Alternative d20 combat rules for Dungeons & Dragons

[@andybritton]

Daniel, I love the effort you put into your channel. It's both informative and yet relaxing to watch you talk about a subject you so clearly enjoy. I played BX D&D with my school friends back in the 80s, and one day someone new joined our group, bringing with him the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook. And while he only meant to show us this cool new book, it made us feel like the Basic game we'd been playing was somehow inferior to this other advanced version. And years later, BX D&D was but a distant memory of a truly magical time from my childhood, which is why it's so great to hear you talk about it now as if it had never really gone away. So thank you for all that you do, and please keep sharing your thoughts with us on what is an exceptionally enduring game.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks for your kind words. What’s interesting for me is that I came back to the hobby thinking I’d run AD&D, but once I picked up BX (again) I was hooked.

[@andrewsimmons2108]

I like this a lot more than I thought I would. That being said, I always love your content, so I really shouldn’t be surprised! Thanks and keep ‘em coming.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! If you get a chance to try it out, let me know

[@aarondavidson3833]

Hey Daniel! Always excited to see you in my KZbin feed.

[@BanditsKeep]

😊 thanks

[@DarkHorseCom]

Thanks for the very informative video Daniel. Also, thanks for the download! Nice to add to my collection. Then, in closing: "That was not the right button", words to live by :D Have a great evening

[@BanditsKeep]

Ha ha, for sure

[@michaelmorrissey5631]

Oh I LOVE the idea of this! I've been wanting to make a ONE ROLL combat system for B/X for some time! Thanks Daniel you did all the heavy lifting for me! The various weapon attack & defense characteristics are on the right track as well IMO as historically spears were far more common than swords but swords were supremely versatile. Folks can tweak this however they like but either way I'm exited to give this a try. Thanks again!

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool! Let me know how this works out for you!

[@chodenji]

This system is logical and elegant. It embodies the idea that the weapons are tools, and the wielder’s skill with them determines their effectiveness.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! ⚔️

[@rolanejo8512]

Always enlightening. Also, glad to know that someone also writes in Souvenir font.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! Yes that’s my go to for RPGs

[@al2642]

There was an Italian free rpg, skill based, which used attack vs defence roll and the difference affected minimum and max damage, and a location roll made it very wound based and detailed. The skill in different weapons affected both attack and defence in different ways. Liked it a lot. It was called Myst, really nice. I think they went on developing even more to make the duels more realistic.

[@BanditsKeep]

Oh, that sounds interesting, I’ll have to look around for it

[@raff3486]

This must be one of my favourite videos ❤

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@emarsk77]

Very nice, and a much more realistic take than the standard rules. And at last someone who knows the difference between a longsword and a spadone. Now, if we only get to substitute that stupid leather -biker clothes- "armor" with a linen gambeson, that would be awesome! About the prices, historically a plate harness was (and still is!) crazy expensive. Edit: I'm not sure I would distinguish between main wielding and offhand wielding (for the dagger, for example). I think it's an unnecessary complication. It's certainly easier to parry with a dagger than with your bare hand (!), so +1 in defence sounds right anyway. (In fact, I know from experience that a parrying dagger with long quillons is a fantastic parrying implement, even used alone). I feel - and this applies to the standard rules as well - that being outnumbered isn't punitive enough. In reality, it's crazy difficult to defend against multiple opponents. With your rules, you could grant the dexterity and weapon defence bonuses against just the first attack, keeping only level and armour for the remaining ones. It would slow down the calculations a bit, though, but keeping "active defence" and "passive defence" scores on the character sheet would mitigate the overhead.

[@BanditsKeep]

Oh, that’s interesting- I do agree that being outnumbered is a huge factor that many systems handwave

[@emarsk77]

@@BanditsKeep Yeah. And I definitely can see why. The way I worded in my comment, it seems like I advocate otherwise, but actually I'm not entirely sure I do. We want to play heroes after all (even at low levels, to some extent). But I found intriguing that with your rules, getting a bit more realism there would be really easy, with no need for ad-hoc penalties and while remaining completely consistent.

