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:

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.

Roll to Advance - Free PDF
Click to download

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.

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.

With one d20 roll becoming of such paramount importance, game masters might want to specify a special die for the roll to advance attempts. We’ve chosen a particularly ugly purplish d20 for the task. That way when we fail to level up we can just hate the sickly thing and then get on with our lives. I will have to run it through Delta’s Testing a Balanced Die, though, just to be sure.

Something that I maybe should have spent a little more time on in the first post is the obvious fact that a lot of serious gamers will not like the idea of ditching traditional XP tracking and replacing it with a die roll, even using a system like this which is meant to mimic the advancement rates of the standard system. At one time I would have dismissed this, too. But now I’ve become a lot more laid back in my gaming and think that this system not only simplifies book-keeping, it’s fun. This is a game, after all.

I do happen to like the “XP for Gold” rule, and in fact awarded 3 or 5 XP for every gold piece until we began using this system. Despite buying the idea that XP for gold represents a measure of “success,” I wasn’t happy with the amount of treasure that I needed to hand out to get characters sufficient experience to advance. That was working fine but, being a tinkerer, I decided to fix what wasn’t really broken and ended up coming up with a system that doesn’t track in-game results at all.

Something I meant to include in the post on multi-classing is the following level comparison of some various classes and multi-classes in my simulator after 10, 20, and 50 sessions:

This is using the single-level option and actually strengthens my suspicion that the demi-human adjustment level might be a little high. Timeshadows pointed out some misgivings about the idea in a comment and proposed alternate tables for elves and half-elves in a follow-up. Here are the numbers she suggested:

Now, I’ll say right off that I think these are a bit low. However, it demonstrates how easy it is to customize the system for your campaign and your sensibilities. And, as noted in the original post, if you don’t like the idea of demi-humans paying “extra” for their abilities and long lives, go ahead and stick with the level limits and ignore racial modifiers when rolling to advance. Simple.

Another suggestion from the comments was this:

You might wish to consider having a bonus XP and allow players to vote for whomever did the best role-playing that night. That also might foster more imaginative play among at your table.

This might not be a bad idea, sort of along the lines of how the NHL awards the “stars of the game” after it’s over. Could lead to grandstanding in an attempt to pick up precious XP, and players who are a little more reserved or don’t want to talk in squeaky elf voices might be at a disadvantage. But I can see it being a lot of fun with the right group. (For what it’s worth, I can see doing this with regular XP in the standard system, as well.)

Another slightly related idea was to possibly award XP for “spectacular achievements.” Stupendous maneuvers, amazing clutch shots, or wildly unorthodox approaches (that succeed) could all be awarded with a bonus XP. Taking it even a step further, some truly momentous moves could possibly allow a “spectacular advancement check” right then and there. Maybe, just maybe, some moves are so overwhelmingly awesome that the character goes up in level immediately. Now, I’m not necessarily endorsing this. But I think it shows how the basic roll to advance system can be tweaked to fit any style of game.

Also brought up was the idea that maybe the single-level multi-class scheme (where levels for each of the classes are NOT tracked separately) could be adapted for a standard experience and advancement system. I’ve got no doubt that it could be without too much work. The question was asked how to convert the simple “subtract 12″ modifier to standard XP charts, and my answer is this: That “subtract 12″ number came from what I decided “seemed about right.” There isn’t any secret mathematical formula to anything in this system. I simply took numbers that looked right, simulated the heck out of them, and adjusted them until they looked like they’d get me the results I wanted. So go ahead and try the same thing with regular XP charts. Add the two classes together and subtract a certain number (or maybe a certain percentage) and see if it seems right.

Because if you look at the original game, you’ll see that the original designers didn’t use too many secret mathematical formulas. They just did what they thought seemed right. And, despite what was probably an awful lot of trial and error, those numbers have stood up fairly well.

Finally, here is a different roll to advance system over at The Nine and Thirty Kingdoms. Reading through the follow-up posts, I can see that it isn’t exactly what I’m wanting. But I wish I had been aware of it earlier, as there are some good ideas there. I must also admit that I do believe I had seen Geoffrey’s simple d20 advancement system comment (quoted in the post) somewhere, though it is a bit too random for my tastes.

