Yes please, more videos on this topic and in general. Hearing DM's "why" and what other things they've considered, tried, or experienced is very interesting and educational. Also, your positive tone and non-judgemental attitude "hey this is how I've liked doing it, not the one true way" is refreshing and pleasing to listen too.
Thanks! I think many gamers like a variety of play styles - or would if given the chance - so while I have narrowed down what I like, I see no reason to look negatively on other styles of play.
In terms of Cantrips, Im using a sort of 'risky cast' method and a method of preventing wizards regaining spells that isn't necessarily magic. When you try to cast a cantrip, you need to make an 8+ (modified by Int) roll. If you fail the cantrip doesn't cast and is exhausted unless you feed it a prepared spell. So if you try to cast Mending and roll a 6, you need to choose to fail the cantrip (and lose it until tomorrow) or sacrifice a prepared spell on the spot. And prevention: Spells (and cantrips) become exhausted when cast. They need to be fed energy from dawn's light. By covering a spellbook (or for cantrips, the wizard themself) they can't prepare those spells again until after they recover the book and wait until dawn. So wizard prisons are held below ground and they are kept away from the light of the sun. Its also why they build towers, so each library can have dawn-facing windows.
Great video. One of the reasons low power undead are so fearsome in B/X - (unlike most other monsters) no morale checks, and immune to the low level MU/Elf’s most powerful magic: sleep & charm.
My friends, who also jammed the MU and cleric together with one spell list, made Turn a level 1 spell. It's still useful but a spellcater can't blow skeletons away all day. They widened it to include demons, so you can spooky away space ghosts and imps.
Most people rate whether or not a game mechanic is good by whether or not they use it. Being able to recognize that it is good, but doesn't mesh with your ruleset or how you think requires layered thinking that a lot of folks lack. Keep up the good work.
Cantrips in 5e gave me hives too. The light cantrip- completely took away some of the essence for me. No running out of light - no torches going out and leaving everyone in the dark, no wondering what’s in that dark pool. The caster just casts their Light cantrip with no “cost” in resources. Some part of the enjoyment when bye-bye for me.
Everyone in 5e has the potential to just see in the dark anytime they want from level 1. A Human Fighter with the right Background can have a Light cantrip, for instance. They completely remove one of the big resource management games in D&D right from the beginning.
I think it greatly depends on what the cantrips are. The key is the only effects available should be those that require player creativity to get a benefit from, and not be an obvious go-to option for a particular game aspect. Attack cantrips are problematic, because their utility is obvious and they are better or equivalent to other attacks. Healing cantrips are straight up broken. Light borks the torch economy from older editions. Prestidigitation the on the other hand... That requires thought to make use of. Any utility the player is getting out of it is well deserved... Why punish them by taking a spell slot? Another type I think could work is spells with a chance of failure... And an associated cost. Charm person? Sure, why not... Just make them roll for it, vs a high DC, and have any failed attempts enrage the target. The cost there is essentially the risk of the spell going horribly horribly wrong... Notably how DCC does all of it's magic. The benefit of done right is magical characters get to be magical... Vs alternating between dead weight and glass cannon. A weakness of the original rules put in intentionally by Gygax, who really didn't want anyone to play wizards at all.
I certainly agree that magic should be rare and powerful. What I like about playing a magic user in older style games is that the limited magic encourages me to be creative in playing that character. You can't just throw magic around so- come up with something inventive to help the party while you are waiting for the perfect time to unleash your spell(s). That is how I like to play. Much more interesting than spamming Eldritch Blast, in my opinion.
So what exactly did you do ? I know my experience has apparently been (from what I see on the internet) unique in that I have players who like to engage in combat. I get that is the lowest level of play and barely acceptable to find a low level MU who isn't useless in combat. But seriously what creative and clever things did you do?
32:30 I also used this system of declare actions at the top, before rolling initiative, in 2nd edition, and I did find it faster than most other ways of doing it. I have struggled with actually explaining exactly how and why it's faster, because it's counter-intuitive. Your explanation is great though. It's simple, and I finally can see it put into words just how it speeds up the round. However, with large combats with many characters/monsters, I just go back to side initiative (or if I play Savage Worlds, all the extras just occupy one spot in the initiative order). Me using only one brain to decide ahead of time the actions of 30 different monsters, or even keeping track of which order they go in, or rolling 30 dice for initiative is just not going to happen.
16:40 I wouldn't say it's bad - at least in some versions of D&D (Pathfinder), it's one of the few things you can hurt (or even touch) incorporeal things with. Other uses include hitting small flying creatures with insane AC and low hitpoints (and maybe they're undead or something so sleep won't do), or countering mirror image type spells (pop! pop! pop! pop!). It's pretty rare in a "normal" dungeon that it's the most useful spell, but it does happen, so it's far from the worst 1st level spell. At least in 2, 3.5, Pathfinder and 5, which is the ones I've played the most. Charm Person is good, but rarely in a dungeon since it doesn't work on non-humanoid monsters. Color Spray is just a worse version of Sleep (and it's still my favourite level 1 spell, btw!). Burning hands needs you to be close and it does pitiful damage, unless you manage to set something on fire. Sleep and Light are both S tier, obviously. They're super great. Buut, Sleep tends to stop being useful at a certain point, when enemies start to get too many HD to be slept by it (and in 3.5 you'd switch to Deep Slumber, a higher level spell, which frees up level 1 slots for... Magic Missile? :) ). Buff spells and Detect Magic will often be more useful than magic missile, unless someone else can cast them. Read Magic I don't believe I have ever used.
Initiative: I like declare actions, side initiative, winning side moves (everyone at the same time), winning side attacks (everyone at the same time, DM just tells everyone each target AC, and they can roll damage when they know if they've hit), and then switch. If everyone is moving the minis at the same time, rolling at the same time, it moves fast... Simultaneous can be a massive chaotic mess, which is good.
I do really like advantage/disadvantage, but it's important to recognize what they do and don't accomplish. Sometimes, I want to make it likelier that a character will succeed (or fail!) without actually increasing the ceiling of what they *can* accomplish. Advantage doesn't mean you can roll higher, it just means you're more likely to roll as high as you can. And sometimes that's useful, in a way that modifiers aren't!
Love, LOVE advantage/ disadvantage precisely *because* it is swingy. I find that it makes a good replacement for a skill system. Ability scores are in tension with levels since they both model the same thing. Systems do well to lean hard one way or the other. 3e+ tries to have it both ways. I loathe cantrips and in my 5e games typically reduce the cantrip list to Prestidigitation and Mage Hand only. Another valid approach could be requiring casters to have a wand to cast at all. Take the wand and she can be disarmed just like a fighter. Because D&D is a game about fighting monsters, it makes sense that all character classes have gravitated toward dealing HP injury, but I'm so fond of the older "treasure hunter" model where dealing damage is the fighter's job, evading obstacles is the thief's, and the M-U is a wildcard.
For your group initiative... I know I am late but here goes... You could institute a rule such as: Whoever initated combat is the one who rolls initiative. This is still somewhat contrallable by the players so they simply have their quickest person always walking in front of them... But that almost has an in-world logic to it. Like, of course the guy with the quickest reaction is going to walk in front, if ever he stepped on a trap he has the highest likelyhood of dodging out of the way or ducking behind cover if the monsters you bump in to happen to shoot arrows at you. And then there is still a chance that somebody else initiates combat: Hum-Drum the Clumsy Fighter tries to open a chest only to find it is a mimic? He initiated that combat, initiative is rolled using his bonus to it. There's just sort of a natural logic to that.
Regarding Cantrips, the way they worked in 3rd edition was they were fundamentally apprentice level spells. Level 0. Each caster still had a limited amount of them per day, and prepared casters still had to prepare them. They were extra, and a place to put the less powerful stuff like Read Magic, but they were still finite.
Cool - though Read Magic can be incredibly useful in some campaigns - I understand there is a lot of hand waving at most tables of common adventure fiction tropes
The Black Hack uses roll under stat for combat and damage by class. It handles large weapons by adding a d4 to both the attack roll and damage roll. This makes it harder to hit with two handed weapons, but they do more damage. I find this pretty elegant.
@@BanditsKeep The other thing I'll add is that even though The Black Hack is roll-under-stat, it's also 3d6-in-order, so you don't get to just put your best score in Strength because you want to have a fighter. You've got to take what the dice give you - no character "builds".
@@Dyrnwynyeah but if you start dealing with realism, you realize most weapons are just going to be massively inferior to spears in almost every way all of the time, but rpgs are an abstraction with changes made for roleplay and balance.
I handle cantrips by ruling that any cantrip used more than once within one minute’s time requires a DC10 Con save. Failure means you get 1 level of exhaustion. If used a second time within 1 minute, the DC becomes 12, a thrid time: 14, a fourth 16, +2 for each time a particular cantrip is used without a minute of non use.
Good video. For someone new to OSR (started playing well in to 3.5) it's interesting to hear these different rules, and especially to hear your reasoning for liking them or not.
RE Damage by class: Dungeon World uses damage by class and then gives weapons “tags” that add tactical value. A dagger and a great sword do the same damage. A dagger is concealable and good for close quarters combat, but if you attacked someone who wielded a great sword, you would likely get cut down before getting close enough to land a hit with a dagger.
Magic missile is a wand or scroll spell. You should never use your prepped spells on it, but it's great if you have a wand of missiles for consistent damage.
I think weapon damage based on class Hit Die shines when you actually give some depth yo the weapons and give them some properties, so players have incentives to certain weapons depending on the situation. Facing heavily armored opponent? You wouldn't want to use a dagger. You'd want something like a warhammer that was made to combat armor and maybe you get a good hit bonus with it. Going into a dungeon with lots of wooden doors? Bring an axe that can break them with ease, but that means you'll have to sacrifice space when you could have brought other lighter weapons.
Doing what you suggest negates that rule IMO A- the idea is that the fighter is deadly and can kill you with anything, Magic user can barely kill you with a battle axe - so again I skip that rule. And axes are still useful for cutting down doors. 😊
Playing in a dungeon where you can almost never rest really played a toll on the mages and clerics in our party. Even having the fighters keeping them safe didn't help since they almost never got enough sleep and seldom had enough time to memorize all or even most of their spells. The spellcasters came to depend on their magical items which had limited charges so eventually they ran out. They would have to use a first level spell for Identify so that any magical items that we found could be used as we continued our journey. Clerics had to use Create Food and Water since our journey was months long underground. And if they couldn't memorize that spell we had to scrounge for food. Finding a safe place to rest became our top priority after about 1 month and it almost never happened. Even setting up traps and alarms didn't help much. We came to suspect a spy in the group but later found out that it was the little creepy crawly spiders that kept giving away our position. Lloth, demon queen of spiders knew every move we made and knew exactly how to keep our spellcasters in check!
When you are going to take down a spellcaster or monster with spell-like abilities you might want some legwork. The crew wanted to squeeze a wizard, did no background work and found out the hard way he could make heavily bleeding wounds open up on people.
Hi Daniel. I have yet to experience anything in the 5th Edition ruleset. I use to play in the late 70's and early 80's in junior high school and high school. When I entered college at 16 my time was pretty much relegated to my education. This being said, I'm a product of 1st Edition rules and therefore very familiar with them. Currently I'm waiting on my 1st ed DMG (2012 reprint).... looking forward to getting back into actively playing. Thanks for this video, it's helping me get immersed back into gaming. It's been so long LOL... no old guy jokes :D
I started red box, went to 2e then into the workforce for two decades. Came back to the game and it’s just too soft. I need the old school rules, I need hard mode
Thinking about making cantrips just 0 level magic with a 1st level caster having like 3 - 5 a day or something, and no blaster spells like magic missle Great video as always btw, probably one of the most informative and well thouht out osr videos out there
I use a hybrid casting model. When the caster reaches a level where they can cast a new level of spell, the player can now cast the spell level below it infinitely. Eg. Upon 3rd level, a wizard can cast 2nd level spells; from now on, they no longer need spell slots for level 1 spells. This continues on...5th level grants infinite 2nd level spells, 7th level allows 3rd level spells, etc. up until 13th level. Infinite spell casting only applies to spell levels 1-5. Levels 6-9 always require slots as they are consider greater arcana. Also, when any spell is cast, the player must roll a check vs a DC. If they fail, the spell fizzles and nothing happens. If they roll a 1, very nasty things happen....this helps to keep players in check, so they still practice some reservation. Also, since I control which spells are granted, I can ensure that spellcasters don't get out of hand. Finally, I don't allow sorcerers or warlocks as player characters, only wizards for arcana magic. Great video. Thanks for sharing.
I love all the content you have out. I don't know if you check comments from videos this far back. We still use the roll under your ability score if it is a feat that requires that particular ability, bend bars-strength etc. We did, however dump levels, your example of a 5th level fighter should always have an advantage over a 3rd level fighter doesn't always work. We switched to a skills based system where the characters only get better with what they use, and depending on their situation a spear being wielded by a 3rd level fighter might work far better than a cutlass wielded by a 5th level character, especially if the cutlass isn't a weapon the fighter is proficient with. Likewise a thief that rarely picks locks doesn't get an advantage to picking locks just because he's7th level, he only improves his lock picking skills by picking locks. We didn't like that everything improved with a level jump whether they used their skills or not, by improving their skills as they use them we were able to dump the level system. Also making it a skills based system we were able to dump classes and really sandbox character creation. The players pick the special skills they want for their character and they only improve those skills as they use them. If they try too much, their character will never get really good at any thing so they need to pick as few special skills as they need to specialize their character into what they want.
Easy fix for Cantrips/spells is to have them require a spellcasting focus to use. Which they loosely state in the rules anyways. They get arrested, and they have their weapons and spell casting focuses taken away. Boom done.
