Reaction Roll Redux

The 2d6 reaction roll procedure in B/X is a little half-baked. Here it is as expressed in Old School Essentials:

The referee determines monsters' reaction to the part. Sometimes, circumstances make it obvious how a monster will react. Otherwise, the referee may roll on the table below to determine how a monster reacts to the party.

Charisma: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, that character's NPC reactions modifier due to CHA is used to modify the monster reaction roll.

Monster Reaction Roll

2d6	Result
2 or less	Hostile, attacks
3-5	Unfriendly, may attack
6-8	Neutral, uncertain
9-11	Indifferent, uninterested
12 or more	Friendly, helpful

This is fine if used as a kind of oracle, for the GM to make decisions when one isn't already decided upon. But when I GM, I like to be surprised and challenged by outcomes I don't expect, which I then have to play out. I don't want to resort to this mechanic only when I have no plan; I want to use it often. But if I'm going to do that, it needs some variety, and it needs to model the behavior of different monsters. That's what a rework of the reaction roll ought to do.

Shout-out to Leon Atkinson's similar work

Before I proceed, I want to point everyone to a post by Leon Atkinson in 2020 with a similar objective, but compared reaction procedures across early editions, not just B/X. I discovered this just minutes before posting. Check it out: D&D Monster Reaction Charts Compared by Leon Atkinson.

When to Roll

I'll preface this by saying that this isn't a reasonable method all the time; it works best in dangerous situations like the dungeon or true wilderness, where both parties (PCs and monsters/NPCs) are expecting danger.

It creates decent odds of an immediate fight or flight; this just isn't realistic, reasonable, or fun if you're using it to simulate the reactions of people on the road, in the city, or in "civilization," broadly. As I'll detail below, a "normal human" ends up fighting or running away something like 50% of the time; ridiculous behavior out in the world of daily life unless your PCs look unbelievably jacked up and bizarre. In the deep woods where everyone is on edge for a twig to snap, or in the dungeon where everyone is advancing blades-first, it fits much better.

This isn't a social simulator; a tool called "roleplaying" handles that element much better. It's meant as an add-on to the encounter procedure where combat is a reasonably expected outcome.

Fight, Flee, or Parley?

B/X (by way of OSE, once again) expresses the three common (read: mechanically supported) outcomes of the reaction roll: Combat, Evasion, and Parley. The first two are supported by mechanics; the third is supported by a mechanic called roleplaying, but it could use some support (we'll get there).

What this means for us is that the reaction roll table's results aren't particularly useful to us. "3-5: Unfriendly, may attack" tells us nothing about which of these mechanics to engage with. In this way, it's not even a particularly good oracle, which should at least be decisive.

Second, there's no accounting for the opposing side deciding to immediately flee from the party, prompting the evasion procedure. To quote OSE once again:

Evasion 

If one side wishes to avoid an encounter, it may attempt to flee. This is called evasion and is only possible before combat has begun.

This means the decision to flee is baked into the same pre-combat stage of the encounter as the reaction roll. There's the optional Morale rule, but that only comes into play after combat losses, and doesn't meaningfully interact with the reaction roll (yet).

The crux of this is that we've got to pare down the reaction roll to an actually useful oracle that decides between three outcomes: Combat, Evasion, or Parley, and which differs from monster to monster in a way that reflects their behavior.

Fight vs. Flight

Now, at this point I'm looking at the reaction roll table and the morale check, and noticing that they both use 2d6. Surely, we can't just make a morale check in place of the reaction roll, right?

We can and we will. There are a few wrinkles that come up:

1. Attempting to parley with a creature with a positive Charisma modifier (which runs from -2 to +2) makes it slightly more likely to flee; doing so with a negative modifier makes it more likely to attack.

In later editions of D&D, Intimidation is a Charisma-based skill. I think this logic works here, too: presuming you fail to convince the monster to talk, you might at least intimidate it out of a fight.

On the other hand, if you have a low Charisma modifier, maybe you've just got a really punchable face, and the hostile orc raiding party thinks so too.

2. There will be more fleeing monsters and fewer stand-up fights than you expect.

This is a good thing. In a dungeon, it does several things. It can draw pursuing PCs into new, potentially more dangerous areas of the dungeon. You might be tempted to pursue a pack of fleeing kobolds, only to end up on the kobolds' own turf, where they effortlessly jump clear of the pit traps and tripwires that they set along the hallways. 

After PCs have done this once or twice, they'll start to consider whether or not to pursue the monsters, or to play it safe. Again, this is a good thing; it's getting PCs to make real decisions and to interact with the monsters and the dungeon in new ways, rather than just swinging swords on-sight.

If the fleeing monsters escape, they are now a known quantity to the PCs, and the PCs to the monsters, but both remain in play. A GM could begin tracking the monsters' movements on a dungeon map, or decide that they hole up and fortify an area just beyond where the PCs' pursuit ended. If enough time passes, the monsters might resume their patrols and be encountered again on the wandering monster table.

Evasive Creatures

Monsters noted to be naturally evasive, timid, shy, or reclusive in their descriptions can halve their morale, rounding up, for the purpose of the reaction roll only. Once in a fight, they will presumably engage as their morale score indicates, but if they don't want to be found in the first place, this feels appropriate. Examples are unicorns (described as timid) and sprites (described as shy).

