Remembrance of Rules Past

The transition from D&D 4e to 5e was pretty easy, mostly because 4e was such an oddball system.  If they'd been more alike I might have had a harder time remembering which rule belonged to which system.  But for me, 5e feels more like a simplified version of 3e.  It's like 3e is chess, 5e is checkers, and 4e is... I don't know, Warhammer.

I can't say I miss D&D 4e.  It was so mechanically structured that even roleplay scenarios felt forced and unnatural.  But I do like certain concepts enough that I would gladly still use them in 5e.  Heck, some mechanics were so popular that many tables continue to use them without even realizing those rules no longer exist.  

One thing about 4e is that it was so hated, that the 5e design team went out of their way to disguise anything that made it similar to 4e.  Like how you spend Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges now.  And 5e has dozens of abilities that contain the text, "Once you use this ability, you can not use it again until you have completed a (short or) long rest."  What a wordy way to say "Daily Power" or "Encounter Power".  Imagine how much ink they could have saved if they weren't afraid of using 4e terminology.

Or look at 4e's Standard/Move/Minor action economy.  To me, that is the standard RPG action economy, and I would probably use the same thing if I designed an RPG.  5e allows you to do approximately the same number of things on your turn, but it's just phrased more vaguely.  In 5e you can move and take an action, and some of the things that used to be minor actions are considered part of moving.  

Remember Double Moving?  In 4e, you could substitute lesser actions for greater actions.  So you could move again as your standard, or do a minor action instead of your move, etc.  You can still move as your action in 5e, but you have to call it "Taking the Dash Action".  If you actually use the words "I'm going to Double Move" in 5e, some pedantic snot will explain that that's not a 5e thing, and frankly I'm tired of trying to get blood out of the carpet.

And don't forget "Bloodied" - 4e had a lot of special rules that would trigger when a creature's hit points fell below half their maximum.  5e has a couple, but instead of having a word for it, it just says "when you are below half your hit point maximum" or some such.  Plenty of 5e players still say "bloodied" today, despite the term not appearing in the PHB.

I've been looking at various RPGs and picking out rules I really like.  I'm not saying they would all work in 5e.  And if I were to piece them together into one big Frankenstein's RPG - well, they probably wouldn't all complement each other.  But hell, it's my blog, and I'm going to babble about standout rules that I liked from 4e and other RPGs.

Square Fireballs (D&D 4e) - Look, 4e's system of magic was kind of silly, I know.  But admit it: You never had to argue about whether something hit or not.  If it said "area burst 3 within 20 squares", you knew exactly which creatures were affected, no protractor required.  You never had to say, "Well, this part of the circle looks like it takes up about three-eighths of the square, does that count?"

Flanking (D&D 4e) - The thing about flanking is it just feels natural.  If you gang up on an enemy, you expect a bonus.  There are math reasons that it doesn't work well in 5e, though.  Plus it defies their goal of keeping 5e's combat rules light.  

Holding or Delaying an Action (D&D 4e) - A lot of people are surprised that this is no longer a thing in 5e.  Like flanking, it was probably kept out for simplicity's sake.  But I've also heard it was because delaying actions complicates effects that last until the end of your turn.  As a DM, I would still allow it, within reason.  If nothing else, in the first round of combat, I'd allow PCs use it to rearrange their initiative order.

Called Shot (Various RPGs) - I haven't seen this since 3e (though there was an unrelated 4e feat by that name).  If a PC wants to target a specific body part, they can take a penalty to their attack roll.  Some 5e DMs allow their players to make called shots at disadvantage, but the designers discourage it.  Personally, if the player's desired effect was within reason, I might allow it.

Minions (D&D 4e) - 4e had single hit point enemies called minions, meant to annoy you with their numbers rather than to challenge you on a one-to-one basis.  1HP kobolds don't seem so weird, but when you got to higher levels, it was kind of odd to see minion Ogres and such.  But as a DM, I liked not having to track the hit points of creatures that weren't supposed to last very long in the first place.  Plus they were a great example of the "Conservation of Ninjitsu" trope.

Stat Generation (Pathfinder 2e) - I can't tell you enough how much I like the way stats are generated in P2e.  Your stats come partly from your ancestry, partly from your class, and partly from your background.  Given my personal vendetta against rolling stats, it's nice to have such a great system hard coded into the game's mechanics.