[@Dyrnwyn]

I'm working on a system that I haven't had the opportunity to playtest yet. In combat, if you engage in melee, you don't roll a d20 to hit. You just roll your damage dice and add bonuses. But, you also take your (ascending) AC and subtract 10. This number is your damage absorption / avoidance factor. The third piece is that melee damage dice are explosive, so a dagger still has the possibility of threatening someone in plate armour. Ranged attacks still roll a d20 against standard AC. There's more to it than that, but those are the basics.

[@BanditsKeep]

So the armor absorbs the first chuck of damage each round (in melee)?

[@Dyrnwyn]

@@BanditsKeep Yep. If your base AC is 16, that's a defense of 6, so if someone rolls 8 damage against you, you take 2.

[@DeusVultLurch]

I was playing with using Attack - AC for damage rather than damage dice a while back & couldn't get it to where I was satisfied with it. Glad to see someone figured it out.

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice! Let me know if you try this and how it works out

[@jeffallen559]

This is really cool. I like how makes more variations in weapons. It also implies the character is parrying with their weapon without having to make some type of parry roll. I think I would change the critical to remain a natural 20. I would also allow fighters to crit on a 19 or 20. If you leave the critical the way you have it I think a critical would not do any damage. One more thing I would add is initiative modifer by weapon type. So a two handed sword would be slower than a short sword.

[@BanditsKeep]

Crit does no damage it has a special effect which in game play can be more advantageous than damage - break someone’s spear and now their AC tanks and they are in big trouble. While I see everywhere this obsession with natural 20s I just don’t have it LOL.

[@Astartes36]

Love it!!! Not sure that I would use these rules, but that is not a slight against them. It is weird to see all the bonuses and high numbers, but it makes sense within the scope of this "hack". As always, I really just enjoy your stuff and like to see you and others think out loud about the game.

[@BanditsKeep]

Yeah, as I was working up the number I also felt they seemed crazy, but as you note, in the scope of the hack they really are not too bad - but this does make for a much deadlier game for those who lack armor and/or long weapons.

[@Astartes36]

Most hacks will look foreign, but as long as they are consistent across the board, they will work. They may change the quality of the game, but that doesn’t mean they are bad. They may actually be really great!

[@crapphone7744]

Sounds like a fun way to add some variety to osr weaponry and character classes. Plus it saves you a roll in combat.. very interesting thanks for presenting this and sharing it.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks! We’ve had fun with it

[@anthonygent6378]

Interesting stuff Daniel I may use something like this in the future

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool, let me know how it works out

[@Siofragames]

I like this a lot. One thing that I think could make it very usable for players is having them write down their AC on the weapon entry. That way when they're using different weapons they could quickly see what the difference is.

[@BanditsKeep]

That’s a great idea!

[@Siofragames]

@@BanditsKeep Oh also one more thing. In the Battle Axe entry in table B2 I notice the ** is placed in the Defense Bonus column, but destroying a shield seems more to do with the attack bonus or weapon rather than defense?

[@BanditsKeep]

@@Siofragames good catch!

[@mlundequist]

Love this,but I would change shield to +5 vs melee and +3 vs missile. You would see a melee weapon coming at you a lot more more than a arrow flying at a high rate of speed.

[@BanditsKeep]

Make that change for your group and let me know how to works!

[@tagg1080]

Really interesting. I have been toying with one roll attacks also. I have been comparing damage to ac like you have, but if the attack hits it does full damage. So a longsword might be 2d6 damage, and rolls a 5 against ac 8 would miss completely. If it rolls a 10 against ac 8 it would do 10 damage. So it is one damage roll, not one d20 roll. I am glad I found this video I will keep playing with ideas. Thanks.