Intelligence-based Parleying

One of the only things missing from B/X stat blocks, when compared to AD&D 1e, is the Intelligence stat. In the AD&D 1e Monster Manual(s, and Fiend Folio), each monster stat block has a short word describing the monster's intelligence level, which corresponds roughly to PC intelligence scores.

I've attempted to match these scores up with modifiers similar to PC modifiers for Charisma. It's not an exact conversion, as the ranges of AD&D 1e Monster Manual intelligence scores don't align with the ranges of ability scores that correspond to modifiers.

Intelligence	Score	Modifier	Parley score
Non-intelligence or not ratable	0	N/A	N/A
Animal intelligence	1	-3	11
Semi-intelligent	2-4	-2	10
Low intelligence	5-7	-1	9
Average (human) intelligence	8-10	None	8
Very intelligent	11-12	None	8
Highly intelligent	13-14	+1	7
Exceptionally intelligent	15-16	+2	6
Genius	17-18	+2	6
Supra-genius	19-20	+3	5
Godlike intelligence	21+	+3	5

A monster's likelihood to parley, or "parley score", is based on its intelligence modifier subtracted from 8. Why 8?

Non-intelligent monster won't parley, in the same way that mindless monsters like zombies won't flee. This is given as N/A rather than 12, because in these cases, it should be impossible to parley even with a positive CHA modifier.

For all creatures more intelligent than a zombie or an insect, some form of parley should be possible. Even an animal might be "reasoned with" using sounds, gestures, and offerings, and doing so is part of the fantasy of some classes like Rangers, and the logic behind the "animal handling" check. Therefore, animals have 11, and each successive modifier higher than that decreases the number by 1. At no modifier, we get to 8.

This is used like another "band" on the 2d6 reaction roll, above fleeing. If the reaction roll is greater than the "parley score", the creature will parley. If the "parley score" is less than or equal to the morale score, set the morale score equal to the "parley score" in the reaction roll only; these monsters never flee on-sight as an initial reaction. This doesn't mean they don't flee, but they would only flee under typical circumstances as a result of a failed morale check (for example, after their first loss in battle).

Reaction as a stat can be expressed similarly to Morale, and represented by a pair of numbers such as: RE X/Y. In cases where a monster doesn't flee (its "parley score" is equal to or less than its morale), these numbers will be the same (e.g. RE 8/8).

Observations 

The result of this rule is that smart monsters parley more often, and run away less often. I find this perfectly realistic; a monster that's confident in its ability to talk its way through a scenario is aware of its social ability, and will rely on it.

However, the chance of having a good talk with an intelligent, non-monstrous encounter is still pretty low. Take the Normal Human and the Kobold, each of which have ML 6 and average intelligence ("parley score" of 8), resulting in RE 6/8. Using these rules, their reaction rolls will go like this:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	41.64%	Combat
7-8	30.54%	Evasion
9-12	27.76%	Parley

AnyDice

This is pretty expected for kobold ambushers encountered in a dungeon, but feels absurd for a normal human, even if met in the dungeon or the wilderness. Presumably, the approaches to each will go fairly differently. However, it's hard to pin the difference on anything but approaching them in a common language.

Language

If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and they share a language with them, make the reaction roll with advantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the lowest die from the result). 

 This skew the Normal Human's reactions in a less combative direction:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	19.45%	Combat
7-8	28.24%	Evasion
9-12	52.32%	Parley

AnyDice

This feels much more reasonable. The chance of evasion still feels high for something like a normal human, but this can be played a few different ways. They might look over the PC party's weapons and take them for highwaymen. A prouder monster or character might simply disregard the PC party or tell them to move along.

One effect this is that speaking monster languages like goblin, kobold, minotaur, etc. is highlighted as worthwhile for players. That's not to say it didn't always have that value under the base rules, but if parleys are more common using this reaction oracle, then approaching a monster in a common language is incentivized.

Alignment

Optionally, the same rule as above can apply to alignment, with an expansion to account for opposing alignments.

If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and their alignment is the same as the monster's, make the reaction roll with advantage. If the character and the monster's alignments are opposed (Chaotic vs Lawful), make the reaction roll with disadvantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the highest die from the result).

Let's revisit the kobold (RE 6/8) which is by default Chaotic, assuming a Lawful PC approaches it without speaking a common language:

2d6	Probability	Result
2-6	68.06%	Combat
7-8	21.30%	Evasion
9-12	10.65%	Parley

AnyDice

This is much more like what you would expect from a "monster" encounter.

This has the side effect of modeling alignment languages. Sharing an alignment with a monster has the same benefit as sharing a language. The disadvantage conveyed by opposing alignments is just a "flavor enhancer" that makes chaotic creatures more likely to fight, which is probably how they are played most often anyway; this just codifies it in a mechanical way.

What do monsters want?

So you've managed to initiate a parley with a monster. Now what? 

Parleying does not make you an immediate friend, it only opens a conversation or negotiation. If we're going to treat monsters like real animals, or people, or whatever they are, that exist in the world, they have things that they want and need from the PCs, and they're unlikely to share anything without something in return.

There's really no limit on how simple or how complex to make this, but creating a small table (1d4, 1d6, 1d8) unique to each general type of monster to characterize them. To characterize monsters in a specific area, create a unique table for them, which reflects their motive for occupying a dungeon or wilderness area.

