Classic D&D ability checks

When playing classic D&D, I like having some mechanics that don’t reduce the 3–18 range for ability scores to ±3. I’ve been using “roll score or less on nd6” for ability checks. (The n depends upon the difficulty of the check.) It’s unfortunate that this doesn’t take the character’s level into account.

So, here’s what I’m considering:

Roll a d20 for each character level. Pass if any are less than or equal to the ability score.

Although, unlike nd6, this has no provision to factor in a difficulty.

One possibility is to use different dice. For an easier task, roll d12s instead of d20s. For a harder task, roll d30s instead of d20s.

Another possibility is to have the difficulty modify the character’s level. But what do we do when modified level is less than one?

Maybe require rolling score or less on multiple d20s. e.g. If the effective character level were zero, success requires rolling the ability score or less on two d20s.

Here is an Anydice program showing the odds.

Classic D&D ability score shifting thought

I have written about how I dropped intelligence from my Skylands classic D&D campaign. And about how I might like to replace it with quickness. And how the scores might be grouped into three related pairs.

One reason for pairing them is that at least one of my players thought that dexterity and quickness should be related. That it should be unusual for them to be very different. (While I argue that I myself am a example of them being fairly different. While I—at least in my youth—had decent dexterity, I have never been quick.) Anywho...what I want to talk about today is this idea:

All six scores are rolled separately. In each of the pairs (strength and constitution, dexterity and quickness, charisma and wisdom), the higher score my be lowered and the same number of points added to the lower score. But the lower score cannot be raised past the higher score.

e.g. I roll 10 for dexterity and 14 for quickness. I could raise dexterity to 11 by lowering quickness to 13. I could raise dexterity to 12 by lowering quickness to 12. But I couldn’t raise dexterity past 12.

Since I use the B/X modifiers, a smart player will consider the break points. e.g. If 17 was rolled for strength and 12 for constitution, it makes sense to lower the 17 to 16 because both have a +2 modifier while bumping the 12 to 13 goes from a +0 to a +1. I don’t think this is a bad thing.

On the other hand, I’m known to call for ability checks against the actual score, so—when that happens—the difference between a 17 and an 18 can be significant.

The swords of Ostgard

Another artifact from my Skylands campaign.

Some background on this: In the basement of the ruined Temple of Ostgard, the PCs found two cases that were both locked and Law Locked. (Law Lock is like Wizard Lock but it can be opened those who are lawful.) The party happens to have a lawful thief (he prefers the term “adventurer”) who managed to open them. Inside each a sword was found. A sage was able to provide this information about the swords:

The sorceress Rozenta—seeking to impress the demon-prince Hangdofalten—spend six years in the construction of the sword Malezort. She sought the red-gold star-metal of Bowal for its blade. She stole the ebon wood of the Ezar tree cultivated by the green elves of Glortingel to fire the forge. She cursed the family of the grandmaster swordsmith Quasrag to force him to form the blade. She uncovered the darkest tomes of fell dwoemercraftie for its eldritch charms and chaotic enchantments. Many dread deeds she did or forced upon others to obtain the energies required.

When her masterpiece was complete, she conjured Hangdofalten to present him with her offering. Annoyed by being brought against his will and unimpressed by the sword, the demon-prince ripped the sorceress’s soul from her body and imprisoned it in the sword.

The sword came to the hand of Mulchor, a warrior of great strength. With the sword, he became a cunning leader. He drew together a band of warriors who conquered castle, then county, then duchy, then kingdom. He began building an empire and was called The Unstoppable.

A high priestess of law, Megulf, decided there was only one thing to do. She laid the plans for the forging of another sword to counter Malezort. She convinced the dwarfs to contribute the rare and silvery metal they call Revlis. She convinced the green elves of Glortingel to give the shining wood of the Ullorn trees. She recruited three master swordsmiths and three high mages to shape the blade and enchant it.

There was one element of her plan, however, that Megulf kept strictly secret. When the blade was done, she conjured Hangdofalten and tricked it into placing Megulf’s own soul within the weapon. Only in this way, she believed, would this sword, Lexifer, be equal to and able to defeat Malezort.