@BanditsKeep No, I'm not saying that. But maybe it should be that way. Other wise, like you said, magic is too easy and powerful if it is always available. What I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It's less interesting for the caster if they can only cast spells once in a while. Allow them to have cantrips and spell slots during a regular adventuring day. But in a situation like you suggested, have that magic ability require a focus. If we are removing or adding rules, we are already in homebrew country. Make the rules work for you, not the other way around. Rules are meant to enrich the game. They shouldn't work against the DM. They should work for the DM. If cantrips have no spell focus requirements and that is a problem. Then fix it. Then everyone wins. If you're too hung up on the focus rule, then there is an even easier fix. Every spell requires at least one or a combination of vocal, semantic, and material components. So if a cantrip has no material components, then have their hands bound so they can't make semantic gestures and have their mouths gaged and tied so they can't make verbal. Magic is powerful. But it doesn't make them a God. Magic users are just as susceptible, if not more so, to the same physical restrictions that a maritals have.
@@chrisg8989 while I disagree that casting more makes it more fun - my group loves OD&D with limited casting, I get what you are saying. Just wanted to confirm you mean adding that each cantrips needs material - seems fine to me. Still don’t love them and haven’t used cantrips in at least 4 years, don’t miss them a bit.
Your cantrip argument is very good. I mainly play 3.5 and I did add cantrips to that at some point. But it felt really off and I was thinking whether I should've done it in the first place.
One interesting way to make Advantage/Disadvantage more granular is rolling more dice. If you replace the d20 with 2d10, then one layer of advantage with one more d10 has a smaller impact than it does on the d20. Personally I'm a lot more inclined to stack layers of advantage and disadvantage (including more than one additional die if there are more than 1 layer of one over the other) rather than have simultaneous advantage and disadvantage cancel eachother out regardless how many layers of each on each side there are. (This also helps my personal sensibilities, I am not a fan of the swinginess of a d20 lol)
I run an obscenely high magic 5th edition game where magic items like self cleaning brooms are available to normal people that can afford it. I just use a magic cancelling metal stolen from The Witcher, diritemitium, which blunts Magic’s ability to move through a body if it is contact with the body. Like an electric current. Throw that metal as shackles on a magic user and they cannot cast magic. Doesn’t require worldbuilding backflips to include, and makes sense that even a small community could have one pair of shackles with their guards made from it. Also, in 5E spellcasters need either a focus or spell component bag. If you steal that, only sorcerers using Subtle Spell can actually cast typically. Just my take on it all.
You briefly noted this, but I think it's worth drawing attention to the fact that "group vs. individual initiative" is a distinct question from "action declarations before vs. after rolling initiative". I'm completely with you on the latter - games where the initiative order is fixed, and on each person's "turn" they decide what they're doing, feel very gamey to me and make combat too much a tactical game of perfect information, besides which they seem to make combat take much longer since you have to go through the process of weighing their decisions separately with each player. Declaring actions before initiative gives a much more realistic (if I dare use that word) sense of things sort of all happening at once and combat being chaotic. However, unless it's a very large combat, I usually use individual initiative with this. I like this combination in particular because it allows the action that the player has declared to apply a modifier to his or her initiative - so heavier weapons, for instance, can be slower than lighter ones, higher-level spells can be slower than low-level ones, and so on. (I should note that I run 2nd edition AD&D, where these initiative modifiers are part of the core rules). This sounds like it would slow combat down quite a bit, and maybe for some that level of granularity isn't worth it, but in practice since characters usually use the same one or two weapons in every fight, it pretty quickly becomes second nature to add those seemingly fiddly modifiers each round.
That’s very good point, when you are using a more nuanced system with weapon speeds etc. I could totally see individual initiative. And I failed to mention that the game that I said I liked individual initiative in, Coriolis, Does indeed have initiative modifiers based on weapon.
On roll under stats rule: I use a roll mechanic system I call "compound checks". A compound check has two target numbers, expressed as a range, a die size (d6 is most common), and an ability being checked. The player rolls both the indicated die type and a d20, and the check passes if either the small die rolls at or under the lower of the two target numbers or both at or under the higher and at or under their ability score on the d20. So for example, the check I use to open doors is a 1-3, d6, strength check. Roll a d6 and a d20. On the d6 a 1 is a success, a 4 or higher is a failure, and on a 2 or 3, refer to the d20 as per a simple roll under strength check. This system, while a bit more complicated, allows the DM to fine-tune the relative importance or ability scores in each check, and you can also make the checks easier for higher level characters by simply adjusting the target numbers up.
I like how instead of Advantage and Disadvantage, DCC can increase or decrease your roll on the dice chain. It's another option instead of adding a static modifier.
I like how 5 torches Deep does it, spells are OSR like and you can cast them infinitely but it’s on a roll. If you miss your roll a mercurial effect happens, not just on a one, every miss. Those effects are harsh too like you get blasted for damage. Keeps spell casters in check because they are like a walking bomb. Great video, I like how you reason through the rules.
I definitely like that better than only an issue when they roll a one. I’m still not a fan of “unlimited” casting but this does seem better than other suggestions I’ve seen. My other issue with rolling is that it’s such a binary set up. If you look at dungeon crawl classics at least it makes sense, you can have more or less powerful spells by rolling higher or lower. The idea of either the spell goes up as normal or kills you again just doesn’t appeal to me. But I do see the appeal for tables that like a higher magic world.
@@BanditsKeep I'm with you - luckily the table isn't a insta' death table. So when you fail you get to roll again to see what happens. Could be you get blasted in place could be the spell goes off but all metal around you melts, stuff like that!
I think some DCC magic or clerics used a roll to cast or an effect roll. We have tried rules where clerics use this rule. When clerics have no special spell list we had to figure out how their casting worked. We have tried making clerics toss a save or an x-in-6 skill. The blowback can happen on all failures or ones. The strength of the blowback can be degrees of deadly, humiliating or awkward. Your god can demand a song and dance or pull spells for x days or blind you for a few hours. Cursed by Jesus basically. In Esoteric a priest can implode from direct divine manifestation. In Warhammer, you deal with demons, corruption and warp nonsense. The funniest feat in Only War is the one where a trooper with a lasgun is constantly behind you ready to shoot you in the head of a demon starts manifesting through your psyker.
@@deathbare5306We tried to balance up the consequence of magic failure. Too little and players will spam Heal. Too much and they refuse to touch magic. Warhammer has pretty serious consequences, but the worst are rare. A demon can manifest through you, you can mutate or age. In Esoteric Enterprises they are harsh. The gods do not usually kill you but they demand fealty, sacrifice and devotion. The crew wanted to toss magic near some magic shrooms, failed and their god demanded song. Which the shrooms immediately noticed, some fool was singing near their compost room.
Good topic! I've never liked the damage by class. It's just icky 😅 I like the idea of magic being rare and therefore no cantrips but I seem to like it as an idea, not in practise. I require the caster to have either their focus or a component. This makes it possible to take their magic away but also gives them a chance to wing it by using their imagination to figure out a specific component that would allow them to cast say a web spell by using a dead spider as component.
One of my friends tested rules where we did damage by class and by weapon heaviness. A fighter would do more damage with light, medium, heavy weapons. A wizard might do less damage, but also not get more out of a heavy weapon.
I have been using Damage by Class for several years now, and all you have to do to make it work is that 2 handed weapons (or dual wielding) increases the die one size, and a tiny or improvised weapon such as a dagger or mug of ale decreases the die one size. So now a fighter gets to do 1d8 normally but that Polearm does 1d10 OR kill someone with a leg of mutton at 1d6. Works great, players use a variety of weapons, fun is had.
I greatly enjoy your videos and your views on role playing. Your opinions, likes and dislikes, mirrors my own closely, if not exactly depending on the subject.
Fantastic video nicely articulated with DM designer notes, RAW and RAI Suggestions for the next video: Encumbrance, Horror, Insanity / Stress, Weapon, Armor General Equipment Repair & Replacement, Hirelings
@@BanditsKeep you definitely have a nice moderation of power in your game style. Check out low fantasy gaming LFG. Picking modern rules that can fit on a BX chassis is a fun challenge and yet another aspect of this amazing hobby made for everyone 😎🎲
I just did the probabilities and advantage/disadvantage, at most, changes the probability by 25% when it's a 50/50 chance. As the probability of success or failure increases or decreases, in either direction, it goes down to a 4.75% change in probability at the extreme ends. So, it's like getting a +/-5 modifier for the 50/50 case, but slightly less than a +/-1 modifier if you hoping to roll a 1 or a 20. It changes the effective modifier based on what your initial chance of success was, favoring you if you had to roll something around an 11.
Great video, Daniel, as usual. Here are my thoughts to each. 1. I hate advantage/disadvantage. I have seen some statistical models that suggest the modifier is +6/-6. Yikes! That’s a lot! I also find it distances me from the immersion. If everything in the situation boils down to adv or disadv, the nuances of the situation become meaningless, and this breaks immersion for me. 2. Rolling under stats I did not like until I played The Black Hack. If there is not an adjustment for difficulty, though, I don’t like it. For example, you have to have a situation where my 1st level PC is attacking or defending against a 4 HD monster there needs to be a minus to the stat score because the mister is higher in HD vs., say, fighting a 1 HD monster. This has to be in there for me on a roll under stat system, which is probably why I never liked it in B/X. But even this does not address your issue of attributes being so important in the game vs. level. I get that, good point. I think because I love Tunnels and Trolls, where attributes are quite literally everything, this doesn’t bother me. But I still understand your hesitance to have that be a part of the D&D system, which it never was in the early days. Level was so much more important. 3. Nice stuff about magic. We are playtesting in my group the idea that 1st level spells can be retained after casting sometimes, so that even without scrolls, the low level M-U can do a bit more. But I agree with your points about magic as a resource and having it be limited actually makes the game more engaging for the players. 4. I love damage by class because I want to have unlimited weapon usage by all classes. Good point, though, about everyone taking a dagger but I have never had this happen ... perhaps my playing group isn’t that clever to think of this! 😁. If they did, I would address this by offering every weapon other than a dagger as magical to get them to use other weapons. To me, damage by class is a super easy way to allow all classes to use all weapons without disrupting class balance and yet still convey the relative fighting prowess of each class. 5. I have always preferred group initiative. It really imposes that team feeling on the players, which is something I want. We also determine order of action within each group based on distance to the danger or the goal if the action, with those closest to danger or their goal going first. So a PC in melee with an enemy will attack a monster they are in melee with first because they are so close to the threat. A PC making a ranged attack against an enemy 50 feet away goes after the melee attacks of the ally because they are farther from their target relative to the enemy in melee. I have enjoyed all of the more rules based videos you have done, so -lease keep making them. Matt
Thanks so much for your detailed response, I do think in the right situation/ with the right group all these things can be good. But I’m really starting to find trends in what I like the more I play different systems.
I like to give bonus to heavy weapons to hit armored guys, but penalty to hit light armored ones. On the opposite, small weapons are better versus all, but do low damage and usually lose initiative
Cody on Taking20 UA-cam channel had an interesting video on his idea for initiative. I have used it a few times and I like it. Goes like this: DM only rolls initiative the strongest monster in the combat, while all the players roll. Compare the monster's roll with the highest player roll. If the player is higher, that player goes first, and the strongest monster goes 2nd, even if other players also beat its initiative. If the monster is higher, it goes first. Then alternate monsters and players. If one side outnumbers the other, is excess combatants go at the end of the round. If a monster or PC goes down, then one side will have 2 creatures go in a row from that round onward. This system prevents PCs from ganging up on a boss monster and taking it out before it can do anything. It is also simpler to track for the GM than individual initiative. I suggested the idea of side initiative to my players, but they didn't like the thought of all of the monsters going at one time.
I’d be curious how that works for you, to me that sounds not so great to be honest. A player who rules really well on initiative effectively is penalized because the monster is always going second to somehow save the precious boss monster just not my deal.
In my system there are small/large weapons and they do damage by class. Thieves do the same damage with both small and large. Monks do the same dice damage whether they use a weapon or not. Fighters can add +1 damage using a large weapon with two hands. I sometimes bump the damage dice of either small or large up one when characters level.
Off topic. You reminded me about the conditions I needed to come up with for detention of magic using persons: temporary prisoners wore blind folds or masks without eye holes locked on; had gags; and had bound hands (add mittens for fun). Permanent prisoners had their eyes put out or lids sewn closed, tongues cut off, and fingers cut off. We never ended up seeing the inside of the wizard jail in the game though.
Hi there! Super video as usual! Agree with your take on the advantage rule (it works only in 5e or special cases in BX dnd). Cantrips are no brainer: consequences and flavor exactly as you described, no good! For damage by class I disagree: a fighter will be better at to hit AND damage! The implementations of this principle in the rule is of course another matter. Weapon mastery in BX was a complicate but nice mechanics. An alternative might be, the fighter (of a certain level maybe?) does dice size bigger damage? Where a mu makes 1d4 with a dagger, a fighter of , say, 5+ level makes 1d6, etc. Conceptually I prefer individual initiative with predeclaration of intent but you solution is also nice and much quicker, I will try it.
I had a good idea for weapon mastery. The damage is still tied to individual weapons, but when a PC rolls a nat 20 during combat.. say a weapon attack, they can level up on that weapon and add another damage die. This reflects their growing skill with the weapon. You can do this with some spells as well if you want. I'm on the fence on if this would start at level 1 or if it starts at say level 3 or 4. If they lose their weapon, or if it breaks, then it starts over.
i agree with advantage/disadvantage completely. First it's a sliding scale bonus that averages between 5-8... that's just too much of a bonus, also 5e relies on it so heavily that players are obsessed with it and will only do things sometimes if they have advantage, so the entire game revolves around help action, flanking, spells to gain advantage.
