Call of Cthulhu: BRP vs. d20

Archiving a thread started by Pedro...

If there’s one thing that pisses me off, it’s people saying that d20 is as good a set of rules for Call of Cthulhu as Chaosium’s BRP system is. Still, rpg.net is littered with morons repeating this rubbish again and again. The very fact that the characters’ hit points raise as they advance in levels makes the system complete inadequate for a lovecraftian setting. Some people seem to believe that a character with high Dodge skill under the BRP rules is as unrealistically tough to kill as a high-level d20 character. Again, that’s complete non-sense, and here is why...

Let’s say a character with very high Dodge skill (90%) is trying to escape from a warehouse while fired upon with a .9mm gun. Let’s assume point-blank fire rules don’t apply here as the victim is further away from the attacker than the attacker’s DEX in feet. The victim will probably be able to dodge the first bullet due to his high skill level in dodging. However, as rules are very clear that characters may only dodge one attack per round. Now what happens? The bad guy smiles, as has still has one (or two – depending on his skill with the gun) attack left this round and the victim is too of balance to dodge his bullet again. The damage of a .9mm gun is 1d10. Let’s remember that BRP characters usually have 9-13 hit-points and that a loss of half a character’s hit-points is very likely to rend that character unconscious, which in this case would be a good as dead. The fleeing character is in real danger here, and if the attacker has a high skill with the gun, chances are he won’t be getting out alive.

Now let’s look at the same situation under the d20 rules. The damage for a .9mm gun under d20 is still 1d10. Our high-level character trying to escape from the warehouse doesn’t have much to fear when you bear in mind that he probably has over 100 hit-points, meaning he could take an average 20 shots from a .9mm before going down. Oh, what do you say? No, I haven’t forgotten about the much talked about Massive Damage Rule that states that a character taking 10 hit-points of damage should save against fortitude or die. The thing is, you see, that the save improves with levels, so our high level character would probably only die on a roll of 1 on a d20. That is a 5% chance of dying out of the shots that make 10 points of damage, what is a 10% chance to begin with. That makes out a pretty slim chance of a high-level character ever dying of massive damage, I’d say. I don’t think that character needs to run out of the warehouse, he can simply walk out in no hurry. Hell, the attacker will most likely even run out of bullets before he can kill him. This is as realistic as your typical D&D game, where characters can walk around with so many arrows sticking out of their backs that they look more like a hedgehog than anything else. While that is fine for a high-fantasy epic game, it’s not ok for CoC. Is that the sort of atmosphere for a lovecraftian game? Certainly not.

So, there you have it. A character with high Dodge skill under the BRP rules would most likely die during the first two rounds of a fight against a highly-skilled enemy armed with a gun. That sounds pretty realistic to me.

Taking twenty gun shots before you die in a CoC game? That can only be a joke.

Rolling Ability Scores

I think I may have found a solution to my on-going problem with rolling ability scores. Firstly, the problem:

If you use point-buy, you inevitably end up with extremely focussed characters. No Fighter will ever have a Charisma above the minimum allowed, for instance. If you use random rolling, even if no-one cheats, you may well end up with one member of the group with significantly better or significantly worse stats than anyone else (it doesn't matter if they're all high or low, only if there's a mismatch within the group). And you must never, never combine the two, or else you get both problems, which is doubly bad.

My solution (for d20 - not that I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours :-):

Prior to the game, the DM must roll up a whole load of stats. These will be grouped onto PC cards, each of which has 4 columns. The players then randomly select a card, and choose one of the columns.

The columns are as follows:

Column 1 has the "default array": 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
Column 2 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.
Column 3 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, reroll 1's, then drop lowest.
Column 4 has a set of 7 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.

Additionally, the following should be true: Columns 1 & 2 should have a net bonus of +5, column 3 a net bonus of +7, and column 4 a net bonus of +6 when the lowest score is ignored. Columns 2 and 3 should have 3 odd stats and 3 even stats. Column 4 should be the same, again when the lowest score is ignored. The lowest stat, in any of the columns, should be 7.

Having selected a card and a column within the card, the player assigns stats. The method for this depends on the column chosen:

If column 1 or 2 is used, the stats can be assigned in any order. If column 3 is used, the stats have to be used in the order given: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. If column 4 is used, the player may swap any two numbers, and then drop any one number (or drop and then swap), but must then use the resulting six stats in order.

This method gives the following:

• All PCs are balanced (to within 1 or 2 points).
  
• There can be no cheating.
  
• The system contains both randomness and player choice.

There's a trade-off between raw power and flexibility - column 3 is the most powerful, but it might saddle your Fighter with a really high Charisma, which is sure to be a hardship :-)

Auto-calculating Character Sheets

As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of character sheets that do all the sums for you, not least because they cut down on my mistakes. The character form I currently use comes from the Mad Irishman, and is a wonderful sheet (the new version looks even better, but isn't available as a form yet).

However, the form as it stands doesn't quite handle everything I want - it doesn't handle fractional skill ranks, for one thing, and I would prefer it if the appropriate skills automatically accounted for the armour check penalty, the swim skill accounted for equipment carried, and the maximum Dex bonus was applied to armour class.

So, I've spent the last day and a half screwing around with the form (for personal use only, of course), and have just about got it doing everything I want. I don't know how to make Javascript detect an empty box, or I'd have a few more additions to make, but otherwise it's solid.

Unfortunately, in order to handle everything correctly, I've had to create lots of custom Javascript calculations, which either need to be placed within a .js file to go with the form (which doesn't bother me, but means that completed forms wouldn't be readable by anyone else), or within the cells themselves. This latter option has caused the file to bloat to 2.5 Mb in size.

Oh, well, it was a nice thought experiment. I guess I'll stick with the original.

Mutants and Masterminds

I looked at the character creation rules for this game on Sunday, and also took a quick look at some of the other rules. Very nice.

I liked the point-buy system, insofar as I like such things at all (which isn't a huge amount, as you know). It was quick and simple, and provided a lot of flexibility for the game. Unfortunately, the costs for the various powers are such that it would be a lot of work to develop a similar system for D&D, or the swashbuckler game I was developing a couple of weeks back. (You could do non-spellcasters easily enough, but spellcasters would be a lot more challenging.)

However, the damage system, where you use a saving throw to resist damage rather than a hit points total was great! Alas, that's all I have to say about it. I guess quality speaks for itself.

(I wouldn't use such a system for D&D, 'cos I like hit points. However, I probably would use a variant of this system if I were doing a Shadowrun conversion, for instance.)

+1 keen shortsword

Sorry, I have to mention this somewhere, or I'm going to explode. On Saturday, we picked up a +1 keen shortsword. This is all very exciting, except:

The keen enhancement can only be placed on Slashing weapons, and

The shortsword is a Piercing weapon.

I realised that on Monday when looking something entirely different up, and it's been bugging me ever since. Of course, from a game balance point of view, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Just another of the hidden joys of being an obsessive rules lawyer.

