Mass combat: broken units

I had a brief mass combat idea that solved most of the issues I had with PCs fighting a few dozen goblins at once.

This assumes there are only a few (say, one to ten) fighters in one side, and several (say, ten to a hundred) in the other.

We already have the usual combat rules for smaller combats, when there is fewer than a dozen foes on either side.

In addition, if you have 60 knights against 150 orcs, you can just treat it almost like a fight of 6 knights against 15 orcs, adapting as needed.

But when you mix everything together, you might have a small issue - still easily fixable.

Say you have four individual PCs, plus 60 knights against 150 orcs. Ten orcs can attack ten knights with a single roll (treat this as one or against one knight); the knights either die or don't.

Ten orcs can attack a single PC instead, with a +10 bonus.

The problem is if the PCs attack a group of ten orcs. Usually, they can only kill one or two (which might break morale and thus the whole unit, but that is another matter). Let's say they are reduced to nine orcs.

Now they can attack the PCs with a +9 instead of +10 bonus—all very intuitive.

But what if nine orcs decide to attack ten knights?

Simply give them a -1 bonus due to the difference between nine and ten, and give the knights a +1 bonus when attacking them.

But let's say we get into a more difficult situation: there are just four orcs, fighting to the death, against ten knights in plate.

They'd attack with -6, making a hit impossible. Instead, they could choose to make an attack against a single knight, now with +4. Now it is more likely that they'd kill at least one before being wiped out by the remaining knights.

Another option, maybe even easier, is saying that the 4 orcs can attack 4 knights - no bonuses or penalties. Treat this as one orc attacking one knight. Either the ten knights are reduced to six, or remain unharmed [this works somewhat similarly to the game Risk].

Conversely, if 7 knights attack 3 orcs, treat this as a single knight, attacking a single orc, with a +4 bonus. If that single orc is slain, it means all three orcs were defeated.

This system looks a bit complicated until I organize it, but it is very intuitive to me, and the results are not terribly far from the what you'd get but making each single attack separately - or at least close enough for my taste.

My goal, here, is never having to keep track of "minor NPC" HP, and never needing another set of rules - just roll 1d20, consider THAC0 and AC, use damage as written, etc. No need to convert to d6s, roll handfuls of d20s, and so on.

[BTW, if you own handfuls of d20 and d10s, you can easily use them as pawns, altering the digits as the units dwindle - for example, a d20 on 7 means 7 knights, and a d10 on 3 means 3 orcs. But you can also use any chips or counters, including the ones from Risk].

Now I want to playtest this. Looks promising.

Brief mass combat idea

Here is a brief mass combat idea meant for old school D&D or OSR games. I'm using ascending AC in my examples because that's what I use in my games.

Here is the idea:

10 1st level fighters count as a single fighter with a +10 attack bonus until the end of the round.

They attack as one. They deal one die of damage (say, 1d8 if they're using swords).

They add one point of damage for each point over the AC (if using ascending AC).

By Dean Spencer

Let's say 10 bandits are attacking your 5th-level  PC, who has AC 17. They roll 9. Adding a +10 bonus, this means 19, two points more than needed to hit. They deal 1d8+2 damage.

The best part about this idea is how it vastly simplifies things.

If you decide only 4 or 6 fighters can attack the PC at a time, just reduce the bonus to +4 or +6.

If the PC slays a couple of bandits, reduce the bonus to +8. And so on.

In some cases, you can just add up all HD. If your PC is attacked by a 3rd level fighter and 3 bandits, they can make one single attack with +6.

It also makes goblins, etc., dangerous though all levels. If your PC in magical plate and shield gets attacked by ten goblins, it is VERY LIKELY that ate least one of them will get a good stab!

This will probably be useful when PCs have multiple henchmen too. One roll, period.

Is this similar to actually rolling each attack individually? Well, it varies a lot depending on AC, number of foes, etc. Apparently, the bigger the group, the smaller the damage each individual adds (which might be explained by fewer people being able to attack at the same time). 

