ACKS and Class-Based Damage

After my brief foray into looking at the Basic Rules for 5e (which led to the unfortunate conclusion that it's unplayable as-is), I have shifted my focus back to my own RPG comfort zone — some iteration of B/X (and my favorite B/X retro-clone, Labyrinth Lord). Since I do not have the luxury of playing at the moment, and the only way I can decide whether or not hacking 5e is worth my while is by playing it, I am simply going to go back to hacking the version of the game I know I love to play.

To that end, I would like to highlight the one RPG-related purchase that I have spent more time using in the last year than any other — the ACKS Players Companion (ACKS PC). As with all things B/X, the guys at Autarch reverse engineered all of the core classes (minus the halfling) and then came up with a system with which to create all kinds of classes, including those same core classes. It is rather ingenious, actually, because it is now possible to create campaign-specific classes for a B/X-type of game.

This is important for me, because when I started my Lost Colonies campaign, I only allowed Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users, Dwarves and Elves. As the campaign evolved, not only did players want to explore different class options, but the campaign world itself demanded it. At the time, however, I didn’t have a lot of options for dealing with these needs other than introduce Advanced Edition classes, which didn’t quite fit.

With the ACKS PC, I am now able to create those classes exactly the way I want to and still have them express some kind of balance according to the logic of the B/X core classes. There is only one issue with the whole system that I am struggling with: weapon damage.

ACKS elegantly divides weapons into various categories where each has a one-handed, one-and-a-half handed and two-handed version. These do from 1d6 to 1d10 damage. This isn’t an issue if the world can logically supply all these types of weapons; however, Lost Colonies is a metal-poor setting where iron, especially, is quite rare. Swords are normally bronze and there is no such thing as a long or two-handed bronze sword. This throws a kink into the ACKS damage system.

To boot, I also normally use universal d6 damage at my table for a variety of reasons; however, using weapon selection is a key element to the custom class design presented in the ACKS PC. Therefore, I need to somehow make weapon choice or damage meaningful in order to properly implement the custom class system.

The ACKS PC has four levels of weapon selection:

• Restricted (as with a Magic-User)
• Narrow (as with a Cleric)
• Broad (as with a Thief)
• Unrestricted (as with a Fighter)

When it comes to weapon damage, there are those who like to emulate Gandalf, the sword-wielding magic-user. They advocate damage by class, where every class can use any weapon, but the damage will vary from class to class:

• Magic-User = d4
• Cleric/Thief = d6
• Fighter = d8

With a little tweak, this class-based damage system can be ported over to the ACKS PC weapon selection:

• Restricted = d4
• Narrow = d6
• Broad = d8
• Unrestricted = d10

This would be a simple solution save for a couple of concerns. I wonder if d10 damage too powerful? Elves and Dwarves would also do d10 via this system and, in the case of elves I do think that is too much.

There are three solutions to this potential problem:

• The first would be to dial back all the damage by one die, where Unrestricted is d8 and Restricted is d3. That poses the question of whether or not the magic-user and cleric are too weak.
• The second option is to use the ACKS PC system to hack the fighter, elf and dwarf to have Broad d8 damage with some kind of weapon specialization/combat bonus; however this would add to the XP total necessary to advance. Fighters would need 2150 XP, elves 4150 and dwarves 2350. It doesn’t seem like much, but especially with elves it certainly feels that way.
• The third option is to use Unrestricted = d10, etc. for human characters and Unrestricted = d8, etc. for demi-humans.

So, my question (especially to those of you who have used class-based damage) which of these options do you like best?

