RPG Design: Thief Skills

A couple years ago, I discussed the Thief Class and the importance of Balancing Skills,  and last year, I discussed the importance of Balancing Classes.

This week, I wanted to riff off those discussions and take a look at the mechanic for Thief Skills in 2nd edition AD&D compared to earlier editions.  Like earlier editions, in 2e, there is a chart stating the base scores for Level 1 Thieves, to be modified by Dexterity, race, and armor, if applicable.

Then, however, the Player gets to do something pretty different for TSR D&D:

"Each time the thief rises a level in experience, the player receives another 30 points to distribute. No more than 15 points per level can be assigned to a single skill, and no skill can be raised above 95 percent. including all adjustments for Dexterity, race, and armor. As an option, the DM can rule that some portion of the points eamed must be applied to skills used during the course of the adventure."

I've mentioned before that 1st edition AD&D is my favorite iteration of Ye Auld Fantasy Game, but I do really like the 2e approach to Thief Skills.  It is basically a type of Point Buy for character advancement that allows the player to customize to suit in this area, while still retaining the archetypal flavor benefits of using a class.

This is able to work with Old School D&D since the OD&D game engine is robust enough to have multiple independent sub-systems, which in turn means that DMs can mix and match sub-systems as desired with limited or no mechanical repercussions (e.g., changing Thief Skills has no knock effect on combat mechanics).

Inspired by the mechanic for Thief Skills in 2nd edition AD&D, in my own rules set, I have added a skills system influenced by Call of Cthulhu, allowing players to customize their characters to a much higher degree than in Ye Auld Fantasy Game.

RPG Design: Weaponry

Earlier this year, I discussed the importance of gear in tabletop role-playing games.  This week, I wanted to focus on what many players think is the coolest and most important part of any gear list, Weaponry:

As befits their wargaming ancestry, many RPGs make combat is a key or even central element of gameplay (e.g., hack and slash).  So, unsurprisingly, weapons are also a fundamental part of many RPGs, since they literally the tools of war.

This is a subject that many players of tabletop role-playing have spent many hours thinking about and can be a key part of the imaginary fun of role-playing.  For example, as I mentioned before, there is a different role-playing feel when one is a sword guy versus an axe guy.

Weapons are also important because they can be a fundamental part of a character's power in some RPGs.  Indeed, the effect of weapons are a baked in assumption for one of the Core Four classes, the Fighting-Man (aka the Fighter), since this is the primary way that Fighting-Men affect games.  For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the magic weapons tables are skewed towards swords, which can only be used by Fighting-Men.  This was a deliberate design decision to help balance the power of the Fighting-Man vis-à-vis the Cleric and the Magic-User.

Consequently, some RPGs have lengthy lists of weapons.  The AD&D Player's Handbook (1978) had an eye-popping, for the time, FIFTY weapons!  Sometimes even entire books mainly devoted to weapons (e.g., "Compendium of Weapons Armour and Castles" (1989)).

In terms of the level of mechanical depth, there are a number of approaches for weapon statistics, from OD&D very simply treating all normal weapons as mechanically equal (all weapons do 1d6 points of damage), to a great deal of crunch, such as AD&D's differing damage by size (versus large damage) and weapon versus armor modifications or GURPS' different types of damage (e.g., burning, crushing, cutting, impaling, etc.).

From a design point of view, the biggest thing to avoid is creating a best weapon (i.e., a weapon that is always mechanically superior to other choices) or making certain weapons redundant.  For example, AD&D had a huge number of pole arms that were probably overkill for pretty much anyone, except for Messr Gygax.

Furthermore, ideally, the mechanics of weaponry should provide some Tactical Depth, but not at the expense of too much complexity.  There shouldn't be so many weapon statistics that they become difficult to track.  For example, I personally didn't use any of AD&D's extra crunch (differing damage by size (versus large damage) or weapon versus armor modifications) because they required too much looking up (which slows down gameplay).