For a truly generic table, we can take Maslow's heirarchy of needs for inspiration and turn it into a 1d10 table, then roll different dice on it depending on the creature's intelligence. 

Monster Intelligence		Die size
Non- or animal	0-1	1d4
Semi- or Low	2-7	1d6
Average or Very	8-12	1d8
High or greater	13+	1d10

Die	Result	Needs met
1	Food & water	Physiological
2	Shelter, clothing, or a place to sleep	Physiological
3	Protection from a threat or enemy	Safety
4	To locate, unite with, or protect others (mate, offspring, pack, family, party)	Love & Belonging
5	Material goods or wealth	Safety
6	An impulse, whim, fun, or entertainment	???
7	Assistance or companionship (including skilled help, e.g. a guide)	Safety or Love & Belonging
8	Reputation, notoriety, to prove oneself to others or an organization, to pass a test or trial	Esteem
9	Personal quest for enlightenment, atonement, revenge, or for a specific valuable object (magic item, spell, treasure)	Self-actualization
10	Quest or mission driven by moral ideals or bestowed by higher powers (deities, etc.)	Self-actualization

I've reshuffled the needs slightly, but in broad strokes, it serves our purposes. It's very non-specific and does nothing to characterize monsters; use it as a fallback or a starting point.

Advantage and disadvantage can be used to bias the roll for particularly organized or well-equipped examples within a monster category, or vice versa for ill-equipped and desperate monsters and individuals.

What do monsters have?

If you're going to make deals with monsters, they might bargain. Here are a few ideas on what they might offer to PCs:

• The individual treasure in their stat block.
• Food, water, or other survival supplies. 
• Information about the area, including about other monsters.
• An offer of safe passage.
• Their aid in some task; likely not a dangerous one.
• The opportunity (but not a guarantee) to be hired as a retainer.

Parlaying without language

Many monsters, such as the owlbear, have a degree of intelligence (given as Low, 5-7 in AD&D MM1) that allows them to parlay somewhat frequently (a roll of 9+ or 16.67% of the time), but (probably) don't speak. How do you parlay with a nonverbal creature?

First, I would note that parlay here is a shorthand for any kind of negotiation, or a monster's willingness not to get into an immediate fight. An owlbear might express what it wants the way any animal would.

Because it has Low (5-7) intelligence, it rolls 1d6 on the example "What do monsters want?" table above. Here are a few examples of how an owlbear might "parlay" its desires of different results:

1. Food & water. The owlbear approaches the party and sniffs the air, attempting to approach the pouch of rations on the nearest PC's pack.

4. Others. The owlbear rears up and hoots in a threatening display whenever the PCs look at the smaller, curious owlbear behind it, which must be its cub.

6. Impulse. The juvenile owlbear wants to play, bowing like a dog, wagging its short tail, and swiping its paws dangerously close to the PCs.

Creativity is necessary here from the GM and players both. If a tool like this rule/oracle can push everyone at the table toward more creativity, then it's a success, in my mind. 

Reaction Roll Redux

Here is the new rule for reaction rolls that results from all this:

A monster's Reactions can be expressed as a pair of numbers, such as: X/Y. The first number is the monster's morale score (ML), or half its morale score rounding up for timid or reclusive creatures. The second is derived from the creature's intelligence:

Intelligence	Parley score
Non-	-
Animal	11
Semi-	10
Low	9
Average or Very	8
Highly	7
Exceptional or genius	6
Supra-genius or godlike	5

If the second number would be lower than the first, decrease the first to match it.

Suggested format for monster reaction in stat blocks: RE X/Y, placed between Morale (ML) and Alignment (AL). Non-intelligent creatures (e.g. insects, oozes) cannot parley, and will have RE X/-. Monsters that always attack (e.g. zombies, minotaurs) have RE -/-. 

When rolling for reactions, roll 2d6 and compare the result against the monster's reaction scores:

• Equal to or lower than the first number: Combat.
• Greater than the first number and equal to or lower than the second: Evasion. The monsters attempt to flee or otherwise avoid a confrontation. Players may decide freely whether to pursue them.
• Greater than the second number: Parley. The monster attempts to talk or negotiate.

Modifiers

• Charisma: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, that character's NPC reactions modifier due to CHA is used to modify the monster reaction roll.

• Language: If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and they share a language with them, make the reaction roll with advantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the lowest die from the result). 

• Alignment (optional): If one specific character attempts to speak with the monsters, and their alignment is the same as the monster's, make the reaction roll with advantage. If the character and the monster's alignments are opposed (Chaotic vs Lawful), make the reaction roll with disadvantage (roll an additional die, then exclude the highest die from the result).

Advantage and disadvantage can cancel each other, but do not stack.

Some monsters' stat blocks or descriptions specify their behavior, such as attacking immediately. In these cases, forgo the reaction roll.