I hope that this series of posts has been worthwhile and that at least a few players will consider using the system. If anyone does, I would LOVE to get your feedback, particularly the tweaks you’re almost certain to apply as you adopt it into your game. I certainly don’t expect many to adopt this wholesale, and maybe no one will really get into it at all. But I hope it’s been an interesting read and has stoked some fires of creativity along the way.

I plan to put together a quick PDF summary of the numbers for this system so that those who want to give it a try have a handy reference. It should be up in a couple of days. In the meantime, I look forward to even more feedback from readers.

Roll to Advance:
Pt. 1 – Intro and Basics
Pt. 2 – Classes
Pt. 3 – Races
Pt. 4 – Multi-Classed Characters
Pt. 5 – Wrap-up and Feedback

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.

Something that I think is cool and fun about this approach is that the player has control over exactly what sort of character they work for. I can see the 10th-level fighter/1st-level magic-user being interesting to play, if there is no limit to the gap between classes, and it could be used to re-create characters from literature. In fact, this would not be all that different from the somewhat odd approach taken with elves in the original (pre-supplement) D&D where the player had to choose each day which class to play and earn experience for, except that all earned abilities from both classes would always be available. A problem with this, though, would be a 1st/10th fighter/magic-user who would be able to use the weapons and armor of a fighter while only bothering with the rolls to advance of a magic-user.

The second approach, the one we’re trying out now in our own game, does away with tracking separate levels for multi-classed characters. A fighter/cleric begins at 1st level, then advances to 2nd level, then to 3rd, and so on. The abilities in each class equal those of a single-classed character, and abilities in both classes go up a level upon a successful roll to advance.

Hit dice for this single-level multi-class option alternate, with the larger hit die being rolled on odd-numbered levels and the smaller hit die being rolled on even-numbered levels.

Example: A starting fighter/cleric of 1st level rolls a fighter hit die (d8 in Labyrinth Lord) during creation and has all the abilities of a both a 1st-level fighter and a 1st-level cleric. After a few sessions, the player successfully rolls to advance to 2nd level. At that point the player rolls a cleric hit die (d6 in LL) to increase hit points and gains all the abilities of a 2nd-level fighter and a 2nd-level cleric. Upon gaining 3rd-level, the player will roll another fighter hit die, and so on.

The required roll to advance in this single-level scheme is calculated by taking the two target numbers for the two separate classes and deducting 12. Triple-class characters deduct 24. Several of the more common multi-class combinations are listed below:

As the numbers increase at higher levels, the deduction of 12 per additional class becomes an increasingly smaller proportion of the total. This represents the growing difficulty in mastering more than one discipline when compared to a single-classed character who does not have to split his or her attention.

Remember that demi-human characters will have to add their racial modifier to this number at each level if using the system which eliminates level limits.

Speaking of racial modifiers, I’m thinking that in our game we will open up at least some of the multi-class options to human characters. The final decision on this is still to be made, though, and it is the sort of thing that will probably vary from campaign to campaign in any event.

A final word about a special multi-class combination: the Bard. In our game, bards are going to be multi-classed fighter/thief/illusionists with some additional musical abilities. Exactly how this is going to be worked out, I don’t quite know yet. But the potential is there with this system.

NEXT: A final summary and wrap-up, including discussion of some of the feedback I’ve received so far.

Roll to Advance:
Pt. 1 – Intro and Basics
Pt. 2 – Classes
Pt. 3 – Races
Pt. 4 – Multi-Classed Characters
Pt. 5 – Wrap-up and Feedback

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:

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.

Meanwhile, even at first level, demi-humans enjoy significant bonuses and abilities over human adventurers. Infravision, detection of secret doors and traps, substantial bonuses to saving throws, resistance to various special attacks, extra languages, and so on. The great weakness of the level limitation as a means of balancing these abilities out is that the limitation does not begin to affect the character until rather high levels. The approach taken by the Roll to Advance system is to spread that penalty out over every level. If these abilities are not accounted for in some manner, there would be no reason to play a human.