Myself, I'm a big fan of the approach of Baldur's Gate (1998), which had a streamlined list of weapons with streamlined statistics, so gameplay was quick.  However, BG also created tactical depth through its use of weapon groups and weapon proficiencies.  Thus, I adopted this approach for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, since I think it provides the best balance of speedy gameplay with meaningful choices for weaponry.

RPG Design: The Magic-User Class

First of all, I'd like to say this blog is now a year old, so yay!

Next, last year, I discussed two of the Core Four Classes of tabletop role-playing, the Thief and the Cleric.  Today, I wanted to give a shout out to probably the most challenging and the most unbalanced of the Core Four Classes, the Magic-User:

Magic is fundamental to much of fantasy literature and Magicians are some of the most iconic and archetypal characters of the genre (e.g., Merlin, Gandalf, Circe, etc.).  However, "Magic-User" as used in Dungeons & Dragons (and similar games), has a specific meaning: someone with a specialized ability to cast certain kinds of magic while at the same time being relatively weak at combat (e.g., low hit points, poor weapon choices, no armor, etc.).  So, other games, such as Exalted  (2001) or REIGN (2006), don't really have "Magic-Users" per se since all PCs use or have the potential to use magic.

Magic-Users in Old School D&D (and similar games) start out significantly underpowered at low levels compared to other classes (with only a single Level 1 spell per day at 1st level- no cantrips or at-will powers!) and become significantly overpowered at high levels.  As an example of the former, there's the classic meme of 1st level Magic-Users being killed by house cats.

However, as they level up, D&D-style Magic-Users'  spells become ever more powerful, up to and including altering reality itself, and more numerous (an 18th level Magic-User can cast 34 spells, including Wish).  As a result, their magical strength starts to eclipse their physical weakness around 5th level, particularly with the introduction of spells like Fireball and Lighting Bolt.

Indeed, past a certain point, high level Magic-Users can make the rest of the party (in their specialized roles) redundant.

From early on in RPG history, it was clear that linear fighter-quadratic wizard was an issue.  For example, Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975), published only a year after OD&D, introduces Exceptional Strength for Fighters, which is effectively a patch to help balance the two classes.

IMHO, this was a poor design decision that led to increasing stat inflation.  For example, in AD&D1, many people really didn't want to play a Fighter with less than Strength 18.  However, if you use 4d6 Drop Lowest, arrange to suit, to roll your ability scores, there's only a 9.34% chance to get at least one 18 out of six rolls.

And yet there was a striking number of Fighters with 18 Exceptional Strength...

Of course, by AD&D1, there's also stat inflation for Magic-Users:

Like Fighter players, many, many Magic-User players did not want to play gimped characters.  Consequently there was a striking number of Magic-Users with high Intelligence scores...

However, regardless of the drawbacks of low level Magic-Users, they are still quite fun to play.  It's super cool to be able to ignore the laws of physics.  Low level Magic-Users can also really push you to up your player skill, as you figure out ways to contribute to the party outside of your spells.

If you are interested playing a Magic-User, you should check first with your DM as house rules can have a huge impact.  For example, a fairly common AD&D1 house rule is to give Magic-Users with high Intelligence bonus spells, like Clerics with high Wisdom.

RPG Design: Proficiencies v. Feats

This week, I wanted to compare and contrast two mechanics from different editions of Dungeons & Dragons used in character creation  and development: Proficiencies v. Feats.

By "proficiencies," I'm referring weapon proficiencies in the 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D, which determined how well a PC used particular weapons.  There were also non-weapon proficiencies, but they operated rather differently and are outside the scope of this discussion.

Weapon proficiencies were a significant departure from the approach of Original Dungeons & Dragons and the Basic lines.  In those versions, all classes could, by default, use all permissible weapons without penalty.  So, for example, a Cleric could wield a Mace, Hammer, Flail, Club or Staff equally well from the start.  By contrast, in AD&D1 and AD&D2, a 1st level Cleric was only proficient in two permissible weapons and had a -3 To-Hit penalty when using the others.