Lexifer then came into the hands of Doelpen, a great champion of law. He rose to the place of High Marshall of the forces of law. Under his leadership, the armies of Mulchor were defeated. Doelpen sought Mulchor, defeated, and killed him.

It happened that Doelpen came to the realm of King Fegborjo. Fegborjo was a hedonist who cared only about sating his own pleasures and not the needs of his realm or his people. Doelpen confronted the king, and Fegborjo dismissed the marshall. Doelpen said, “I and my armies fought to free you from Mulchor’s rule, but you are unworthy of your crown!” Doelpen drew Lexifer and drove the king from his throne and castle. As the king had no heirs, the kingdom happily accepted Doelpen as their new sovereign.

It seemed that Doelpen found fault with every other sovereign he met, no matter how good. First he deposed a few neighbors, and soon he was building a new empire.

A girl, Paldoran, whose family were killed in Doelpen’s conquests found her way into the emperor’s court. She told him her story and denounced him, much as he had denounced Fegborjo. Doelpen cried, “Lies! How dare you disparage the name of your leige by whose leave you live free!” He drew Lexifer and swung the sword at the girl. The spirit of law entered her, and the sword flew from the emperor’s hands. Doelpen, suddenly realizing all the things he had done, drew his dagger and killed himself.

Paldoran took Lexifer and Malezort, which Doelpen had kept locked away, before the council of bishops. The council demanded that both swords be destroyed. The spirit of law within Paldoran, however, said, “No!” It told them the story of the swords’ creation. Since destroying the swords would mean destroying the souls within, that was not an option. And so the swords were sealed and hidden away.

All names were generated with Holmesian Random Names One-Sheet from the Zenopus Archives.

The Skylands introduction

I’ve posted a few things about my Skylands campaign, but here’s a little overview.

This is its introductory blurb:

An age ago, the forces of Chaos overran the realms. The Last Avatar of Law brought the remnants of civilization to a fantastic refuge: Loftgard, one of the several Skylands, islands floating in the skies.

This refuge, though, is not paradise. A noble house is fighting a war within itself. There are rumors of strange things haunting the forest.

What mysteries do the inaccessible skyles hold? A mysterious tower can be seen on one of them, but there is no sign of habitation, and no one knows who built it.

Will any brave souls find a way and venture down to the surface to win glory, treasure, and relics. Could the Grand Temple of Law still stand? What arcane artifacts might be recovered if The Hidden Stronghold of the Archmagus could be found and its safeguards circumvented? Might some lands be reclaimed and a foothold for civilization be established?

My son said he liked the way I bolded the “PC bait” to make it easy to find.

It’s a D&D me game. That’s Basic/Expert D&D (“B/X” on my D&D ID page) with some changes.

Rathkin abbey relics

Rathkin Abbey is a classic D&D campaign I’m running as my 10yo daughters first role-playing game. The players found some magic items belonging to famous adventurers of the past.

(I looked at a lot of magic items from different sources while coming up with these. I don’t remember what all may have inspired them.)

Ogden the fighter: A belt of finely-tooled leather with a silver buckle. It increases the wearer’s strength enough to increase their modifier by +1.

Frida the thief: High, soft leather boots designed with a feather motif. The wearer will not activate traps. If the wearer should fall, the boots will generate the same effect as the Feather Fall spell.

Cora the crusader (i.e. cleric): When the wearer raises the hood on this cloak, their image seems to shift and waver to onlookers. The effect can be very disconcerting when looking directly at them for more than a few seconds. (i.e. displacer cloak) +2 AC and saves.

Ector the mage: A fairly plain hazelwood wand with a crystal tip. It can store one first level spell. The crystal glows faintly when a spell is stored.

There was one other relic found of unknown provenance: A tiara with a cat’s ears design. When the wearer meows, they are transformed into a cat. The user may transform back at will, and they will also transform back when falling asleep or unconscious. Usable once per day.