Class-specific Feats

While I'm at it, I'll take issue with those few feats that require specific class levels to access. In the PHB there are three of these: Extra Turning (Cleric or Paladin), Spell Mastery (Wizard) and Weapon Specialisation (Fighter level 4+). There are others in various supplements.

Fact is, two of these three don't need specific class restrictions. Extra Turning should have as pre-requisite "Ability to Turn Undead", and Spell Mastery should be "Prepares Spells from a Written Source". The feats are useless to any other class anyway.

Weapon Specialisation is a bit more difficult. Clearly, this feat is useful to other classes. However, I don't believe that it's so useful that every character would necessarily take it, even if freely available. So, try changing the requirements to "Weapon Proficiency (chosen weapon), Weapon Focus (chosen weapon), BAB +4 or higher". This opens the feat to Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians of 6th level (since they don't get a Feat at 4th or 5th level), or multi-class Fighters of lower level (Take Paladin at levels 1-3, make sure Weapon Focus is one of the feats, and then add Fighter at 4th level). This probably isn't unbalanced.

(Actually, there was a discussion about Weapon Specialisation in the very first Dragon after 3rd Edition came out. I'll look up the thoughts in there when I get home tonight.)

As regards Fighter access to Feats, I would propose that the best way to retain the usefulness of Fighters at high level is to expand the various Feat chains, so that other classes, who get a maximum of 8 feats in their career (okay, apart from Rogues and Wizards, but they have other things to spend feats on), can't learn all the feats in the chain. For instance, have 10 mounted combat feats in the chain. That way, a high-level Fighter is the only character who can learn the whole of the chain, and so will be the undisputed master of mounted combat.

Anyway, that's my thinking on feats.

Oh, one more thing...

I really like the handling of Track - any character can follow obvious tracks, but only by getting the feat can a character follow tracks with a DC of 21 or more. I think a similar feat should be present for the Rogue traps ability. For instance:

Traps-lore
Benefit: A character may detect traps with a DC of 21 or higher.
Normal: A character may only detect traps with a DC of 20 or less.
Special: Rogues receive this feat at 1st level.

Similarly, there is some scope to add some of the high level Rogue special abilities (the really high level ones that they choose at 10th, 13th, 16th and 19th level, such as Crippling Strike and Opportunist) to the list of Feats, with prerequisities set to make it extremely difficult for non-Rogues to gain them.

Just a thought or two...

Fixed Skill Lists

At present, a character's classes will give him one of three levels of access to a skill:

It could be a class skill, in which case he can build up a high level of mastery.

It could be a cross-class skill, in which case he can get some facility with the skill, but will mostly suck.

It could be an exclusive skill to another class. In this case, the character will have no access to the skill. But, see below.

Anyway, the problem with this approach is that it is fairly foolish for a character to assign lots of points to a cross-class skill. After the first few levels, they're inevitably going to suck. Moreover, classes with lots of skills aren't likely to want to invest in cross-class skills, and classes with short skill lists don't have the skill points to waste.

I'm not 100% sure I like the division of skills into class skills and cross-class skills, since I'd expect characters to learn skills based on their character concept, which would tend to lead to Rogues emphasising Tumble and Disable Device, Wizards favouring Spellcraft and Concentration, and so on. Classes with few skill points don't have them to spread around, so aren't going to replace the Rogue anyway, which renders that a non-issue.

However, it is entirely possible that allowing a free purchase of skills might lead to problems. It is also likely to cause every Fighter to have high ranks in Tumble and Spellcraft, as these are probably the two most useful skills. This latter fact leads me to favour not allowing total freedom of choice.

The point I'm getting to, and that I also mentioned on Saturday, is that I think classes should have more flexible lists of class skills. For instance, perhaps a class would have five skills fixed as class skills for all members of the class, and be allowed to choose a further five from a list of eight choices.

For example: a revised skill list for Fighters:

All Fighters treat the following skills as class skills: Craft (Int), Profession (Wis). Additionally, at first level a Fighter may select five of the following skills as class skills: Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge(nobility and royalty) (Int), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex)

Further, I feel that every class should have Craft and Profession as class skills, and at least one Knowledge in the discretionary list.

Making this change doesn't make a huge difference to the power level of the basic classes (although it will make accessing Prestige Classes easier, and require that a list of class skills for each class be maintained - whereas now you can just look up the PHB). It does make the characters a bit more flexible. For even greater flexibility, allow each PC to choose two of Craft, Perform and Profession as a permanent class skill, regardless of class.

Exclusive Skills

I'm also really not fond of exclusive skills. Frankly, I feel that every skill should be available to all classes, even if they suck at it. Of course, some choices just don't make sense - a Fighter with ranks in Scry has wasted his points since he has no means to actually use the ability. Confusing the issue further is the Bardic Lore ability, which functions like a skill in almost every regard (the Bard gains an automatic rank per level, and can't spend additional points in the skill, but otherwise it is a skill).

I take the view that the game should go one of two ways: remove the exclusive skills from the skill lists, and make them class abilities in the same way as Bardic Lore is, or add Bardic Lore to the skill list, but make all existing exclusive skills cross-class skills for other characters.

The latter approach is dangerous - Use Magic Device is even more powerful than Spellcraft and Tumble.

Fun with Attacks of Opportunity

One of the better new rules added to AD&D with the Combat & Tactics book (which was largely a disaster - like the rest of the Player's Option series), and which was then added to 3rd Edition, was the attack of opportunity. The concept is simple: if you are in close combat with an enemy, and you do something to let your guard down, he gets a chance to punish you for it.

However, the means by which attacks of opportunity are explained in the Players' Handbook leaves a lot to be desired, rendering this the most complex new feature in the game. Fortunately, the description in d20 Modern is much better, and is likely to be brought over to the revised Players' Handbook, which eliminates that issue.

There remain some oddities with attacks of opportunity, though, the most obvious being the "step back and cast" action. It works as follows: A wizard is standing right next to an enemy warrior. In order to cast safely, he takes a five foot step directly away from his opponent (out of the threatened area), and then casts his spell. Since the five foot step is a free action, it is safe for him to do this.

This is fine from a mechanical point of view. From a realism point of view, however, it's nonsense. Surely, in any realistic scenario, when the wizard makes his step, the warrior would immediately follow? Then, the wizard is screwed - attack of opportunity.

The same can be repeated with any action that doesn't require further movement. So, if you want to fire a missile weapon, just step back and do so. Hell, take a full attack action while you're at it.

I don't know what the solution is, or even if it's desirable to implement one. The five foot step is a vital part of the game, and neatly reflects the slow withdrawal style of fighting, so we can't just remove that. Furthermore, not allowing a wizard to make this adjustment before casting really screws their effectiveness once close in with their opponents (although, I say that's what casting defensively is for).