Example Reaction Stats

Here are some example reaction stats for some common monsters:

Monster	ML	Intelligence	RE	AL	Languages	% Fight	% Flee	% Parley
Carcass Crawler	9	Non (0)	9/-	N		83.33%	16.67%	-
Red Dragon	10	Exceptional (15-16)	6/6	C	Dragon	41.67%	-	58.33%
Oozes (most)	12	Non (0)	-/- (attacks)	N		100%	-	-
Goblin	7 (9)*	Average (8-10)	7/8 (8/8)*	C	Goblin	58.33% (72.22%)	13.89% ( - )	27.78% (27.78%)
Hobgoblin	8 (10)*	Average (8-10)	8/8	C	Hobgoblin	72.22%	-	27.78%
Kobold, Orc	6 (8)*	Average (8-10)	6/8 (8/8)*	C	Kobold/ Orcish	41.67% (72.22%)	30.56% ( - )	27.78% (27.78%)
Lizard Man	12	Low (5-7)	9/9	N	Lizard Man	83.33%	-	16.67%
Lycanthrope (werewolf)	8	Average (8-10)	8/8	C	Common	72.22%	-	27.78%
Normal human	6	Average (8-10)	6/8	Any	Common	41.67%	30.56%	27.78%
Ogre	10	Low (5-7)	9/9	C	Ogrish	83.33%	-	16.67%
Owl Bear	9	Low (5-7)	9/9	N		83.33%	-	16.67%
Skeleton, Zombie	12	Non (0)	-/- (attacks)	C		100%	-	-
Unicorn	12	Average (8-10)	4/8	L	Unicorn	16.67%	41.67%	41.67%

*Monster has enhanced morale when in view of a leader.

There's a decent variety of reactions here. Most intelligent monsters won't flee immediately, but some will; if I included more animals, most will flee at least some of the time. For monsters that gain morale in the presence of a leader like kobolds and goblinoids, the group will never flee on-sight in the presence of their leader, which feels correct.

Up Next

I plan to run some starter adventures or one-shots using this set of rules entirely under-the-hood, and see how it feels to play. I'll consider it a win if it leads players to creative problem-solving and me, as GM, to creative problem-creation. Expect a play report!

Sunlanders I: Class-as-Race & Warborn (Fighter)

I'm kicking off Sunlanders, my series on homebrew demi- (and non-) human classes for B/X, before I really explain what the Sunlands setting is. Maybe that's a smart way of introducing the world, maybe it's backwards. I don't know.

The short version is: the Sunlands is a setting in the aftermath of a mythic apocalypse, ruled over by a false sun that never sets. Its inspirations come from all over my personal Appendix N, but its biggest ones that come to mind at the moment are Elden Ring, Dark Sun, Blasphemous, the Viriconium series by M. John Harrison, and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom. This list is sure to grow.

 The Sun in His Wrath by William Blake (1816-1820)

Race as Class

I'm neither qualified nor inclined to go over the pros and cons of race-as-class in B/X. Love it or hate it, it's weird, which is what made me initially want to pry it open and see what I can make of it.

The reasoning behind race-as-class is pretty easy to grasp from an in-universe, Watsonian perspective: PC dwarves, elves, and halflings are archetypal examples of their race's typical heroes, not average people representative of the capabilities of all dwarves, elves, or halflings. Some of their abilities, you can infer are abilities of all or most of their kind, like infravision. But elvish spellcasting can't be assumed to be universal any more than spellcasting is universal for humans just because they have access to the magic-user class.

When taken as part of D&D's "implied setting", there's worldbuilding embedded in demihuman classes; it tells us what skills each society values in its heroes and leaders. (For an example of this kind of "implied setting" archaeology, see this compilation of posts by Wayne Rossi at Semper Initiativus Unum, who excavated the OD&D world by making assumptions from its rules).

There are three more pieces of worldbuilding embedded in the D&D class structure too:

    1. Classed characters are expected to become leaders of some sector of society at name (9th) level, which applies to base and demihuman classes alike. Fighters are assumed to achieve peerage and establish strongholds; thieves have a system of omnipresent Guilds; halflings have Shires with Sheriffs.

    2. Those societies are monoracial and somewhat uniform; a dwarf is a leader of dwarves (for example, a dwarven stronghold attracts only dwarves, can hire only dwarven mercenaries, but specialists of any race. Maybe this level of specialty affords a kind of labor aristocrat position that transcends racial barriers?) This can and should be problematized. It's an ethnonationalist's wet dream as written.

    3. Some, but not all classed characters are expected to have other skills beyond fighting, which applies mostly to demihuman classes. How do dwarves detect construction tricks and elves detect secret doors? You can take a few paths toward explaining this. You can chalk it up to their naturally enhanced senses that allow infravision and 2-in-6 listening at doors, maybe. For me, this fails; why would an elf's sharp eyes not help them spot construction tricks too, for example?

Alternatively, you can take from this that dwarven adventurers are also expected, as a rule, to be skilled in mining and construction in addition to fighting. This is an odd career path. You can interpret it a few ways:

Maybe dwarven strongholds have mandatory mining conscription where everyone does two years (four? six? eight? they're long-lived) in the mines like the military in South Korea or Switzerland.

Maybe the B/X dwarf class, with its combination of fighter abilities and tunneling skills, represents a combat engineer or sapper. This is the role among dwarves that gains the most prestige (they establish strongholds at name level) and the most exposure to the outside world of adventurers (mixed-race adventuring parties hire dwarven sappers specifically for these skills).

