Rules
We continue to work on our modified Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition game and I think I’ll have a serviceable player’s handbook ready for use by the end of the week. One of the many tweaks we’ve made is to the turning undead function. I love the turning undead ability of clerics, but I have always thought that it was over-powered, particularly once they start vaporizing skeletons and zombies willy-nilly. So we’ve changed it up a little to still allow for that while toning things down a notch.
Interestingly, a current thread on Dragonsfoot is discussing this topic and someone posted a bit from Gygax on turning:
So many of the very most interesting “monsters” were subjected to that rude capacity of turning/destroying that I initially bestowed upon the cleric class that I did indeed come to rue the initial benison gven to that class. My plan for a revised edition of AD&D was such as to limit that power somewhat while adjusting things for the capacity of undead to withstand “turning” so as to make things more challenging for PCs without emasculating the power of the cleric.
I was actually thrilled to read this, as it reinforces my belief that turning needed tweaking and that my solution is viable.
Here’s what we’ve done:
| Cleric Level | Turning Undead (d20) # | |||||||||
| 1 HD | 2 HD | 3 HD | 4 HD | 5 HD | 6 HD | 7 HD | 8 HD | 9 HD | Spec. | |
| 1 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – | – | – |
| 5 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – | – |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 | – |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 20 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 13 |
| 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| # When rolling to turn undead:
Rolling target number +12 indicates that undead have been destroyed (save if 5+ HD) Rolling target number +6 indicates that undead have been driven off for 2d6 rounds Rolling target number or greater indicates that undead are held at bay (5’ radius) A roll of natural ‘1’ always indicates failure 3d6 HD of undead are affected beginning with the weakest in terms of HD |
||||||||||
The result of this is that turning is not pass/fail but graded. Standard turning does not scare away undead but only holds them off. Rolling higher may drive them away as normal and rolling real high may destroy them outright (or take control of them if the cleric is evil/chaotic/Dark Sided).
This has only very limited play-testing so far, but the initial results have been good. As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, rules
Here is a one-page PDF of the Roll to Advance system I introduced last week. Obviously, the one-page format does not allow for in-depth explanation or discussion of the system, but it does provide the basics needed to use it in play.
This PDF currently uses the original racial modifiers despite the fact that I still suspect that they may be slightly too high.
A number of readers have expressed interest in trying this in their games. I would LOVE to hear feedback from those that do, particularly about adjustments that you’ve made and your experiences with the multi-class methods.
Tags: Kreations, Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
This is the conclusion to the series of posts on our Roll to Advance alternative experience and advancement system for our fantasy RPG. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated. We’re using it in our modified Labyrinth Lord game, but it should work similarly in any old-school version of the game.
Part 1 introduced the system and outlined its basic operation. Part 2 looked at the specific numbers for each of the standard character classes. Part 3 discussed demi-human races and the penalty paid by these characters, plus the elimination of the racial level limits. Part 4 looked at two options for multi-classed characters using this system. Today I’ll offer a few final thoughts and point out some feedback from readers.
In the limited time we’ve used this system, it has performed more or less like we expected. We haven’t had a lot of characters level up yet, but then we don’t get to play as often as we’d like, either. I expect with more use I will have better ideas about how to do things or at least some tweaks to try.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Welcome to part four of our series of posts on our Roll to Advance alternative experience and advancement system for our fantasy RPG. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated. We’re using it in our modified Labyrinth Lord game, but it should work similarly in any old-school version of the game.
Part 1 introduced the system and outlined its basic operation. Part 2 looked at the specific numbers for each of the standard character classes. Part 3 discussed demi-human races and the penalty paid by these characters, plus the elimination of the racial level limits. Today we’re looking at multi-classed characters.
To say that I’m not really a big fan of multi-classed characters would be a bit of an understatement, at least as they’ve been run before. And the dual-class option available to human characters in several editions of the game is even worse. So I’m taking this as an opportunity to made widespread changes to the multi-class system. This new approach looks like it will work quite well in our game, but others may not be fans. So I’m offering two options. No doubt there are others. My recommendation would be to decide upon one of these (or another) and stick with it rather than allowing multiple methods of multi-classing. But that, of course, is up the to players in each campaign.