Perhaps the solution is to rule that if a character takes a five foot step, then takes an action that would have caused an attack of opportunity were it not for taking that step, any character who is now denied the attack of opportunity may immediately make a five foot step to close the gap, and then make an attack of opportunity. Of course, such a character would then be denied the ability to make any movement at all as part of their next regular action. (Essentially, they're 'stealing' the five foot step from their next round.)

Under this scenario, spell-casters are forced to cast their spells defensively while in combat (oh, no!). Archers then can't fire while in melee combat, unless you expand Concentration to allow a 'fire defensively' action to be taken - d20 Modern takes this approach.

Thoughts?

Swashbucklers, Money, and Scribing Spells

I said yesterday that I wouldn't change the scribing spell rules for Wizards for my swashbuckler campaign. However, I have since realised that I'm reducing the amount of money available to PCs. By doing one but not the other, I'm effectively penalising Wizards, since a lot of their wealth at present must go to scribing costs, and reducing the available wealth merely increases the proportion that must be spent. That being the case, I've changed my mind somewhat: scribing costs should be reduced by the same proportion as the wealth-by-level values are decreased.

Incidentally, I'm leaning towards the viewpoint that a reduction in wealth-by-level to about a third of the current values is about right. However, that's a matter of instinct, and not backed up by any analysis at all.

Dying and Getting Better

One thing that bugs me in D&D is the following situation: A character is at -5 hit points and dying. The character receives a cure moderate wounds spell, is restored to 3 hit points, and immediately starts fighting again, as though nothing had happened.

(Actually, the situation doesn't bug me too much - it's certainly not realistic, but if I wanted realism I wouldn't be playing D&D.)

Anyway, here's a two-part fix:

Firstly, a character who is dying should be knocked prone automatically. Such a character, once healed, has to stand up and retrieve his weapons before he can get back into the combat. This is obvious, and should be in the rules as they are. If it is, though, I haven't noticed it. Moreover, I've never seen any DM (myself included) enforce it. (The point here is that standing up is an action, and picking up fallen weapons is an action. This means that the character will spend at least a round readying himself again, which doesn't seem unreasonable.)

Secondly, I'm going to propose a rules modification as regards healing spells. At present, these spells are instantaneous. If, however, they spread their healing across a number of rounds, this changes the dynamic, as characters are most likely not going to be healed, and immediately jump to their feet.

The change is simple: A healing spell takes a number of rounds to act equal to its level. So, when cast by a Cleric, cure light wounds takes one round, cure moderate wounds takes two, and so on. Each round, the spell has a partial effect; work out the damage healed as soon as the spell is cast, and divide this by the number of rounds. The character will be cured a fraction of the damage each round. That way, the character above would go from -5 to -1 hit points on the first round, and then from -1 to 3 on the second.

There is a question of what happens if multiple cures are working at once. One answer is to say that only the most powerful takes effect (that multiple cures don't stack). Another is to say that they each work independently (this is the current default - the only change is that each takes time to operate). The third answer is to say that they operate sequentially. That is, a character who is under the effects of a cure serious wounds spell who receives a cure light wounds spell on the next round will gain the benefit of the cure light wounds, but not until the cure serious wounds has finished. Personally, I favour this last approach.

There are two consequences of this change: A character who was dying may remain out of action for a few rounds longer than he otherwise would, making him more vulnerable to attack. (Similarly, a character with low hit points may be knocked below 0 hit points before the cure can take full effect, knocking him out of action briefly, where he would otherwise have been fine.) Additionally, a character may be hit with a dispel before the curative spell has taken full effect, with the result that some of the curative power is lost.

The net result of these two effects is to make PCs slightly weaker. The DM must weigh these against any slight gain in realism before adopting this ruling.

Campaign Setting: Magic

Okay, the third and final pillar in the construction of the setting, here's how I'm planning to handle magic:

Psionics

Psionic powers are not known to exist. They may do, but if so, they are the province of alien creatures from beyond. I haven't decided whether to include Mind Flayers in the setting yet or not, but I'm leaning towards "no". If I do include them (or Yuan-ti), psionics will be included. If not, I'll probably not bother.

Clerical Magic

A gift from god (or the gods, or the ancestors, or whatever). Clerical magic is regarded as the only acceptable expression of magical power in human lands. That said, the power of wizardry is such that most clerics are forced to accept non-clerical manifestations, although they rail against it with all the fervour of an anti-D&D rant.

Druidic Magic

Power drawn directly from the elements themselves. Druidic magic is regarded as heretical by (most) humans, hobgoblins and halflings. Dwarves and elves make extensive use of druidic magic, and regard it as completely natural.

Ranger Magic

See druidic magic.

Wizardry

Wizardry is regarded as secret knowlegde stolen from the gods. Most wizards count themselves as loyal followers of the campaign's major god, but there are some who are fervently athiest, or even anti-theist (don't think that's a real word) in their outlook. Wizard magic is expressed through complex mathematical and philosophical formulae, leading to a constant push to control books and learning in the human lands. Moreover, it leads to wizards attempting to establish universities in major cities, to allow them to better collaborate in their efforts.

The most recent controversy to rock the magical world was the publication by the athiest wizard Garin of his "Magical Incompleteness Theorem". This work contested the previously-held view that magic could, in time, achieve any result. Garin's theorem states that the power of magic is finite, and moreover that certain relatively simple effects simply cannot be enacted through magic.

Garin's big mistake, however, was that he made no distinction between arcane and divine magic in his statement. Infuriated, the arcane community turned Garin over to the church, who burned him at the stake for the crime of heresy. The cause of anger amongst the arcane community? They couldn't disprove his work.

Sorcery

Long thought to be a sub-discipline of wizardry, sorcery has now been identified as an expression of the blood. Only those with draconic, fae or elven ancestry are capable of sorcery. That said, it is thought that the magical influence need only be minute to permit sorcery, and that the influence of fae and dragons on humanity is so pervasive that very few people have no talent for sorcery at all.

The elves, of course, are the master sorcerers of this setting, since each and every one of them has elven blood :-)

Bardic Magic

Bardic magic is an expression of sorcery, above.

Rules Impact

There are two rules effects of magic being as described above, one related to bards/sorcerers, and the other to wizards.

A character who wishes to take levels in Bard or Sorcerer must necessarily have fae, draconic or elven blood in their ancestry at some point in the past. This is largely a character decision for the layer to make. A character who multi-classes into one of these two classes is assumed to have recently manifested this heritage. However, if a player ever decides his character has absolutely no magical blood in their heritage (say, if they want to prove this to the approval of some xenophobic priest), that character can then never take levels in one of these classes. Naturally, in the normal state of affairs, this decision will remain unmade for most characters.

The effect of this reliance on complex formulae and arcane knowledge on Wizards is implemented as follows: Each school of magic is associated with a particular knowledge skill (with two schools per skill). In order to learn spells of a given school, a character must have the associated skill with a number of ranks equal to the spell level.