You can do the same with elves' thing for hidden doors. Maybe they're skilled at finding them because elves are preternaturally a part of the "hidden world" away from the eyes of humans and outsiders. Entrances to elven lands are hidden doors through the forest: a fairy ring, or a pair of trees that, when crossed through from the correct side, at the correct time of day, while walking backwards, etc. leads one to their otherwise hidden groves. Elves have practice walking these hidden paths, which informs their skill as adventurers.

So, when we look at a demihuman class, we can make worldbuilding decisions about the implied setting based on inferences from the class's abilities.

I think this gets the closest to what the real fun of GMing is, at least for me: a kind of rulings > rules ethos for worldbuilding. Making rulings on the world is more dynamic and creative than making its rules, all the better when they're on the fly. Working within the constraints of a system's implied setting moves the GM further from an omnipotent narrator outside the game, and closer to another player of that game, and for me, working within those constraints is part of the fulfillment of the social contract that comes with playing that system. That's not to say it's gospel; if you don't like a rule and what it implies about the world, change it; it's your (plural) table. I'm sure that's what many have done with class-as-race as written.

Class as Race

Thought experiment: what if we took what B/X was cooking with the dwarf, elf, and halfling demihuman classes, and ran with that premise for the other four (usually human) classes? We take humans out of the equation and run the above process in reverse. Given only the description of of a base B/X class, could we reverse-engineer an imagined race of funny little guy that embodies the mechanical abilities of that class?

The end product will be a re-theming of the four base classes as race-as-class or demihuman-style classes, and four new races to populate the Sunlands.

Most of what I do here will be thematic only; the point is to pair the B/X mechanics with new fiction. I'm looking at the mechanical abilities of a class, and asking: if this is archetypal, what would this class's implied race be like?

In the same way, this opens up the possible reinterpretation of the elf, dwarf, and halfling later. Where I do add mechanics, it will be minimal, and only where it might enhance the fiction.

Understanding these as archetypes and not racial monoliths is key here (not to downplay the fact that I am inherently importing some of those racial-monolith assumptions here). The "fighter" race below, the Warborn, is only a typical example of their people. I would encourage players to play characters with a "matching" race and class the first time around. A Warborn who is a thief by profession has an interesting story to tell, but it's only interesting if we know why they're unusual for their culture.

From an in-universe point of view, the archetypal class is something imposed on each of these four races, both other cultures and their own. I may have laid this on a little thick in my adaptation of the fighter, and might lean on it a little lighter in the future. We'll see. 

Without further ado, here is my re-themed fighter class as a race, and the first of the kindred inhabiting the Sunlands that we'll meet across this series: 

Warborn (Fighter)

Requirements: None
Prime Requisite: STR
Hit Dice: 1d8
Maximum level: 14
Armor: Any, including shields
Weapons: Any
Languages: Alignment, Common

Level Titles: Ironling, Blunt Edge, Keen Edge, Razor Edge, True Steel, Myrmidon, Shield Hand, Blade Hand, (Lady/Liege/Lord) of Blades.

Warborn are robustly built humanoids with predatory features, steel-gray skin, and quicksilver blood. They stand at similar heights to humans, but weigh between 200 and 300 pounds due to the heavy metals infusing their flesh. Warborn are artificial beings, cast in sarcophagi and animated fully grown by means of a ritual now lost to history, but they are otherwise mortal beings of flesh and blood, not machines.

Most warborn alive today were created a century ago to serve as soldiers in the Crusade Solar. Many still ply the fighting trade; others have long since tired of violence and seek a life of peace, a rare treasure indeed in the Sunlands. The extent of a warborn's natural lifespan is unknown, as few die outside battle. In the last decade, a rusting plague with no known cure has spread among them.

The warborn form a single generation, with few predating the Crusade, and none born since its end. There are few communities of warborn alone, but they maintain a lifelong loyalty to those with which they fought, should they meet again.

Experience, hit dice, THAC0/attack bonus, and saving throws are the same as the fighter class. 

Optional Abilities

Warborn characters in The Sunlands or elsewhere have the following optional class abilities if the GM/referee allows:

Steelhide: While not otherwise armored, warborn characters have an AC of 6 [13], between that of leather and chainmail.

A rust monster's feelers and similar effects damage a warborn's skin as they would a magic item, permanently worsening its AC by one point on a hit. If their AC reaches 9 [10], the warborn dies. Rust damage can be reversed with a Cure Disease or Remove Curse spell.

Blade Memory: Warborn have a 2-in-6 chance to instinctively and accurately identify the magical or cursed properties of a weapon after the first time they have killed with it. This increases to a 3-in-6 chance if the weapon is a sword. This doesn't offer them a chance to discard a cursed weapon, but they will know that the weapon is cursed.

Upon a warborn's death at 9th level or above, a sword they wielded may become a sentient magic sword containing the dead warborn's consciousness.

Inspirations

By far the biggest inspiration for me in creating the warborn are the Reborn Men of M. John Harrison's first two Viriconium books, The Pastel City and A Storm of Wings. They don't really suffer the fugue-states that plague Alstath Fulthor and Fay Glass, but their century-old existence as a single generation is meant to spark something similarly desperate and melancholy. They're out of place, a single generation without a history or a future.