Let's try with six goblins attacking a fighter in plate [AC 16], using B/X (or OSE) rules. The usual damage per round (DPR) would be around 5.25. With my proposed rule, it would be about 4.4. 

If the fighter is unarmored, DPR is also similar (11.55 versus 9.78, more or less). Not bad.

And if the fighter has plate, armor, and some magic bonus to AC? Let's say AC 20? An extreme case, but... Then damage doubles from about 1.05 to 2.28. So the rule works as intended!

(These numbers were calculated with the help of AI... let me know if they're wrong!)

I probably wouldn't use such a rule if you're fighting a couple of giants, for example; just for low-level foes. Likewise, allowing 15 goblins to attack you at once sounds unwieldy; I'd keep the limit at 10 for now, and you ever fight 20 goblins at once they cannot attack you as a single unit (treat them as two groups).

I probably COULD use this idea for huge mass battles, just adding a few zeroes when needed.

Say, a force of 90 knights clash with 50 enemy knights. The 90 knights attack with a +9 bonus, etc. They deal 1d8 damage (or whatever) plus the margin of success. Then just multiply damage (or casualties) per 10, and reduce the opposing force equally.

I haven't played-tested this. But I have a good feeling about it...

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hd-game.html

More minimalist classes (OSR) - Thieves

In my endless quest for minimalist OSR systems, I've been thinking of minimalist classes lately. At the risk of repeating myself, here is how it goes:

- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.

- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.

- Thieves get ONE new skill per level.

The LotFP method of using "skill points" works well, but this is even more minimalist and simple. I think I got the idea from a Brazilian YouTuber, DM Quiral.

Now, you either have a skill or you don't. If you do, you will occasionally succeed automatically. If numbers are necessary, you get a +10 bonus. But, mostly, you don't roll: you can simply be able to do ventriloquism, juggling, appraising, etc.

E.g., B/X suggests an ability check for climbing a rope (which RAW indicates the thief has better chance climbing sheer walls...). If you have "climbing", you get a +10 bonus, which often means automatic success.

If you prefer X-in-6 chances, +10 translates to +3. E.g., the thief has 4-in-6 instead of 1-in-6 chances of hearing noises.

For challenging stuff (climb "sheer walls"), the GM may require a skill check... Other PCs get a -10 penalty, but you roll your ability as usual, since your +10 bonus compensates that.

This simple system addresses some of the common problems I have with skills:

- How can a 1st-level PC be really good in a given skill.

- How non-thief characters can try to do thief stuff.

- You do not have to write a bunch of skills into every thieves' sheet, let alone other PCs.

HOWEVER it loses some of the compatibility with the original thief.

One alternative is, instead of giving ONE +10 skill, you give the thief TEN +1 skills. The usual ones: hear, climb, hide, traps, read languages, scrolls, back-stab, etc. By level 2, you get a +2 bonus and so on, until level 10.

This still leaves the thief behind the mage. Remember, the mage gets:

- More spells (i.e., variety).

- New spells that ARE BETTER.

- Old spells GET BETTER.

So, maybe the thief deserves some equivalent to "critical hits". Not only he is more likely to succeed, he succeeds BETTER than an untrained PC.

Meaning: if you succeed by 10 or more, your results are particularly impressive. Maybe you can "climb silently" or help your allies. Maybe you sneak so proficiently that you get a bonus on top of your back-stab. Etc.

Still, the thief should maybe get both more skills and better chances - especially if using the same XP table. 

Anyway, its a start.

Same XP for all classes (B/X)

Despite being inspired mostly by B/X, I prefer using the same XP for all classes in my games. This is how Dark Fantasy Basic works, for example.

I heard some arguments to the contrary - that different XP tracks are important. I think there's some merit to this idea, but for now I prefer doing things my way. 

In theory, I wanted a 10th-level Fighter (or "F10") to be roughly as powerful as a 10th-level Magic-User (M10). Which is hard to do.

In B/X, you might be tempted to think the idea is that a F10 is close in power to a MU9, since the XP requirements are somewhat similar. 

I think this is doubtful, at best. 

But if that was true... could we still have B/X with same XP for all classes? 