Initiative (Shadow of the Demon Lord) - There's a lot I like and don't like about SotDL, but it has one of my favorite systems for determining initiative.  No rolling, just a semi-structured way of letting people go in whatever order they want.

BFF / Rival (Various) - I've seen variations of this in several RPGs.  Basically, you designate one other PC to be your PC's best friend, and another one to be your PC's rival.  Note that "rival" doesn't necessarily mean enemy, just someone with whom they constantly compete (think Legolas and Gimli).  It doesn't matter if PC's pair off and select each other, or if player A picks player B who picks C and so on, as long as each PC has exactly one Rival and one BFF.  Whenever a PC does something spectacular (like crits the final hit on a boss), their BFF describes what happened as colorfully as possible.  Meanwhile, whenever a PC fumbles, their rival has the honor of describing their screw-up.

Simplified Stats (Warrior, Rogue & Mage) - I like simple rules.  Sometimes I think some of the stats are kind of redundant, and I'd love to try an RPG that only uses three.  Obviously this only works in a very specific kind of RPG.  

Exploding Dice (Various RPGs) - This probably isn't really compatible with D&D's math, but it sure is fun in the RPGs that use it.  Basically when you roll max on your damage die, you get to roll it again and add that in too.  If you roll max again, you can keep rolling until you stop rolling max.  So your d6 damage die might usually average you 3 or 4 damage... but sometimes you might do 38.

And now for something completely different...

Just to show both sides of the coin, here's some rules I'm glad to see gone forever.  Note that some are from editions I've never actually played, so I might have the wrong impression of them, but they still sound terrible.  Good Riddance to:

THAC0 and Hit Tables - (Early D&D) -  Once they invented the modern system of "roll a d20, add a bonus, beat a target number", there was never any reason to look back.  Even most of the "Retroclones" I've seen use modern attack rolls.  There are just some things that defy nostalgia.

Facing (Various RPGs) - This is still listed as an optional rule in 5e's DMG, but I'll never use it.  I'm sure it adds a little bit of realism, but it also adds an extra complication to battle without adding to the fun factor.

Descending BABs (D&D 3e) - By that, I mean having multiple attacks per round, but with a lower base attack bonus for each attack.  (Example: +12/+7/+2)  The system 5e uses actually works out better mathematically, as it helps keep Fighters on par with Wizards.

Level Drain (Various) - Any effect that requires you to recalculate your character sheet is annoying.  But what really annoys me is that the mechanic treats "levels" as a real existing aspect of your character, instead of just skills your character happens to acquire at the same time.

Races Being Tied To Classes (OD&D) - When they created D&D, they had no idea how much character customization would be available in later editions, so I can't really fault them for having a lack of foresight.  But when I look through older books, and see how non-human races can't be certain classes, it makes my heart hurt.  

Gold as XP (OD&D) - You used to get experience points for finding gold.  This kind of made sense at the time, since there weren't as many ways to spend your gold, so there had to be some incentive for treasure hunting.  In a sense, I see OD&D's gold as your "score".  But characters are deeper now, and not all of them are solely motivated by greed.

...aaaaand that's my list.  Feel free to comment below if I missed any rules you love or hate.

Racism in D&D

I generally save politics for my personal blog, and confine this one to more light-hearted RPG babble.  But there's been a lot of social activism in the RPG world this year.  Examples include the Combat Wheelchair, a podcast getting cancelled for themes of sexual assault, and various RPG companies receiving criticism for sexism in the workplace.

One thing I'm seeing more of is people calling out the inherent racism hard-coded into D&D's rules.  Even the word "race" itself seems to be on its way out, as several of the newer RPGs favor less problematic terms like "ancestry" or "heritage" instead.  D&D has always used "race" in a way that many deem inaccurate, as what they call race is actually closer to species.

My thoughts?  Well, I can't say I'm comfortable dissecting the subject of racism, not really having experienced it first hand.  The internet doesn't need another white person's opinion on what should or shouldn't piss off people of color.  So take my ramblings with a grain of salt.  