The description above leaves their appearance vague, besides its metallic aspect. In my head, they've got animalistic or monstrous features that lean toward a sharp, fast, intelligent aspect rather than a blunt, brutish one. The krumar orcs of MTG's Tarkir plane really nail this look in my mind, as do aspects of the qunari of Dragon Age like their color scheme and typical physique.

Mer-Ek Nightblade by Lucas Graciano for MTG's Khans of Tarkir set.

Qunari tarot cards by Doe for Dragon Age: Inquisition

 

Up Next

The next Sunlanders post will tackle clerics, magic users, and thieves as races. Later entries will revisit of B/X dwarves, elves, and halfling to reinvent them into something else.

Tac n' Slash I: Thesis, Two-Action Turns, & Speed Dice Initiative

This is my inaugural post on this blog. I'll keep it brief today and save the at-length introduction for another time. Inspiration struck before planning.

What is Tac n' Slash and why should you care? 

Tac n’ Slash will be a series of articles laying out variant/house rules to facilitate a “tactical” combat style for OSR games. Eventually, I might collect them in some kind of tiny booklet. They will, of course, go through playtesting, get report-backs on how well they work at the table, and get patched, or pitched, accordingly.

I say it's for OSR games, which should be generally true. My personal target system is Old School Essentials, and that's where the playtesting will happen. Why OSE? Because I just think it's neat. It's also the one that most of my friends enjoy, and as any GM knows, you don't have a game if you don't have a group. I'm interested to see how these house rules might play out in other systems, retroclones or otherwise, but I doubt I'll test them extensively outside OSE.

But first, what do I mean by tactical?

For me, it means first and foremost that the choices available to a player once a combat encounter has begun matter significantly to the PCs’ chance of success. Note the emphasis: while character build choices are important, the goal is to give PCs options in the moment of combat. Arguably the more “tactical” aspects introduced by AD&D (weapon mastery, etc.) have more to do with the choices made in a character’s build than the choices made in a combat encounter. For this series, I want to keep the focus on combat tactics.

I intend this series to be almost entirely modular; one part of it can be implemented independently of others. This will not always be true, but it’s a design goal I want to stay in the neighborhood of.

The first two Tac n’ Slash house rules are an overhaul to the action economy (more radical and potentially imbalancing), a variant of speed factor initiative (Speed Dice Initiative), and a suggestion for variable monster hit dice.

 

1. Two-Action Turns

In combat, initiative is individually determined for each character in the scene (see Individual Initiative optional rule).

PCs can take up to two Actions on their turn. Actions are defined as:

• The same implicit definition in the game: anything (besides movement) which consumes a turn at the expense of other actions, such as attacking with a weapon, casting a spell, or other actions: drinking a potion, interacting with the environment in another way.
• Moving the same distance normally allowed on your turn. All restrictions normally present are still there, and apply to each move as it begins; if a character makes one move in melee, they must follow those restrictions. If they then make a second move that begins outside melee, they can make that move freely.

Only one spell can be cast on a turn. Other actions can be repeated on the same turn. On a single turn, a PC could move and attack, attack twice, move twice, move and cast a spell, attack and cast a spell, etc.

You can always choose to take only one action on a turn instead of two. Talking, in or out of character, is not an action, it's free.

Anything that affects the number of actions or attacks possible in a round now affects the number of actions or attacks possible in an action. For example, the Haste spell enables two attacks per action.

Monsters take their turns as normal. This includes their standard movement and all attacks they can take on a single turn.

 

1A. Two-Action Monster Turns

Forget the last part of what you just read (monsters take their turns as normal). If you want to live dangerously, you can allow certain monsters to take two-action turns and mix up their action routines as well.

Monsters eligible to take two-action turns are those with more than one attack or action option defined in their stat block. For these monsters, each attack/action option counts as an action, as does the monster's move. It can take any two actions each round, but can not repeat the same move, attack, or other action twice in a round, unlike PCs.

Monsters that make multiple attacks per turn (separated by commas in a standard stat block) still treat this attack routine as a single-action unit. Only different options (separated by an "or") count as separate action options.

For example, a red dragon has: 

Att: [2 x claw (1d8), 1 x bite (4d8) or breath].

For the dragon, each of its attack choices costs 1 action, and moving costs 1 action. It could move and make its melee attacks, move and use its breath, or make its melee attacks and use its breath.

Humanoid NPCs and player-character-like humanoid monsters could be allowed to move or attack twice on a round. Which monsters can do this is at the GM's discretion. Suggestions:

• "Monsters" or characters with class levels, such as other adventurers.
• Monsters that use human-sized weapons and armor, and are intelligent (e.g. hobgoblins, but not skeletons).

 

What are the effects of a two-action turn in play? Player characters are deadlier than before, as even a humble mage can thwack their enemies with a staff twice per turn. However, a commitment to all-out offense comes with drawbacks, sacrificing the chance to move or take other actions. See? Already, some tactics. With the two-action monster turn variant in play, this also means players have to plan around their opponents having similar capabilities. This will get more significant with the addition of later Tac n' Slash house rules. Speaking of which:

 

2. Speed Dice Initiative

This is a variant of Speed Factor Initiative. As above, it requires that initiative is determined individually (see Individual Initiative optional rule).