[@BanditsKeep]

That sounds cool

[@tagg1080]

@@BanditsKeep super old reply... I am still fighting this 'attack roll damage roll thing' So I have currently landed on using the 'wargame' rolls in all my rolls. So keeping attack rolls, but taking away the variation in damage. If you 'hit' with your attack roll, you deal full damage (so a d6 sword does 6 damage), if you 'miss' your attack roll you deal minimum damage (so a d6 sword does 1, a 2d4 hammer does 2, etc.) Then I keep all characters at their 'maximum hit dice hit points', and it all works out super smooth. So a level 3 fighter with d8 HD has, 3HD: 24HP. So they can take 4 hits from a d6 weapon, or 3 hits from a d8 weapon, or 24 'misses' from a sword... It seems to actually balance out great, just an idea! I love the fact that old dnd can translate from 1v1 to 100v100 without any change in math, and this is a way I have found that keeps that spirit but still allows the granularity we expect in smaller combats.

[@jaytomioka3137]

Brilliant!!!!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

I love it!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@DanielMendoza-qx5rl]

A good video of the system. I might use it for BFRPG and see how it turns out for group/solo games.

[@BanditsKeep]

How cool, let me know how it works out!

[@occupationallystrong1606]

Love it. I am tinkering around with this idea using Rangers of Shadow Deep, Frost Grave, Worlds Without Number, and Mork Borg as the base systems. I love skirmish games and believe an OSR feel w hirelings is exactly what my players want.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@yurirobin]

I loved it! And can't wait to tinker with it. But the idea of not hitting something ever isn't my cup of tea. I think that I would implement a way to lower the AC of monsters if they roll a 20 and don't hit, or something like that.

[@BanditsKeep]

It definitely is something to get used to but in my games there are many monsters that cannot be hurt without special weapons or very high level characters - A Dragon for instance

[@krystal2423]

This is great. Thank you!

[@BanditsKeep]

😊😊

[@vilhelmpuddintain9295]

I don't jive with the idea of crits not actually doing damage. The whole thing with crits to me is that they make everyone excited cuz they deal big damage; no one's gonna get excited when they just stun people, or disarm them, or knock them down. They don't feel like a critical hit, they feel like a consolation prize. If I wanted to disadvantage the enemy in those ways I would've said that's what I was doing. I'd keep crits as nat 20s and make it to where you automatically hit and deal damage as if the target's AC is their unarmored/unarmed value. Now that's a lotta damage!

[@BanditsKeep]

You could try that for sure - or just change the word from critical maybe 🤔

[@al2642]

I am also playing with shields that are more significant,but I pair it with armor that reduces damage instead of increasing AC

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@RuiSaltao]

In this system shields and armor add to AC, which ultimately reduce damage as well... No?

[@BanditsKeep]

@@RuiSaltao that’s how I look at at yes

[@danielrowan4716]

Excellent presentation, Daniel. For a few years I’d considered a similar bonus system for 1/2e AD&D but ultimately decided not to pursue it as I am lazy. I rely on the characters hp to stand in for added difficulty to hit and survivability in combat. What I haven’t given up on is possibly applying initiative modifiers for weapon types. I really like your system here, though.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks 🙏🏻. In AD&D I typically went with long weapons win initiative 1st round, short weapons after that.

[@timothylamont845]

I like the concept and I really like the diversity of options this gives the DM. I can now make 2 encounters that LOOK the same (3 goblins, in your example) be dramatically different in actual difficulty. Great job! Two questions come to mind: First, do you alter the XP value of monsters at all based on the new rules? And second, even with the prep work you do, do you find combat slows down at all due to players asking questions to clarify or remind them of "which one is which" so to speak?