Fun content. Looking forward to the magic missile vid. I like HD as the die you hit with (IE class-based weapon damage) with caveats: Two-handed weapons are a damage die step up the ladder (d8 becomes d10), ranged weapons are a step down the ladder and require ammo (d8 becomes d6), and two-weapon fighting you roll 2 HD and take the best of the two. All special cases require no shields being used, and both unarmed and improvised weapons are half-HD damage (d8 becomes d4). Throwing one-handed weapons is allowed as a ranged attack, and does normal damage, but then you don't have a weapon in that hand anymore. If using this with a thief class that doesn't have d6 HD, I'd give them d6 HD and modify their exp chart to be equal to the Cleric's. Because HD equals abstract skill in combat now, and the thief has more of that than a magic user. Oh lastly, a rule that I think is good that I will never use? Usage dice. I think they're actually more effort than ticking off checkboxes or putting tickmarks of used torches, arrows, rations, etc
I corrected the advantage/disadvantage by locking it to max. +2, +4, +6, +8, and +10 as the max numbers with a +10 +higher is just Advantage. Oppositely, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10 remain and anything lower than -10 is Disadvantage. Limiting the mechanics to 5 above and 5 below in increments of +2/-2. I used to do a ton of public play and professional games and this method really worked well and made more sense to the players (upwards of 1,000 each year easily) who were ranged in play experience from brand new to old school, and capped +2/-2 mechanics to numbers we know. 10 appears often as middle ground, max of, baseline and more. This mechanical modification so to speak, corrects the all or nothing you were talkin about. I agree with you, the mechanic as they listed it doesn't stand in the system well when you explore its min/max mentality of operation as the mechanic existed in the books. This fix I listed above seemed to be a decent solution to measure it and worked well for my tables of which there were many in variety.
I really think it's worth putting time in thinking about the internal logic of magic in your setting, and how that impacts game mechanics. For example, I like to consider that magic isn't a single phenomenon, so one of the casting systems I have involves consumable material components (and no "focuses" to get around that restriction). For the other major system, spirit-calling, every time you call a spirit the difficulty of calling it again, without being possessed, goes up. But I find the Vancian x-times-per-day-and-then-you-forget-it to be underwhelming and immersion-breaking.
I was toying with a way to limit cantrips in 5e, perhaps per long rest a magic user only gets as.many cantrips equal to some number (maybe level plus proficiency?). Or, once they have cast cantrips equal to that number, if they keep casting they take either a level of exhaustion or 1d2 HP in damage.
Those sound like good ideas, so long as your players are down for it. I recommend taking a look at D&D 3rd edition for inspiration on level progressions for cantrips per day.
iirc, advantage/disadvantage is on a 1 to 1 basis. What I mean to say is that 1 advantage is cancelled out by 1 disadvantage. If you had 2 disadvantages and 1 advantage, you still are considered to have disadvantage, since 2-1=1.
@@Goblinerd ah! That makes sense. I just pulled out my (dusty) player’s handbook to confirm and you are recalling incorrectly- any number of advantages or disadvantages, it makes no difference if you have at least one of both it counts as none.
I love these videos - your walkthrough of randomly generating a dungeon using B/X helped me generate and run my first OSE session last week! I did the Black Hack thing and asked for roll under stat checks a lot. I’d like to know - What is the alternative to doing this? Like, for your example where the PC wants to climb/jump a wall during an encounter without using movement…do you roll at all? 2-in-6?
That’s awesome. It’s not a bad idea to roll under stats sometimes - I just don’t like it as the “core mechanic” but to answer that question specificity, unless the action will yield some benefit (and even sometimes then) I would not require a roll at all. I may say something like - you can do that awesome attack move, but you will be rolling to hit at -2, but if you hit, you will do +2 damage.
When you’re talking about cantrips , the escalation of what the DM has to think of and create makes the game rather cumbersome in my experience. It’s part of the reason why I want to do OSR style gaming because I want simplification and not have to stress trying to figure out how to Counter everything
on initiative a better gm than i am or ever was suggested using a simple fast/slow system, where all the bad guys had one initiative, the players had to either beat that initiative to act before the them in what ever order they pleased, the ones who was slower acted after them in what ever order they pleased, makes it very quick and simple for the players, they know who beat it and they can start doing their stuff, then all the bad guys do their stuff and then the slow players can do whatever (they can use an action to reroll their initiative if they wanted)
I like rules where everyone can use weapons like a level 0 man-at-arms. Elfvis can use an elf-shotgun but sir Bob has +3 to hit. A wizard can still pull a shotgun or sword or hand grenade and try.
For me adv/dis was the solution for a great dilemma... that of asigning a difficulty. I use both, up +/- 4 modifiers and adv/dis... generally I require a roll only in specific cirumstances... and adv/dis shifts the category from the default difficulty of the ability check towards significantly more or less likely. The numeric modifers are either earned by roleplay, ideas or less optimal situations, equipment or added details. Both cancel each other out and are capped to one adv/dis and +4 or -4. Works easy enough. But i am also tempted to just add and sunbtract a number of d6 like shadows of the demon lords capping it to one result. This also works great with a d20 resolution and midrange numbers. Concerning weapon damage: I use weapon damage by hit die, but with some additional rules to prevent what you described. Small weapons roll damage with disadvantage, but can be used in offhand (which either allow a secondary attack with disadvantage or increase damage die of the single attack by one category) Medium weapons roll damage normally. Large weapons roll damage with advantage but require both hands. Generally the large weapon always wins initiative in the first round of combat.
Agree with all your points. I think advantage/disadvantage has its place BUT just keep in mind it’s effectively +/-5. That is a huge modifier for BX/BECMI and AD&D. I think the worst modifier codified in older editors is -4 which is devastating.
I like the BECMI system.. damage by weapon-type modified by skill level. It really opened up fighters (who got more weapon skill points) but would also open up other characters classes to skill up in a more versatile way.
In my game, wizards must expend mithril powder (rather than normal material components) & carry an arcane focus in the form of a staff, wand, amulet, etc. If you capture them & take away those things, they can’t cast spells. With mithril powder, but without an arcane focus, they can cast a spell “wild”, but they must pass a check or suffer a wild magic effect also. My wild magic effects are more like mild, temporary curses.
So with cabtrips it's actually pretty easy to counter in 5e. All cantrips require at least one of verbal (V) or somatic (S), and sometimes material (M). A caster has to use a focus or material component pouches for the M component. In settings where magic is maybe not universal but understood, then part of the process of apprehending magic users would be to search and sieze any purses and known foci items, and if they are known magic users, bound (can't cast somatic components while handcuffed) and gagged. Now they're on the same level, if not worse off, than the thief with no tools, as you used in your example.
I personally love the advantage rule but never use in in my dnd like sessions. I hate the shield that only gives +1. I think a shield should be as good as at least a chain mail, but then there would be problems with probability and sums. But in truth I keep it because of the feel it has, together with other old school rules.
I've been opting for more realism learned from LARP to actual nartial arts - shields are vitally important, therefor worth a lot more than a measely 1 in 20 difference. IMU of 1E/2E D&D I give non-Fighters of all Levels 1 point for a small shield, 2 points for a medium and 3 points for a large, while 0-Level and 1st Level Fighters 1 point for a buckler, 2 points for a small shield, 3 points for a medium and 4 points for a large shield, when 2nd Level and higher Fighters get 1 more point from each type. However flexible weapons such as flail, chains, nunchuks or tentacles defeat up to 3 points of a shields value. My unresolved debate is whether an unarmored man can add half their DEX bonus (round up) to a buckler or small shield.
@@stevekillgore9272 One of my HEMA friends said Role Master/MERP had those shield rules. A shield is a parrying tool, it makes you harder to hit. Armour lessons critical injury, the real killer in MERP. You can only point your shield one way.
@@BanditsKeep I never thought of that. There was no Rogue in our group. To be honest, we never really gave 5e much of a chance. Oh, and about cantrips. I played in a Pathfinder game where I could only use non combat spells. I could use a light cantrip but not flare, for example. Or maybe that was 3e. It's been a couple of decades.
Individual initiative is something we always use starting with first edition a d&d and continued into second edition. We didn't have an issue with people not being prepared on their turn because it was required that you wear. And if your turn came and you hadn't thought of what you were going to do you were skipped and sent to the end of the line. If at the end of the group's turn you still hadn't paid enough attention to what was going on to have thought of something to do you simply lost your turn that round you did nothing. You are considered too confused to have acted in those few seconds of combat. I agree with you that group initiative is actually faster but I like the chaos the randomness that can come into play with individual initiative because you do not know in advance who's going to be acting first second etc etc. Great video by the way first time I've ever seen your channel, subscribed and welcome back for more and we'll watch some of your game play on your other channel. By the way it's not really a fan of 5th edition dungeons & dragons in many ways. I think there's far too many subclasses these days. The game is far too easy on player characters, danger and death risk and reward are less of a factor. And watching what's going on with wizards of the Coast the new woke direction is really unappealing to me.
Thanks! Welcome aboard. I definitely can understand enjoying the randomness of individual initiative. Did you roll every round then? Because I think most people only roll at the beginning of combat which would then just have that randomness once I guess.
@@BanditsKeep Ty for the reply good sir. Yes we rolled every round keeping the player order then totally random. Note we sometimes would use different initiative rolls for the NPC's depending on grouping within the situation on the table. Group initiative was primarily used simply because it's much easier on the DM and makes play faster, with some exceptions when combat was extremely small in participants total and we felt the added chaos would enhance the experience.
Very cool. At one point I tried this with my table, but I felt like the recordkeeping was not worth the excitement. But if The DM can keep up with it I could definitely see the appeal
Initative is something Ive thought a lot about lately and cant decide on. I want it to be the most "realistic"/ "simultaneous" but without being confusing or complex. Rn Im just doing one side goes then the other. Might try simultaneous declarations and resolution based on what actions would happen fastest, but that just seems confusing
Yes! He talked about stuff he and I talked about in the comments! Not sure if this was made before or after, though. Dimeritium from Witcher could be a solution to imprisoned mages. Could even prevent spell-like abilities. Also, do you use the B/X damage for weapons? I don't remember the details, but I remember that there are two-handed weapons that do equal damage to a Longsword and they don't get to use shields. I thought of a system that was tiny weapons do d4, small weapons did d6, medium weapons did d8, and large weapons did d10s (or maybe 2d6). I haven't actually had a chance to test it. I feel like group initiative encourages more teamwork. I let the players decide on their order. In 5e, it feels more like individual powers fighting the same foes with occasional collaboration.
The battle axe does the same as a sword - but other two ha d weapons deal a d10 - that being said, I use battle axes and so do my players as they are cool and maxing out damage is not always our main objective.
For advantage/disadvantage, I could see the argument that tactical positioning and situation matters more than character strength or skill. Tbh I haven't used it much though. On the topic of unlimited magic, there's the Lost Pages Wonder & Wickedness route: casting spells is dangerous. I really want to run it alongside vancian magic as "evil" magic and up the anti on it a bunch. So you might have a spellbook of spells you can cast even when your slots are out, but doing so has a big potential to cause more problems then it solves. Vampires and litches all have spells out of "The Book of Gaub", also by Lost Pages.
I played in a game where cantrips cost 1hp per casting. I think the reasoning behind that was because cantrips were classified as internalized Magic coming from the person and memorized spells where from the source of Arcana and the caster was "channeling" that energy.
Basic Fantasy uses a saving throw number based on your level for ability checks modified by the stat in questions modifier. So the first-level character with an 18 Strength would need to roll a 17 or more to make an STR check which would be modified by a +3 because of their STR score. At higher levels, the Save number goes down.
Interesting, I like the combination of level and stats - funny I’ve played in dozens of BFRPG games and we never used that rule 😂 I’ll have to check it out, thanks!
I just thought of the idea that if you are not proficient with the weapon you use the weapon and apply your stat bonuses, but you roll damage dice one less than written. A dagger would be 1d2, a long sword would be one d6, etc
26:30 here’s something to explore - how do you apply this idea to systems like MCDM RPG where there is no to hit roll? Fighters can’t hit more often there, so perhaps be more strict with weapon proficiency rules? Some such systems do zero damage when the damage dice roll is 0, so maybe instead you raise it to 2… or 3? I’ve been pondering this and haven’t come up with an answer I’m fully satisfied with
Cantrips- I really like Jason Cone's approach in Philotomy's Musings: (sorry but I guess I cannot add this rule due to limited wording in you tube- but you can always look it up).
I’d been thinking about using saving throws (w/ ability modifiers) instead of ability scores. E.g. replace dex. checks with death ray +dex. bonus saving throws
I feel what you're saying about magic in 5E. I feel that edition can only work in high magic settings, and it's very difficult to tailor that system to any other setting, which is unfortunate. As for a system for making cantrips more manageable (I kind of think this is something that would be a group decision where everyone is going to kind of have to be on board): My suggestion might be for Cantrips to sap the spell caster's spell casting ability score (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics) by 1 point per casting, recoverable in some way in either a short rest or a long rest. This would penalize the spell caster's effectiveness while still allowing multiple castings of cantrips, but would only be a short term setback, so: use Cantrips if you must, but you'll have to deal with the consequences if you dip too deeply.
That seems like a good way to manage cantrips and can easily fit the fiction - old wizards have apprentices to cast cantrips for them so they can focus on levels spells
I'll be honest the advantage system is my biggest qualm with 5e. I started with 5e, started playing Pathfinder 1e as well and it became my favorite system very quickly, and have dabbled in a little bit of OSE, although mostly I just use OSE rules in other systems. (A lot of the way I run dungeons is heavily based on OSE) In my 5e group I have tried multiple times to remove the advantage system, usually in favor of a +2 -2 like you would have in 3.x/Pathfinder, but it's so engrained in the rules of 5e that it always had unintended consequences. So nowadays I just usually don't hand it out but don't change it if your class gives advantage. I usually say multiple sources of advantage give a stacking +2 bonus (so if someone is prone and the barbarian is recklessly attacking then the barbarian gets advantage and a +2), but even with me never handing it out advantage in general is the bane of my existence in 5e. I simply don't like the fact that you roll twice, usually have a way to reroll that, so you end up rolling 3 dice. It just takes the chance of failure more or less out of the system without much effort from the players. I'm not opposed to auto-success, but I think you should have to work for that, not just roll two dice then silvery barbs/lucky feat if you are unlucky.