Coins

In my current classic D&D campaigns, I’ve switched to a “silver standard”, and I describe the coins this way:

By Arichis at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

• Gold is treasure
• Silver is money
• Copper is change

Which is really the whole point of the change. Having the PCs start the game with 100 gold coins to spend (even if it really only represents their net worth rather than actual coinage), dampens the impact of finding a coffer of gold coins.

But I find that the 1gp:10sp:100cp ratios (call it “tens, dollars, and dimes”) that I’m using—because it made converting from standard values to mine easier—don’t quite give that feel. I’m thinking 1gp:100sp:10,000cp (hundreds, dollars, and pennies) would better represent those distinctions.

One of the sources I like to borrow from is history. (Plus, it gives me an excuse to learn about history.) So, I took a look at the coins during the reign of Edward III and Roman currency. Neither of which really have anything close to a 1:100:10,000 trio to use as a model. Which is disappointing.

Maybe 1:20:400 would be sufficient? Although, failing the history reality-check doesn’t count 1:10:10,000 out completely.

Either way, it makes the math between classic D&D and my D&D values more difficult.

More messing with ability scores

Previously I wrote about replacing the intelligence ability in classic D&D with quickness. This yields three pairs of ability scores...

strength / constitution
dexterity / quickness
charisma / wisdom

In Star Frontiers, ability scores are paired in a similar manner. When generating them, you roll once for each pair, and the same value is applied to each score in the pair. Then the player may adjust them by taking points away from on score in the pair and adding them to the other.

(The AD&D2e book Players Option: Skills & Powers did something similar, though it split the original six ability scores into twelve scores.)

The range of scores is 1–100 (though initial values range from 30—70) and the adjustment is limited to 10 points. So that would translate to 2 points in D&D. e.g. If 12 was rolled for dexterity/quickness, the player could set the scores at 12/12, 13/11, 14/10, 11/13, or 10/14.

I’m not sure that only rolling three scores would be a good thing, though.

On ability scores

I’ve already dropped the Intelligence ability score from my classic D&D games. I haven’t missed it. Since I’ve already messed with the ability scores, let’s take a further look at them.

I’ve never been overly found of Wisdom either, but I do like having “will power” stat. Wisdom often gets used for that, so let’s rename it Will.

It’s tempting to combine Strength and Constitution. On the other hand, it is nice to keep the melee modifier and hit point modifier separate.

Dexterity, on the other hand, is doing double-duty as ranged modifier and armor class modifier. Let’s split the AC modifier to a new ability called Quickness.

Charisma I like.

Which yields:

• Strength (melee modifier)
• Constitution (hit point modifier)
• Dexterity (ranged attack modifier)
• Quickness (armor class modifier)
• Charisma (reaction modifier)
• Will (saving throw modifier)

Edit: Those are just the primary effect of each ability. They can be used for other things as well.

(Look! It’s the Tri-Stat system with each stat broken in two!)

This would also be compatible with the d20 system saves: Constitution → Fortitude, Quickness → Reflexes, & Will → Will.

Skyland winter solstice presents

After saving the town of Tayce from an ice demon during our group’s 2012 Christmas game, the Skyland characters each received a special present. These notes accompanied the gifts.

To: Ammut

When you hold this cat’s eye marble up to your eye, you will be able to see in the dark. It’s not as good as an elf’s vision, and your view is narrow, but it is better than being blind, no? Use it in good health!

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Serena

This hasp is special besides being nicely made. It will magically lock whatever you place it on. (Wizard lock at the user’s level.)

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Shirina

I hope you like this matched sword and dagger set. I think you will find that they work best together. (They are a short blade and dagger. When used together, if you hit, you will do d6 damage as usual, but you can make a second attack roll. If the second roll hits as well, you do an additional d4.)

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Gix

These boots are said to be of dwarfish make. I think you will find that they make it easier to maneuver whilst encumbered. (You can move at your full 120 movement rate even while wearing heavy armor.)

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Naevana

This torc is rumored to be of faerie make, and—as you can see—quite beautiful and finely made. It is said the faerie-queen had it enchanted to make herself more persuasive. All legend and rumor I am sure. (Wearing this will improve your charisma modifier by +1.)