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks 🙏🏻 I don’t alter XP and I found combat to be faster with this method, even with weapon swapping

[@jonathanfrost8767]

Much more complicated than simple d20 + prof bonus + strength or dex vs. AC 10 + dex + armor bonus

[@BanditsKeep]

You forgot rolling damage and adding modifiers and then subtracting from that any damage absorbing spells or armor - while this setup is a bit longer, in play it a a single die role per attack

[@patrickrobles1036]

This is eerily similar to a system I'm working on.

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice!

[@falkyrie5228]

It looks a little like the system used in Open Legends RPG, but better in my opinion. I'm tempted to use it, but I still like the idea of Attack Bonus and Damage being separated, since you can have stuff like the player stating that his character is going to try a really telegraphed and wide swing, taking a -2 to the Attack Bonus for a +2 in Damage, for example. Or situations were the group's Dex Fighter has a really high Attack Bonus and always hits, while the group's Str Fighter deals really high Damage when he hits. Nevertheless, thanks for the idea, maybe I'll give it a try in the future or even use it as inspiration to come up with something that works better for me.

[@BanditsKeep]

I can understand that. Let me know if you try it with or without modifications- always fun to play with different hacks.

[@strawpiglet]

It’s funny, I have tried to rewrite the dnd hit and damage rules so many times and I give up every time. They did a really good job. It seems counter intuitive to put armor against “to hit” rather than damage, but I like to think of a mosquito. If the mosquito gets through your ducking and armor, then we roll its damage. You can’t really add a damage bonus for accuracy, it doesn’t scale easily, you can’t have the thing doing a +4 damage bite and you don’t want to calculate fractions. So, keeping the weapon damage separate makes good sense. I look at all this from experience in various sorts of fencing and brawling, and some real fist fights with bigger and smaller opponents. The physics and psychology of it all is so interesting. I want a single roll, just like a single swing or punch, yet… I like the thing about weapons giving ac bonus, that’s much easier to work with. They give ac out of fear mostly, parrying less so. Well, parrying is giving up an attack to stop the foe’s weapon - out of a very rational fear that you’ll get hit and lose your attack. If I were to give ac for weapons, I’d probably give a flat 1 bonus to the longer weapon, that’s it. Or, I’d make taking damage end your turn, or reduce dnd hp a lot. Or do all those things.

[@strawpiglet]

Oops, I dropped the part about initiative - I’d give the longer weapon initiative and then lower HPs so you could die, or make taking damage cost you your turn.

[@BanditsKeep]

I could see giving a flat defensive bonus, sure.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@charlesfieltesjunior4381]

Coming to say hello and watching it while making dinner :)

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice! Save me some dessert 🍨

[@al2642]

Here is one think I don't like much: attack bonuses for characters increase every 2 oe 3 levels, but for monsters they increase at every single HD. In my tables, usually a fighter starts with a big bonus and then increases every level. Clerics start from a medium bonus and then increase every two levels. Magic guys start with a low or no bonus and then I crease every three levels.

[@BanditsKeep]

Good idea - I just used the progression from BX - keep in mind that HD is not the same as level though - HD typically take into account size and aggressiveness etc if a creature.

[@paavohirn3728]

I love the idea and it seems really well thought out. It's also easy to tweak if there's something you feel like fine tuning at some point. There's a bit too much nitty-gritty for my taste but you gain cool variation in trade so that's cool. In my DnD I aim at maximum simplicity, while also creating some meaningful differences. As I use advantage on d20, I give the longer weapon advantage over the shorter one unless in tight quarters or grappling. Daggers deal 1d6 like short swords but short sword wielder would have the advantage. Spear is special in my system because it can be used one or two handed, but deals less damage than other polearms. Great sword is also a polearm in my system. My long sword is also 1 or 2 handed. With light weapons you can use dexterity instead of strength. It's good to start with some vision of what you wish to accomplish like you have here. Realism as such isn't a particularly good aim because you will always need to compromise even if you're willing to make a super complex system unlike anything ever seen. I'm just stating this because it seems like a popular aim. It is of course good to aim for a level of realism that suits your other main goals, like you did with the spear.