The read magic spell is removed from the game. Instead, a character with high enough ranks to learn a spell is assumed to also possess the ability to read that spell. Note, however, that the character must still transcribe spells into their own journals, as normal. This is because truly mastering the spell requires going through the formula line-by-line very carefully, a process most easily achieved in the process of scribing the spell. This isn't simply a matter of copying the formula; the character has to take the time to fully understand every aspect of it, complete with all its interpretations.

The mapping between schools and skills is as follows:

• Abjuration: Philosophy
  
• Conjuration: Thanatology
  
• Divination: Mathematics
  
• Enchantment: Psychology
  
• Evocation: Mathematics
  
• Illusion: Psychology
  
• Necromancy: Thanatology
  
• Transmutation: Philosophy

Example: Quarion is a 5th level Wizard. He is capable of casting 3rd level spells. However, Quarion has been neglecting his studies, and so has a Knowledge: Philosophy skill at 4 ranks, Knowledge: Psychology at 2 ranks, Knowledge: Mathematics at 1 rank, and no ranks in Knowledge:Thanatology at all. Quarion is capable of reading any Abjuration or Transmutation spell he encounters that is 4th level or lower at will. He may also learn any spell of these schools of up to 3rd level. However, Quarion can only read, learn or cast an Enchantment or Illusion spell of up to 2nd level, a Divination or Evocation spell of up to 1st level, or a Necromancy or Conjuration spell of 0 level.

That's magic done. I do have one more thing to cover, which is the skill lists of the various classes. Then, it's time for something new.

Campaign Setting: Religion

Possibly the most pervasive influence on (real-world) history has been the role of the church. It's odd how often this gets shoved right into the background in D&D. I guess because of a desire to avoid causing offense. However, I always feel that the beliefs of the peoples in a world (or, indeed, the lack thereof) is of crucial importance in a setting.

Anyway, the D&D default is a polytheistic setting, generally built with a view to providing all PC races and classes with a god to follow. Monotheism is shunned. Indeed, with the alignment system in play, monotheism doesn't work very well in the game.

However, I'm not going with the standard approach. Of course, the various races will have their own beliefs, but the dominant culture (which is, inevitably, human) will be monotheistic. So, here's religion by race:

Dwarf: The dwarves don't worship any gods. They believe that the spirits of their ancestors look down on them, and worship them will all due reverence. Dwarven creation myth speaks of an arrival of the people from some other place. Where this may be is a matter of debate, but the dwarves agree that they left their gods behind when they came to this world.

Elf: The elves believe that the world itself is alive. Theirs is a very naturalistic religion based on the interaction of magic with living forces. Elves regard sorcerers as the highest of their people, for they have magic, and thus the soul of the world, in their very blood. Elven creation myth names them as the children of the world, and the other races as infections plaguing the planet. Elven druids are far more common than elven clerics.

Halfling: Halflings woship local gods, which they believe reside everywhere. To the halflings, the notion of a single, all-powerful being is laughable. Halfling priests, therefore, make it their duty to identify and contact the gods of wherever they currently are, and derive their influence from that.

Hobgoblins: Hobgoblins share the same beliefs as humans. However, they always adopt the most militaristic interpretations of all scripture and philosophy.

Orcs: The beliefs of the orcs are unknown. However, they certainly revolve around destruction and carnage.

Humans: Human religion will be patterned loosely on Christianity, with a single god ruling the entire world. It will be split into many orders, usually at odds with one another. Each order will have it's own interpretation of the same scriptures and philosophies.

Again, were I writing this up as a full campaign setting, I'd write far more on the subject of the precise belief and traditions of each religion. I'd also spend a lot of time detailing the various human orders, since these are going to provide one of the major conflicts in the setting.

From a rules perspective, there are two possible approaches to monotheism:

Clerics may be of any alignment. They can choose any two domains, and any favoured (Martial) weapon if they choose the War domain. The ability to turn or rebuke undead comes from their alignment.

Alignment is removed. Clerics may choose domains and weapons as above, but may also choose to turn or rebuke at the start of the campaign. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.

I'm going to go with the second approach, as I feel it better fits the setting.

Removing alignment sends shockwaves through the system, in a manner disproportionate to it's handling within the books. So much is dependent on it that it cannot simply be dropped just like that. (Most people, when they say they aren't using alignment really are, they just don't list it on the PC character sheets.)

Consequences of removing alignment:

1) There are no ex-Barbarians, ex-Bards, ex-Druids, etc.

2) Lots of spells become inappropriate or difficult to adjudicate.

3) Lots of magic items change.

Since we've already reduced the impact of magic items on the setting, point 3 isn't something to worry about. Point 1 is a problem only as regards multi-classing and as regards Paladins. Point 2 is also quite significant.

The impact of alignment on classes is fairly limited. If you allow a Monk to be non-Lawful it doesn't make him any more powerful unless and until the character multi-classes. The same is true of the Druid, Bard and Barbarian. Moreover, removing alignment restrictions only allows two additional combinations that we're previously available: Monk/Bard and Monk/Barbarian. And, in both cases, a character could have started out as a Monk, switched to a non-Lawful alignment, and become a Bard or Barbarian. Such a character cannot gain levels as Monk ever again, but otherwise loses nothing. So, there's no great problem here as regards balance.

The Paladin is a trickier concept. The biggest balancing factor of the Paladin class is that if he ever commits a Choatic or Evil act, he loses his Paladin status, possibly forever. Without alignment, this is harder to enforce. Normally, in such a situation, I would encourage DMs to design a confining Paladin code which all Paladins must follow, and indicate which violations can be atoned for and which cannot. However, for the swashbuckler game, I have an alternative suggestion: just remove the Paladin. The moral ambiguity given by allowing Clerics of any alignment to follow any god makes the role of the holy crusader somewhat uncomfortable, and so can be safely withdrawn.

Note that without alignment some of the Paladin's abilities need replaced (Detect Evil for one), and you also have to deal with the Paladin/Bard, Paladin/Barbarian and Paladin/Druid combinations, which currently can't exist (although a Bard could become a Paladin, and lose nothing except the ability to gain levels as a Bard).

In dealing with spells, we need to remove four domains (Chaos, Evil, Good, Law). We need to remove such spells as detect evil, and that's about it. However, it should be noted that some spells (notably protection from evil) have a secondary effect that applies to all outsiders. In such a case, these spells will remain, but only have the secondary effect. The DM may wish to reduce the level by 1, to reflect the loss of the bulk of the power of these spells. I wouldn't.

Had I not already decided to get rid of magic items, I'd now have to deal with things like the holy avenger, or items that reduce your effective level if you're of the wrong alignment. These could either be dropped or, for a more interesting approach, be re-cast as intelligent items with an agenda. Rather than force ego checks, these items would apply the negative level effect to PCs who don't follow their agenda. However, I don't need to deal with this now, since I've removed such items already.

And that's it: religion and alignment for a swashbuckler setting. The final pillar is magic, which includes psionics.