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Torvwl

This stole is said to have been owned by Mother Florence of the Nightingale, famous for her healing powers. I’m dubious of the claims that it can heighten the healing capabilities of others, but it is quite handsome. I hope you will enjoy it. (When casting healing spells while wearing the stole, roll twice and use the better roll.)

From: K.K. Nicholas

To: Baldwyn

As you may have surmised, this contraption is a double crossbow. You can fire twice before needing to reload. Most cleverly, the mechanism allows both strings to be cocked simultaneously, so reloading both is nigh as quick as reloading a normal crossbow. One word of warning, I am told that one should avoid trying to fire both quarrels simultaneously. They says it was created by the famous inventor, Suladæd. A queen had captured the inventor and commanded him to devise new weapons to give her armies advantages over her foes. This was one of those inventions. Unfortunately, Suladæd’s gift had a unique quirk. It is said he was never able to create more than one working instance of any of his inventions. As you can imagine, that did not please his patron...but this is not the time for that story. May it serve you well.

From: K.K. Nicholas

Plate mail

There seems to be a misconception about the term “plate mail” from TSR-era D&D among armor enthusiasts dealing with spread of D&D jargon as well as among some gamers.

D&D plate mail armor is not plate armor. In D&D, “plate mail” refers to mail armor augmented by some pieces of plate armor.

In D&D, actual plate armor—distinct from plate mail armor—is called “suit armor”. (D&D Master Players’ Book p. 15) In AD&D, plate armor is called “field plate armor” or “full plate armor”. (AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide p. 27; Unearthed Arcana pp. 75–76)

Yes, “plate mail” is an unfortunate term. (I’ve been using “mail and plates” until I find a better term.) It should be considered game jargon rather than a general term or historical term. And it should not be considered a synonym for “plate armor”.

(You may notice that plate armor, likewise, is typically augmented by some bits of mail.)

Note that—unlike “plate mail”—the use of “banded mail”, “ring mail”, “scale mail”, or “splint mail” in D&D is not similarly justified. It would be better to drop the word “mail” from these terms.

For what it’s worth, banded and ring armors might never have existed.

While “chain mail” has come into common use, in medieval usage it was called simply “mail”.

The “plate mail” drawing comes from the AD&D Dungeon Masters Adventure Log. The plate armor is Telecanter’s clean up of an image from Charles John Ffoulkes’ Armour & Weapons

Total defense in Classic D&D

Over at Delta’s D&D Hotspot, there was a discussion of the parry rule in AD&D. In general, this is a pretty useless rule because a character gives up their attack for a bonus to AC. (Well, it’s a penalty to the opponent’s “to hit” roll, but we’ll consider that equivalent.) In D&D combat, if you aren’t attacking, you’re conceding. But special circumstances can arise where this tactic does make sense.

AD&D compounds the uselessness of the rule, however, but setting the bonus equal to the characters “to hit” bonus due to strength.

Chainmail has a parry rule as well. Though it is complicated by its weapon classes rules. The weapon class rules are reasonable, but more complexity than I’d want. The important bit is that Chainmail makes the benefit a flat +2.

Dan also makes a good argument that a +1 in Chainmail should become a +2 in D&D.

It turns out that the d20 SRD has a similar total defense rule, which gives a +4 to AC.

So, that’s what I’m going with...

If a character chooses total defense, they may not attack that round, but they gain a 4-point bonus to AC.

Thief retries

D&D Basic Rulebook (1981) p. B8

Open Locks may only be tried once per lock. The thief may not “try again” on a difficult lock until until he or she has gained another level of experience.

What if we generalize this to one retry per level per lock. So, if a second-level thief had tried to pick a lock when they were first-level, they’d get a second try now that they were second-level as per the rule. When faced with a locked they hadn’t tried before, however, they’d get two attempts.

The down side is that each attempt takes more time. I don’t recall the amount of time required being specified, so let’s go with the default “1 turn” (i.e. 10 minutes) for each attempt. If that seems excessive to you... Well, you don’t need me to tell you to use whatever you want. I will say that based on my admittedly amateur attempts, I’m not sure that is unrealistic.