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice! I like the simplicity of advantage to the longer weapon!

[@paavohirn3728]

@@BanditsKeep Yeah. I haven't playtested that quite enough yet but for years I wanted to try a system like this and then realized why not try advantage as the mechanic. Your defense bonus is a good idea too! Would be cool to distinguish swords from axes etc, but I decided to go with more simplicity for now.

[@MrRourk]

The Arcanum System works well There is a free SRD for the Arcanum 30th Anniversary Edition

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool, I’ll check it out

[@edwardromero3580]

That's pretty cool. I might give it a shot with my current group. All of them are relatively new to D&D and one of the things that they seem to struggle with is the idea of the d20 "hit" not effecting the damage they inflict. "But I hit him with a 19! I only get d6 damage?" Your system seems like it would solve that. Plus, I like that it's just one die roll. Might really speed up the game. The only roadblock I see is that I tend to throw a lot of little tweaks and changes at them as I'm developing my system. This might be a bridge too far.

[@BanditsKeep]

Always worth a shot! I tend to do “tests” with my group and new ideas/systems so they know it’s just a trial and they can have input

[@jasonconnerley]

I would rule regardless if you win initiative or not that the round you fire your bow you can’t use your shield but I’m not a softy like Daniel

[@BanditsKeep]

I was definitely being too soft, I’ll have to get them with a dragon next time! 😊

[@johnstuartkeller5244]

I'm going to test some of these with my players, I think. Really cool ideas. My main OSE/ B/X adaptation for combat has to do with how to look at AC, and comes from an unfortunately defunct game named Backswords & Bucklers, an OSR set in Tudor England. Defense is equal to Dex bonus/penalty, for coordination, and base attack bonus, reflecting training and experience, and shield, for focused deflecting (usually +2, +1 if your character is weilding a pair of weapons, instead.) Armor gives Damage Reduction. Generally, going by what is offered in B/X type books, it is DR 2 for gambison, DR 4 for chainmail, DR 6 for platemail. Specific armors, like piecemeal armor arrangements, brigandine, half-plate, etc, are thought up on the fly with these as guidelines, according to what the DM or the player envisions. This is, for me, a little more representative of how armor works, how skilled the combatants are, and what my friends and I practice in our HEMA training, while staying relatively simple.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool - is plate DR6 against each attack? That is really powerful!

[@johnstuartkeller5244]

@@BanditsKeep You are right about that, but plate was pricy and prized for a reason. I also tend to run in a low-magic setting.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@johnstuartkeller5244 do you make it expensive by the rules it’s pretty cheap and really DR-6 seems too much IMO unless weapons like the mace ignore it IMO but I’d love to hear how it plays out

[@johnstuartkeller5244]

@@BanditsKeep The price is prohibitive enough that non-nobles can't afford it. Now, adventurers are not normally nobility, and can soon afford plate, but ecause of the precedent set by socioeconomic status, it is also illegal for non-nobles or appropriate military to own or wear plate; especially in towns & cities, lots of legal regulation of arms & armor. As for finding armor, it is a little difficult to operate in unless time is taken to fit it properly, and if you take it to an armorer ... they have a legal obligation to report it. Also, I've been limiting the gaining of hp per level to 4th level of advancement. Some situations will bypass or reduce the effectiveness of DR. Platemail will not protect you efficiently from dragon breath, for instance; you will be cooked! Also, in another nod to B&B, missile weapons (arrows, bullets, slingstones, not thrown weapons) do 1dx + 1d6/ attackers level, max of +4d. And, this is all still developing, but so far we've been having fun with this.

[@johnstuartkeller5244]

Oh, and you mentioned maces. Certain weapon types (makes, picks, rondel daggers, pikes) can bypass, but they need to find the chinks in the armor to do so. We usually use called-shots for that, depending on the weapon. I reward player creativity, and use it against them in turn.