One way to look at these penalties is to view them as the number of extra sessions that must be spent at each level. An elf, for instance, will have to spend a total of 12 extra sessions (3+4+5), on average, before reaching 4th level. If this seems like a lot, remember that elves have (according to Labyrinth Lord’s Advanced Edition Companion) 394 years of ‘adult’ life before reaching ‘middle age’ and aging penalties. Humans have 40 years. If anything, the advancement penalty for elves is too low. But as few players will actually play out game centuries of adventure with an elf PC, I think the game is better with the penalties where they are. (I actually have the rate increase slightly as the characters reach higher levels, but this isn’t terribly clear until reaching levels beyond 12.)

Here is comparison of fighters using a spreadsheet simulation I created showing the most common levels after the given number of play sessions:

This seems to fit my view of how things should be. Others, no doubt, will have their own view of this issue and will want to adjust the racial numbers accordingly. This is simple enough to do with a few quick changes.

In play, record the number needed to advance on the character sheet, calculated by simply adding the class/level target and the racial modifier, in the experience section along with any accumulated XP. At the end of the session add another XP, roll a d20, and see if you made it. If your roll plus your XP (including the one you just earned) equal or exceed the roll to advance, you did. Deduct any used XP from your total and advance to the next level. If you didn’t make it, try again next session. And never worry about hitting the level limit.

NEXT: Using multi-classed characters with this system presents some problems. I decided to use these problems as an opportunity to “fix” what I’ve always perceived to be a partially broken multi-class system. If you don’t hate this system yet, maybe you will after seeing tomorrow’s post.

Roll to Advance:
Pt. 1 – Intro and Basics
Pt. 2 – Classes
Pt. 3 – Races
Pt. 4 – Multi-Classed Characters
Pt. 5 – Wrap-up and Feedback

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.)

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.

There are two factors in determining the number for each class at each level: the starting point (number to advance from 1st level to 2nd) and the progression rate. I have done my best to accurately represent the various classes in relation to each other, taking the standard XP requirements as a starting point and tweaking them slightly. For instance, I have always felt that the cleric’s advancement numbers were woefully low. So I increased them slightly and they are now roughly comparable to the fighter’s. Also, in our game we have ramped up the thief a little, giving him d6 hit dice, studded leather armor, and some other additional abilities. So the thief’s numbers are not quite as low in respect to the other classes as might be expected.

As each character gains one XP for his first session, you can see that every class (even the paladin) has a chance to advance to 2nd level after only that first session. For the paladin this is only a 1-in-20 chance, while the assassin, cleric, fighter, and thief all have a 4-in-20 chance to advance after one session.

All classes except the paladin (who needs a 23 to reach 3rd level) could possibly advance again after the second session. For the monk, this would require rolling 20s after each of the first two sessions. The thief, on the other hand, would still have a 4-in-20 chance to advance to third level after the second session if he had been fortunate enough to roll a 20 after the first. If he had rolled a 16 after the first and had needed to use his only XP to advance to 2nd level, his chance of advancing again after the second session would fall to 3-in-20. This use of XPs, losing them they are “used,” is a key to the system. Players can help themselves by rolling well when they advance, but those that advance more quickly than others will do so by burning through more XP, giving others a chance to close the gap in later sessions.

Though the first few levels could possibly be a bit wild with some players rolling consistently well and others rolling consistently poorly, odds are that things will begin to even out after third or fourth level. The magic-user, for instance, requires a 26 to advance from 4th to 5th. The fastest she could have reached 4th level would have been four sessions (very quickly indeed) but she would have had to use all of her XP and roll twenties every time it was mathematically possible for her to advance. (After the third session, even rolling a 20 would not have advanced her because she would have had only 2 XP and needed a 23.) With a 26 required, that means that our example magic-user would have to play a minimum of six sessions at 4th level to accumulate six more XP and then roll a 20 to advance to 5th. Ten sessions to 5th level may seem quite quick to some (it does to me) but if a player can hit 20s in four straight rolls to advance, I say let them advance.