Combat Sequence Per Round

1. Declare actions (up to two if using Two-Action Turns).
2. PCs roll the Speed Dice for each action and total them to find your Initiative.
3. Characters take turns in ascending order (1 is faster than 2, etc.) until all have taken a turn.

Speed Dice of different sizes are associated with each type of action:

• Move: 1d8 with standard move speed. Faster (longer distance): 1d6. Slower (shorter distance): 1d10 (e.g. encumbered).
• Attack: Equal to the weapon's base damage die.
• Two-weapon fighting: roll once for each weapon, keep the lowest.
• Magic weapons: subtract 1 for each +1 to their damage roll. A sword +2 would roll 1d8-2 (minimum 1).
• Bare hands: 1d4. 
• Cast a Spell: 5 + the spell's level (don't roll). This applies to any means of spellcasting (magic user spells, use of a scroll, wand, etc.).
• Other Action: 1d8. Faster (e.g. Haste spell): 1d6 to 1d4. Slower (e.g. Slow spell): 1d10 to 1d12. Multiple sources of slowness or speed increment the die by multiple steps up/down from 1d8.

The total of all dice rolled for declared actions on a turn is your Initiative. It has a minimum of 1. Smaller numbers are faster, and take turns earlier in the round.

Characters in the scene take turns starting from the lowest initiative and moving to the highest initiative. The round ends once all characters have taken a turn.

In case of ties, characters with higher HD/Level take their turn first. If ties remain, PCs take turns before monsters/NPCs. Further ties between PCs are resolved by their players, and further ties between monsters/NPCs by the GM.

When a PC's turn begins, they can only take actions that are still possible with the current configuration of characters on the battlefield. For example, if a PC declared two attacks on their turn, but the only monster in range left their 5' attack range, they could not make the attacks.  

Mounts share a turn with their riders (not vice versa).

 

Monster Initiative is static. Monsters take their turns on the initiative count equal to the maximum die roll on their hit die. Most monsters use 1d8, taking their turns on initiative count 8. Monsters with 1/2 hit dice roll 1d4 for HP, and take their turns on initiative count 4. Monsters with 0 hit dice and a fixed amount of HP take their turns on the initiative count equal to their HP.

Monsters that always win initiative rolls (such as Pit Vipers) take their turn before initiative count 1. Monsters that always lose initiative rolls (such as Zombies) take their turns after the last other character or monster has taken a turn. Monsters with modifications to their initiative (such as Wood Golems) treat the modifier as if it was inverted (subtract a positive modifier, add a negative modifier).

Suggested format for monster initiative in stat blocks: IN X, placed between Saves (SV) and Morale (ML).

 

2A. Monster Speed Dice with Two-Action Monster Turns (Variant)

When using both rule 1A. Two-Action Monster Turns and rule 2. Speed Dice Initiative, you might allow certain monsters to roll speed dice each turn for their initiative number. Generally, the same monsters that can take two-action turns can roll speed dice if they so choose.

Monsters that roll speed dice follow the same rules as PCs that roll speed dice. The GM must declare their actions at the start of a round, the same as PCs. If using rule 2C. Changing Declared Actions, monsters can also change their actions, and must reroll and add the result, the same as PCs.

If their damage is assigned by weapon, they use their damage dice as speed dice, as PCs do. Otherwise (such as with natural weapons like claws and teeth), they roll their hit die for attacks' speed dice rather than using the weapon damage dice.

This accounts for monsters with very large damage dice or multi-attack combos, which would normally take their turns last. They are proficient enough with their bodies and with large weapons made to match their size not to be slowed excessively by them.

 

2B. Monster Quick Actions with Two-Action Monster Turns (Variant) 

This is a simplified version of the above, which applies to the same monsters.

In this variant, monsters still have static initiative. The GM declares their actions, the same as PCs. If they take two actions, they use the maximum result of their hit die as their initiative, as in the base rule 2. If they take only one action, their initiative is half that (4 for a monster with 1d8 hit dice that would normally act on initiative count 8, etc.).

 

2C. Changing Declared Actions (Optional)

PCs can change their declared actions during the round, but before their turn starts. If this happens, the PC rolls the speed dice for all new actions they intend to take, and adds the result to their initiative, taking their turn on the new total. This represents the moment of hesitation that affects the character as they change their plans.

For example, a PC declares that they intend to move (1d8, rolled 5) and attack (sword: 1d8, rolled 2), and have a final initiative of 7. After a monster takes their turn, this PC realizes that a first-level spell scroll they carry might be particularly effective in this scenario. They change their plan to move and cast a spell. Because they are still moving, there's no need to reroll the 1d8 for movement. They add 6 to their initiative (5+1 for a first-level spell), and have a new initiative of 13. They will then take their turn on initiative count 13 in the same round.

This rule is a little more lenient on player actions that are made impossible by movement and/or their targets dying off, punishing it by delaying their turn, rather than robbing them of an action entirely.

 

3. Variable Monster Hit Dice

This is a corollary to the way static monster initiative works in rule 2. Speed Dice Initiative. It's meant to introduce more variety into the enemy turn order when used alongside speed dice initiative. It's hardly "my" house rule, and there are plenty of variants of it out there, but I'm going to number it for consistency. Here's my plan for my home games:

Monster hit dice are based on the monster's size:

• Small: 1d6 hit dice. Dwarves, halflings, gnomes, goblins, and smaller.
• Medium: 1d8 hit dice. Humans, elves, orcs, hobgoblins, and similar.
• Large: 1d10 hit dice. Apes, bugbears, rideable animals, and larger.