I have read many attempts to " reverse engineer" B/X classes. I do not think they were as engineered as one might think, but I like playing with that idea. 

Today, I'll be referencing BX Options: Class Builder, which looks very cool (I've only read the first few pages).

The idea is that you can create a stronger Fighter or Thief by requiring more XP. So, giving the thief better saving throws (as a fighter) would "cost" 300 XP. Could we make everyone share the same XP to get to level 2, for, example? Let's try. 

Fighter: Leave it at 2,000 XP for now. Let's try to make other classes the same.

Magic-user: We'd have to bring the MU down to reach the fighter. There is no easy way to do that without giving him even more restrictions. 

The class builder suggests one could get extra spells for 100 to 200 XP. Maybe we could do the opposite, giving the MU fewer spells - at most one per level. 

Notice the MU starts getting more than one spell per level only by level 7. If we change that, the starting MU is not any weaker (good!) but at level 10 he is significantly less powerful (also good), especially because he can never get three fireballs.

This gives the game a somewhat more S&S/low-magic vibe, which I like.

Let's say:  

			Spells
MU level	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	1
2	2
3	2	1
4	2	2	1
5	2	2	2
6	2	2	2
7	2	2	2	1
8	2	2	2	2
9	2	2	2	2	1
10	2	2	2	2	2
11	2	2	2	2	2	1
12	2	2	2	2	2	2
13	3	2	2	2	2	2
14	3	3	2	2	2	2

Cleric: I do not think the cleric deserves any further boost. They are very powerful, in my experience. I'd just require 2000 XP like the fighter. The spells and turn undead makes up for the difference. Please let me know in the comments if you disagree.

Thief: this is my main concern because it is a class that I find very weak, despite the low XP requirements (1,200 XP to level 2). The thief deserves 1d6 HP IMO, plus better saving throws (let's say the sneaky thief is as elusive as the strong fighter). This brings him to 1,700 XP. 

There is not much more to give a thief. Infravision or a couple of extra skills could work to get him to 2,000 XP, or maybe give him fighting capabilities similar to the fighter - when you compare the B/X thief with similar XP as a fighter, the attack bonus is not that different.

I wont include elves, halflings and dwarves because I don't use race-as-class.

Is this worth the effort? I'm not sure. Tweaking classes like that assumes there is some balance to begin with, which might not be the case. 

As I've mentioned in my last post, I'd prefer starting with very simple classes and then adding some feats as you go. 

Spell-less classes would get more feats than spellcasters, to improve their versatility, since they don't get to choose spells.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog

The mage gap

One problem that I've seen in my D&D games is what people usually call the "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" problem.

"The mage gap" is shorter - and, as we'll see, it is also a problem that affects thieves and other non-spell classes, not only fighters.

I've noticed this in B/X and 5e, and not in 4e. It was a very common issue in the 3e era, but I haven't played much 3e. I'll discuss this from a B/X perspective.

There are multiple descriptions of this problem, but for me the issue is:

Fighters are good at hitting stuff. As they level up, they get BETTER at hitting stuff.

Wizards are good at spells. As they level up, they get:

- BETTER at casting THE SAME spells (e.g., a 10th level mage casts a 10d6 fireball).

- BETTER SPELLS (e.g., fireball is more powerful than magic-missile).

- MORE spells (e.g., cast fireball more times per day).

- OTHER spells (e.g., they can pick fireball and fly, that are useful in very different situations).

On this last point, we notice mages have lots of options starting on level 1. Fighters can maybe choose weapons, but a shortsword is not significantly different from a mace (and both serve he exact same function), while "charm", "sleep", and "read languages" create completely different 1st level mages.

I've discussed several fixes for fighters before. 

At the bare minimum, I think fighters deserve extra attacks so their attacks are not only better but also more numerable (and more effective due to extra damage).

We can give fighters several advantages (HP, better saves, etc.) and even make them "balanced" with wizards, but it is difficult to give them the same variety a wizard enjoys.

(Notice that thieves suffer a similar problem: they get better at skills, but their skills do not have better effects, nor do they get extra skills as they level up).