I like this topic. You can continue, as I have had little experience with other rule sets. I've played 1st- 5th Ed (no 4th)D&D and prefer DCC. One that I encountered is playing 5th ed and Passive Perception. Part of the issue was I knew little of the game rules, and the group was really new to D&D period. I was playing a 4th lvl thief. I was successfully hiding while in a cave. the group split and paths eventually crossed moments later. The DM ruled I was detected because my roll did not beat their passive perception. he did not know about -5 for being in darkness (of course neither did I). What I don't like is that it is suppose to take into account all senses but as like light for sight, what about ocean, wind, rain, or echo sounds mulling your hearing.Or the dank, mustiness of a cave or foul odors of a swamp disrupting smell. Though a good idea, it is just poorly executed rules. I concur about rolling under an ability scores. I very much like DCC roll under Luck, as it makes it unique. I partially agree with you on Advantage or Disadvantage. There should be a +/- included., using it to benefit the action, if they are that advantageous to success or failure. If not, then just a +/-. It is tough to decipher a good formula to determine situational bonuses. I like the idea of dice progression in DCC but it might not be enough going from a d20 to a d24 and a d30 might be too much. Understanding dice rolls chance, helps but sometimes just assigning a +/-. Maybe a you don't need to verbalize a plus or minus or roll a certain dice. Just adjust the DM side number to roll. This would keep all the other players guessing at a point of success. Love your Videos keep them going.
It’s a good point you make about just changing the number on the DM side and not verbalizing the bonus or penalty. That could be a good way to do it and keep it simple if the players don’t like to handle math. I tend to like to spell everything out to my players so they fully understand their chances and will even stop and say “the way this works mechanically“ I know that for some people this is like a sin and kills immersion but for me I feel like I want my players to know exactly what their chances are. I do agree the roll under luck in DCC is useful and something I really do like
I also only use party init. when playing large battles. I would consider pre-declaring actions if the party had advantage. Don't even get me started with cantrips in 5th. I don't like unlimited anything. Even wish is limited How about discussing your preferred death throes rules...unconscious to DED DEAD?
i think i agree with all of these points. i wonder if a fighter should be exempt from declaring their actions before initiative for those who think they are too weak
As I just ask for a general declaration “melee” “missile” for instance, I don’t think that would change much. How do you feel this would give them an advantage?
@@BanditsKeep i suppose it would give an advantage insofar as stating your actions before rolling initiative poses a challenge. most of the time it wouldnt make much difference, it just means that you can count on your fighter to be the most versatile combatants in the party
I'm just now getting into B/X OSE and I totally agree about the cantrips issue. I'm curious if/how you limit turning the undead for Clerics in B/X as in times per day? Etc
@@BanditsKeep Thank you! You've sold me on running rules as written in your videos. As you've pointed out, the rules that I'm tempted to tweak might make sense in context with the rest of the game. I appreciate it.
in my houserules, i use roll under score for saves (scores are generated with 3d6 in order exclusively), players also roll on each score each levelup with d20, if they roll above that score goes up 1. I agree with "rarer but more powerful magic" completely, but i do like ritual casting, which is why I've written a system for that as well, which plugs into a modified GLOG spellcasting system. incidentally, i believe GLOG spellcasting does a more limited cantrip fairly well. I've personally never liked class limitations on equipment, at least not if classes also have different hit dice. I don't see why a magic user needs to be extra squishy in multiple dimensions offered by the system. consider the following line of thought: "Wizards are very squishy, so they shouldn't have a big hit die, but they are also very squishy, so they shouldn't be allowed to wear heavy armour!" that's like double dipping in the negative. Furthermore, i like differentiating weapons based on use case. a dagger ought to be a great backup weapon, especially when trying to kill a heavily armoured opponent. i am convinced by your arguments against class hit die as damage die though. just, give each weapin a benefit that would want people to use them (like for example allowing axes to ignore shields). Finally, i don't agree that individual initiative is a good rule ;p
While I greatly enjoy your channel’s content, I think you compared apples to oranges in some cases here. 1. Cantrips: B/X and AD&D (not 2e) was a exploration-driven resource management game with combat elements, whereas 5e is a story-driven social interaction game with combat elements. In that sense, unlimited cantrips work with what 5e has to offer, while they won’t in an old-school game. The games’ premises and their playstyles are entirely different. 2. Adv/disadv: The math engine behind 5e is totally different from those previously published, as prior editions used a linear progression chart that would support static bonuses while 5e has this “bounded accuracy” mechanic which limits the numerical gains as characters advance in levels. Dis/adv mechanic gives a situational bonus of +2 to +5 and it’s imperative that characters won’t get much higher bonuses in a game of 5e. I don’t think looking at 5e through an old-school lens is a great idea overall, as they are completely different games in many ways.
I agree - thus I don’t add those rules to my Old School game. I use them in 5e of course. I often see people pull good rules from 5e (good in 5e) and use them in retro clones, this is what I’m discussing.
Totally agree on no to unlimited spells through cantrips. I played all DnD editions except 4e and I remember how powerfull spells were in B/X and 1e, but you had only a few per day. In addition, damage cantrips in 5e to the few spells where damage level with caster, which makes them very powerfull. I played a cleric in 5e, who wore heavy armour and shield, but was unarmed, because 'sacred flame' was better than any weapon I could get. That felt very wrong und certainly looked stupid 😂
25:30 I rule that small 1h weapons like daggers do -1 damage and large 2h weapons do +1 damage and may reach to attack from the 2nd rank. Also, attacking with a 2h weapon does 2(half HD) damage e.g. a fighter using a large 2h sword deals 2d4+1 damage, while a fighter using a small 1h dagger would deal 1d8-1. Also, I like to give monsters resistance/vulnerability to certain weapon types e.g. skeletons are resistant to piercing damage, and slimes are vulnerable to slashing but resistant to bludgeoning. Different weapons also have different applications in dungeon exploration - much easier to bust down a wooden door with an axe vs with a spear! I use class HD as weapon damage in my game, and these are some ways I try to make weapon choice meaningful
I pretty much agree with these. Great rule ideas, just don't over do it. I recently started a world with OSE, and found that rolling under strength has similar probabilities as the d6 open doors roll, so I use roll under Str for that.
Hi @Bandit's Keep, There's more variation in the STR check. If the player is using a crowbar, or if the door is locked, I can give appropriate modifiers. A 1-point bonus to d6 is a significant change in probability. However, a 1 or 2-point bonus to STR check is more moderate. As a personal preference, when a task can be completed by a general rule (Str test) or a specific rule (x-6 Open Doors), I usually prefer the general rule. One less number on the character sheet.
I use roll-under ability checks a lot, especially wisdom/intelligence/charisma situations. I'll bite, why the hate for magic missile? Not that it's the best spell ever but a LL/BX mage at fifth level gets three missiles and can hold them for a turn and it's safe in close quarters. I added a house rule that fighters get +1 damage for every three levels (3/6/9/12). I thought that a fighter should get better at causing damage as they gain experience.
What about making it an AC bonus as well? A more experienced fighter will know how to 'dance' in the ballet of swordplay. This really makes sense for a barbarian type using level as AC bonus to run around half-nekked versus some +9 loin cloth.
Great video! I have comments, of course, but the frame of reference is that I run my own ruleset and not 5e. I like the concept of advantage/disadvantage, and I think it is useful in 5e. I can see times even in my game when it might be useful, but I'm still not in a hurry to add it in. I do think modifiers do work better, but ad/disad does have the advantage of being a quick and easy way of affecting the characters without discussions/arguments of why the modifier should be higher/lower. I agree with you about rolling under for everything. I do use rolling under ability scores in my game set, but only for certain things. And as far as maxing abilities for a character's focus, I hated Non-Weapon Proficiencies in 2e for the same reason: some 18 year old kid with a high strength is a better smith than a guy who has been working as a smith for twenty five years but has an average strength? B.S. Agree with the 'no cantrips' concept completely. If cantrips were to exist in my game it'd only be the Prestidigitation kind of cantrip to do minor effects and no damage. Magic Missile is a good spell. It's a guaranteed auto-hit (unless the target is specifically protected against it) that will affect almost every target equally, unlike elemental damage spells which are not as useful against some opponents or in some environments, which makes all the difference. But it is a limited use spell with limited effectiveness as it should be since it is a first level spell. The solution I've used in small towns where casters have been imprisoned are locking metal masks that basically hold the jaw shut to prevent verbal components and/or locking metal mittens that prevent somatic. Low tech and relatively easy to do. The metal mittens keep thieves from scrounging for lockpicks too. 😛 Damage by class I'd never heard of before. All weapons doing d6 I remember, but that was it. I have my ways of making fighters more effective in my ruleset, but scaling damage by class seems less reasonable. I understand your explanation of it, but I'm still at no. And your commentary makes perfect sense. I don't think a prison shiv made from a spoon would or should do the same damage as a claymore (the sword, not the antipersonnel mine) just because it is in the hands of a fighter. Initiatives comes down to personal preference. It is somewhat slower for gameplay, but that's not going to be overwhelming. It also gives characters with quicker reactions (i.e. higher Dex) a chance to put those reflexes to good use. I do occasionally do group init, but with individual modifiers based on Dex scores. I.e. the party rolls a 3 but the thief goes first on a 5 because of their high dex and the cleric goes on 2 because of their low dex.
@@BanditsKeep Understandable, but I can easily imagine any town with a blacksmith and a more than rudimentary justice system having at least a couple of sizes of metal mittens with connected shackles to prevent thieves from picking their locks and mages from casting their spells. Heck, even things that look more like boxing gloves (and therefore couldn't be used by the prisoner as a quick KO weapon on the poor jailer) with shackles attached might provide some obstacle. Heavily padded and constraining mittens that couldn't be removed would be enough. The lumpy mittens and a gag combo would give moderate difficulties to imprisoned spellcasters. Or a balaclava with extra muffling padding over the mouth would do too.
Yes please, more videos on this topic and in general. Hearing DM's "why" and what other things they've considered, tried, or experienced is very interesting and educational. Also, your positive tone and non-judgemental attitude "hey this is how I've liked doing it, not the one true way" is refreshing and pleasing to listen too.
Thanks! I think many gamers like a variety of play styles - or would if given the chance - so while I have narrowed down what I like, I see no reason to look negatively on other styles of play.
Yeah, and even just saying it over and over in a non-typical way.
In terms of Cantrips, Im using a sort of 'risky cast' method and a method of preventing wizards regaining spells that isn't necessarily magic.
When you try to cast a cantrip, you need to make an 8+ (modified by Int) roll. If you fail the cantrip doesn't cast and is exhausted unless you feed it a prepared spell. So if you try to cast Mending and roll a 6, you need to choose to fail the cantrip (and lose it until tomorrow) or sacrifice a prepared spell on the spot.
And prevention: Spells (and cantrips) become exhausted when cast. They need to be fed energy from dawn's light. By covering a spellbook (or for cantrips, the wizard themself) they can't prepare those spells again until after they recover the book and wait until dawn. So wizard prisons are held below ground and they are kept away from the light of the sun. Its also why they build towers, so each library can have dawn-facing windows.
Cool!
Magic missile has two great capabilities: hit soenthing that you really need to hit and is very hard to hit, and break target concentration
Indeed - thus not ideal as one’s spell.
Great video. One of the reasons low power undead are so fearsome in B/X - (unlike most other monsters) no morale checks, and immune to the low level MU/Elf’s most powerful magic: sleep & charm.
Yes for sure - that’s why you need a cleric, not for healing!
My friends, who also jammed the MU and cleric together with one spell list, made Turn a level 1 spell. It's still useful but a spellcater can't blow skeletons away all day. They widened it to include demons, so you can spooky away space ghosts and imps.
Most people rate whether or not a game mechanic is good by whether or not they use it. Being able to recognize that it is good, but doesn't mesh with your ruleset or how you think requires layered thinking that a lot of folks lack. Keep up the good work.
Thanks 🙏🏻
Cantrips in 5e gave me hives too. The light cantrip- completely took away some of the essence for me. No running out of light - no torches going out and leaving everyone in the dark, no wondering what’s in that dark pool. The caster just casts their Light cantrip with no “cost” in resources. Some part of the enjoyment when bye-bye for me.
Yes, I agree - while I focused on attack cantrips, even the utility ones - when unlimited as just not for me.
Everyone in 5e has the potential to just see in the dark anytime they want from level 1. A Human Fighter with the right Background can have a Light cantrip, for instance. They completely remove one of the big resource management games in D&D right from the beginning.
@@joshjames582 I do like to use darkness to create danger and mood so yeah, light being a cantrip is less than ideal
I think it greatly depends on what the cantrips are. The key is the only effects available should be those that require player creativity to get a benefit from, and not be an obvious go-to option for a particular game aspect. Attack cantrips are problematic, because their utility is obvious and they are better or equivalent to other attacks. Healing cantrips are straight up broken. Light borks the torch economy from older editions.
Prestidigitation the on the other hand... That requires thought to make use of. Any utility the player is getting out of it is well deserved... Why punish them by taking a spell slot?
Another type I think could work is spells with a chance of failure... And an associated cost. Charm person? Sure, why not... Just make them roll for it, vs a high DC, and have any failed attempts enrage the target. The cost there is essentially the risk of the spell going horribly horribly wrong... Notably how DCC does all of it's magic.