Besides the practical matter of characters in my games rarely reaching 9th or 10th level let alone 13th, another reason that our rules currently have a soft cap of 12th level is that as the rolls to advance become larger, the variability of the d20 becomes less and less of an issue. For instance, a ranger character would need a 45 to advance from 16th level to 17th. That means that a minimum of 25 XP, earned at one per session, would be required to achieve this. That removes a lot of the uncertainty about advancing at very high levels, making the number of sessions (to amass XP) more important than the actual rolling. I’m not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but I’m inclined to think it might be the latter. I will have to see this system in action for a while before I try to decide, though.

I have run these numbers through many simulations, tweaking them a bit here and there to get things where I want them. A fighter, for instance, will be 11th or 12th level after 100 sessions. That’s two years of weekly sessions. A magic-user will be 9th or 10th. A paladin will be 8th or (maybe) 9th. This seems about right to me. However, I freely acknowledge that my sensibilities about rate of character advancement may not match those of others, and I’m keen to hear what you think.

A simple tweak for those who disagree with requirements would be to give, say, a +2 adjustment to all rolls or lower every requirement by two. Or, perhaps, those who have not increased the thief’s abilities feel that the class should be easier to advance in, so they give it a bonus of 1. Or make magic-users more difficult to advance beyond 5th level. Not that customizing standard XP tables was all that tough, but these small numbers and the fact that it’s a single target rather than a range make such class tweaking even easier.

NEXT: There is a modifier to the numbers on this table due to race. Humans have no modifier and use the listed numbers. Dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-elves, and half-orcs each must pay a penalty due to the extra abilities that demi-humans have. These penalties will be listed and discussed in tomorrow’s post, along with the elimination of a long-controversial element of the game.

Roll to Advance:
Pt. 1 – Intro and Basics
Pt. 2 – Classes
Pt. 3 – Races
Pt. 4 – Multi-Classed Characters
Pt. 5 – Wrap-up and Feedback

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:

1. No tracking of XP (in the standard way) is required
2. The actual design of the scenario (amount of treasure, number of monsters) doesn’t affect the chance to advance
3. 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.

This system does use experience points, but the numbers are small. At the end of every session, each PC gets 1 (one) experience point. This XP is used as a modifier to the d20 roll to advance, where one XP equals a +1 to the roll. So a character who has accumulated 5 XP (by playing five sessions) has a +5 bonus to his roll. If he uses any of this bonus to level up, the XP he needed are subtracted from his total. Unused XP remain and will provide bonuses to future rolls to advance.

Example: A third level PC has a total of nine XP accumulated and needs a roll of 27 to advance to fourth level. At the end of a session of play, the PC is awarded another XP (bringing the total to 10) and rolls a 19. Eight XP were required to reach the needed roll of 27, so the PC now has 2 remaining XP and advances to fourth level.

No numbers in the tens and hundreds of thousands. No calculators needed.

Point #2, the contents of the session’s play, means that it doesn’t matter what sort of adventure you’re on. No matter what your PC does or doesn’t do, it’s their adventuring itself that is providing experience. Yes, this is terribly abstract. But it means that PCs won’t feel they need to attack anything they think they can beat in order to kill it and take its treasure so they can accumulate XP.

Also, game masters don’t have to worry about placing enough treasure without overdoing it and turning the PCs into millionaires with no real need for more gold. Miscalculation during adventure design will not throw character advancement all out of whack, and adventures from various sources designed to different standards won’t, either.

Example: I’ve currently got a few characters going through module B1: In Search of the Unknown. In two play sessions totaling around six or seven hours of play, they would have accumulated a grand total of about 400-450 XP by the book from combat and treasure. That would be split three ways for the first session and four ways for the second (when a fourth PC joined). At this rate they’d level around August or September.