I understand why some people are unhappy about the change.  However, the reason that I've adopted weapon proficiencies for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, is because of a further development in Unearthed Arcana (1985), namely Weapon Specialization, which allowed Fighters to invest additional weapon proficiencies for additional bonuses.  This is one of the few things that I liked from UA.

While I allow all classes to Weapon Specialize and to go beyond Double Specialization, I use this mechanic to make Fighters pop as a class,  since they have the most weapon proficiencies to invest.  This makes them clearly the best at general combat at higher levels.  Conversely, I also use weapon proficiencies to make Magic-Users both tougher and more versatile at lower levels, by giving them many more initial weapon proficiencies and many more additional weapon proficiencies as they level.

Only one starting weapon proficiency?

Since their introduction in 3rd edition D&D (2000), feats are a markedly different way to improve and customize PCs: feats are much broader than proficiencies and can give a character many different kinds of special capabilities (e.g., Deft Hands, Enlarge Spell, Investigator, etc.).  I feel the addition of feats reflects the influence of computer RPGs, such as the all-time great Fallout (1997), whose Perks grant also special effects, most of which are not obtainable via the normal level up system.

Feats are also one of the mechanics that shifted the power level of 3rd edition D&D from heroic to super heroic.

Some people liked this shift.  However, it does add to the GM's burden and the increased power level for a D&D-type game breaks verisimilitude for me.

Feats also don't work as well at the tabletop because of the additional complexity since this adds a layer of number crunching on top of the skill system and since some feats add additional subsystems.  Additionally, many feats are linked together into feat trees but not all feat trees are equal.  So, this incentivizes players to spend hours pouring over long lists of feats to find optimal combinations.

This also encourages players to plan their PCs levels in advance.  Some people like this mini-game.  However, my tastes run toward faster and more casual gameplay.

RPG Design: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards

This week, I'd like to take a look at another infamous design issue that haunts Dungeons & Dragons and similar games: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards.

Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards refers to the fact that, in D&D, Fighters' skills and abilities improve at a largely linear rate, whereas Wizards improve much faster.  The reason for the latter is because Wizards' powers (as primarily encapsulated by their spells) increase simultaneously along multiple axes: not only to they get more spells but also the effectiveness of any given spell (e.g., damage output, range, etc.) tends to also increase as the Wizard levels up.

For example, let's take a look at a common Level 1 spell in AD&D:

Magic Missile (Evocation)

Level: 1     Components: V, S    Range: 6" + 1"/level     Casting Time: 1 segment    Duration: Special     Saving Throw: None    Area of Effect: One or more creatures in a 10 square foot area 

Explanation/Description: Use of the Magic Missile spell creates one or more magical missiles which dart forth from the magic-user's fingertip and unerringly strike their target. Each missile does 2 to 5 hit points (d4+1) of damage. If the magic-user has multiple missile capability, he or she can have them strike a single target creature or several creatures, as desired. For each level of experience of the magic-user, the range of his or her Magic Missile extends 1" beyond the 6" base range. For every 2 levels of experience, the magic-user gains an additional missile, i.e. 2 at 3rd level, 3 at 5th level, 4 at 7th level, etc.

So, a 5th level Magic-User casting Magic Missile has a tripled damage output and a range that's nearly doubled compared to a 1st level Magic-User, not to mention that he can cast Magic Missile four times per day compared to a 1st level Magic-User's one time.

Meanwhile, the AD&D Fighter has also improved over four levels (e.g., THAC0, weapon proficiencies, etc.) but not to the same extent (i.e., he isn't hitting three times as hard or making four attacks per round).  And difference between the two classes only becomes more pronounced over time as each spell continues to become more powerful and as the Wizard picks up more spell slots.

Furthermore, the spells themselves are unbalanced in the spell levels.  For example, Wish (a 9th level) is far more than nine times more powerful than any 1st level spell.