The benefit of done right is magical characters get to be magical... Vs alternating between dead weight and glass cannon. A weakness of the original rules put in intentionally by Gygax, who really didn't want anyone to play wizards at all.
@@joshjames582 5e is just fundamentally not a resource-management game
I certainly agree that magic should be rare and powerful. What I like about playing a magic user in older style games is that the limited magic encourages me to be creative in playing that character. You can't just throw magic around so- come up with something inventive to help the party while you are waiting for the perfect time to unleash your spell(s). That is how I like to play. Much more interesting than spamming Eldritch Blast, in my opinion.
Good point, being limited forces you to be creative and that can be really fun.
So what exactly did you do ? I know my experience has apparently been (from what I see on the internet) unique in that I have players who like to engage in combat. I get that is the lowest level of play and barely acceptable to find a low level MU who isn't useless in combat. But seriously what creative and clever things did you do?
32:30 I also used this system of declare actions at the top, before rolling initiative, in 2nd edition, and I did find it faster than most other ways of doing it. I have struggled with actually explaining exactly how and why it's faster, because it's counter-intuitive. Your explanation is great though. It's simple, and I finally can see it put into words just how it speeds up the round.
However, with large combats with many characters/monsters, I just go back to side initiative (or if I play Savage Worlds, all the extras just occupy one spot in the initiative order). Me using only one brain to decide ahead of time the actions of 30 different monsters, or even keeping track of which order they go in, or rolling 30 dice for initiative is just not going to happen.
Makes sense
16:40 I wouldn't say it's bad - at least in some versions of D&D (Pathfinder), it's one of the few things you can hurt (or even touch) incorporeal things with. Other uses include hitting small flying creatures with insane AC and low hitpoints (and maybe they're undead or something so sleep won't do), or countering mirror image type spells (pop! pop! pop! pop!). It's pretty rare in a "normal" dungeon that it's the most useful spell, but it does happen, so it's far from the worst 1st level spell. At least in 2, 3.5, Pathfinder and 5, which is the ones I've played the most.
Charm Person is good, but rarely in a dungeon since it doesn't work on non-humanoid monsters.
Color Spray is just a worse version of Sleep (and it's still my favourite level 1 spell, btw!).
Burning hands needs you to be close and it does pitiful damage, unless you manage to set something on fire.
Sleep and Light are both S tier, obviously. They're super great. Buut, Sleep tends to stop being useful at a certain point, when enemies start to get too many HD to be slept by it (and in 3.5 you'd switch to Deep Slumber, a higher level spell, which frees up level 1 slots for... Magic Missile? :) ).
Buff spells and Detect Magic will often be more useful than magic missile, unless someone else can cast them. Read Magic I don't believe I have ever used.
Really liking your videos Dan! It’s like sitting down with a friend and just kicking around ideas and thoughts about the game we love.
Thank You!
I second that!
Initiative: I like declare actions, side initiative, winning side moves (everyone at the same time), winning side attacks (everyone at the same time, DM just tells everyone each target AC, and they can roll damage when they know if they've hit), and then switch. If everyone is moving the minis at the same time, rolling at the same time, it moves fast... Simultaneous can be a massive chaotic mess, which is good.
I agree
I do really like advantage/disadvantage, but it's important to recognize what they do and don't accomplish. Sometimes, I want to make it likelier that a character will succeed (or fail!) without actually increasing the ceiling of what they *can* accomplish. Advantage doesn't mean you can roll higher, it just means you're more likely to roll as high as you can. And sometimes that's useful, in a way that modifiers aren't!
Love, LOVE advantage/ disadvantage precisely *because* it is swingy. I find that it makes a good replacement for a skill system.
Ability scores are in tension with levels since they both model the same thing. Systems do well to lean hard one way or the other. 3e+ tries to have it both ways.
I loathe cantrips and in my 5e games typically reduce the cantrip list to Prestidigitation and Mage Hand only. Another valid approach could be requiring casters to have a wand to cast at all. Take the wand and she can be disarmed just like a fighter.
Because D&D is a game about fighting monsters, it makes sense that all character classes have gravitated toward dealing HP injury, but I'm so fond of the older "treasure hunter" model where dealing damage is the fighter's job, evading obstacles is the thief's, and the M-U is a wildcard.
I’m not so sure the older version gives people jobs the way you say, but I’m just going off my experience.
For your group initiative... I know I am late but here goes... You could institute a rule such as: Whoever initated combat is the one who rolls initiative.
This is still somewhat contrallable by the players so they simply have their quickest person always walking in front of them... But that almost has an in-world logic to it. Like, of course the guy with the quickest reaction is going to walk in front, if ever he stepped on a trap he has the highest likelyhood of dodging out of the way or ducking behind cover if the monsters you bump in to happen to shoot arrows at you.
And then there is still a chance that somebody else initiates combat: Hum-Drum the Clumsy Fighter tries to open a chest only to find it is a mimic? He initiated that combat, initiative is rolled using his bonus to it.
There's just sort of a natural logic to that.
Good point
Regarding Cantrips, the way they worked in 3rd edition was they were fundamentally apprentice level spells. Level 0.
Each caster still had a limited amount of them per day, and prepared casters still had to prepare them.
They were extra, and a place to put the less powerful stuff like Read Magic, but they were still finite.
Cool - though Read Magic can be incredibly useful in some campaigns - I understand there is a lot of hand waving at most tables of common adventure fiction tropes
The Black Hack uses roll under stat for combat and damage by class. It handles large weapons by adding a d4 to both the attack roll and damage roll. This makes it harder to hit with two handed weapons, but they do more damage. I find this pretty elegant.
Ah, nice! This I did not remember from my time playing Black Hack.
@@BanditsKeep The other thing I'll add is that even though The Black Hack is roll-under-stat, it's also 3d6-in-order, so you don't get to just put your best score in Strength because you want to have a fighter. You've got to take what the dice give you - no character "builds".
If you watch videos of professionals demonstrating two handed sword techniques, you’ll never think of those weapons as slow or clumsy again
@@Dyrnwynyeah but if you start dealing with realism, you realize most weapons are just going to be massively inferior to spears in almost every way all of the time, but rpgs are an abstraction with changes made for roleplay and balance.
I handle cantrips by ruling that any cantrip used more than once within one minute’s time requires a DC10 Con save. Failure means you get 1 level of exhaustion. If used a second time within 1 minute, the DC becomes 12, a thrid time: 14, a fourth 16, +2 for each time a particular cantrip is used without a minute of non use.
Interesting
Good video. For someone new to OSR (started playing well in to 3.5) it's interesting to hear these different rules, and especially to hear your reasoning for liking them or not.
Thanks 🙏🏻 - I tend to love to try new rules, but in the end I guess I know what I like 😂
RE Damage by class: Dungeon World uses damage by class and then gives weapons “tags” that add tactical value. A dagger and a great sword do the same damage. A dagger is concealable and good for close quarters combat, but if you attacked someone who wielded a great sword, you would likely get cut down before getting close enough to land a hit with a dagger.
This sounds like a good system!
I for one would be interested in your opinion on why Magic Missile is bad! :)
Magic missile is a wand or scroll spell. You should never use your prepped spells on it, but it's great if you have a wand of missiles for consistent damage.
@@nicklarocco4178 But dont you need to know the spell to make the wand?
compare Magic Missile with Sleep (not 5E though!). Both 1st level spells.
Yes, more like this. We have very Similar game tastes, and I have done almost the same thing with everything you talked about.
Sounds good, I do have a list 😂
Agreed, more vids like these would be cool. Similar tastes or not, it breeds interesting conversations and gives food for thought.
Agree. I’ve struggled with inclusion/exclusion of these very rules for years. Nice to get your perspective
I think weapon damage based on class Hit Die shines when you actually give some depth yo the weapons and give them some properties, so players have incentives to certain weapons depending on the situation.
Facing heavily armored opponent? You wouldn't want to use a dagger. You'd want something like a warhammer that was made to combat armor and maybe you get a good hit bonus with it.
Going into a dungeon with lots of wooden doors? Bring an axe that can break them with ease, but that means you'll have to sacrifice space when you could have brought other lighter weapons.
Doing what you suggest negates that rule IMO A- the idea is that the fighter is deadly and can kill you with anything, Magic user can barely kill you with a battle axe - so again I skip that rule. And axes are still useful for cutting down doors. 😊
OS games had weapon adjustment vs armor tables. We never used them.@@BanditsKeep
Starting to play as a DM. Your videos are AWESOME.
Thank you for what you do, man.
Awesome! Let me know how your DMing goes, I find it very rewarding myself.
Playing in a dungeon where you can almost never rest really played a toll on the mages and clerics in our party.
Even having the fighters keeping them safe didn't help since they almost never got enough sleep and seldom had enough time to memorize all or even most of their spells.
The spellcasters came to depend on their magical items which had limited charges so eventually they ran out. They would have to use a first level spell for Identify so that any magical items that we found could be used as we continued our journey. Clerics had to use Create Food and Water since our journey was months long underground. And if they couldn't memorize that spell we had to scrounge for food.
Finding a safe place to rest became our top priority after about 1 month and it almost never happened. Even setting up traps and alarms didn't help much.
We came to suspect a spy in the group but later found out that it was the little creepy crawly spiders that kept giving away our position. Lloth, demon queen of spiders knew every move we made and knew exactly how to keep our spellcasters in check!
Sounds awesome
When you are going to take down a spellcaster or monster with spell-like abilities you might want some legwork. The crew wanted to squeeze a wizard, did no background work and found out the hard way he could make heavily bleeding wounds open up on people.
Hi Daniel. I have yet to experience anything in the 5th Edition ruleset. I use to play in the late 70's and early 80's in junior high school and high school. When I entered college at 16 my time was pretty much relegated to my education. This being said, I'm a product of 1st Edition rules and therefore very familiar with them. Currently I'm waiting on my 1st ed DMG (2012 reprint).... looking forward to getting back into actively playing. Thanks for this video, it's helping me get immersed back into gaming. It's been so long LOL... no old guy jokes :D
Awesome! The 1e DMG is probably the one RPG book I think every DM should read
I started red box, went to 2e then into the workforce for two decades. Came back to the game and it’s just too soft. I need the old school rules, I need hard mode
@@twilightgardenspresentatio6384 nothing like the 1e rules. The game made you work for the XPs LOL
Thinking about making cantrips just 0 level magic with a 1st level caster having like 3 - 5 a day or something, and no blaster spells like magic missle
Great video as always btw, probably one of the most informative and well thouht out osr videos out there
Thanks 🙏🏻
I use a hybrid casting model. When the caster reaches a level where they can cast a new level of spell, the player can now cast the spell level below it infinitely. Eg. Upon 3rd level, a wizard can cast 2nd level spells; from now on, they no longer need spell slots for level 1 spells. This continues on...5th level grants infinite 2nd level spells, 7th level allows 3rd level spells, etc. up until 13th level. Infinite spell casting only applies to spell levels 1-5. Levels 6-9 always require slots as they are consider greater arcana.
Also, when any spell is cast, the player must roll a check vs a DC. If they fail, the spell fizzles and nothing happens. If they roll a 1, very nasty things happen....this helps to keep players in check, so they still practice some reservation.
Also, since I control which spells are granted, I can ensure that spellcasters don't get out of hand.
Finally, I don't allow sorcerers or warlocks as player characters, only wizards for arcana magic.
Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Very cool - the balance of a DM controlling which spells are available makes sense here for sure
I love all the content you have out. I don't know if you check comments from videos this far back. We still use the roll under your ability score if it is a feat that requires that particular ability, bend bars-strength etc. We did, however dump levels, your example of a 5th level fighter should always have an advantage over a 3rd level fighter doesn't always work. We switched to a skills based system where the characters only get better with what they use, and depending on their situation a spear being wielded by a 3rd level fighter might work far better than a cutlass wielded by a 5th level character, especially if the cutlass isn't a weapon the fighter is proficient with. Likewise a thief that rarely picks locks doesn't get an advantage to picking locks just because he's7th level, he only improves his lock picking skills by picking locks. We didn't like that everything improved with a level jump whether they used their skills or not, by improving their skills as they use them we were able to dump the level system. Also making it a skills based system we were able to dump classes and really sandbox character creation. The players pick the special skills they want for their character and they only improve those skills as they use them. If they try too much, their character will never get really good at any thing so they need to pick as few special skills as they need to specialize their character into what they want.
Awesome, personally I am not a fan of skill systems, but I know some (seems like your group) love them.
Easy fix for Cantrips/spells is to have them require a spellcasting focus to use. Which they loosely state in the rules anyways.
They get arrested, and they have their weapons and spell casting focuses taken away. Boom done.
Focus is only for material components- are you suggesting all cantrips need material?
@BanditsKeep No, I'm not saying that. But maybe it should be that way. Other wise, like you said, magic is too easy and powerful if it is always available.
What I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It's less interesting for the caster if they can only cast spells once in a while. Allow them to have cantrips and spell slots during a regular adventuring day. But in a situation like you suggested, have that magic ability require a focus.
If we are removing or adding rules, we are already in homebrew country. Make the rules work for you, not the other way around. Rules are meant to enrich the game. They shouldn't work against the DM. They should work for the DM. If cantrips have no spell focus requirements and that is a problem. Then fix it. Then everyone wins.
If you're too hung up on the focus rule, then there is an even easier fix. Every spell requires at least one or a combination of vocal, semantic, and material components. So if a cantrip has no material components, then have their hands bound so they can't make semantic gestures and have their mouths gaged and tied so they can't make verbal.
Magic is powerful. But it doesn't make them a God. Magic users are just as susceptible, if not more so, to the same physical restrictions that a maritals have.
@@chrisg8989 while I disagree that casting more makes it more fun - my group loves OD&D with limited casting, I get what you are saying. Just wanted to confirm you mean adding that each cantrips needs material - seems fine to me. Still don’t love them and haven’t used cantrips in at least 4 years, don’t miss them a bit.