Campaign Setting: Races

Okay, I've built some rules for the swashbuckler game that I'm mostly happy with. Now, it's time to start building the campaign setting.

The first things I always do when building a setting are to determine the following: what are the intelligent (PC) races? What is the role of religion? What is the role of magic? Between these three, I usually have a pretty decent view of the setting, certainly as far as modifying rules go. From there, I layer on things like societies, urban centres, and so on. However, these are purely flavour matters, and so beyond the scope of this blog. (Besides, my settings usually run to 100 pages or so. Which is why I never get them finished.)

So, without further ado, on with the races...

PC races in a setting should not be the default 'enemy' race. If the focus of the campaign is going to be on warring with Orcs, you don't want to be allowing Orcs as PCs in most instances. Exceptions occur, of course, but it's generally easier to allow a set of races, and then add unusual characters of other types than to allow lots of races, and then try to talk players out of having three 'enemy' characters in a group of four.

That is, if you set the PC races as Human, Elf and Dwarf, and one player really wants an outcast Orc, you can do that without changing the focus of your campaign. However, if you set them to be Human, Elf, Dwarf and Orc, and three players choose to be Orcs, you're in trouble in an 'against the Orcs' campaign.

The other factor that affects the choice of PC races is the uniqueness of the races. If you allow both Orcs and Half-orcs, you'll find that no-one plays a Half-orc. The two races are so close that there's no point in doing otherwise, and the mechanics favour Orcs over Half-orcs. (This same logic applies to Elves and Half-elves, incidentally. It's just that Half-elves are a long-standing PC race, and so remain.)

Anyway, for the swashbuckler game, I'm thinking of allowing the following races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Half-orc, Halfling. I've removed Half-elf for reasons of uniqueness, and Gnomes because I don't really like them. I was going to add Hobgoblin, but I couldn't justify the race for reasons of uniqueness. I'm intending to have a fairly cosmopolitan game, so don't have a designated 'enemy' race as such.

All the races have two key changes to make, as regards languages and favoured classes. I'm planning on relying heavily on regional languages, rather than racial languages. Therefore, all characters will start with their regional language and Common, and may select any language as bonus languages. The list of languages is altered, but the details of this will follow. As regards favoured classes, since I'm allowing free multiclassing, these are meaningless.

Now, a little bit about the races themselves:

Human: For now, Humans are the dominant race on the planet. They are the most cosmopolitan, the most technologically advanced, and the most numerous. Their ambition is such that they are a squabbling, fractious race, however. There are no rules changes associated with humans, except those for all races, above.

Dwarf: The dwarves of this world are sea-dwellers. Pirates, privateers, merchants and fishermen, they dwell in the isolation of the oceans, not under the earth. Dwarves are lovers of technology, and so make extensive use of firearms. Dwarven cuisine is considered a delicacy amongst some human cultures, but is also outlawed as poisonous in many other lands.

Dwarves have the following racial traits:

• +2 Con, -2 Cha
  
• Medium size
  
• Base speed 20 feet
  
• Darkvision, 60 feet
  
• +2 racial bonus to saves versus poison
  
• +2 racial bonus to saves versus spells and spell-like effects
  
• +1 racial bonus to attack rolls against Orcs and Goblinoids
  
• +4 dodge bonus to AC versus Giants
  
• Sailcraft: Sailcraft grants dwarves a +2 racial bonus to notice shipboard features, such as hidden weapons and arrow slits in ships, hidden smuggling compartments, and the like. This applies to any sea- or river-going vessel or dwelling. A dwarf who merely passed within 10 feet of unusual sailcraft can make a check as if he were actively searching.
  
• +2 racial bonus on Appraise and Profession: Sailor checks
  
• +2 racial bonus to Balance checks made at sea
  
• Dwarves are capable of drinking sea-salt water without becoming dehydrated. Thus, dwarves never become dehydrated while at sea
  

Elf: Elves are not a dying race. They are an ancient, proud race, but one that is horrified at the human rush to destroy themselves. The elves of this world scorn technology, preferring the elegance of the bow to the noise and bombast of a firearm. Elven fencers are regarded as the finest in the world, and some say it was they that founded the oldest fencing schools in human cities. There are no rules changes associated with elves, except for those that apply to all races, above. Half-orc: Considered uncouth and foul in the cities, Half-orcs are the unfortunate children of the barbaric orcish hordes that plague the edges of human civilisation. Half-orcs form a labourer caste in most cities. There are no rules changes associated with half-orcs, except for those that apply to all races, above. Halfling: Embittered survivors of a war of extermination propogated mere decades ago by orcs, the halfling people are now a race without a culture of their own. They have become integrated with human society, where they are widely regarded as vagabonds, thieves and freeloaders. Indeed, many halflings have turned to crime to survive in a world that cares nothing for their plight. There are no rules changes associated with halflings, except for those that apply to all races, above.

And there it is. A couple of rules changes, but mostly the races are the same except for attitude. Normally, I'd expand this a lot to provide a better feel for each race, but that's not appropriate here. Next up is the role of religion, which is going to hit alignment as well.

Normally, I'd assign a secret to each race, to be discovered by PCs during play. However, as I might actually run this setting at some point, I'm not publishing those here.

Low Reliance on Magic Items

Probably the most difficult of the three things I'm wanting to achieve for the swashbuckler game I'm building is reducing the impact of magic items on the game. This means no magic weapons, armour, staves, scrolls, or whatever. It certainly alters the game a lot.

Here's what needs changed to accomodate this:

• Item creation feats need removed.
  
• Monster damage reduction abilities need reduced.
  
• Fighter-types need replacement cool toys to play with.
  
• The money-by-level table needs replaced.
  

