DM Theorycrafting

I've been working on my own private D&D v.5 over the past few years, mostly during downtime at work or when the mood hits me. I'm trying to reconcile the eloquence of the 1st edition simplicity with the hard and fast (and more consistent) rules of the D&D 3.x era. I like the idea of allowing humanoids character levels, having stats for some monsters, and basically making everything work in a similar way so that one does not have to memorize too many rule exceptions.

My first stab was at instant-kill game mechanics. No one likes them - players and DMs alike. The way in which they were handled in the past was simply "save or die." Later editions made them merely a momentary inconvenience. Spells like slow poison and neutralize poison become useless when the poison effect is immediate. So I decided to opt for a damage over time system for poisons, where there is a save modifier, an onset time, and a standard 1d6 damage per turn or round depending on the potency. Such poison typically will have an "Effective Duration" since the body seeks to somehow purge it and heal itself. However, this gives spells like slow poison and neutralize poison a chance to save someone.

Energy Drain taking levels away is a campaign killer. Imagine that your party paladin manages to finally struggle to 5th level then faces a wight. Due to an inability to hit the wight (or turn it), the paladin may be locked in combat for a number of rounds, each of which could result in a loss of level (and less chance to affect said undead creature). Since the loss has no saving throw and cannot be prevented in any way, this is sort of a game breaker. The solution? Make the loss a Constitution point instead. It has no effect on experience points, affects hit point totals and system shock/resurrection survival, and the number of times a character can be brought back from the dead. Even if the character somehow restores his Constitution to the previous value (through the cleric spell restoration), the number of times he or she can be brought back to life is forever affected and cannot be changed. This also works for vampires and makes more sense than a mere touch draining away 2 very difficult higher levels. Imagine a group of adventurers facing off against a vampire and his 2-3 vampire minions. They would be dead very quickly! With this fix, the play can proceed with minimal hassle and unless the party members have very low Constitution to begin with, the combat can come to a more equitable conclusion.

Ability scores for AD&D are a nightmare with the % strength for fighter types and the increased charts provided in the Unearthed Arcana and Deities and Demigods supplements. Monster stats were hinted at in the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual, but no concrete stats were provided. The very range of stats in the Player's Handbook seems to indicate that higher and lower scores are possible. I prefer the stat adjustments used in the Moldvay version of Basic D&D over those in the Player's Handbook. They seem to make more sense to the game. Any bonus from strength over +3 seems overkill to me, given the amount of damage a fighter can do with multiple attacks and magical bonuses. A more streamlined version of the stats must be implemented! For example, using the preferred stat arrangement and the expanded limits:

25     Supreme godlike stat
24     Greater godlike stat
23     Intermediate godlike stat
22     Lesser godlike stat
21     Demigodlike stat
20     Heroic Legend stat
19     Exceptional or heroic stat
18     Top of normal humanoid range (+3)
16-17 Superior range (+2)
13-15 Above normal range (+1)
9-12   Normal range of character mediocrity (+0)
6-8     Below average range (-1)
4-5    Very low range (-2)
3       Bottom of humanoid range (-3)
2       Creatures below humanoid stats
1       Least creatures' stat
0       Non-existent condition or stat

You can see that most of the creatures in D&D are measured on the human scale (hence the reason why demi-humans have their stats adjusted during character creation) and all other creatures in the multiverse must therefore ALSO exist in this range. Since size and HD determines damage ranges for most of the really large creatures in the game, no stats are needed to determine relative strengths, constitution, dexterity, etc. All creatures were given a nebulous intelligence stat, so that gives a basis for Intelligence (and Wisdom by inference). Charisma for creatures is a pretty useless stat, although suffice to say that leaders among animals and humanoids will have higher charisma (or strength, whichever is more desired by the species). This more linear representation of attributes make more sense than breaking out percentages between integer points, especially when done at the very high end of the range. What does this mean for some magic items that give monster stats to players? Well, I suppose that those Gauntlets of Ogre Power might just grant a 19 Strength for the wearer, since Ogres and Hill Giants seem to be of the same build (but the larger giants deal more damage and have larger HD of course). Giant Strengths can remain as they are since damage and Hit Dice determine how well these creatures fight better than adjusting for strength for each attack.

Perhaps instead of using Strength for carrying capacity and damage, we could adapt the formula from Villains & Vigilantes - Carrying Capacity = (Str/10)^3 + Con/10) x 1/2 weight. This translates into some number of pounds which indicates how much weight a person can lift and move with. Referring to a table listing various carrying capacities one can then arrive at a base amount of damage a person can do. Since a weapon is little more than a tool for transferring and amplifying natural strength, one needs only come up with a factor to multiply the natural damage of a weapon wielder. This way, whether you're dealing with a 40 lb kobold wielding a small axe or a massive frost giant wielding a similar axe, the axe multiplier stays the same and the base damage of the creature is always the same. Say that a creature has base damage of 1d4 (calculated from a chart and the formula) and is using a long sword with a multiplier of x2. The damage for the sword would become 2-8. No strength modifiers are needed since they are already taken into consideration in the formula. No size or weight considerations are needed either since the formula takes these into consideration. You can assume that a club is a club regardless of size and the damage simply comes from the wielder since the wielder must be strong enough to lift the weapon and use it properly. The only problems you run into are those creatures that can change size (spriggan, et. al.) or spells that change size (enlarge/reduce, polymorph, etc.). In this case the new carrying capacity must be recalculated.

I wonder if encumbrance can be somehow scaled to be more simplistic as well. As it is, movement in 1st edition and previous editions is poorly defined as to how it is used in combat. Later versions are very explicit and allow movement and attacks during the round, but the definition of the round has inflated and deflated over the years. It began as 6 seconds, was inflated to 60 seconds (1 minute), then reduced again to 6 seconds. The exploration turn has always been 10 minutes, but even then the pace is ridiculously slow, even given the rates for mapping and investigation. I'm not a fan of the 1st edition movement scales, but the 3.x version works for me. I don't like 3.x skills taking the limelight, but I think that the better defined rolls for surprise, hiding, sneaking, and listening are way better.

This conversion is on hold until such time as I can complete my other projects. I'm continuing to review the rules as written in search of a "better way" but it seems that no one will currently be able to release the perfect version of the D&D ruleset. It's curious to note that the Wizards of the Coast developers are approaching the game from the same angle. I doubt that we would agree on the particulars of what makes D&D such an iconic game. They have an agenda of selling games to the masses - my only agenda is to play in a system in which I feel comfortable and happy. Those two views are pretty much at odds, and have been since Gygax was ousted from TSR back in the day.