This means that, given unlimited time, a second-level thief’s overall chance of opening a lock is (2 tries at 20% each) 36%. For a third-level thief it is (3 tries at 25% each) 57.8%.

This, of course, is a boost for thieves. Some, however, will say that thieves can use every boost they can get. Unfortunately, it is a boost that pays off much more for higher level thieves—who need the boost less—than for lower level thieves.

Given the low chances at low levels, I’m tempted to allow unlimited retries. The time trade-off remains. After each failure, the party must ask: Is it worth standing around for another 10 minutes to give the thief another try?

Well, “unlimited” is perhaps too much. A cumulative penalty for each try after the first seems reasonable.

Classic D&D prayer beads

In my classic D&D campaigns, the question always comes up whether I will allow clerics (a.k.a. crusaders) to swap out memorized spells for “cure” spells as in the Spontaneous Casting rule from the d20 SRD. I have a hard time deciding.

Then, I came across this, which I find much more interesting. From AC 4: The Book of Marvelous Magic (1984) by Frank Mentzer and Gary Gygax, p. 16:

Prayer Bead: This valuable item allows a cleric to exchange one known spell (not yet cast) for another if both are of the same spell level. For example, if the cleric knows detect magic but needs cure light wounds, the cleric may use the bead to forget detect magic and gain knowledge of cure light wounds. The new spell may be cast as soon as desired. The cleric need not be fully rested to use the bead. After changing one spell, the bead disintegrates.

(For those not familiar with classic D&D jargon, “knows” means “prepared” and “forget” is equivalent to “lose” in the Spontaneous Casting rule.)

If these prayer beads were as available as holy water or—in some campaigns—healing potions, then it’s an interesting resource management mechanic. (Assuming you find resource management mechanics interesting. And classic D&D might be the wrong game if you don’t.) And it is more flexible too.

Trivia: In the original text, the name of the second spell was styled—both times—“cure light wounds”. I have assumed this was a mistake and put “cure” in italics as well.

d4 Thieves

In classic D&D, the hit die for thieves is a d4. That seems kind of harsh until you look at the XP progression. In the Skylands campaign, most of the party is second level. The mage and elf are still first. The thieves are third

So, here’s how it shapes up. The Skyland columns take into account that we’re doing max hp at first level.

Class	hp	average	Skyland hp	Skyland average
Fighter	2d8	9	8+d8	12½
Cleric	2d6	7	6+d6	9½
Elf	1d6	3½	6	6
Mage	1d4	2½	4	4
Thief	3d4	7½	4+2d4	9

So, if the thieves have hp totals rivaling the clerics. If they used d6 for hit dice, they’d be in fighter hp ranges.

Protection from what?

...or “Would that technically be rules lawyering?”

From the D&D Basic Set c. 1981...

Protection from Evil

Range: 0 (caster only)
Duration: 12 turns

This spell circles the cleric with a magic barrier. This barrier will move with the caster. The spell serves as some protection from “evil” attacks (attacks by monsters of some alignment other than the cleric’s alignment) by adding 1 to the cleric’s saving throws, and subtracting 1 from the “to hit” die roll of these opponents. The spell will also keep out hand-to-hand attacks from enchanted (summoned or created) monsters (such as living statues), but not missile fire attacks from these creatures (see COMBAT). The cleric may break this protection by attacking the monster in hand-to-hand combat, but still gains the bonus “to hit” and saves.

I’ve read this spell many times, but I didn’t notice something that was noticed Saturday. The last sentence says that by attacking the monster, the caster breaks the spell.

Well, that’s how I’d read it before. First, we’ll note that the cleric can freely make missile attacks against the monster. Secondly, we’ll note that a qualifying attack doesn’t break the spell, because the “bonus ‘to hit’ and saves”† remains.

But then what is lost? OK, let’s look closer. The spell grants...