The first alternative would be for the player simply to choose which class he or she wants to attempt to roll to advance at the end of each session. This is quick, easy, and will give results similar to the traditional method of multi-classing. Accumulated XP could be used toward either class, and a limit could be placed on how far apart the classes could be. Say, no more than three levels may separate them. Alternatively there would be no limit. Nothing would stop a player from making a 10th/1st level fighter/magic-user.
Example: A magic-user/thief may elect to roll to advance in level in either magic-user or thief, but not both. If the magic-user/thief reaches level 5/2, she may not attempt to advance further in magic-user until she gains at least one more level in thief unless there is no limit on the gap between classes. Attempting to advance to 6th-level magic-user would require a 28, while advancing to 3rd-level thief only requires an 18. XP used to gain levels in one class are used and may not be applied toward the other class after a later session.
When creating the character, roll both hit dice and divide by two. When rolling hit dice upon advancing, roll the die appropriate to the class being advanced and divide by two. Fractions could be retained to be used later, dropped, or rounded up. Another option would be to round the larger die down and the smaller die up.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
This is the third part of my series of posts on our Roll to Advance alternative experience and advancement system for our fantasy RPG. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated. We’re using it in our modified Labyrinth Lord game, but it should work similarly in any old-school version of the game.
Part 1 introduced the system and outlined its basic operation. Part 2 looked at the specific numbers for each of the standard character classes. This part looks at racial modifiers to those numbers and the elimination of something I’ve never really liked: the level limit for demi-human characters.
Gamers who like the idea of level limits, and I know that there are at least a few of you out there, could probably just ignore this component of the Roll to Advance system. It’s designed to account for racial abilities and longevity in another manner. Gamers who detest the idea of level limits, and there do seem to be an awful lot of them, may read on.
Basically, every non-human race has a penalty at every level to offset the bonuses and advantages that demi-humans enjoy, including the extended lifespan that conceivably allows them to adventure for many decades or centuries longer than their human counterparts.
The penalties for each race are as follows:
| Dwarf | Elf | Gnome | Halfling | Half-Elf | Half-Orc | Human | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| 6 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| 7 | 8 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| 8 | 9 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| 9 | 10 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| 10 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| 11 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| 12 | 14 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 0 |
The appropriate value from this table is added to the standard class target to get the roll to advance number for a demi-human. Please note that, like the class listings, this table shows the number needed to advance from the current level, not to the next level.
Example: A fifth-level dwarf fighter needs a 30 to advance to sixth level, 24 from the class table plus 6 for being a dwarf.
If these penalties seem excessive, remember that demi-human characters will now have no limitation to the level they can reach. And their extended adventuring career, thanks to living so long, will give them the opportunity to reach those levels.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Yesterday I introduced the Roll to Advance alternative system for character experience and advancement in our classic fantasy game. In short: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances to the next level. Accumulated XP, awarded at a rate of 1 (one) per gaming session, provide a positive modifier to this roll. Traditional experience point awards and tracking are eliminated.
We’re using this system in our heavily house-ruled Labyrinth Lord game, but I see no reason why it wouldn’t work in other similar games.
Below are the rolls needed to advance at each level for each class. (Note that this table shows the number needed to advance from the current level, not to the next level. For example, a 4th level assassin needs to roll a modified 22 to advance to 5th level.)
| Ass | Clc | Drd | Ftr | Ill | M-U | Mnk | Pal | Rng | Thf | |
| 1 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 18 | 17 |
| 2 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 20 | 18 |
| 3 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 22 | 19 |
| 4 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 22 | 24 | 26 | 26 | 29 | 23 | 21 |
| 5 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 29 | 31 | 25 | 23 |
| 6 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 26 | 28 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 27 | 24 |
| 7 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 36 | 29 | 25 |
| 8 | 28 | 30 | 31 | 29 | 32 | 35 | 36 | 39 | 31 | 27 |
| 9 | 29 | 31 | 33 | 31 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 41 | 32 | 29 |
| 10 | 31 | 33 | 34 | 33 | 36 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 34 | 30 |
| 11 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 35 | 38 | 42 | 44 | 46 | 36 | 31 |
| 12 | 34 | 37 | 38 | 36 | 40 | 44 | 46 | 49 | 38 | 33 |
This table only goes through 12th level. Currently, that is what we’re considering to be our maximum level for any character in our game. Higher levels are possible, but we will essentially deal with that when we get to it, probably with a “high-level adventuring” type supplement to our core rules. The advancement rate for each class continues on in the same pattern it took to reach 12th level.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules
Over the past month or so I’ve alluded to a new alternative character experience and advancement system we’re trying out. Over the course of this week, I’m going to run a series of posts describing and explaining it as it stands right now. I will gladly welcome feedback on how to improve the system, as it is still very much a work in progress. It is designed to work with our homebrew version of Labyrinth Lord but should work quite easily with any other old-school version of the game.