[@BlackJar72]

I've been working on creating my own game rules (mostly just because I can) and they use a similar mechanics -- though with differences since it uses a completely different dice mechanic, has slightly different goals, and diverges more from the D&D rules (though I have a not to complicated way to mostly convert monsters). Generally I think it's a great system, though when discussed as a house rule for D&D it leads me to the quest, "How much can you change the core rules and have it be the same game?" Ultimately, there will be pros and cons to both, of course, so which is "better" is a matter of priorities (as well as taste)."

[@BanditsKeep]

I think if we add house rules that completely change major mechanics we are definitely getting close to creating another game or a least a new version of it. Which is fine with me :)

[@nickyhaller4530]

I rather like this take on a "critical" hit. If the weapons break, or someone is disarmed, that makes a major difference to the way the combat will play out, considerng how important weapons are to defense. It gives the fight a bit more flavor than if the attacker simply dealt extra damage. Really, once an enemy is disarmed or has a broken weapon, other members of the party can do more damage, since the weapon no longer provides a defense bonus. Overall, I think this version of critical is a nice little detail in what seems to be a very fun combat system

[@BanditsKeep]

Very good point! Even in the example combat this plays out - the AC reduction causes our hero to get hit.

[@Sierra99]

Funny enough, I was just playing with making a system that better represented the defense capabilities and other niches of different types of weapons (I had axes smash shields on crits, at cost of half damage). I also came to the conclusion of rolled attack - enemy defense = damage. My system differed in that it had no d20, I was thinking different weapons would have different attack dice, i.e. a dagger might do 1d4 but a mace would do 1d6, plus a bonus, maybe flat maybe another die, against heavy armor, and there would be a defense roll with a dice pool determined by armor and weapon type. It was a very rough sketch, just typed out the above with some more details on a work break, literally yesterday. But I like this system! Dice pools may get a too complex to work out the math on with totally shifting the design of the game. One thing I was wondering was, why would anyone use a mace when a standard sword is objectively better, with higher attack and defense bonuses?

[@BanditsKeep]

In meta terms you’d use a mace because you can’t use a sword (like a cleric). It would be nice to have some additional bonuses etc but I want to try and balance simplicity with “realism” - for sure through it’s something to consider

[@krootmen]

This is my fave Video So afar, I have been toying with my own system loosley based on 5e, I really want some kind of armour peircing and dodge, i also want shields to be a choice and not a throw away addition. I am trying to do this by making three types of shield, Buckler(small +1ac), round/kite(medium-1dex+2ac?+3ac) and tower (large -2dex+4ac+5ac?); this is because overall your ac will increase whilst you have to make the choice do i want an overall better ac but worse dex? in 5e if you have an even dex then you are likely loosing a +1ac by using a shield but if oyu have odd dex then you lose nothing and so its a great win. I know i am making combat more complicated by adding an extra characteristic, but i really think dodging and armour should be separate. Kind of like how warhammer worked, to hit, to dmg, then wounds. so three rolls instead of 2? Dodge will work with a exhaustion mechanic, if your dex excedes the targets by x amount then it cost 3/2/1 exhuastion to completely negate the attack. i am thinking around 10 exhaustion will be the upper limit, more or less depending on dex/constitution. I swing between using d100 and d20, should people roll handfulls of dice? I need help!

[@BanditsKeep]

That sounds cool, I do like rolling handfuls of dice!

[@Cxdfc]

This system seems real similar to ‘WARBIRDS’ which is a single d6 system called ‘rapidfire’ Roll 1d6 to hit in combat and your damage is the LEAD (difference in your total vs the enemy defense stat) Damage also modded by the weapon. A pistol deals 1+ lead damage, a Heavy MG is like 3+lead and can hit multiple targets. Etc. great and simple premise! However, that system gets bogged down with with tons of additional modifiers and calculations to hog the brain space between the roll and the final result, which i see a bit in here as well.