The most common "fix" for this is magic weapons. In B/X, there are swords that cast spells (or spell-like effects) such as light, charm person, locate objects and even wish.

Which is fine but mostly turns the fighter into a type of spell-caster.

I don't think you can do much better if you stick to the simplicity of the "fighter" concept. But if you expand it to include rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc., it becomes more interesting - now a "fighter" might be able to find food, sneak around, ride a horse with expertise, etc.

In skill-based system, this is easy to do. In D&D, I think the mere existence of rangers, etc., limit the fighter to one single role (hitting things). That is one of the reasons I prefer the Old School Feats approach of keeping the basic classes but giving fighters more options.

However, in my own games I've also been trying to limit wizards somewhat. This is not only because I prefer sword & sorcery and dark fantasy to high fantasy, but also because I feel wizards become too complex as they level up.

In Dark Fantasy Basic, mages get better at casting spells as they level up, but they don't automatically gain new spells. Instead, each new spell comes at the cost of a feat.

And, while it is possible they cast stronger spells as they level up, this is not automatic; a 10d6 fireball is harder to pull off than a 3d6 fireball.

DFB was published in 2017 and I know it requires a big update. The more I play RPGs - any RPGs, including B/X - the more I want to change them. On the other hand, the more I play, the more ideas I get, which causes me some analysis paralysis.

But anyway, I think it was a step in the right direction. Nowadays, I'm leaning towards something like:

- Mages get ONE new spell per level, and get +1 to spellcasting.

- Fighters get +1 to attack per level, but they also get extra attacks and, indirectly, more damage.

- And, while we're at it, thieves get new skills as they level up, in addition to becoming better at some skills.

AD&D ability tests, streamlined

 As I've mentioned in my Hyperborea review (check it pout!), I really liked how the game tries to streamline AD&D ability checks: 

This is a simpler version of the (much more complex) original, which included percentile Strength (see OSRIC, for example):

TRENGTH	BONUS TO HIT	BONUS TO DAMAGE	ENCUMBRANCE ADJUSTMENT (IN LBS)	MINOR TESTS, E.G. FORCING DOORS (CHANCE ON D6)	MAJOR TESTS, E.G. BENDING BARS AND LIFTING PORTCULLIS (CHANCE ON D%)
3	-3	-1	-35	1	0
4-5	-2	-1	-25	1	0
6-7	-1	0	-15	1	0
8-9	0	0	0	1-2	1
10-11	0	0	0	1-2	2
12-13	0	0	+10	1-2	4
14-15	0	0	+20	1-2	7
16	0	+1	+35	1-3	10
17	+1	+1	+50	1-3	13
18	+1	+2	+75	1-3	16
18.01-18.50	+1	+3	+100	1-3	20
18.51-18.75	+2	+3	+125	1-4	25
18.76-18.90	+2	+4	+150	1-4	30
18.91-18.99	+2	+5	+200	1-4 (1 in 6 extraordinary success)	35
19	+3	+6	+300	1-5 (1 in 6 extraordinary success)	40

Although I like the simpler version I think it would be easier to go even simpler - while keeping vaguely similar chances.

Here is a simple formula:

- Ordinary ability checks: roll under ability.

- Extraordinary checks: roll under ability-10 if your ability is remarkable enough (13+, which is where you start getting modifiers), otherwise it is a % roll. 

Alternatively, just make a percentile roll with HALF you ability score if you want to keep things more similar to the original, or your whole ability if truly exceptional (17+).

[You could probably achieve interesting results with 2d20 for extraordinary checks: less than 1% for Strength 3, and about 38% for Strength 18. But this is YET ANOTHER system to try someday...). 

Other tables could be similarly replaced: 

- "Survive" checks (Constitution): roll under ability, you get a +4 bonus.

- Thieves' skills are extraordinary checks, but add level to your ability before rolling.

Of course, the exact numbers do not really matter. It depends on what you're trying to achieve.

This is just another example of ability checks I found interesting (I probably wrote more than a dozen in this blog already, this was probably the most recent, using 1d30).