Taking these in order, then: Item Creation Feats Remove all item creation feats except for the following: Scribe Scroll, Brew Potion, Craft Wand. This gives Wizards (and Clerics, Sorcerers, etc) access to the weak utility items they rely on so much, but effectively removes all other magic items from the game. They may still exist, but this will be at the DM's discretion. PCs will not be able to create such items. Note that removing the three remaining item creation feats probably makes a huge difference in the balance between classes; a Wizard who can make himself a wand of fireballs is hugely more powerful than one who cannot. Damage Reduction If the Fighters of the group can't get their hands on magic weapons, they cannot ever defeat the damage reduction of monsters. This creates a significant problem for them. Two possibilities for solving this spring to mind: 1) Don't use the monsters affected. 2) Reduce the damage reduction of the monsters. Naturally, I prefer the latter approach. My two-part suggestion is as follows: Reduce all damage reduction amounts by half. Round to the next lowest multiple of 5. So, a golem with DR 30/+3 becomes DR 15/+3. A fiend with DR 25/+2 becomes DR 10/+2. This makes it possible for characters to at least do some damage to creatures with DR they cannot overcome. Secondly, reduce the weapon needed to bypass the damage reduction. Ideally, this should be done in two steps: Reduce the 'plus' required by 2, to a minimum of +1, and add a specific vulnerability to the monster. Thus, the golem listed above might be vulnerable to meteorite iron. It's final DR, then, would be 15/+1 or meteorite iron. The fiend is more likely to be vulnerable to blessed weapons, and so have DR 10/+1 or blessed. Naturally, the weaknesses assigned to monsters aren't going to be known to PCs in general. They will have to find these out on their own, which is not an easy task when you've got a Balor approaching... Fighter-types Need Cool Toys I've posted before on the whole cool toys thing for Fighters. In a normal game, a lot of the fun such characters have, at high levels, comes from their magic items. If we remove the items, naturally they lose this benefit. Ironically, then, it's actually the non-magical classes that suffer most from reducing the reliance on magic items :-) The first, and most obvious way, to provide replacement cool toys is to add a large number of feats to the game, to allow Fighters to develop more interesting fighting styles. Ultimate Feats has a whole bunch of useful feats for this purpose; companies other than Mongoose have published their own equivalent books of feats. The second thing to do is to apply the changes suggested under 'spiffing up d20 combat'. Wizards always have fun in combat - they get to choose which of their many spells to cast. Fighter types should have the same fun, deciding what maneuver is most cinematic. And, by providing bonuses for heroic action, we get this result. Thirdly, I want to take a leaf from the Wheel of Time game, and add Masterpiece Weapons and Armour. These work just like Masterwork items, but cost even more, and are even more effective: Masterpiece Weapon: Cost: +600 gp A masterpiece weapon is constructed with such skill and attention to detail that it is measurably better than even a masterwork weapon of the same type. As such, it provides a +2 enhancement bonus to attack rolls made with the weapon. Masterpiece Armour: Cost: +300 go These suits of armour are fitted precisely to the individual who will wear them. Therefore, when worn by that individual only, they provide a reduction of 2 to armour check penalties, compared with normal armour of the same type. This reduction cannot reduce the penalty below 0. When worn by any other character than the one the armour was fitted to, masterpiece armour acts as masterwork armour of the same type. Other items: A PC may wish to acquire a sword with a spring-loaded dagger in the hilt, or clothing with special pockets, or... In general, the DM should be generous in allowing the character access to these things. The Wealth-by-Level table This is the table in the DMG that provides starting cash for PCs of higher than first level. This allows players to equip new characters in a manner that will make them balanced with their colleagues. It also acts as a nice guide for treasure awarded, since DMs are encouraged to keep their PCs in line with this table, in case new PCs must be introduced. However, after about 3rd level, the biggest expenses a new PC will have are almost guaranteed to be magic items. If these items are removed, characters will either have ridiculous amounts of cash lying around, or will be business magnates, property barons, or otherwise very influential in the setting. Instead, it is suggested that this table be changed to account for the removal of magic items. That said, I can't provide a replacement table at this time: the original is not in the SRD, and I don't have my DMG to hand at this time. (Actually, the matter is slightly more complex: the treasure per encounter, and thus the random treasure tables should similarly be adjusted. However, I don't use these tables, so don't have any interest in changing them. Didn't I mention that I'm building the game for my amusement, not for anyone else? I should have.) Conclusion
That's it - I think I've done enough to build the swashbuckler game I want. The next thing I need to do is build the campaign setting to go with it, and provide any rules that are needed to augment the setting. I have some fun ideas here, which will follow in later posts.

Comments? Arguments? Suggestions?

Duelling rules

Of course, you can't have a swashbuckler game without rules for duelling, now can you?

Here goes: a duel is typically fought between exactly two combatants, armed with either swords or pistols. Combatants fight unarmoured, and typically magic is not permitted. (Typically, the challenged opponent may select the weapon, only officers and gentlemen are permitted to issue duels, and then not to a superior. However, these are all campaign assumptions, and beyond my scope here.) Combats between more than two opponents, or between two opponents that occur in less formalised manner, use the normal combat rules.

So, we need rules for both types of duel.

Duelling with Swords

Opponents start facing one another, standing with a gap of 5 feet between them. Neither character starts flat-footed. Initiative is rolled as normal, but is re-rolled at the start of each round. Duels are less regimented than normal combats, and more likely to shift over time.

Melee combat proceeds as normal. However, instead of characters having fixed AC values, they instead roll d20 to counter each attack. Their AC equals d20 + armour bonus + Dex bonus + (the usual bonuses to AC) instead of 10 + (same list of bonuses).

Duels can be fought to first blood, to the death, or until one combatant yields. In the first instance, first blood is defined as the point where the first blow successfully lands. The other end points are obvious.

Duelling with Pistols

Opponents start facing one another at a distance of 40 feet (each takes 10 paces then turns, assumes a pace of around 2 feet). Thus, issues of point-blank range and Sneak Attacks don't apply. Each has a single pistol loaded with a single shot. It is assumed that pistol duels are to the death - if, after each character has fired once, both opponents are still standing, the pistols are re-loaded and fired again.

Neither combatant is flat-footed, and Initiative is re-rolled before each shot.

When duelling with pistols, much of the ability of a character to reduce damage is negated (characters are expected to win through superior marksmanship, rather than the ability to dodge and weave). As a result, attacks can do significantly more damage than normal, depending on the results of the attack roll. (A character may elect to negate this additional damage by declaring before the attack roll is made that they are dodging fully. Such a character is considered to forfeit.)

Additional damage scored due to a high attack roll applies only if the shot hits its target, and is not multiplied in the event of a critical hit. The damage is as follows:

Attack Roll Additional Damage
10-14 0
15-19 +1d6
20-24 +2d6
25-29 +3d6
30-34 +4d6
35-39 +5d6
40-44 +6d6
45-49 +7d6
50-54 +8d6
55+ +9d6 (maximum)

Et viola: Duelling rules for use in my swashbuckling game.

Emphasising Firearms

Okay, I'm building a swashbuckler type game, and I want to emphasise firearms over bows and crossbows. However, for flavour, I'll say that elves find firearms crude, and far prefer the elegance of the bow.

So, here's what I'm going to do:

• Bows and crossbows become Exotic Weapons. Normally, an Exotic Weapon should be measurably better than a non-Exotic, which won't be the case for crossbows. This is a problem only if we want people to continue to use them. We don't care; firearms were historically direct replacements for crossbows in every respect, so there's no harm in rendering crossbows obsolete. (They may continue to be used for assassinations. Try firing a pistol quietly.) Bows remain superior - they allow more than a single shot per round.
  
• Mighty bows are removed. With bows being less prevalent, the construction of Mighty bows has ceased.
  
• Elven racial proficiencies remain the same. Thus, all elves are proficient in all bows except crossbows. This neatly provides their racial identity.
  
• Classes currently proficient with all Simple or all Martial weapons are unchanged - it's just the list of such weapons that's changed. However, a few classes (bard, druid, monk, rogue, wizard) are proficient in specific weapons. The proficiency lists for these classes need changed.
  