More Thoughts on Variable Weapon Damage via Holmes & Cook

After some good discussion after my post yesterday on variable damage via Holmes and Cook, I've done some more thinking. There a couple ways my table can be improved:

• There needs to be a distinction between daggers/knives and throwing daggers/knives. The first are Small Weapons and the latter are Thrown Weapons.
• Some weapons can exist in two different categories depending on how they are used or who uses them. For example, Bastard Swords can be used as Heavy Weapons when wielded two handed and Standard Weapons wielded with one hand. Another example would be racial weapons like the Gnome Hook. Normally, this would be a Penetrating Weapon. In the hands of a Gnome, however, it can also be used as a Small Weapon.
• There probably needs to be another category of weapons — Reach Weapons. They deal d8 damage and will automatically win initiative in the first round against any other type of weapon (vs. other Reach Weapons they function as Standard Weapons). On subsequent rounds, however, they automatically lose initiative.
• There also needs to be another type of missile weapon: small thrown weapons like darts. These do 1d4 damage and up to two can be thrown per round.
• Finally, if the prospect of automatically losing initiative is enough of a deterrent for players to avoid the use of Heavy Weapons in play testing, I might suggest taking a -4 on initiative instead.

Any thoughts?

Variable Weapon Damage using Holmes & Cook

As I've written before, when it comes to d6 vs. variable weapon damage, I am not a partisan. Yes, in practice I use d6 damage; however, I am not 100% convinced I like it. Enter yesterday's post about creating an amalgam of the Holmes Basic edition and the Cook Expert edition. When the comments discussion turned to d6 vs. variable weapon damage, I pointed out Holmes has daggers able to attack twice per round. Then several good people pointed me in the direction of some sites that discuss Holmes and why daggers ought not be able to do so.

While all very good and fantastically interesting, my thought experiment is about combining Holmes with Cook, and the rule about daggers attacking twice per round (obviously making it an "uberweapon" with d6 damage) got me thinking about a way to combine Holmes and Cook to scratch an itch about weapon damage. What follows is a variable damage weapon table that also gives players a tactical element to weapon choice:

Small Weapons

These weapons are small and/or swift. While they do only d4 damage, they allow a character to have two attacks per round.

• Dagger
• Staff*

Thrown Weapons

These versatile weapons only do d6 damage but may be used both as a thrown weapon and as an HTH weapon.

• Hand Axe
• Spear
• Club

Penetrating Weapons

These weapons are good at getting through armor. Though they only do d6 damage, they are at a +1 to hit in HTH.

• Lance
• Mace
• Short Sword
• War Hammer

Standard Weapons

These are standard HTH weapons. They do d8 damage.

• Flail
• Morning Star
• Sword

Heavy Weapons

While these weapons do d10 damage, they are slow. Therefore, characters who use them always lose initiative.

• Battle Axe*
• Pole arm*
• Two-Handed Sword*

Missile Weapons*

• Bows do d6 damage but are +1 to hit.
• Crossbows do d10 damage but lose initiative when they need to be reloaded.
• Slings do d8 damage.

* = two-handed weapon

Any thoughts?

On d6 Weapon Damage

This morning I followed a link from James at Grognardia to this very reasoned argument for all weapons doing d6 damage. Even though I use d6 damage for all weapons in my own game, I find myself disagreeing with this argument for much the same reasons.

Combat in OD&D is abstract. Thus, we as players are free to interpret various elements of the combat system as we choose. In other words, whether or not we use d6 damage, variable dice damage, weapon vs. AC tables, critical hits, ablative shields, or any number of combat rules is all aesthetics.

In my own experience I love universal d6 weapon damage and I hate it. So far, my love has outweighed my loathing. 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.

At the same time, I have noticed that it has reduced the number of cool shaped dice in actual game play. Over the course of a night, my players will only use d6s and d20s. Since one of the reasons I started gaming all those years ago was the ability to use all these cool shaped dice, I miss them in game play — aesthetics.

My group uses a house rule where shields are ablative and can absorb a hit by being destroyed. I have really enjoyed this in game play — it adds a level of tactical choice that increases tension in combat at the same time that it increases survivability. It is powerful enough, however, that there is little incentive to use two-handed weapons. They get used, but only in very specific tactical situations like bracing for a charge. I am not happy with this, but not enough to scrap d6 damage — aesthetics.

All of this demonstrates, I hope, that d6 weapon damage and variable weapon damage are both perfectly legitimate choices in play. I actually like both of them, for different reasons. The wonder of old-school style of play is that it gives us the room and freedom to play with both. It all comes down to what we find most entertaining to play with — aesthetics.