1. A +1 to the cleric’s saving throws against attacks by monsters of an alignment different than the cleric’s.
2. A -1 “to hit” when a monster of an alignment different than the cleric’s attacks the cleric.
3. Prevention of hand-to-hand attacks on the cleric from enchanted (summoned or created) monsters.

So, the cleric making a hand-to-hand attack against a monster only negates 3. Note also that the specification of monsters for 1 and 2 is different from the specification in 3.

This spell turns out to be surprisingly complicated. Was it intended to be that complex or was it worded poorly?

As a recovering rules lawyer, this whole discussion made me a bit uneasy. Though this is certainly a far cry from the rules lawyering I participated in with AD&D or Wizards’ D&D.

---

†But no “to hit” bonus is given. Only a penalty to the monsters. Presumably it is called a bonus here since it is in the caster’s favor.

Skyland questions answered

One of the first things I did when I started preparing for my Skylands campaign was try to answer Jeff’s twenty questions. It turned out, however, that I didn’t have good answers for many of Jeff’s questions.

Perhaps that is an ill omen. shrug Every campaign is an experiment anyway.

So, I asked the players what questions they would want answered, and I answered those.

I also answered Brendan’s twenty questions.

You are getting sleepy...

From the Moldvay-edited D&D Basic Set...

Sleep
Range: 240'
Duration: 4-16 turns

This spell will put creatures to sleep for 4d4 turns. The caster can only affect creatures with 4+1 hit dice or less. Only 1 creature with 4+1 hit dice will be affected; otherwise, the spell affects 2-16 (2d8) hit dice of creatures. The undead cannot be put to sleep. When affecting a group of creatures of mixed levels (hit dice), lower level creatures will always be put to sleep before higher level ones. Any “pluses” are ignored (for example, 2+1 hit dice is treated as 2 hit dice). Creatures with less than 1 hit die are still considered as 1 hit die. Any sleeping creature may be awakened by force (such as a slap). A sleeping creature may be killed (regardless of its hit points) with a single blow with any edged weapon.

EXAMPLE: A party encounters 4 hungry lizard men. Sarien, an elf, casts a sleep spell at them. The DM rolls 2d8; the result of 7 means that 7 levels of creatures are affected. Lizard men have 2+1 hit dice each, treated as 2 for the effects of this spell. Three lizard men fall asleep: 7 divided by 2 equals 3 &12;, but a creature cannot be “partially” asleep from the spell.

Perhaps listing only a range and no area of effect is intentional†, but what if it isn’t an area-of-effect spell? I’m considering the following clarification:

Before rolling the HD affected, the player must indicate which creatures are being targeted. The caster must be able to see the targets. Then, after the roll, the DM determines which creatures are actually affected, giving preference to the lower HD creatures as described above.

So, the caster could choose to only target a higher HD creature to prevent lower HD creatures from soaking it all up. And I think I’m OK with that, since there’s a trade-off here. e.g. Target fewer creatures with more consistent results or target more creatures with more random results. In also means that Sleep won’t accidentally affect an ally, and that’s the way I’ve usually played it anyway.

†For what it’s worth, in the Rules Cyclopedia, an area of effect was specified. I believe it said a 40-foot square.

Read magic

Some excerpts from the c. 1981 D&D Basic Set (Moldvay) and Expert Set (Cook/Marsh):

p. B16

Magic-users and elves may use one spell at first level. Unlike clerics, magic-users and elves must select the spells to be used from those spells they know. These spells are stored in large spell books. As magic-users and elves gain levels of experience, the number of spells they may use also increases.

p. B17 (the description of the Read Magic spell)

By casting this spell, magical words or runes on an item or scroll may be read. Without this spell unfamiliar magic cannot be read or understood, even by a magic-user. However, once a scroll or runes are looked at with a read magic spell, the magic-user becomes able to understand and read that item later without the spell. A magic-user’s or elf’s spell book is written so that only the owner may read them without using this spell.

p. X7

Magic-users may add more spells to their spell books through spell research.

p. X11

Magic-users and elves must be taught their new spells. Most player character magic-users and elves are assumed to be members of the local Magic-Users Guild or apprenticed to a higher level NPC. When player characters gain a level of experience, they will return to their masters and be out of play for one “game-week” while they are learning their new spells. Either the player or the DM may choose any new spells.