Personally I think that in a world with multiple types of sapient creatures, the word "race" could come to mean "species" instead of ethnicity.  But I don't feel like explaining that to every D&D newcomer, so it's probably easier to use a more accurate term.  I'll be perfectly happy if the next D&D book refers to races as "ancestries" or whatever, though a certain segment of fans will probably pitch a fit.  You can't please everyone.

Another thing that is bugging people is the concept of "always evil" races.  It would be one thing if they said the evil Goddess Lolth created the Drow, and part of her spirit resides in every one of her creations and their descendants, and therefore they are incurably evil.  Because then the entire species would just be puppets controlled by an obviously evil entity.  But the minute you introduce a single good Drow, you break that rule.  The existence of a good Drow reintroduces free will into the species, which means PCs can no longer slaughter every Drow on sight.

And then there's Orcs.  Now, Orcs exist in D&D because the PCs need an enemy.  They are the Stormtroopers of D&D, an army of warriors you can attack without worrying about screwing up your alignment.  And if D&D had kept Orcs as unrepentant killing machines, mindless monsters who just happen to wear clothes and use weapons, then there might not be a problem.  

But the various rulebooks and novels go back and forth on Orc civilization.  Sometimes they're irredeemably evil, but sometimes they're more like Star Trek's Klingons - a complex society that fetishizes war and has trouble getting along with other civilizations.  And just like the Klingons, as the lore has evolved over the years, it's become harder to justify thinking of Orcs as an evil race.

Obviously, context is everything.  If you encounter an Orc warband standing in the middle of the burning village they just razed, you don't need to ask each one, "Are you good or evil" before you slay them.  But if you see a single Orc walking through a forest, or find one tied up in the dungeon you're exploring, you might want to assess the situation before activating instant kill mode.

A possible patch for this is to make it obvious what god the enemy worships.  Tell your players up front, "Unless I say otherwise, every Orc you see is wearing the symbol of Gruumsh, an evil god of war."  It's pretty safe to assume that if you see a cultist wearing the symbol of Bane on his robes, you can shoot first without karmic penalty.  Consider it preemptive self-defense - anyone wearing a symbol of evil would have no problem killing you if they see you first.  It's not the best solution, but it beats "Hey, it's an Orc, let's kill it because it's an Orc."

Racial ability scores are also causing an uproar.  It's one thing to say that the average Half-Orc is stronger than the average Halfling.  But saying Gnomes are smarter than Dwarves is more problematic, especially since some of these races are uncomfortably similar to real world nationalities.  If both are sapient humanoids, then surely their intelligence will be based more on study than genetics, right?

And what about charisma?  Doesn't it seem like you would find your own species the most charismatic?  Isn't it weird that a Dwarf would find a Tiefling more charismatic than another Dwarf?  If a Half-Orc's culture considers a burp to be a compliment, they're not going to be charmed by the Half-Elf's table manners.

There is a document on the Dungeon Masters Guild website called "Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e" that does a pretty good job of fixing this problem.  It separates each race's bonuses into Ancestral traits and Cultural traits.  Anything that is tied to genetics is Ancestral.  That includes things like size, speed, and innate abilities like a Dragonborn's breath weapon.  Cultural traits include learned abilities like stat bonuses, languages, and skills.  You can take any combination of Ancestral and Cultural traits, which opens up the possibility of cross-cultural characters, like a Dwarf that was raised by Elves.

So given the above, is it truly realistic that a 3 foot tall Halfling could start with higher strength than a 7 foot tall Half-Orc?  Or more specifically, would a Halfling raised by Half-Orcs be stronger than a Half-Orc raised by Halflings?  Surely Half-Orcs have a genetic head start, right?  But the Halfling would have spent more time exercising, just to keep up with their peers.  I don't know, but I do have this one friend who is a foot shorter than me, and he could probably break me in half.  So size isn't everything.

And how does one train up constitution?  You can exercise your muscles and your mind, you can learn social graces, there's all kinds of ways to improve your dexterity, but IMO it seems like constitution would be genetic.  However, this system really only works if all six stats are Cultural traits, so I guess Dwarven upbringing toughens you up.  Must be all that Dwarven ale.

Realistic or not, balanced or not, I do think that "Ancestry & Culture" fixes more problems than it causes.  Even if you're not into it for the "wokeness" of the document, it still has some great options for those who want to fine tune their character to a degree not possible with the PHB alone.  Plus it includes a couple of bonus adventures that take place in multicultural settings.  So check it out, it's worth a look.