I’ll start by stating up front that some, and maybe most, are really going to hate this. It’s a pretty radical departure from the standard “accumulate experience points by defeating monsters and collecting treasure” system that forms the foundation of the level advancement system in D&D. It’s more radical than going back to the 100XP per hit die system of the first version of the original game. It’s more radical than awarding more than 1 XP per gold piece, which is the way we’ve played until recently to avoid needing piles of treasure to advance in level. It’s more radical than only awarding XP for gold which is spent. It’s more radical than awarding XP for “role playing” or “story goals” or “mission success.”

In fact, this system doesn’t award XP for any of those things. Kill lots of monsters or no monsters. Loot piles of gold or no gold. Rescue the princess or don’t. None of that affects a PC’s ability to go up in level.
Here, in a nutshell, is how the system works: At the end of each playing session, the player rolls a d20. If the modified roll exceeds a specified number based on the character’s class, race, and current level, the PC advances one level.
Told you you’d hate it.
Anyway, there are a number of reasons we’re going with this “Roll to Advance” system:
- No tracking of XP (in the standard way) is required
- The actual design of the scenario (amount of treasure, number of monsters) doesn’t affect the chance to advance
- Playing is the key element in playing, not the specific in-game results
Point #1, the tracking of XP, refers to the time and effort spent recording every monster, calculating XP values for homemade or specialized versions of monsters, adding up every last gold piece, arguing over the awards for items sold and income from businesses or established strongholds, and working out bonuses for high ability scores. None of that matters any more.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, roll to advance, rules

Now just another hit.
For many years I’ve used one of two critical hit rules:
- On a natural 20, attacker gets another attack roll. If the second roll is also 20, a third is earned, and so on. Every attack that hits scores normal damage.
- On a natural 20, attacker rolls double damage.
These are not terribly unusual and have worked just fine. We’ve also tried a number of different critical miss/fumble rules that occur on a roll of 1. The most recent was:
- On a roll of 1, defender within melee range gets one free attack. If this attack roll is a 1, original attacker gets a free attack in return.
This, also, has worked fine.
However, I’ve recent decided to rework nearly all monster attacks into 1 attack roll, combining the classic claw/claw/bite into one attack with one damage roll. This left me wondering how to work out things like tail attacks, bear hugs if both paws hit, and the similar extra or special attacks.
My solution is to have these special attacks hit on high rolls. A scorpadillo’s poisonous tail, for instance, strikes on a roll of 20. A cave bear hits for double damage on a roll of 19 or 20, simulating the bear hug. And so on.
I like this a lot, but it means the criticals on 20 don’t work quite right, as some monsters already have special attacks that hit on 20. I could rule that the scorpadillo scores a critical on 19 and a tail on 20, but then does it get both double damage and a poison on a 20? That doesn’t seem right either.
So we ditched both critical hits and critical misses. And, to be honest, I didn’t miss them one bit in our first game since the change despite the fact that several 20s and several 1s were rolled during combats. My son, who has long been a fan of the critical hit idea (having never played without it) also mentioned that he didn’t mind not using it.
Something that occurred to me is that higher level fighters could be given a “special attack” bonus (double damage, automatic maximum damage, extra attack, or the like) on a 20 to represent their own special abilities. After all, an 8th-level fighter is a “superhero” and is astoundingly dangerous in his own right.
Either way, we’re going to go without crits for a while, quite possibly permanently. Though I think I will miss a little of the excitement that 20s always brought and have always like the idea that critical hit systems could be used to explain some of the amazing hits delivered in books and movies, I think the game will play just as good as ever without them.
Has anyone else decided to drop critical hits after using them for an extended period?
Tags: rules