(I’m just going to say “mage” rather than “magic-users and elves”.)

So, there are three ways that mages gain new spells.

1. Taught spells by another character
2. Spell research
3. Scrolls and spell books

Although, it is not explicit that mages can learn new spells from scrolls. Spells on scrolls can be used simply by reading them aloud instead of casting them in the usual way. There is nothing that says spells in spell books can be used this way. So the way spells are written on scrolls and the way they are written in spell books might be different.

Neither is it explicit that mages can learn new spells from a spell book, but it is reasonable to infer that, with Read Magic, this would be possible.

So, Read Magic allows a mage to use spell scrolls and possibly to learn new spells from spell books they find. A mage could, however, get by fine without Read Magic because it isn’t needed for learning spells from their master or guild or for spell research.

In my Skylands campaign, however, there aren’t high-level master mages available to teach spells to the PCs. There may not be any mage who can cast second level spells. They won’t be getting any spells “automatically” when gaining a level. I will let them learn spells from scrolls and spell books, and I saw this as the primary way that mages would acquire new spells. (I’m also letting them pick two spells at first level and roll for up to two more.)

If the players understood all this when picking their spells, I think they would’ve all picked Read Magic. (Maybe not, but I’m pretty sure none of them choose to not take it as a challenge.)

So, I think I’m going to give all mages and elves Read Magic. The one player who chose or rolled it will get to choose/roll another spell.

Later editions of the game did this: Every first level mage got Read Magic. But, if every mage gets Read Magic at first level, what’s the point in having the spell around at all? I could answer that, but I’m not convinced the answer justifies the spell’s existence.

Still, I’m not ready to go that far...yet.

Guidelines for my Skyland campaign

Since Brendan asked, here’s a run-down of the variant rules I’m using in my Skylands campaign.

I start with the c. 1981 D&D Basic & Expert Sets. (Those edited by Tom Moldvay, Zeb Cook, and Steve Marsh.) If you aren’t familiar with those sets, some of this may be unclear, but if you have some familiarity with any edition of D&D—especially TSR-era D&D, then I think you’ll get the jist of it.

Strength does not provide a “to hit” bonus; only a damage bonus. There is no intelligence ability score. The “full” Dexterity modifier applies to individual initiative. The wisdom modifier applies to all saving throws.

Speaking of saving throws, I’ve gone the Swords & Wizardry route of having a single one.

There’s none of that “lower one score two point to raise another score one point” stuff. But players can swap a pair of scores.

There are no ability score based XP bonuses or penalties.

The cleric class is renamed “crusader”. I use “mage” rather than magic-user.

There are no restrictions on the weapons usable by crusaders, mages, or thieves.

Thieves do not get a find traps or remove traps skill. The move silently, hide in shadows, and climb sheer surface skills are explicitly called out as extraordinary abilities. Anyone can move quietly, hide, or climb. And a thief who fails a move silently roll is still moving quietly.

No dwarves or halflings. (Which is more of a setting thing than a system thing.) There are gnome PCs. These are mainly following the guidelines for gnome PCs from the Rules Cyclopedia, but they also get cantrips (v.i.).

Elf lifespans are no longer than human lifespans. (The Basic/Expert Sets don’t directly address elf lifespans, though there is a side comment about them having long lifespans.) Gnomes lifespans are about half that of humans.

Gnomes and elves can see in the dark. It isn’t “infrared” or “ultraviolet” vision. It isn’t “low light” vision. It isn’t limited to some distance.

Multiclassing is allowed (but not encouraged). The player can divide XP earned between the classes. Generally, the most favorable aspect of each class is used. Note that max hp must be tracked for each class separately. The character will use the highest max hp value from their classes.

Max hp at first level.

The lawful and chaotic alignments indicate whether the character supports or subverts order and civilization. Crusaders must be lawful.

Players can select “secondary skills” as in AD&D. If multiple are selected, one should be designated “primary”. (I’m thinking about calling them “background skills” since “primary secondary skill” sounds silly.)