An upcoming official D&D book, "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything", also appears to address the problem.  I'm pretty hyped for this book.  It looks a lot like "Xanathar's Guide to Everything", which is my favorite 5e supplement.  Even if a lot of the content was already published in Unearthed Arcana, it will be nice to have the updated versions all in one place.

Supposedly it has new character creation rules that take some of the racism out of it.  I imagine their solution will be similar to the one in Ancestry & Culture, but I can't say for sure.  Bigots are already whining about the book being too politically correct or whatever, despite the fact that the new rules are optional.

Imagine being such a bigot that you don't even want them publishing a completely optional book, just because it doesn't bow down to your narrow worldview.  I've met so many great people while playing D&D, that I sometimes forget that the hobby also draws a lot of toxic asshats.  But why should I be surprised?  D&D creator Gary Gygax himself was no saint, assuming this pic is genuine:

So maybe bigotry is so deeply ingrained in the system that it's impossible to root out.  But I refuse to believe that.  I think the game has become more enlightened in recent years, even if it does have a ways to go.  With any luck, the creators will continue to listen to the more inclusive part of their fanbase, instead of caving to the more toxic side.

Only time will tell.

The Ridiculous Hills We Die On

It's funny the things we consider deal breakers.  A while back I posted my impressions of Pathfinder 2e.  I listed several of the rules that stood out to me, some good, some bad.  While I don't still don't think I'd like it as much as D&D 5e, I do want to give P2e another chance.  

Of all the rules I looked at, only a couple really feel like barriers to my enjoyment.  The first is the overabundance of feats.  It's not that I dislike feats, it's just that there's so many of them, and they're so wordy.  Of course I'm going to read every available feat before I pick one, which means I'll take forever to create my character or level up.  

The good news is that it's only a problem while building my character, so it doesn't slow down gameplay.  And I can always look up character builds online if I don't want to think about it.  The PHB even has its own suggested builds, which is a wonderful time saver.

The bigger issue is the one that shows how crazy I really am.  Movement.  I just don't like 5,10,5,10 diagonal movement.  Moving is fundamentally one of the simplest actions one can make in an RPG, and therefore it should be kept as easy as possible.  Having to keep track of how many diagonal squares I've moved so far breaks the immersion for me.  

Look, you can whine about realism all you want, but the fact is, grid-based battles are going to be abstract no matter what you do.  I mean, you can move in way more than eight directions in real life.  Hell, everything about battle is an abstraction.  Hit points represent a combination of stamina, damage taken, luck, spirit, and probably even your will to live.  And do you really think every fireball is going to make a perfect circle of flames?

It's not like moving diagonally actually gives you any sort of advantage.  As long as the monsters can move diagonally too, then everyone's on the same footing.  There are just some shortcuts we take in order to streamline the game, some acceptable breaks from reality that keep us from tearing our hair out at the abundance of rules.  

If it helps you, don't think of a square as being exactly five feet.  Think of them as closer to four feet.  You're moving four feet whenever you move North, South, East, or West, and you're moving 5.66 feet (thank you, internet) when you move diagonally.  If you use both NSWE and diagonal movement on your turn, then you probably moved an average of five feet per square.  

For example, if your character can move 30 feet, just go North twice and diagonal four times.  That adds up to 30.64 feet, which is close enough IMO.  Then you can pat yourself on the back for being more realistic, and the rest of the table doesn't have to share your pedantry.

It's not like that's my only unreasonable RPG pet peeve.  It's just that P2e manages to avoid most of my other grievances.  I've already ranted about my feelings on rolling stats, and P2e pleases me by having an absolutely beautiful system for generating your ability scores.  I don't like the slow healing in older editions, but P2e has the "Treat Wounds" skill that should speed things up a bit.  I'm not in love with P2e's "bulk" system for encumbrance, but I'm also not one of those players who loots everything they see.

So while a lot of P2e's changes make me raise my eyebrow a little, the only one that drives me nuts is one that's true of a lot of RPGs.  Heck, even my beloved D&D 5e lists 5,10,5 as an optional rule in the DMG.  I freely admit that it's a silly objection, and in my defense, it wouldn't actually stop me from playing in a P2e campaign.  I'd accept the rule and make the best of it.  But I'd still roll my eyes whenever I had to move diagonally in battle.