Exceptionally small creatures (pixies, etc.) can use 1d4 hit dice and exceptionally large ones (giants, etc.) can use 1d12 hit dice. I prefer not using these and sticking to the three sizes initially used by AD&D monster entries.

 

Why only three sizes? When using them in conjunction with the speed dice initiative rule above, it means that at initiative count 6, 8, and 10, most creatures will be taking their turns in the middle of the initiative order, which means it's still an open question whether they can be beaten be most PCs. If I extend it to 4 and 12, tiny creatures with initiative 4 will almost always go before PCs, and and giant ones with 12 almost always after. If this sounds appealing, use it! I prefer the variability in turn order (and slightly less variability in HP).

 

Why use static initiative for monsters?

First, it's work-saving on the GM's part. Re-rolling initiative for every creature every round is impractical. But more importantly, it is predictable, "open" information for PCs.

When two numbers are compared to each other in an RPG context, only one or the other needs to be randomized. PCs' turn order is randomized by the speed dice, so there's no need to randomize the monsters' initiative. I think letting it be fixed works better, because:

    1. It gives players a "target" to beat. If they know most monsters in a scene will take their turn on initiative count 8, they can consciously plan to beat initiative count 8 with their own action (if necessary). This isn't "metagaming" or putting rules before fiction, to me; it's like observing how fast your enemy swings a sword and trying to bring up your parry faster. It's natural, dramatic, and just works.

    2. It clusters monsters' turns together. In an encounter with a large group of the same type of monster, this almost works like side-based initiative. If you beat them to it, you can prepare for the onslaught; if you don't, you have to face the horde. Whether a given PC moves before the attacking group is a more urgent question than whether a given PC moves before a given monster.

    3. It draws attention to the exceptions. A monster that's slightly faster than others is more noticeable when most other monsters take their turns on the same initiative count. This goes hand-in-hand with the below:

    4. Initiative count 8 is kind of the perfect place for monsters to take their turns, in that it's slightly faster than the "average" expected PC turn. Here are some likely PC turns and their average initiatives:

• Move (1d8, avg. 4.5) and attack (1d4 to 1d12; assume a sword: 1d8, avg. 4.5). Average initiative 9.
• Move (1d8, avg. 4.5) and any other action (1d8, avg. 4.5). Average initiative 9.
• Attack twice (assume 1d8, avg. 4.5). Average initiative 9. 
• Move (1d8, avg. 4.5) and cast a spell (assume 1st level: 6). Average initiative 10.5.
• Cast a spell only (assume 1st level: 6). Average initiative 6.

The average player seeking to maximize the value of their turn will probably roll a 9 on average, meaning that the average PC will lose the initiative to most of the monsters most of the time. This is a GOOD thing. It provides players with a reason to seek shorter turns, either by attacking with "lighter" weapons, or to make use of advantages such as faster move speed from spells or items. If taking one, or a few, advantages means beating most monsters to the punch, then seizing those advantages matters. In other words: it rewards tactical play.

 

Putting it all Together

Let's look at some effects of using these rules in conjunction.

    1. "Lighter" weapons strike faster. Because a weapon's speed die is tied to its damage die, less-damaging weapons like daggers (1d4) and hand axes (1d6) are more likely to get damage in before a monster's turn, preventing it entirely if you land a kill. Wielding or even switching to a lighter weapon is a legitimate tactical choice that players will have to weigh. Attacking more slowly but dealing more damage with heavy weapons like a two-handed sword or a polearm are the other side of that trade-off.

    2.  The choice between one and two actions is a simple "light/heavy attack" system. Should you attack twice to maximize your damage, at the risk of taking some yourself, or a potentially valuable quarry getting away? Or, should you attack only once for a better chance to beat your opponent to the punch?

These are really the same choice expressed two different ways (a trade-off between damage and speed). One is more on the "strategic" scale, the way I've been using the term, while the second is more on the "tactical" scale.

    3. Movement matters more. This one is particular to rule 1A., the two-action monster turn variant. If a monster has the choice of either attacking with two different attack routines (such as a vampire with Att: 1 x touch (1d10 + energy drain) or 1 x gaze (charm)), it can opt to do both in the same turn at the cost of movement. If it does, PCs that move before the monster could move out of range of one or more of these attacks. It's a simple "dodge" system: just don't be there to get hit!

On its own, these two house rules and the variants that come with them hardly turn old-school D&D combat into a detailed tactical system, but it's a start that I hope to playtest and expand on. I have big plans for more drastic overhauls of the combat system ahead (automatic hits! damage-reducing armor! reactions! a new weapon chart!), but they'll rest on this foundation, while hopefully standing on their own as well.

Playtest Plans

I don't have a specific module in mind yet to playtest these, but I'd like to run a combat-focused one-shot twice with the same group, once with by-the-book OSE rules, and once with these two house rules in play. Specifically, I want to run it with:

1. Two-Action Turns and 1A. Two-Action Monster Turns

2. Speed Dice Initiative (but none of the variant rules for simplicity), and

3. Variable Monster Hit Dice.