The net effect is that the Wizard will pass the Fighter in mid-level play and far outstrip the latter in high-level play.

Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards is an issue specific to Dungeons & Dragons because of the magic system, most notably because of casting speed and versatility of spells (i.e., D&D Wizards are quick casting generalists).  For example, if spells took hours to cast or if Wizards needed to choose between limited selections of spells, their power would be sharply scaled backward.

In addition, 3e exacerbated the issue by changing the assumed default play style: in older editions, it is assumed that once PCs reach name level (usually around 9th level), play will shift to domain management (i.e., the PCs will transition from itinerant adventurers to rulers).  Thus, the ever more powerful spells of magic-users will be balanced by the fighter's ever larger armies.


In terms of Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, I've taken a two fold approach to Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards:

• Remove gamist restrictions on magic items

Just like I removed the gamist restrictions on weapons and armor, all classes can use all magic items.  Thus, in actual play, it matters less that the Wizard can cast Lightning Bolt if the Fighter has a Wand of  Lightning Bolts.

• Turn wizards into glass cannons

By giving wizards a clear Achilles' heel, namely significantly less hit points than in standard AD&D, the two classes remain relatively balanced since the Wizard never outgrows a dependence upon the Fighter as a meat shield.


Finally, I would be remiss without including this notable (and hilarious) example of the trope:

RPG Design: The Cleric Class

Today, I wanted to give a shout out to perhaps the most poorly loved of the Core Four Classes of tabletop role-playing, the Cleric:

Although published along with the Fighting-Man and the Magic-User in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the Cleric, unlike those two classes, did not have a clear antecedent in the Fantasy Supplement to the Chainmail miniatures wargame (1971).  And, unsurprisingly, there are no clear antecedents for the Cleric in Fantasy literature either.  Rather, this class began in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, where they filled several key roles in the party, most notably as a healer and as a counter to undead.

Despite being probably the most powerful class at lower and middle levels in older editions of Dungeons & Dragons, being something of a hybrid of the Fighting-Man and the Magic-User (reasonable melee combatant, decent caster plus the most generous XP table), there's often a reluctance by players to be "stuck" playing the party healer, since, in my experience, most players prefer to focus on their own character's exploits rather than being at the service of others (e.g., healbot).

Not helping the situation are the weapon restrictions that Gary Gygax added to the Cleric.  Since all weapons do the same damage in OD&D, these weapon restrictions are primarily in place to prevent Clerics from utilizing magic swords.  However, in later editions, it becomes a serious blow to the Cleric's general appeal.   These gamist restrictions are justified by some wildly inaccurate "history".

The Cleric's weapon restrictions in D&D are also defended in-game with some equally dubious "facts", namely that blunt weapons do not draw blood.  Now, if you whack someone with a baseball bat, chances are pretty good you'll start to see blood before too long.  Perhaps one might argue that "drawing blood" means cutting or piercing flesh, but that seems to me like a distinction without practical difference.

In any event, given the lack of clear antecedents, it is unsurprising that other rule sets take the general idea but focus on only part of the OD&D Cleric's remit, such as healing (e.g., White Mages from Final Fantasy) or religion (e.g., Runequest's deity specific approach).  Moreover, even D&D itself has moved away from the tropes it established, with newer editions shifting the Cleric's remit more toward leadership and by giving healing surges to everyone.

Another source of confusion is the Paladin (sub)class:

Like the Cleric, the Paladin is a heavily armed and armored holy warrior.  Unsurprisingly, the conceptual difference between the two is fuzzy.  Moreover, by having more in the asskicking department, it's hard not to argue that the Paladin stole a good bit of the Cleric's thunder.

So, for my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, I bring the Cleric back toward its Arnesonian roots and also blend in the best parts of the Paladin a single archetype: a soldier of faith who smites creatures of darkness and wields potent divine magic.