• Bards lose the ability to select bow proficiencies. Instead, they may select any one Martial firearm as their extra proficiency.
  
• Druids can't use any of the weapons that have become Exotic, so are unchanged by this emphasis.
  
• Monks are permitted to use crossbows currently. This changes to allow them to use Simple firearms instead. I see Monks in this campaign as being more secular than normal, swashbucklers who happen to usually fight unarmed. They fit well on pirate ships.
  
• Rogues lose proficiency with light and heavy crossbows and all bows. They gain proficiency in all Simple and Martial firearms instead (appropriate by size). They retain proficiency in hand crossbows.
  
• Wizards lose proficiency with crossbows, and gain proficiency with Simple firearms instead.
  
• The Rapid Shot feat applies only to bows. Firearms (and crossbows) require actions for loading, and so cannot benefit from this feat.
  

Having removed the emphasis on bows and crossbows, the next step is to add firearms into the mix. Now, previously firearms have been added as Exotic weapons, with extremely high damage, the potential to ignore armour, and the possibility of misfire. This is fine if firearms are intended to exist on the fringes of the campaign; this set-up will ensure that only Fighters use them, and then only occasionally. However, if firearms are to be emphasised this cannot be done. The rules should be simplified, and they should be Simple and Martial weapons (with the occasional Exotic for fun). Firstly, we need to add ammunition and gunpowder to the list of equipment. Gunpowder is sold in barrels and horns. A barrel contains 400 charges, a horn 50. Each shot of a firearm consumes a single charge. Barrels cost 250 gold, and weigh 16 pounds; horns cost 35 gp, and weigh 2 pounds. Additionally, bullets must be added. These are sold in tens, cost 1gp for 10, and weigh 1 pound for 10. Each shot consumes one bullet, of course. The DMG contains rules for using gunpowder to make explosives; these don't need changed, but they do need told to players. Additionally, gunpowder that gets wet is useless. Gunpowder horns are waterproof in most circumstances, a firearm that gets wet must be dried and then reloaded before it can be used again. However, no more attention needs paid here than is given to bows that get the string wet (which are similarly useless). Then, we need to add the weapons themselves. Here, I really need 4 - replacements for the light and heavy crossbow, the shortbow and the longbow. Additional weapons are welcome, but not necessary. I'm going to settle on six: Belt pistol: A light pistol favoured by bandits. Carbine: A light musket often used by mounted troops. Horse pistol: A heavier pistol for military use. Musket: A heavy musket. Blunderbuss pistol: The pistol form of the blunderbuss. Blunderbuss: A primitive shotgun.

Of these, the first two are Simple weapons, the next two Martial, and the last two Exotic. This allows me to assign the stats and rules needed for the weapons:

Belt Pistol:
Size: Small, Cost: 35 gp, Damage: 1d8, Critical: 20 x3, Range: 40, Weight: 3, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a belt pistol. Reloading a belt pistol is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a belt pistol one-handed without penalty. Additionally, a character may fire a belt pistol in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-4/-8 for Medium characters, -6/-10 for Small characters) for doing so. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -4 with the primary hand and -4 with the secondary hand (or -6/-6 for Small characters).

Carbine:
Size: Medium, Cost: 50 gp, Damage: 1d10, Critical: 20 x3, Range: 100, Weight: 8, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a carbine. Reloading a carbine is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A Medium size character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a carbine one-handed, but suffers a -4 penalty to hit by doing so. Additionally, a Medium size character may fire a carbine in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-6/-10) for doing so, in addition to the penalty above. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -6 with the primary hand and -6 with the secondary hand (in addition to the -4 given above).

Horse Pistol:
Size: Small, Cost: 50 gp, Damage: 1d10, Critical: 20 x3, Range: 50, Weight: 4, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a horse pistol. Reloading a horse pistol is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a horse pistol one-handed without penalty. Additionally, a character may fire a horse pistol in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-4/-8 for Medium characters, -6/-10 for Small characters) for doing so. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -4 with the primary hand and -4 with the secondary hand (or -6/-6 for Small characters).

Musket:
Size: Medium, Cost: 75 gp, Damage: 1d12, Critical: 20 x3, Range: 150, Weight: 12, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a musket. Reloading a musket is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. A Medium size character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a musket one-handed, but suffers a -4 penalty to hit by doing so. Additionally, a Medium size character may fire a musket in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-6/-10) for doing so, in addition to the penalty above. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -6 with the primary hand and -6 with the secondary hand (in addition to the -4 given above).

Blunderbuss Pistol:
Size: Small, Cost: 80 gp, Damage: 1d6, Critical: 20 x5, Range: 30, Weight: 10, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a blunderbuss pistol. Reloading a blunderbuss pistol is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The blunderbuss pistol requires a gunpowder charge, but does not require a bullet - it can be loaded with stones, nails, coins, or even gravel.

A blunderbuss pistol is effective only to a single range increment. Beyond this range the shot has spread so far as to be useless.

A character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a blunderbuss pistol one-handed without penalty. Additionally, a character may fire a blunderbuss pistol in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-4/-8 for Medium characters, -6/-10 for Small characters) for doing so. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -4 with the primary hand and -4 with the secondary hand (or -6/-6 for Small characters).

Blunderbuss:
Size: Medium, Cost: 55 gp, Damage: 1d8, Critical: 20 x5, Range: 30, Weight: 12, Type: Piercing

Firearms cannot be constructed to take advantage of the user's Strength. Therefore, the Strength modifier to damage does not apply when using a blunderbuss. Reloading a blunderbuss is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The blunderbuss requires a gunpowder charge, but does not require a bullet - it can be loaded with stones, nails, coins, or even gravel.

A blunderbuss is effective only to a single range increment. Beyond this range the shot has spread so far as to be useless.

A Medium size character may attempt to fire (but not reload) a blunderbuss one-handed, but suffers a -4 penalty to hit by doing so. Additionally, a Medium size character may fire a blunderbuss in each hand, but suffers the usual penalties (-6/-10) for doing so, in addition to the penalty above. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not apply to these penalties, as this reflects skill with melee weapons. The Ambidexterity feat does apply, however, reducing the penalties to -6 with the primary hand and -6 with the secondary hand (in addition to the -4 given above).

And that's it. One might consider adding a feat that offsets the penalties for using a pistol in each hand, one that allows a character to use a pistol in one hand, and a melee weapon in the other, and a feat that allows the wielder to fire a pistol in melee combat without drawing an attack of opportunity. If these are desired, they can be found in "d20 Modern" or "Ultramodern Firearms".

Defence Bonuses in d20

I'm now working on a swashbuckler type campaign idea, for no good reason. Anyway, there are various things I want to emphasise in the game:

• Firearms rather than bows/crossbows
  
• Light or no armour
  
• Low reliance on magic items
  

I'll deal with the other issues later, but first here's the armour thing.