The roll to advance system means that these PCs aren’t limited to snail’s-pace advancement due to low treasure levels, and it means that monty haul hoards won’t have PC’s at level 17 by the end of the month. Advancement is independent of in-game results, which brings me to

Point #3, which refers to awarding for play, not necessarily results. This is probably at the heart of the dislike most will have for the roll to advance system. Characters who do well will not have a better chance to advance in level than characters which do poorly. A third-level fighter who goes out, slays a dragon, and pockets the treasure will not have any better chance to reach fourth level than a third-level fighter who fights poorly, retreats from a band of kobolds, and loses his pack horse (and what little treasure he had found) down a river on the way back to town.

Though many will see this as a weakness, I don’t. At least not a glaring-enough weakness to torpedo the system. In fact, I think that in all but the most extreme cases, it’s a strength. Player’s characters are rewarded when the player plays. Period.

Now, some restrictions might be in order. For instance, I wouldn’t award an XP for quick half hour of play before dinner one evening. But an all-weekend marathon might be splint into several “sessions” with opportunities to advance.

Also, joining during a session might earn a PC either a roll to advance at the conclusion or an XP, but not both. Of course, this would depend on circumstances. A player who joined in thirty minutes into a four hour session would probably be treated as having been there for the whole thing. The key, in my mind, is that, simply by playing, you earn the chance to advance. Period.

By earning an XP for each session, players who keep missing their advancement rolls will steadily improve their chances. Those who roll well and advance more quickly will pull ahead, but as the advancement numbers increase at each level those who are behind will have plenty of chances to catch up.

The numbers are designed to reflect the various capabilities of each race and class, and the roll needed to advance increases as characters move up in level. Tomorrow’s post will look at the numbers needed at each level for each class.

Roll to Advance:
Pt. 1 – Intro and Basics
Pt. 2 – Classes
Pt. 3 – Races
Pt. 4 – Multi-Classed Characters
Pt. 5 – Wrap-up and Feedback

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?

Hit points are re-rolled each time a Player Character advances in level—however, if the re-roll results in a character having fewer hit points for their new level than their previous level, ignore the re-roll and retain the prior amount.

This is obviously different than the “standard” method of simply rolling an HD and adding it to a PC’s previous total at each level advancement, but I’m thinking of using it in my Labyrinth Lord game. I’ve got a few posts on this topic planned for the next few days, but I lucked out when a discussion of this erupted on the Swords & Wizardry board. I encourage you to check it out, starting about here for the in-depth analysis and this thread for an excellent summary.

During the discussion, Random ran one million (!) simulations of the various totals at various levels and posted the results. Using his numbers, I put together a couple of charts to display the curves at 5th and 7th levels for fighters:

Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 5th Level

Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 7th Level

The number on the bottom is the hit point total, the number on the left is the number of times that result came up out of 1,000,000. Keep in mind that S&W WB uses d6 hit dice for fighters. Click the images for a better look.

As you can see, the re-roll method has a slightly sharper curve to the bell and tops out a little higher than the standard method, but not by a whole lot. Random’s simulations showed an average difference of less than 1.88 hit points at 10th level, something I don’t find significant enough to spend any time worrying about.

I like the idea that a “bad” HD roll, say a roll of 1 when advancing from 5th to 6th level, can be “made up” at the next level. The cost, of course, is the fact that hit points may not increase at all if earlier rolls were particularly good. As for narrowing the bell, drawing most characters toward the mean, I don’t see that as a problem, though those who are convinced they can beat the odds and get nearly max hit points each level won’t like it.

Having d6 damage has given my players the freedom to use weapons that they wouldn’t otherwise use. The main party fighter uses a spiked club, which he is very attached to. Once variable weapon damage is introduced (especially as written in AD&D) fighters almost always go for swords — why settle for club at d4 damage when the long sword does d8? In practice, the universal d6 damage has resulted in creative play — since everything does d6 damage, advantage in combat comes from tactical choices outside of weapon choice. As a gamer, I’ve really enjoyed this creativity — aesthetics.

Often, particularly with NPCs, I assign “other” weapons as a sort of characterization. This is really cool in my mind, but then the NPC finds itself over-matched in combat because the PCs all have optimum (dice-wise) weapons. Which is a bummer.

Again, I really like the idea of all-D6 weapon damage, but it doesn’t work so well when the system uses hit dice greater than D6.