@@BanditsKeep I appreciate your opinion and your content! Keep em coming!
Thank you for moving the actual play.
Your cantrip argument is very good. I mainly play 3.5 and I did add cantrips to that at some point. But it felt really off and I was thinking whether I should've done it in the first place.
Thanks
One interesting way to make Advantage/Disadvantage more granular is rolling more dice.
If you replace the d20 with 2d10, then one layer of advantage with one more d10 has a smaller impact than it does on the d20.
Personally I'm a lot more inclined to stack layers of advantage and disadvantage (including more than one additional die if there are more than 1 layer of one over the other) rather than have simultaneous advantage and disadvantage cancel eachother out regardless how many layers of each on each side there are.
(This also helps my personal sensibilities, I am not a fan of the swinginess of a d20 lol)
Using 2d10 completely changes the average and tilts the numbers more towards the middle. I think it works fine in 5e, I just don’t run 5e
I run an obscenely high magic 5th edition game where magic items like self cleaning brooms are available to normal people that can afford it.
I just use a magic cancelling metal stolen from The Witcher, diritemitium, which blunts Magic’s ability to move through a body if it is contact with the body. Like an electric current. Throw that metal as shackles on a magic user and they cannot cast magic.
Doesn’t require worldbuilding backflips to include, and makes sense that even a small community could have one pair of shackles with their guards made from it.
Also, in 5E spellcasters need either a focus or spell component bag. If you steal that, only sorcerers using Subtle Spell can actually cast typically.
Just my take on it all.
Good idea! Just to be clear spells that require material components need a focus, spells that only have Verbal or somatic components do not need one
You briefly noted this, but I think it's worth drawing attention to the fact that "group vs. individual initiative" is a distinct question from "action declarations before vs. after rolling initiative". I'm completely with you on the latter - games where the initiative order is fixed, and on each person's "turn" they decide what they're doing, feel very gamey to me and make combat too much a tactical game of perfect information, besides which they seem to make combat take much longer since you have to go through the process of weighing their decisions separately with each player. Declaring actions before initiative gives a much more realistic (if I dare use that word) sense of things sort of all happening at once and combat being chaotic.
However, unless it's a very large combat, I usually use individual initiative with this. I like this combination in particular because it allows the action that the player has declared to apply a modifier to his or her initiative - so heavier weapons, for instance, can be slower than lighter ones, higher-level spells can be slower than low-level ones, and so on. (I should note that I run 2nd edition AD&D, where these initiative modifiers are part of the core rules). This sounds like it would slow combat down quite a bit, and maybe for some that level of granularity isn't worth it, but in practice since characters usually use the same one or two weapons in every fight, it pretty quickly becomes second nature to add those seemingly fiddly modifiers each round.
That’s very good point, when you are using a more nuanced system with weapon speeds etc. I could totally see individual initiative. And I failed to mention that the game that I said I liked individual initiative in, Coriolis, Does indeed have initiative modifiers based on weapon.
On roll under stats rule: I use a roll mechanic system I call "compound checks". A compound check has two target numbers, expressed as a range, a die size (d6 is most common), and an ability being checked. The player rolls both the indicated die type and a d20, and the check passes if either the small die rolls at or under the lower of the two target numbers or both at or under the higher and at or under their ability score on the d20. So for example, the check I use to open doors is a 1-3, d6, strength check. Roll a d6 and a d20. On the d6 a 1 is a success, a 4 or higher is a failure, and on a 2 or 3, refer to the d20 as per a simple roll under strength check. This system, while a bit more complicated, allows the DM to fine-tune the relative importance or ability scores in each check, and you can also make the checks easier for higher level characters by simply adjusting the target numbers up.
That’s interesting
I like how instead of Advantage and Disadvantage, DCC can increase or decrease your roll on the dice chain. It's another option instead of adding a static modifier.
True, one that can be pretty easily ported to any game, though you’d want to add a few dice (like DCC)
I like how 5 torches Deep does it, spells are OSR like and you can cast them infinitely but it’s on a roll. If you miss your roll a mercurial effect happens, not just on a one, every miss. Those effects are harsh too like you get blasted for damage. Keeps spell casters in check because they are like a walking bomb. Great video, I like how you reason through the rules.
I definitely like that better than only an issue when they roll a one. I’m still not a fan of “unlimited” casting but this does seem better than other suggestions I’ve seen. My other issue with rolling is that it’s such a binary set up. If you look at dungeon crawl classics at least it makes sense, you can have more or less powerful spells by rolling higher or lower. The idea of either the spell goes up as normal or kills you again just doesn’t appeal to me. But I do see the appeal for tables that like a higher magic world.
@@BanditsKeep I'm with you - luckily the table isn't a insta' death table. So when you fail you get to roll again to see what happens. Could be you get blasted in place could be the spell goes off but all metal around you melts, stuff like that!
I think some DCC magic or clerics used a roll to cast or an effect roll.
We have tried rules where clerics use this rule. When clerics have no special spell list we had to figure out how their casting worked.
We have tried making clerics toss a save or an x-in-6 skill. The blowback can happen on all failures or ones. The strength of the blowback can be degrees of deadly, humiliating or awkward. Your god can demand a song and dance or pull spells for x days or blind you for a few hours. Cursed by Jesus basically. In Esoteric a priest can implode from direct divine manifestation.
In Warhammer, you deal with demons, corruption and warp nonsense. The funniest feat in Only War is the one where a trooper with a lasgun is constantly behind you ready to shoot you in the head of a demon starts manifesting through your psyker.
@@deathbare5306We tried to balance up the consequence of magic failure. Too little and players will spam Heal. Too much and they refuse to touch magic.
Warhammer has pretty serious consequences, but the worst are rare. A demon can manifest through you, you can mutate or age.
In Esoteric Enterprises they are harsh. The gods do not usually kill you but they demand fealty, sacrifice and devotion. The crew wanted to toss magic near some magic shrooms, failed and their god demanded song. Which the shrooms immediately noticed, some fool was singing near their compost room.
Good topic!
I've never liked the damage by class. It's just icky 😅
I like the idea of magic being rare and therefore no cantrips but I seem to like it as an idea, not in practise. I require the caster to have either their focus or a component. This makes it possible to take their magic away but also gives them a chance to wing it by using their imagination to figure out a specific component that would allow them to cast say a web spell by using a dead spider as component.
Good idea!
One of my friends tested rules where we did damage by class and by weapon heaviness. A fighter would do more damage with light, medium, heavy weapons. A wizard might do less damage, but also not get more out of a heavy weapon.
I have been using Damage by Class for several years now, and all you have to do to make it work is that 2 handed weapons (or dual wielding) increases the die one size, and a tiny or improvised weapon such as a dagger or mug of ale decreases the die one size. So now a fighter gets to do 1d8 normally but that Polearm does 1d10 OR kill someone with a leg of mutton at 1d6.
Works great, players use a variety of weapons, fun is had.
Why would they not do that without damage by class?
I greatly enjoy your videos and your views on role playing. Your opinions, likes and dislikes, mirrors my own closely, if not exactly depending on the subject.
Thanks 🙏🏻 I appreciate the kind words
Fantastic video nicely articulated with DM designer notes, RAW and RAI
Suggestions for the next video: Encumbrance, Horror, Insanity / Stress, Weapon, Armor General Equipment Repair & Replacement, Hirelings
Thanks! Some good topics there.
@@BanditsKeep you definitely have a nice moderation of power in your game style. Check out low fantasy gaming LFG. Picking modern rules that can fit on a BX chassis is a fun challenge and yet another aspect of this amazing hobby made for everyone 😎🎲
I just did the probabilities and advantage/disadvantage, at most, changes the probability by 25% when it's a 50/50 chance. As the probability of success or failure increases or decreases, in either direction, it goes down to a 4.75% change in probability at the extreme ends. So, it's like getting a +/-5 modifier for the 50/50 case, but slightly less than a +/-1 modifier if you hoping to roll a 1 or a 20. It changes the effective modifier based on what your initial chance of success was, favoring you if you had to roll something around an 11.
Exactly
Great video, Daniel, as usual. Here are my thoughts to each.
1. I hate advantage/disadvantage. I have seen some statistical models that suggest the modifier is +6/-6. Yikes! That’s a lot! I also find it distances me from the immersion. If everything in the situation boils down to adv or disadv, the nuances of the situation become meaningless, and this breaks immersion for me.
2. Rolling under stats I did not like until I played The Black Hack. If there is not an adjustment for difficulty, though, I don’t like it. For example, you have to have a situation where my 1st level PC is attacking or defending against a 4 HD monster there needs to be a minus to the stat score because the mister is higher in HD vs., say, fighting a 1 HD monster. This has to be in there for me on a roll under stat system, which is probably why I never liked it in B/X. But even this does not address your issue of attributes being so important in the game vs. level. I get that, good point. I think because I love Tunnels and Trolls, where attributes are quite literally everything, this doesn’t bother me. But I still understand your hesitance to have that be a part of the D&D system, which it never was in the early days. Level was so much more important.
3. Nice stuff about magic. We are playtesting in my group the idea that 1st level spells can be retained after casting sometimes, so that even without scrolls, the low level M-U can do a bit more. But I agree with your points about magic as a resource and having it be limited actually makes the game more engaging for the players.
4. I love damage by class because I want to have unlimited weapon usage by all classes. Good point, though, about everyone taking a dagger but I have never had this happen ... perhaps my playing group isn’t that clever to think of this! 😁. If they did, I would address this by offering every weapon other than a dagger as magical to get them to use other weapons. To me, damage by class is a super easy way to allow all classes to use all weapons without disrupting class balance and yet still convey the relative fighting prowess of each class.
5. I have always preferred group initiative. It really imposes that team feeling on the players, which is something I want. We also determine order of action within each group based on distance to the danger or the goal if the action, with those closest to danger or their goal going first. So a PC in melee with an enemy will attack a monster they are in melee with first because they are so close to the threat. A PC making a ranged attack against an enemy 50 feet away goes after the melee attacks of the ally because they are farther from their target relative to the enemy in melee.
I have enjoyed all of the more rules based videos you have done, so -lease keep making them.
Matt
Thanks so much for your detailed response,
I do think in the right situation/ with the right group all these things can be good. But I’m really starting to find trends in what I like the more I play different systems.
I like to give bonus to heavy weapons to hit armored guys, but penalty to hit light armored ones. On the opposite, small weapons are better versus all, but do low damage and usually lose initiative
Nice!
Cody on Taking20 UA-cam channel had an interesting video on his idea for initiative. I have used it a few times and I like it. Goes like this: DM only rolls initiative the strongest monster in the combat, while all the players roll. Compare the monster's roll with the highest player roll. If the player is higher, that player goes first, and the strongest monster goes 2nd, even if other players also beat its initiative. If the monster is higher, it goes first. Then alternate monsters and players. If one side outnumbers the other, is excess combatants go at the end of the round. If a monster or PC goes down, then one side will have 2 creatures go in a row from that round onward. This system prevents PCs from ganging up on a boss monster and taking it out before it can do anything. It is also simpler to track for the GM than individual initiative. I suggested the idea of side initiative to my players, but they didn't like the thought of all of the monsters going at one time.
I’d be curious how that works for you, to me that sounds not so great to be honest. A player who rules really well on initiative effectively is penalized because the monster is always going second to somehow save the precious boss monster just not my deal.
In my system there are small/large weapons and they do damage by class. Thieves do the same damage with both small and large. Monks do the same dice damage whether they use a weapon or not. Fighters can add +1 damage using a large weapon with two hands. I sometimes bump the damage dice of either small or large up one when characters level.
Cool
Off topic. You reminded me about the conditions I needed to come up with for detention of magic using persons: temporary prisoners wore blind folds or masks without eye holes locked on; had gags; and had bound hands (add mittens for fun).
Permanent prisoners had their eyes put out or lids sewn closed, tongues cut off, and fingers cut off. We never ended up seeing the inside of the wizard jail in the game though.
Yikes!
I love your take on things. Strongly agree with most, but even when I don’t, you give great arguments for.
Thanks 😊
Hi there! Super video as usual! Agree with your take on the advantage rule (it works only in 5e or special cases in BX dnd). Cantrips are no brainer: consequences and flavor exactly as you described, no good!
For damage by class I disagree: a fighter will be better at to hit AND damage! The implementations of this principle in the rule is of course another matter. Weapon mastery in BX was a complicate but nice mechanics. An alternative might be, the fighter (of a certain level maybe?) does dice size bigger damage? Where a mu makes 1d4 with a dagger, a fighter of , say, 5+ level makes 1d6, etc.
Conceptually I prefer individual initiative with predeclaration of intent but you solution is also nice and much quicker, I will try it.
All the rules can be good, just not for me 😊
I had a good idea for weapon mastery. The damage is still tied to individual weapons, but when a PC rolls a nat 20 during combat.. say a weapon attack, they can level up on that weapon and add another damage die. This reflects their growing skill with the weapon. You can do this with some spells as well if you want. I'm on the fence on if this would start at level 1 or if it starts at say level 3 or 4. If they lose their weapon, or if it breaks, then it starts over.
i agree with advantage/disadvantage completely. First it's a sliding scale bonus that averages between 5-8... that's just too much of a bonus, also 5e relies on it so heavily that players are obsessed with it and will only do things sometimes if they have advantage, so the entire game revolves around help action, flanking, spells to gain advantage.
Yeah, any rule that becomes the “game” to exploit is not one I tend to favor
Fun content. Looking forward to the magic missile vid.