Anyway, just another skill system for you to play with if you don't like sheets with lots of data or consulting tables during the game.

Minimalist roll-to-cast, take 2

My previous attempt was not minimalist enough, as pointed in the comments. So let's try this again.

The MU gets one spell per level.

Maximum spell level is equal to half your level.

To cast, make a spell saving throw - adding your Int modifier, but subtracting spell level.

Failure means one of the following (PC's choice):

- You lose 1 HP per spell level, AND the spell fails.

- You cannot cast the same spell until tomorrow.

A natural 1 means BOTH happen, or one plus spells mishap (spell goes wild, Earthsea style).

A natural 20 means the spell was particularly powerful.

Yes, I like this version even better!

Clerics get half as many spells (starting on level 2). Is this too much of a nerf? Consider they have more HP to cast spells, more levels (per XP), and a potentially lots of healing powers with this one. Probably deserves further reflection.

GMs day sale (2024) - OSR, classic D&D and others

GMs day sale has arrived, so here are my picks (same as last years with some additions).

Notice that the usual discount this year is 40%, which is even better than last year IIRC...

First, let me remind you that all of my books are included in the sale! 

If your tastes are similar to mine, take a look! They are mostly compatible with OSR games (except for a couple of 5e books - "Manual of Arms").

There are some big discounts if you use VTT, which I don't. Dragonbane looks good so... maybe?

New stuff I'm getting this year: 

- I've been curious about AS&SH for a while, and might finally check it out.

- I've been running some classic modules and I might get Night Below and others (recommend some in the comments!).

The Halls of Arden Vul Complete is also 40% off - or $45.00 off. Soudns reasonable for 1.100 pages (!) although it is probably too much material for me to digest.

Now, let's see the old favorites...

Big discounts!

These products seem to be about 40% off and I find each of them interesting. The first two are my own. Some are also mentioned (and further explained) below:

OSR

* Teratogenicon, my monster maker (check the previews!).

* Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X neoclone.

* Low Fantasy Gaming Deluxe Edition (review of the original version);

* Monkey Business.

* Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG);

* How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck; 

* The Monster Alphabet; 

* Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome; 

* Silent Legions; 

* The Nameless Grimoire.

* Into the Unknown (my impressions).

* Adventurer Conqueror King System.

* Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells.

Classic D&D

This are some of my favorites, also 40% off. Explanation here.

* D&D Basic Set Rulebook (B/X ed.) (Basic).

* D&D Rules Cyclopedia (Basic)

* Dungeon Master's Guide (1e)

* Monstrous Manual (2e) - the current price is RIDICULOUSLY LOW for such a a great book.

* Dark Sun boxed set.

Goodman Games

In addition to the amazing Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCC RPG), I really like The Dungeon Alphabet, The Monster Alphabet and The Cthulhu Alphabet. They are near system-less and full of awesome stuff to inspire your games. I still haven't read How to Write Adventure Modules That Don't Suck but it is also on sale. All of them 40% off.

They also publish awesome adventures; alas, few are on sale, but fortunately Doom of the Savage King, the one I am currently running, is 40% off! Recommended! Same for Jewels of the Carnifex, which I reviewed here.

Necrotic Gnome

Several Old School Essentials titles are also on sale in addition to Old-School Essentials Classic Fantasy: Rules Tome. I really like Old-School Essentials. It is basically a concise, well-organized version of my favorite D&D (B/X). The SRD is great. the version that interests me the most is the advanced version - it is NOT an AD&D clone, but B/X with many new options taken from AD&D, dragon magazine, etc. For players and DMs.

Sine Nomine Publishing

Worlds Without Number is probably the hottest "new" (released in April/2021) OSR title on sale with 40% off. I have only read the free version briefly, but seems very good overall, and I've appreciated many other titles form the same author, including Scarlet Heroes and Silent Legions (maybe my favorite OSR take on horror and Lovecraft).

I think that's it for now. If you know any other books on sale that you'd recommend (especially if it is 40% off), let me know in the comments and I'll add it to my list. Feel free to promote your own products!

These are all Affiliate links - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!