Keep It Simple Stupid

Scouting ahead, the party rogue tiptoes through the dungeon.  She hears a loud snoring on the other side of a partially open door.  Carefully slipping through the doorway, she sees a sleeping orc.  Scattered about the room are several empty wine bottles, and she can smell the alcohol on the orc's breath from here.  While killing a sleeping foe isn't exactly sporting, she can't risk leaving any of them alive.  She draws her dagger and holds it to the monster's throat...

What happens next?   Well, that depends on the edition.  In some RPGs, the rogue gets a free hit in before initiative is rolled.  Or maybe initiative is rolled right away, but the orc can't act in the first round.  Maybe the rogue gets advantage on the roll, maybe she auto crits, maybe she gets some sort of "coup de grace" bonus.  In some editions, the orc's armor makes the AC so high that the rogue still misses, even though she was holding the dagger to the orc's bare throat.

If I were the DM, she wouldn't even have to roll.  Not to attack, not for damage.  A single drunk, sleeping orc with an exposed throat does not present enough of a challenge to warrant a roll.  IMO, that would be a roleplay scenario.  But some DMs want to roll for everything.  For them, as soon as a weapon is drawn, it's a combat scenario.

Note that I'm not here to tell anyone that they're having fun wrong.  Whatever is fun for you is your business, assuming the rest of the table is having fun too.  Most of my rambling rants are just me thinking out loud, and musing about things I'd like to see.  It's not my place to criticize what other people enjoy, though I probably do it more than I mean to.

A few months ago I posted a blog on Simplified Death and Dying Rules, which got a bit of negative feedback.  Granted, the internet is a minefield.  I could tweet "kittens are cute" and get 100 responses claiming I hate dogs.  

But regarding my blog about dying rules, I wasn't suggesting they change the rules in 5e or any other existing system.  It was more of a general "If I were to design an RPG" kind of thing.  I think about that a lot, what elements I would put in an RPG.  

My primary goal would be to keep the rules as simple as possible, and keep the character sheets small.  I'd love to have all my stats printed on a playing card.  I'd cut out D&D's system of having both stats and stat bonuses, and just use the bonuses.  I'd also trim the six stats down to three.

There's an indie RPG called "Warrior, Rogue, and Mage" which gives you three stats: Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.  If you're rolling a check that is something a Rogue would do (like sneaking), you roll the die and add your Rogue stat.  Attacking with an axe?  Roll your Warrior stat.  And so on.  I haven't played it, but I can get behind the idea.  Though I think they missed the boat by not calling it "WTF" (Wizard, Thief, Fighter).

For my own RPG, I think I'd go with the stats "Brains, Brawn, and Style".  Brains would be a combo of INT & WIS, Brawn would be STR & CON, and Style would be DEX & CHA.  Instead of a long list of skills taking up room on the character sheet, I'd probably just have you roll one of the three main stats for whatever skill they govern.  

I'd also reduce the spell list to remove redundancies, instead turning the variations into customizations.  Like instead of Acid Splash, Fireball, Magic Missile, etc, you'd have one basic projectile spell.  You would decide if it's fire, acid, etc. Higher level customizations of the same spell would change things like how many squares it hits, whether it's multiple projectiles, whether it auto-hits, if it leaves a zone, overall range, ongoing damage, status effects, and so on.

Similarly, all healing spells would be reduced to a single spell, with variations for range, whether it heals other status effects, raises the dead, etc.  The D&D 5e PHB's chapter on spells is 82 pages long.  I bet my own RPG wouldn't need more than 10 pages of spells.

A lot of people look at the size of an RPG's rulebook and are reluctant to learn the hobby.  I believe that at its core, D&D is a very simple game.  The PHB might be over 300 pages long, but most people don't use more than twenty pages of it.  Personally I think Monopoly is harder to learn.  Someday I want to run an RPG where the rulebook isn't much thicker than that of a board game.

But then we have powergamers and rules lawyers.  I honestly believe that 70% of the rules are just patches to keep certain players from exploiting the rules.  And another 20% is there to keep killer DMs from going on a power trip.  That final 10% is all that's needed to run the game, and in the perfect gaming group, that 10% is all they'd need to print.