I like HD as the die you hit with (IE class-based weapon damage) with caveats: Two-handed weapons are a damage die step up the ladder (d8 becomes d10), ranged weapons are a step down the ladder and require ammo (d8 becomes d6), and two-weapon fighting you roll 2 HD and take the best of the two. All special cases require no shields being used, and both unarmed and improvised weapons are half-HD damage (d8 becomes d4). Throwing one-handed weapons is allowed as a ranged attack, and does normal damage, but then you don't have a weapon in that hand anymore.
If using this with a thief class that doesn't have d6 HD, I'd give them d6 HD and modify their exp chart to be equal to the Cleric's. Because HD equals abstract skill in combat now, and the thief has more of that than a magic user.
Oh lastly, a rule that I think is good that I will never use? Usage dice. I think they're actually more effort than ticking off checkboxes or putting tickmarks of used torches, arrows, rations, etc
Thanks, those modifications seem good! But don’t get me started on usage dice 😂
Love it. I self impose ability score rolls on my characters whenever I am undecided on how they would react in the OSR games I play
This is something I’ve heard people do, seems like a good idea if you are unsure.
I corrected the advantage/disadvantage by locking it to max. +2, +4, +6, +8, and +10 as the max numbers with a +10 +higher is just Advantage. Oppositely, -2, -4, -6, -8, -10 remain and anything lower than -10 is Disadvantage. Limiting the mechanics to 5 above and 5 below in increments of +2/-2. I used to do a ton of public play and professional games and this method really worked well and made more sense to the players (upwards of 1,000 each year easily) who were ranged in play experience from brand new to old school, and capped +2/-2 mechanics to numbers we know. 10 appears often as middle ground, max of, baseline and more. This mechanical modification so to speak, corrects the all or nothing you were talkin about. I agree with you, the mechanic as they listed it doesn't stand in the system well when you explore its min/max mentality of operation as the mechanic existed in the books. This fix I listed above seemed to be a decent solution to measure it and worked well for my tables of which there were many in variety.
Cool!
I really think it's worth putting time in thinking about the internal logic of magic in your setting, and how that impacts game mechanics. For example, I like to consider that magic isn't a single phenomenon, so one of the casting systems I have involves consumable material components (and no "focuses" to get around that restriction). For the other major system, spirit-calling, every time you call a spirit the difficulty of calling it again, without being possessed, goes up. But I find the Vancian x-times-per-day-and-then-you-forget-it to be underwhelming and immersion-breaking.
Cool
Ever since I first heard about it, I have wanted to try different modified styles of side initiative to add that fast and scrummy feel to RPG combat.
Give it a shot!
I was toying with a way to limit cantrips in 5e, perhaps per long rest a magic user only gets as.many cantrips equal to some number (maybe level plus proficiency?). Or, once they have cast cantrips equal to that number, if they keep casting they take either a level of exhaustion or 1d2 HP in damage.
Those sound like good ideas, so long as your players are down for it.
I recommend taking a look at D&D 3rd edition for inspiration on level progressions for cantrips per day.
iirc, advantage/disadvantage is on a 1 to 1 basis. What I mean to say is that 1 advantage is cancelled out by 1 disadvantage. If you had 2 disadvantages and 1 advantage, you still are considered to have disadvantage, since 2-1=1.
What is iirc?
@@BanditsKeep Oh, sorry, it means "if i recall correctly"
@@Goblinerd ah! That makes sense. I just pulled out my (dusty) player’s handbook to confirm and you are recalling incorrectly- any number of advantages or disadvantages, it makes no difference if you have at least one of both it counts as none.
@@BanditsKeep Ah, I see. Well, I guess, back when I used to play 5E, we'd house ruled it and it became the rule in my mind.
Thanks for the info :)
15:55 Haha - I feel the same way. Not a fighter, indeed. Also just from a flavour standpoint, I hate unlimited magic.
🙌🏻
I love these videos - your walkthrough of randomly generating a dungeon using B/X helped me generate and run my first OSE session last week!
I did the Black Hack thing and asked for roll under stat checks a lot. I’d like to know - What is the alternative to doing this? Like, for your example where the PC wants to climb/jump a wall during an encounter without using movement…do you roll at all? 2-in-6?
That’s awesome. It’s not a bad idea to roll under stats sometimes - I just don’t like it as the “core mechanic” but to answer that question specificity, unless the action will yield some benefit (and even sometimes then) I would not require a roll at all. I may say something like - you can do that awesome attack move, but you will be rolling to hit at -2, but if you hit, you will do +2 damage.
When you’re talking about cantrips , the escalation of what the DM has to think of and create makes the game rather cumbersome in my experience. It’s part of the reason why I want to do OSR style gaming because I want simplification and not have to stress trying to figure out how to Counter everything
on initiative
a better gm than i am or ever was suggested using a simple fast/slow system, where all the bad guys had one initiative, the players had to either beat that initiative to act before the them in what ever order they pleased, the ones who was slower acted after them in what ever order they pleased, makes it very quick and simple for the players, they know who beat it and they can start doing their stuff, then all the bad guys do their stuff and then the slow players can do whatever (they can use an action to reroll their initiative if they wanted)
That’s how the black hack does it.
Just found your channel. I like your idea of advantage and more typical +1 and + 2 bonuses coexisting.
Welcome! Thanks.
I like rules where everyone can use weapons like a level 0 man-at-arms. Elfvis can use an elf-shotgun but sir Bob has +3 to hit. A wizard can still pull a shotgun or sword or hand grenade and try.
For me adv/dis was the solution for a great dilemma... that of asigning a difficulty. I use both, up +/- 4 modifiers and adv/dis... generally I require a roll only in specific cirumstances... and adv/dis shifts the category from the default difficulty of the ability check towards significantly more or less likely. The numeric modifers are either earned by roleplay, ideas or less optimal situations, equipment or added details. Both cancel each other out and are capped to one adv/dis and +4 or -4. Works easy enough. But i am also tempted to just add and sunbtract a number of d6 like shadows of the demon lords capping it to one result. This also works great with a d20 resolution and midrange numbers.
Concerning weapon damage:
I use weapon damage by hit die, but with some additional rules to prevent what you described.
Small weapons roll damage with disadvantage, but can be used in offhand (which either allow a secondary attack with disadvantage or increase damage die of the single attack by one category)
Medium weapons roll damage normally.
Large weapons roll damage with advantage but require both hands.
Generally the large weapon always wins initiative in the first round of combat.
Cool
Agree with all your points. I think advantage/disadvantage has its place BUT just keep in mind it’s effectively +/-5. That is a huge modifier for BX/BECMI and AD&D. I think the worst modifier codified in older editors is -4 which is devastating.
Indeed
I like the BECMI system.. damage by weapon-type modified by skill level. It really opened up fighters (who got more weapon skill points) but would also open up other characters classes to skill up in a more versatile way.
Nice!
@@BanditsKeep Have you played the BECMI system before with the Weapon Mastery skills?
@@havock89 I’ve read through it, but really my jam, but cool ideas
In my game, wizards must expend mithril powder (rather than normal material components) & carry an arcane focus in the form of a staff, wand, amulet, etc. If you capture them & take away those things, they can’t cast spells. With mithril powder, but without an arcane focus, they can cast a spell “wild”, but they must pass a check or suffer a wild magic effect also. My wild magic effects are more like mild, temporary curses.
Also, my checks are “roll over” checks: i specify a difficulty, you apply your ability score bonus & relevant skill bonus. So a higher roll is better.
Cool!
So like the current d20 systems
So with cabtrips it's actually pretty easy to counter in 5e. All cantrips require at least one of verbal (V) or somatic (S), and sometimes material (M). A caster has to use a focus or material component pouches for the M component. In settings where magic is maybe not universal but understood, then part of the process of apprehending magic users would be to search and sieze any purses and known foci items, and if they are known magic users, bound (can't cast somatic components while handcuffed) and gagged. Now they're on the same level, if not worse off, than the thief with no tools, as you used in your example.
That’s all assuming they know it’s a magic user and know how spells work
You make a really good point about class based damage.
Thank You!
I personally love the advantage rule but never use in in my dnd like sessions. I hate the shield that only gives +1. I think a shield should be as good as at least a chain mail, but then there would be problems with probability and sums. But in truth I keep it because of the feel it has, together with other old school rules.
Why don’t you use it in your sessions if you like it? Do you use a different rule instead or just nobody does anything advantageous 😊
@@BanditsKeep because I like to keep certain fossil rules, like the useless shield, because of the old school vibe they give XD
I've been opting for more realism learned from LARP to actual nartial arts - shields are vitally important, therefor worth a lot more than a measely 1 in 20 difference.
IMU of 1E/2E D&D I give non-Fighters of all Levels 1 point for a small shield, 2 points for a medium and 3 points for a large, while 0-Level and 1st Level Fighters 1 point for a buckler, 2 points for a small shield, 3 points for a medium and 4 points for a large shield, when 2nd Level and higher Fighters get 1 more point from each type.
However flexible weapons such as flail, chains, nunchuks or tentacles defeat up to 3 points of a shields value.
My unresolved debate is whether an unarmored man can add half their DEX bonus (round up) to a buckler or small shield.
@@stevekillgore9272 One of my HEMA friends said Role Master/MERP had those shield rules. A shield is a parrying tool, it makes you harder to hit. Armour lessons critical injury, the real killer in MERP. You can only point your shield one way.
I haven't played a lot of 5e, but we only used advantage/disadvantage for skiĺl checks and even then only at the DM's discretion.
That’s interesting as having advantage is one way to trigger the rogue sneak attack!
@@BanditsKeep I never thought of that. There was no Rogue in our group. To be honest, we never really gave 5e much of a chance. Oh, and about cantrips. I played in a Pathfinder game where I could only use non combat spells. I could use a light cantrip but not flare, for example. Or maybe that was 3e. It's been a couple of decades.
Individual initiative is something we always use starting with first edition a d&d and continued into second edition. We didn't have an issue with people not being prepared on their turn because it was required that you wear. And if your turn came and you hadn't thought of what you were going to do you were skipped and sent to the end of the line. If at the end of the group's turn you still hadn't paid enough attention to what was going on to have thought of something to do you simply lost your turn that round you did nothing. You are considered too confused to have acted in those few seconds of combat. I agree with you that group initiative is actually faster but I like the chaos the randomness that can come into play with individual initiative because you do not know in advance who's going to be acting first second etc etc. Great video by the way first time I've ever seen your channel, subscribed and welcome back for more and we'll watch some of your game play on your other channel.
By the way it's not really a fan of 5th edition dungeons & dragons in many ways. I think there's far too many subclasses these days. The game is far too easy on player characters, danger and death risk and reward are less of a factor. And watching what's going on with wizards of the Coast the new woke direction is really unappealing to me.
Thanks! Welcome aboard. I definitely can understand enjoying the randomness of individual initiative. Did you roll every round then? Because I think most people only roll at the beginning of combat which would then just have that randomness once I guess.
@@BanditsKeep Ty for the reply good sir. Yes we rolled every round keeping the player order then totally random. Note we sometimes would use different initiative rolls for the NPC's depending on grouping within the situation on the table. Group initiative was primarily used simply because it's much easier on the DM and makes play faster, with some exceptions when combat was extremely small in participants total and we felt the added chaos would enhance the experience.
Very cool. At one point I tried this with my table, but I felt like the recordkeeping was not worth the excitement. But if The DM can keep up with it I could definitely see the appeal
Initative is something Ive thought a lot about lately and cant decide on. I want it to be the most "realistic"/ "simultaneous" but without being confusing or complex.
Rn Im just doing one side goes then the other.
Might try simultaneous declarations and resolution based on what actions would happen fastest, but that just seems confusing
I’ve having phases (like BX) works best for me, but I don’t mind combat feeling like a separate mini-game vs exploration
Yes! He talked about stuff he and I talked about in the comments! Not sure if this was made before or after, though.
Dimeritium from Witcher could be a solution to imprisoned mages. Could even prevent spell-like abilities.
Also, do you use the B/X damage for weapons? I don't remember the details, but I remember that there are two-handed weapons that do equal damage to a Longsword and they don't get to use shields. I thought of a system that was tiny weapons do d4, small weapons did d6, medium weapons did d8, and large weapons did d10s (or maybe 2d6). I haven't actually had a chance to test it.
I feel like group initiative encourages more teamwork. I let the players decide on their order. In 5e, it feels more like individual powers fighting the same foes with occasional collaboration.
The battle axe does the same as a sword - but other two ha d weapons deal a d10 - that being said, I use battle axes and so do my players as they are cool and maxing out damage is not always our main objective.
For advantage/disadvantage, I could see the argument that tactical positioning and situation matters more than character strength or skill. Tbh I haven't used it much though.
On the topic of unlimited magic, there's the Lost Pages Wonder & Wickedness route: casting spells is dangerous. I really want to run it alongside vancian magic as "evil" magic and up the anti on it a bunch. So you might have a spellbook of spells you can cast even when your slots are out, but doing so has a big potential to cause more problems then it solves.
Vampires and litches all have spells out of "The Book of Gaub", also by Lost Pages.
True, I prefer a bonus based on the situation vs a fixed bonus
I played in a game where cantrips cost 1hp per casting. I think the reasoning behind that was because cantrips were classified as internalized Magic coming from the person and memorized spells where from the source of Arcana and the caster was "channeling" that energy.
Interesting idea!
Bandit’s Keep: magic missile is so bad
Me: how bad is it?
😂
Basic Fantasy uses a saving throw number based on your level for ability checks modified by the stat in questions modifier. So the first-level character with an 18 Strength would need to roll a 17 or more to make an STR check which would be modified by a +3 because of their STR score. At higher levels, the Save number goes down.
Interesting, I like the combination of level and stats - funny I’ve played in dozens of BFRPG games and we never used that rule 😂 I’ll have to check it out, thanks!
@@BanditsKeep in the third edition of those rules it's on page 153.
Thanks!