In my opinion, the best way to encourage PCs to not use armour is to provide them with an alternative. Fortunately, Star Wars and Wheel of Time have shown the way in this regard, providing the mechanic of class-based AC bonuses. These do not stack with armour, which is suitable for what we want.

The two d20 games listed provide three defense bonus progressions:

Poor: Bonus = 2 + (1/3 * level)
Average: Bonus = 2 + 6/5 + (2/5 * level)
Good: Bonus = 2 + 2 + (1/2 * level)

The initial 2 in each progression is a one-time bonus to all characters at 1st level. If a character later multiclasses, his total defense bonus is actually gained by totalling the values for each class, then subtracting 2 for each class beyond the first. NPC classes don't get this initial +2 boost, and in fact all share the Poor progression.

As with BAB and saving throw progressions, fractions are always rounded down.

The second part of the equation requires the assignment of progressions to the classes. In this matter, we are concerned with providing progressions that 'look right', and also that preserve game balance. I'm assuming here that the existing classes are pretty well balanced, and so I'm not looking to unbalance them here, merely replace the reliance on armour with an alternative.

What this means, in real terms, is that classes that usually use armour extensively should gain the Good progression, while those that don't use armour much should have the Poor progression. This applies even when this leads to odd results, as it does with the Monk.

So, typical armour usage is as follows:

Barbarian: Medium
Bard: Tough choice. Use Medium armour and lose spellcasting, or use no armour to cast spells? Average to Light.
Cleric: Heavy
Druid: Medium (hide armour usually)
Fighter: Heavy
Monk: None
Paladin: Heavy
Psion: None
Psychic Warrior: Heavy
Ranger: Another tough choice. Use Medium with a two-handed weapon, or Light with ambidexterity? Average to Light.
Rogue: Light
Sorcerer: None
Wizard: None

Note that these are broad characterisations. There's nothing stopping a Fighter from using no armour, except that it's a sub-optimal choice.

Anyway, it would seem that the best assignment is to give classes that use no armour the Poor progression, classes that use Light or Medium armour the Average progression (this deals with the tough choices of the Bard and Ranger - either choice will fall in here), and the classes that use Heavy armour the Good progression.

I'd additionally recommend removing all armour feats heavier than Light from the classes. So, Monks, Wizards, Sorcerers and Psions will still start with no armour proficiencies, and all other classes will be proficient only in Light armour. If they want better protection, they must buy the feats. (Allow Medium Armour Proficiency and Heavy Armour Proficiency as Fighter bonus feats.) Additionally, characters who were previously proficient with shields lose proficiency with all shields other than bucklers.

So, the classes break down as follows:

Poor: Monk, Psion, Sorcerer, Wizard
Average: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue
Good: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Psychic Warrior

However: it seems rather odd that the Monk has to suffer the Poor progression. Therefore, I would strongly consider moving them out of this position, and instead giving them the Good progression. This is countered, however, by removing the Monk's Wisdom bonus to armour class and his existing class-based AC. This will typically slightly improve the Monk's AC (although perhaps not at low levels), and removes one of the ability scores upon which the class is dependent.

(You could make the same case as regards the Rogue, but as this class has nothing to trade for a better progression, it's stuck where it is.)

Next, I'll probably tackle firearms.

Gutted

I didn't get to visit a Belgian chocolate factory when I was away. I was supposed to, but the group decided to go shopping in Bruges instead. So, I was dragged around some Belgian music stores instead. This was unfortunate, since I was going to use the chocolate factory as the setting for my greatest one-off story of all time:

The PCs are all ninja, sent by their clan head to retrieve the secret ninja chocolate receipe for "Crunchy Frog" from the factory. Unfortunately, unknown to them a bizarre coincidence has turned all of the factory employees into zombies, who have sealed the factory up tight in a bid to consume some sweet, sweet brains.

Ninja! Zombies! A match made in heaven.

Yes, I am slightly bored. Why do you ask?

How to run an introductory game

I've commented before (somewhere) that I felt that Wizards of the Coast have dropped the ball with their introductory RPG products. Mostly because they elected not to reprint them, and also partially because they've become so wrapped up in making them look good that they forgot to make a good introductory game.

It's also the case that Wizards of the Coast are pretty much the only company who can do an introductory product for their games, since none of the other companies really have the resources. That being the case, the onus for bringing new players into the hobby necessarily falls on the shoulders of existing players.

That being the case, here are a few guidelines I use for introductory adventures:

1) Never drop a new player directly into your ongoing game. The usual mix of years of backstory, convoluted houserules, and in-jokes will just frighten him off. The best thing to do is run a one-off with the new player (or, better still, a group of new players, possibly supplemented by a single old hand in the Gandalf role).

2) Remove all your houserules. Then take the main rules of the game, and strip out everything that isn't absolutely necessary. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Bear in mind: it's not the rules that make the game fun. Get the player hooked on the fun parts, and then gradually introduce more complex rules.

3) Use pre-generated characters. If possible, discuss with the new player what sort of character he wants, and create that for him, but don't try to explain character generation to a newbie: it's usually really dull. If you can't tailor the character to the player's specific desires, build a battery of suitable characters, and let the player choose the one he likes.

4) Before the game starts, take a little time to explain the major resolution mechanics, and especially the various marks on the character sheet. This will help immeasurably in the actual running of the game.

5) Give the characters a very clear indication of what they should be doing. This is why D&D is better than most games as an introduction - the rules are more complex than most things, but it's really obvious what to do when you're an intrepid treasure hunter in a dungeon.

6) Make the game fast and exciting. Don't worry too much about characterisation. You're not going to get Hamlet out of a new player - but you might get Die Hard. And, they're more likely to come back if you give them a well-done Die Hard than a badly done Hamlet.

7) Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because you're not expecting much of them, that you don't have to put in the effort yourself. If anything, you need to be better prepared for a newbie adventure than a normal one, since you have to keep the game going, you have to take charge of knowing the rules for everyone, and you have to make the whole thing look seamless.

8) Give each new player a single Get Out of Jail Free card. Allow them to trade this in to take back one really bad decision, avoid one character death, or otherwise escape one time only. After that, don't go any easier on them than on anyone else. The game is only really exciting if there are consequences to people's actions, so you need to make sure there are. Still, allowing that one mistake can make the difference between someone coming back, or forever giving up in disgust.

9) Make sure your adventure isn't more powerful than the group should be handling. If you've given out 4th level characters (new players should probably use 1st level characters, but that's another rant), run an adventure suitable for 4th level characters (or, maybe even one for 3rd level characters). Remember, what's easy for a group of role-playing veterans is far from obvious for new players.

10) I don't have a point ten; I just wanted to get to a nice round number.

Once your new players have gone through their first adventure, it's time to start integrating them with your main group. Gradually expose them to the rest of the rules, and generally bring them up to speed with the full game. The goal at this point is not to have someone else to act as cannon-fodder for the rest of the group - it is to graduate your new player to become a full member of the group.

And there it is. Comments?