, the lower 50% of Fighters end up with the rough equivalent of +1 STR if they started at 15 (or bumped up to a point somewhere between 15 and 16, if lower than 14). The next 25% tranche of Fighters gain some significant bonuses, as if they were bumped up to a 17 from a STR of 8-14. Only 10% of Fighters get the truly delicious bonuses: very high ENC limits, reliable BB/LG and Open Door chances, and the ability to break open locked or Wizard Locked doors.

With this EX-ST layering, every Fighter has at least a small damage bonus and carries a little more. 50% of Fighters will have significant bonuses equivalent to a 17 STR. And that ignores the possibility that some of those will have rolled 16-18 natural STR (and as I mentioned most Fighters will get +1 STR from their age and Half Orcs get another +1).

Compare with a houserule that uses EX-STR and just gives Fighters +4 STR. Assume the player who decides to play a Fighter does so because he will benefit from the higher STR score, so his STR is at least 12. With a 13 he could play a Ranger, and with a 12 he could play a Paladin, and below 12 he probably would play some other class. Let’s also assume that the EX-STR categories are retained as lines on the table that you’d have to work through when applying the modifier (to avoid the crazy leap from 18 to 19). Let’s also assume the human maximum is 18/00 and extra bonus is wasted.

This means if he rolls 18 it becomes 18/91, a 17 becomes 18/76, a 16 becomes 18/51, a 15 becomes 18/01, a 14 becomes a plain 18, and a 13 becomes 17. A Human Fighter rolled up with 18 STR would come out as 18/00 with his initial age bonus, and a Half-Orc could achieve that with a natural 17 roll. On 3d6, the player has a 1.85% chance to be able to achieve an 18/00 (that is, rolling a 17-18 and making a race selection based on that).

By the book, you have to first achieve an 18 (meaning a player rolls 16-18), and then roll percentile dice with a “00” result. There’s just a 0.0462% chance of that happening. And the 91-99 and 00 entries feature power spikes larger than the previous ones. Reaching them should be more rare than the 3d6 curve allows.

One way to handle this would be to change your houserule to “Fighters gain +4 STR up to 18, but then must roll EX-STR on d%, with +5% per overflow STR bonus”. This preserves the rarity of high EX-STR values, while offering a greater range of rolled PCs the opportunity to access EX-STR. However, it all but guarantees a +1/+3 combat bonus. The layered EX-STR method guarantees +0/+1.

Why did I choose something as extreme as +4 STR for Fighters? Because if they can only roll as high as 18 on 3d6, they need to work through 5 more increases to get through the EX-STR categories to 18/00. That’s +4 from Fighter and +1 from the age bonus. Once you age up a little you’ll lose that 00 edge and drop to a (still amazing) 18/91. Or you could be a Half-Orc.

Here’s the shower thought that made me want to post: what if we take the 1E PHB at face value and assume that only stats from 3-18 exist? 19-25 aren’t on our radar. How else could we describe Ogres and Giants?

In 1E, Ogres are noted as getting +2 damage when using weapons, or +1/+2 for leader types. In 2E, they have damage modifiers based on the appropriate STR but it’s a half-measure because the attack bonus is built into their HD, but at least the Giants share the Ogre’s notation. In 3E everything has stats and they smoothed out the STR progression, which meant a Hill Giant had to have a 25 STR and a Titan had to have 43. But they still included an encumbrance kludge that ramped up carrying capacity at high STR so a Giant could actually walk itself around.

What if the 3-18 range existed as a variation within the creature type? Man-types like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Orcs, Hobgoblins etc. all have similar capacities, with variation introduced via ability score modifiers. But an Ogre or a horse just has a different baseline. You could roll 3d6 to find a horse’s STR and note if it were exceptional. Same with INT; the horse will still be Animal intelligence but you could gauge the comparative INT of two horses.

As a specific example, I could roll STR for an Ogre and if it came up 16-18 I’d add the appropriate modifiers in combat. If it came time to bust down a door, I’d need to account for the greater size and mass of the Ogre, because the Ogre will be better at breaking the door than a Human with equal STR. It certainly is larger, and wields a bigger weapon, dealing 1d10 damage instead of (say) 1d6 or 1d8. Like much in 1E, it’s a judgement call.

Using 3-18 as a scale relative to creature type rather than as a universal scale frees us from 19-25 stats. A Girdle of Giant Strength would, instead of setting STR to some total, grant a really nice bonus to STR related tasks and also grant boulder-throwing. A Strength spell would just work as written, capping at 18, with overflow improving EX-STR if the target is an eligible class. But it would be equally useful cast upon a Human or an Ogre.

Because most creatures will be average, it’s not even necessary to roll all of their ability scores. Maybe just for specific types, or set a high score to add difficulty to a monster that has separated itself from the pack through selection pressure.

One interesting question is why, if Gygax knew how STR scores 19-25 would work because they were in the Girdle of Giant Strength entry in the DMG (and we can assume it’s similar or identical to what was used in his campaign), why did the Monster Manual entries not explicitly use those STR scores? Did he feel it was better for an Ogre to deal 1-10 points of damage instead of 3-10? Or, in the same way that the Skeleton deals 1-6 damage regardless of weapon used, was this a holdover from the earlier edition which was never updated? In OD&D, Ogres deal 1d6+2 damage (that is, normal damage for an attack +2 points), and Giants deal 2d6, 2d6+1 or +2, or even 3d6 damage due to their huge size. The Ogre bonus damage meant it was way stronger than a max-STR Human.

It appears the progression from OD&D through 3E was a process of formalizing how STR worked, although there’s an excellent argument for monsters using different, simpler rules from PCs.

From the construction of the table, it also becomes clear that Strength is valuable in the game, so valuable that few people have any bonuses from it and those bonuses are small. However, attack and damage bonuses both affect damage output, and with that in mind a given score in STR approaches the value of the same score in DEX or CON. But you’re effectively one ability score point lower in the modifier output for STR when compared to DEX or CON. With STR being such a valuable score, a Fighter class ability related to STR is even more necessary for the expected operation of the character.

TL;DR: In a lower-power game true to something between OD&D and 1E, you could have all Fighters roll Exceptional Strength and layer it on their natural STR score. They get a minimum of +0/+1 in combat and extremely high STR is rare.

In a medium-power game you could give Fighters +4 to starting STR up to 18, then have them roll d% for Exceptional Strength, with +5% per point of bonus overflow. They get a minimum of +1/+3 in combat and extremely high STR is still rare, but more common. Fighters become attractive compared to Rangers and Paladins.

Or you could ignore the problem of players wanting to play a specific class. Have everyone roll stats. Anyone who wants to play a Fighter needs a 16 and write in Half-Orc, or needs a 17 and write in anything but Halfling, or else play a Ranger or Paladin. STR under 12 means you’re not playing any kind of warrior-type.


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started