I just thought of the idea that if you are not proficient with the weapon you use the weapon and apply your stat bonuses, but you roll damage dice one less than written. A dagger would be 1d2, a long sword would be one d6, etc
Could be a good solution
26:30 here’s something to explore - how do you apply this idea to systems like MCDM RPG where there is no to hit roll? Fighters can’t hit more often there, so perhaps be more strict with weapon proficiency rules? Some such systems do zero damage when the damage dice roll is 0, so maybe instead you raise it to 2… or 3? I’ve been pondering this and haven’t come up with an answer I’m fully satisfied with
Cantrips- I really like Jason Cone's approach in Philotomy's Musings: (sorry but I guess I cannot add this rule due to limited wording in you tube- but you can always look it up).
Cool, I’ve got that document, I’ll look it up
@@BanditsKeep great. Like to know your thoughts
Love myself modifiers, but yeah I play Rolemaster, where there are always modifiers.
Nice!
I’d been thinking about using saving throws (w/ ability modifiers) instead of ability scores. E.g. replace dex. checks with death ray +dex. bonus saving throws
That is how I have seen it done by many a DM and even in older modules from TSR
I feel what you're saying about magic in 5E. I feel that edition can only work in high magic settings, and it's very difficult to tailor that system to any other setting, which is unfortunate.
As for a system for making cantrips more manageable (I kind of think this is something that would be a group decision where everyone is going to kind of have to be on board): My suggestion might be for Cantrips to sap the spell caster's spell casting ability score (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics) by 1 point per casting, recoverable in some way in either a short rest or a long rest. This would penalize the spell caster's effectiveness while still allowing multiple castings of cantrips, but would only be a short term setback, so: use Cantrips if you must, but you'll have to deal with the consequences if you dip too deeply.
That seems like a good way to manage cantrips and can easily fit the fiction - old wizards have apprentices to cast cantrips for them so they can focus on levels spells
Adventures in Middle Earth did an admirable job of offering a low magic 5e.
I'll be honest the advantage system is my biggest qualm with 5e. I started with 5e, started playing Pathfinder 1e as well and it became my favorite system very quickly, and have dabbled in a little bit of OSE, although mostly I just use OSE rules in other systems. (A lot of the way I run dungeons is heavily based on OSE)
In my 5e group I have tried multiple times to remove the advantage system, usually in favor of a +2 -2 like you would have in 3.x/Pathfinder, but it's so engrained in the rules of 5e that it always had unintended consequences. So nowadays I just usually don't hand it out but don't change it if your class gives advantage. I usually say multiple sources of advantage give a stacking +2 bonus (so if someone is prone and the barbarian is recklessly attacking then the barbarian gets advantage and a +2), but even with me never handing it out advantage in general is the bane of my existence in 5e. I simply don't like the fact that you roll twice, usually have a way to reroll that, so you end up rolling 3 dice. It just takes the chance of failure more or less out of the system without much effort from the players. I'm not opposed to auto-success, but I think you should have to work for that, not just roll two dice then silvery barbs/lucky feat if you are unlucky.
Indeed
I like this topic. You can continue, as I have had little experience with other rule sets. I've played 1st- 5th Ed (no 4th)D&D and prefer DCC. One that I encountered is playing 5th ed and Passive Perception. Part of the issue was I knew little of the game rules, and the group was really new to D&D period. I was playing a 4th lvl thief. I was successfully hiding while in a cave. the group split and paths eventually crossed moments later. The DM ruled I was detected because my roll did not beat their passive perception. he did not know about -5 for being in darkness (of course neither did I).
What I don't like is that it is suppose to take into account all senses but as like light for sight, what about ocean, wind, rain, or echo sounds mulling your hearing.Or the dank, mustiness of a cave or foul odors of a swamp disrupting smell. Though a good idea, it is just poorly executed rules.
I concur about rolling under an ability scores. I very much like DCC roll under Luck, as it makes it unique.
I partially agree with you on Advantage or Disadvantage. There should be a +/- included., using it to benefit the action, if they are that advantageous to success or failure. If not, then just a +/-. It is tough to decipher a good formula to determine situational bonuses. I like the idea of dice progression in DCC but it might not be enough going from a d20 to a d24 and a d30 might be too much. Understanding dice rolls chance, helps but sometimes just assigning a +/-. Maybe a you don't need to verbalize a plus or minus or roll a certain dice. Just adjust the DM side number to roll. This would keep all the other players guessing at a point of success.
Love your Videos keep them going.
It’s a good point you make about just changing the number on the DM side and not verbalizing the bonus or penalty. That could be a good way to do it and keep it simple if the players don’t like to handle math. I tend to like to spell everything out to my players so they fully understand their chances and will even stop and say “the way this works mechanically“ I know that for some people this is like a sin and kills immersion but for me I feel like I want my players to know exactly what their chances are. I do agree the roll under luck in DCC is useful and something I really do like
I also only use party init. when playing large battles. I would consider pre-declaring actions if the party had advantage.
Don't even get me started with cantrips in 5th. I don't like unlimited anything. Even wish is limited
How about discussing your preferred death throes rules...unconscious to DED DEAD?
Oh yes that’s a heck of a subject. And one worth discussing!
3e and it’s descendants used a +2 or -2 for advantageous and disadvantageous circumstances.
i think i agree with all of these points. i wonder if a fighter should be exempt from declaring their actions before initiative for those who think they are too weak
As I just ask for a general declaration “melee” “missile” for instance, I don’t think that would change much. How do you feel this would give them an advantage?
@@BanditsKeep i suppose it would give an advantage insofar as stating your actions before rolling initiative poses a challenge. most of the time it wouldnt make much difference, it just means that you can count on your fighter to be the most versatile combatants in the party
I'm just now getting into B/X OSE and I totally agree about the cantrips issue. I'm curious if/how you limit turning the undead for Clerics in B/X as in times per day? Etc
I use it as written - since it’s something they have to roll for and it doesn’t always work.
@@BanditsKeep Thank you! You've sold me on running rules as written in your videos. As you've pointed out, the rules that I'm tempted to tweak might make sense in context with the rest of the game. I appreciate it.
@@noffpoppin Awesome, let me know how it works out for you!
Great video as always Daniel. Keep them up. ^_^
Thanks Krystal!
in my houserules, i use roll under score for saves (scores are generated with 3d6 in order exclusively), players also roll on each score each levelup with d20, if they roll above that score goes up 1.
I agree with "rarer but more powerful magic" completely, but i do like ritual casting, which is why I've written a system for that as well, which plugs into a modified GLOG spellcasting system. incidentally, i believe GLOG spellcasting does a more limited cantrip fairly well.
I've personally never liked class limitations on equipment, at least not if classes also have different hit dice. I don't see why a magic user needs to be extra squishy in multiple dimensions offered by the system. consider the following line of thought: "Wizards are very squishy, so they shouldn't have a big hit die, but they are also very squishy, so they shouldn't be allowed to wear heavy armour!" that's like double dipping in the negative. Furthermore, i like differentiating weapons based on use case. a dagger ought to be a great backup weapon, especially when trying to kill a heavily armoured opponent. i am convinced by your arguments against class hit die as damage die though. just, give each weapin a benefit that would want people to use them (like for example allowing axes to ignore shields).
Finally, i don't agree that individual initiative is a good rule ;p
Awesome. Ha ha, some people really love individual initiative 😊
While I greatly enjoy your channel’s content, I think you compared apples to oranges in some cases here.
1. Cantrips: B/X and AD&D (not 2e) was a exploration-driven resource management game with combat elements, whereas 5e is a story-driven social interaction game with combat elements. In that sense, unlimited cantrips work with what 5e has to offer, while they won’t in an old-school game. The games’ premises and their playstyles are entirely different.
2. Adv/disadv: The math engine behind 5e is totally different from those previously published, as prior editions used a linear progression chart that would support static bonuses while 5e has this “bounded accuracy” mechanic which limits the numerical gains as characters advance in levels. Dis/adv mechanic gives a situational bonus of +2 to +5 and it’s imperative that characters won’t get much higher bonuses in a game of 5e.
I don’t think looking at 5e through an old-school lens is a great idea overall, as they are completely different games in many ways.
I agree - thus I don’t add those rules to my Old School game. I use them in 5e of course. I often see people pull good rules from 5e (good in 5e) and use them in retro clones, this is what I’m discussing.
Totally agree on no to unlimited spells through cantrips. I played all DnD editions except 4e and I remember how powerfull spells were in B/X and 1e, but you had only a few per day. In addition, damage cantrips in 5e to the few spells where damage level with caster, which makes them very powerfull. I played a cleric in 5e, who wore heavy armour and shield, but was unarmed, because 'sacred flame' was better than any weapon I could get. That felt very wrong und certainly looked stupid 😂
Just a shield! Captain America! 😊
5e is definitely not an edition for warrior clerics, at least past early levels
Great video and perspectives!
Thank You!
25:30 I rule that small 1h weapons like daggers do -1 damage and large 2h weapons do +1 damage and may reach to attack from the 2nd rank. Also, attacking with a 2h weapon does 2(half HD) damage e.g. a fighter using a large 2h sword deals 2d4+1 damage, while a fighter using a small 1h dagger would deal 1d8-1.
Also, I like to give monsters resistance/vulnerability to certain weapon types e.g. skeletons are resistant to piercing damage, and slimes are vulnerable to slashing but resistant to bludgeoning. Different weapons also have different applications in dungeon exploration - much easier to bust down a wooden door with an axe vs with a spear!
I use class HD as weapon damage in my game, and these are some ways I try to make weapon choice meaningful
Cool system
Cool system
I pretty much agree with these. Great rule ideas, just don't over do it. I recently started a world with OSE, and found that rolling under strength has similar probabilities as the d6 open doors roll, so I use roll under Str for that.
Cool, but why do that vs the other if they are the same? Just curious
Hi @Bandit's Keep,
There's more variation in the STR check. If the player is using a crowbar, or if the door is locked, I can give appropriate modifiers. A 1-point bonus to d6 is a significant change in probability. However, a 1 or 2-point bonus to STR check is more moderate.
As a personal preference, when a task can be completed by a general rule (Str test) or a specific rule (x-6 Open Doors), I usually prefer the general rule. One less number on the character sheet.
@@diceandbricks makes sense - fine tuning modifiers is certainly a good reason to me
I use roll-under ability checks a lot, especially wisdom/intelligence/charisma situations.
I'll bite, why the hate for magic missile? Not that it's the best spell ever but a LL/BX mage at fifth level gets three missiles and can hold them for a turn and it's safe in close quarters.
I added a house rule that fighters get +1 damage for every three levels (3/6/9/12). I thought that a fighter should get better at causing damage as they gain experience.
Yeah I agree, clearly, fighters need something - though as noted I lean towards better hit probability. I will make a MM video at some point I’m sure.
What about making it an AC bonus as well? A more experienced fighter will know how to 'dance' in the ballet of swordplay. This really makes sense for a barbarian type using level as AC bonus to run around half-nekked versus some +9 loin cloth.
@@jdsull yeah, I’ve always liked the lighter/no armor fighter
Great video! I have comments, of course, but the frame of reference is that I run my own ruleset and not 5e.
I like the concept of advantage/disadvantage, and I think it is useful in 5e. I can see times even in my game when it might be useful, but I'm still not in a hurry to add it in. I do think modifiers do work better, but ad/disad does have the advantage of being a quick and easy way of affecting the characters without discussions/arguments of why the modifier should be higher/lower.
I agree with you about rolling under for everything. I do use rolling under ability scores in my game set, but only for certain things.
And as far as maxing abilities for a character's focus, I hated Non-Weapon Proficiencies in 2e for the same reason: some 18 year old kid with a high strength is a better smith than a guy who has been working as a smith for twenty five years but has an average strength? B.S.
Agree with the 'no cantrips' concept completely. If cantrips were to exist in my game it'd only be the Prestidigitation kind of cantrip to do minor effects and no damage.
Magic Missile is a good spell. It's a guaranteed auto-hit (unless the target is specifically protected against it) that will affect almost every target equally, unlike elemental damage spells which are not as useful against some opponents or in some environments, which makes all the difference. But it is a limited use spell with limited effectiveness as it should be since it is a first level spell.
The solution I've used in small towns where casters have been imprisoned are locking metal masks that basically hold the jaw shut to prevent verbal components and/or locking metal mittens that prevent somatic. Low tech and relatively easy to do. The metal mittens keep thieves from scrounging for lockpicks too. 😛
Damage by class I'd never heard of before. All weapons doing d6 I remember, but that was it. I have my ways of making fighters more effective in my ruleset, but scaling damage by class seems less reasonable. I understand your explanation of it, but I'm still at no. And your commentary makes perfect sense. I don't think a prison shiv made from a spoon would or should do the same damage as a claymore (the sword, not the antipersonnel mine) just because it is in the hands of a fighter.
Initiatives comes down to personal preference. It is somewhat slower for gameplay, but that's not going to be overwhelming. It also gives characters with quicker reactions (i.e. higher Dex) a chance to put those reflexes to good use. I do occasionally do group init, but with individual modifiers based on Dex scores. I.e. the party rolls a 3 but the thief goes first on a 5 because of their high dex and the cleric goes on 2 because of their low dex.
Thanks, lots of great comments here. I just question every small town having wizard prevention tools like masks etc
@@BanditsKeep Understandable, but I can easily imagine any town with a blacksmith and a more than rudimentary justice system having at least a couple of sizes of metal mittens with connected shackles to prevent thieves from picking their locks and mages from casting their spells. Heck, even things that look more like boxing gloves (and therefore couldn't be used by the prisoner as a quick KO weapon on the poor jailer) with shackles attached might provide some obstacle. Heavily padded and constraining mittens that couldn't be removed would be enough. The lumpy mittens and a gag combo would give moderate difficulties to imprisoned spellcasters. Or a balaclava with extra muffling padding over the mouth would do too.