RPG Design: The Thief Class

Two weeks ago, I discussed the Core Four Classes of tabletop role-playing (i.e., Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief), drawn from Original Dungeons & Dragons and Supplement I: Greyhawk.  Today, I wanted to look in more detail at the Thief Class:

New Schoolers might be more familiar with the term "Rogue," which was a 3e D&D change (although the move started with 2e) and fallout from the "Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons" (B.A.D.D.) hysteria.  I prefer not to lend any kind of credence to Ms. Pulling's baseless accusations so the Thief has kept his original moniker in my rules set, Sorcery & Steel.

There are some Old Schoolers who don't feel that the Thief belongs among the Core Four, since it is not present in Original Dungeons & Dragons and because ALL characters are thieves in the general sense.  While I understand this point of view, I do think that it is useful to have thieves in the professional sense.  In other words, it's hard to disbelieve that a barbarian from the wastes, a warrior priestess or a newly-minted apprentice would have dedicated the bandwidth to competently and consistently pick locks or other nefarious professional skills.

This is less of an issue with rules sets that have a strong skill system (e.g., BRP, Classic Traveller).

In any event, there is a long tradition of sneaky and lightly armored adventurers in tabletop role-playing and in the fantasy literature (e.g., the Grey Mouser) from whence it came.

A glaring problem for the Old School D&D-brand Thief is that his professional skills begin far too low!  For example, let's take a look at the AD&D variety:

Aside from Climbing Walls (why this shouldn't be included among the Thief's professional skills is a whole other topic), he begins with  an average 18.3% chance of success.  That's miserable!  And it's actually an improvement from B/X!

In my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, I've started the Thief's professional skills at a far more competent point and adapted the rule from 2e allowing the player to allocate professional skill points.


One thing that's changed for the worse IMHO over the years is massive hit point inflation for Thieves in Dungeons & Dragons: in OD&D and B/X, Thieves used a d4.  In AD&D, this was upgraded in a d6.  But now, in 5e, Thieves are rocking a d8!

This hit point inflation, combined with other things including without limitation generous healing and an increasing reluctance to allow PC death, has given newer editions of Dungeons & Dragons a video-gamey feel: rather than being terrified of the dark, typical PCs now often adapt a kick the doors down approach.

This, of course, dramatically changes the tone and feel of adventuring by altering the risk/reward ratio.  At my table, the role of Thief general goes to the most clever and daring player, as it is the Thief that most often is called upon to match wits by his lonesome with the GM.

This is in line with my own preference to emphasize and encourage player skill over character abilities.

RPG Design: Core Four Classes

I've mentioned before that my rules set, Sorcery & Steel, grew out of, among other things, countless hours analyzing the mechanics of 1e Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.  However, in addition to 1e, several other Old School products have also provided inspiration.  For example, the Core Four Classes are drawn from Original Dungeons & Dragons and Supplement I: Greyhawk (i.e., Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief).

One might ask, "What about the Paladin?" (which is also featured in Supplement I), to which I would reply, "The Paladin in Supplement I, unlike 1e, is not a standalone class but rather an option for Fighting-Men who meet the prerequisites."

Also, I should add that Sorcery & Steel uses the term "career" rather than "class", both because the former more accurately maps what this rules set is trying to accomplish and because the latter is one of a number of unintuitive word choices in D&D.  My rules set does add a bit more crunch, adapting 1e's weapon proficiency system to allow players options to customize.

Nevertheless, I do quite like the minimalist approach of only a handful of classes.  Not only does this streamline character creation, but it also encourages player creativity and imagination.  For example, if you are a "Fighting-Man," what does that mean beyond your stats?

You might be a mighty bear of a bruiser, able to absorb and dish out tremendous amounts of damage:

Alternately, you might be a lean, pantherish warrior, relying on your quickness and cunning:

Or whatever else suits your fancy.  It is up to each player to supply their own answer.  In other words, you have to think for yourself.