So when I say, "With the right group, you barely need dying rules at all," that's all I mean.  It's not that I think D&D overdid dying rules, or that I get confused by all of Pathfinder 2E's rules, or that my current group is anything less than perfect.  I'm just saying that....sometime in the future.... in addition to several dozen other RPGs I'd like to play... I want to try a truly simple RPG, with a group that is just as enthusiastic as I am to try it.

Simplified Death/Dying Rules

Unpopular Opinion: The Death and Dying rules in most RPGs really overthink things.

In a lot of RPGs, the Death and Dying rules take up nearly an entire page.  But death is one place where I really think the Player's Handbook should step back and let the story make the rules. 

This is all I need:

1. If you hit zero hit points, you fall unconscious.

2. At this point you are at the mercy of your enemies, who may use an action to finish you off.  There is no roll to finish off a creature that is at zero hp.

3. If no one bothers you, you regain 1 hit point after an hour.

Of course rule # 2 is the tricky part, and requires a DM who isn’t cruel.  But realistically, a monster isn’t going to waste an action to finish off a PC as long as other PCs are still a threat.  So by my rule, almost every PC death is a TPK, because if even one PC outlasts the monsters, no one will ever finish them off. 

The important thing is to figure out the enemy’s motive.  Are they fighting a mindless monster or a humanoid with an agenda?  If it’s a monster, is it fighting because it’s hungry, angry, scared, or territorial?  If it’s a human, is it trying to rob the PCs or does it want them dead?

A hungry monster isn’t going to stop and eat while it’s still being attacked.  Downed PCs are safe as long as one PC remains standing.  When the fight is over, it will eat until it’s full, finishing off one or more PCs depending on how much it can eat.  When choosing the PC to finish off, start with the closest, probably the last PC to fall.  If it’s a smaller monster that couldn’t even finish a single human, be nice and have it start with a leg.

Monsters fighting out of fear will probably back off once the threat is gone.  They won’t usually finish off PCs, because unconscious PCs are no longer a threat.

Bandits will probably let PCs live, but will steal their items.  Some might also tie the PCs up so they won’t be followed, but others will be in more of a hurry, and want to get out of there before more NPCs arrive.  The latter won’t steal all the PCs’ possessions, just the most obvious loot.

If the PCs happen to be the villains, the guards won’t finish them off, preferring to take them to jail instead.  Even if the PCs are wanted dead or alive, serious bounty hunters will usually prefer to take them alive, because it's worth more money.

Assassins sent by the story's Big Bad will finish the PCs off.  But as with everything, look at their motivations.  The Big Bad might send goons who just want to send a message, or recover an item the PCs stole, or capture them to learn some information.  Remember, death is the least interesting thing you can do to a PC, so try to give villains deeper motivations than "I want the PCs dead."

Of course, not everything that kills a PC has a motivation.  With my system, environmental damage would have to count as finishing a PC off.  If a PC is at zero hit points, and is then buried in an rockslide, that would probably have to count as finishing them off.  Or if you've already been downed by an enemy fighter, then you get caught in an evil wizard's fireball spell that was mostly targeting your allies.

In this respect, my system is actually deadlier than the real rules, because almost any post-zero damage is a coup de grace.  But the DM should still consider the type of damage, and whether it might work better to give the PC a lasting injury instead.  If they hit zero HP from falling off a cliff, and then a rock lands on their foot, that shouldn't be a killing blow.

But what about massive damage rules?  What if you have 25 hit points, and a monster does 60 hit points to you in one hit?  Well, if that happens, then you have a terrible DM.  Seriously, someone has seriously miscalculated the CR of the monsters you should be facing.  Remember that the players outnumber the DM, so consider tying the DM up and leaving him in the woods somewhere.  I think you'll find that solves a lot of the problems at your table.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:  D&D is not a competitive sport.  It is not "DM vs Players."  D&D is a cooperative storytelling game.  The point isn't to kill your players, but to work with them to craft an interesting story. 

Ninety percent of the rules are there to keep things balanced, so that the killer DMs and min-maxing powergamers don't tear the story down around them in favor of self-indulgent power trips.  But the better the roleplayers, the fewer rules are needed.  With the right group, you barely need dying rules at all.