I’m using the cantrips from Mike & Liz Stewart. Mages & gnomes start with three to six cantrips. Elves can learn them if they find someone to teach them. There’s no limit on how many cantrips a caster can use. They don’t need to be prepared, and they aren’t “lost” when cast.

Elves and mages begin with two to four spells.

For determining initial cantrips and spells, we did this: First the player picks. (Three for cantrips; two for spells.) Then the player rolls. (Again, three for cantrips, two for spells.) Duplicates are not rerolled.

I’ve switched to a “silver standard”. Prices that are in gp in the books are in sp instead. Platinum is unknown. Electrum could show up. Coins are 70 to the pound.

Mêlée weapons follow this post where the price depends upon the “stats” and the description is left up to the player. And this post covers fighting with two weapons.

A natural 20 on an attack roll grants a free attack. (We already had three hits by one PC in one round during a tournament mêlée.)

I’m using the “shields shall be splintered” rule. Metal shields used this way end up damaged and unusable but can be repaired for half the price of a new metal shield.

I’m using my injury table. Four hours of sleep restore half a character’s hp.

One roll on the injury table for every 10 feet fallen.

1 sp = 1 XP. I’m using 100 XP per HD for monsters defeated. With my usual: Defeat is interpreted liberally, but you only get XP for defeating the same individual monster once.” There may also be XP awards for various achievements. (Nothing specific yet.)

Brand new PCs start at first level, but PCs that replace a dead PC start with half the XP of the old PC.

A player can name their character’s heir, which must include a name and a relationship to the PC. If, after the PC dies, the player creates the heir, that PC will have legal right to the former PC’s stuff.

I raised the chance of magic research failure to 20% with the possibility that rare materials or the discovery of arcane secrets might lower it.

Being raised from the dead will cost a point of constitution.

Update: At the end of the document I gave the players I tried to give the credit due... Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Tom Moldvay, Stephen Marsh, David Cook, Frank Mentzer, Dan Proctor, James Raggi III, Dan Collins, Erin D. Smale, J. Brian Murphy, and Mike & Liz Stewart. (I hope I didn’t miss anyone I borrowed a rule from.)

Why do I prefer Moldvay’s D&D Basic Set?

@DownToDM:
Just curious: What is everyone's favorite version of Basic D&D? #dnd #basic

@guitar_geek:
@DownToDM Moldvay’s Basic is my favorite

@DownToDM:
@guitar_geek Out of curiosity, why is that? I personally can't decide, so I'm just seeing what other people think.

There’s no way I was going to fit the answer in 140 characters...

I find the second D&D Basic Set (Moldvay’s) easier to understand than the first (Holmes’). Also, Holmes seems to stray farther from the original game while Moldvay seems to move back closer to it.

Really, though, these are trade-offs. These differences are part of what makes Holmes’ Basic Set special. It’s just that my preferences here fall in the direction of Moldvay’s set.

The third D&D Basic Set (Mentzer’s) makes an effort to go even farther and explain the game to anyone. From what I’ve heard, it largely succeeded. I simply have a hard time believing that anyone who is going to enjoy the game needs more than Moldvay’s set to understand the game.

I also like the scope and level of detail of Moldvay’s Basic with Cook & Marsh’s Expert Set. It feels just about right to me for a base to build off of. Also, I’m not a fan of how later printings of Mentzer’s Expert Set slowed progressions (like thief skills) down.

Of course, I can be accused of bias because Moldvay’s set was my introduction to the game. (Well, I’d seen a first edition AD&D Players Handbook, but I couldn’t figure the game out from it.) And, of course, all of this is really splitting hairs. And no matter what version of the game I’m playing, I like to have the others around as resources to draw upon.

Once I started playing Basic/Expert D&D again (c. 2006), I’ve found, however, that the Basic/Expert split is a pain in play. (And cutting the books up and combining them as suggested doesn’t really make it any better.) So, I have my complaints with it. Indeed, in the campaign we started last Saturday, I’m experimenting with a number of modifications.