[@BanditsKeep]

I can see that, I think the “trick” based on my play testing is to calculate all your numbers up front so during combat (unless something changes - broken weapon etc) you are simply rolling 1d20+ mod (per calculated) and subtracting the enemy AC

[@N1GHT_H0UND]

could you please make a pdf for 5e this system sounds awesome

[@BanditsKeep]

What would you want different for 5e? This can work in any d20 system with AC?

[@inquisitorlev8456]

Nice shirt!

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@budahbaba7856]

I would definitely like to try this idea, though i can certainly see getting player resistance -but perhaps not for the reason you might expect. While as a DM, i appreciate the elegance of placing Critical hits on the number where offense & defense converge, from player perspective, it deprives them of the sacred joy of the "Natural 20!" My players would not accept this system unless the preeminence of the natural 20 were convincingly maintained. Still, as a DM, i really like it!

[@BanditsKeep]

That seems like some type of Pavlovian training 😜 - just make them aware that the chance of scoring any number on a d20 is the same- whether it be a 20 or the target number 😊. Seriously though I think we as DMs believe things about our players that may or may not be accurate and rolling a 20 is still going to be “max damage” so still awesome

[@jeffallen559]

@@BanditsKeep I think the reason why you keep it as nat 20 is because the way you have it a crit would occur which gives a special effect but wouldn't do any damage. I think because of that it makes more sense to make it 20.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@jeffallen559 i can see the logic, but I feel the “natural 20” thing is given way too much power in most games - and what do you do if it ties? A miss?

[@jeffallen559]

@@BanditsKeep I think the problem really is that a critical hit in your house rule never results in damage, only the special effect. Maybe that is okay. I guess I'm just used to critical hits doing more damage. I do like the rest of it though, so to me this is a minor issue.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@jeffallen559 right, that’s exactly what makes it different - why hold on to some vestige of an old system? In any case - sure have it do extra damage if that works for your table - I enjoy the discussion for sure.

[@TheArcturusProject]

Nice! A lot of food for thought there. I love it, I just wish I could make it a little bit simpler, less math.... XD

[@BanditsKeep]

Ha ha I am a bit of a math nerd to be honest

[@Tysto]

The problem i see straight away is that you're rolling 1d20, which yields flat results, but using it to determine how good your attack is (damage done), which is something that is not flat; it should be a bell curve. Gygax wanted a d20 specifically to avoid a bell curve, because he wanted it only to determine whether or not you hit, which is best handled as a flat roll, and a d20 mimics a percentile in 5% increments, so bonuses are “chunky” & the math stays simple. (1d100 +13 would be annoying to roll all the time.) Worse, you’re doing subtraction math for every successful attack's damage, which we found with THAC0 was annoying compared to addition. I think if you just rolled damage separately, you’d be fine.

[@BanditsKeep]

The problem I see is you used the word problem 🤷🏻‍♂️ We had fun and I found it made weapon choice really meaningful for both attack and defense. So it worked for us. If it doesn’t work for you, don’t try it

[@Tysto]

Let's say a 1st level magic-user attacks an unarmored human with a dagger & rolls a 19. He add +1 for fighting ability & +3 for the dagger, making it 23. Subtract the opponent's AC of 10, & the magic-user does 13 points damage with a dagger? A high-level fighter with +10 for fighting and a battle axe (+6) and maybe +2 for strength might do 27 points damage? And those attacks aren't unusual. They’re just as likely as other values. You have three different ACs (melee, missiles, & unarmed). A 13th level thief with leather armor (12) & +2 for dex & using a short sword (+4) is AC 19. But unarmed he is still AC 15. And against missile attacks, he's AC 14 in armor but AC 15 without armor. Am i missing something here?

[@BanditsKeep]

@@Tysto I’m not checking your math but in practice the system is very deadly - is that your point? Getting stabbed with a dagger can kill you just as well as a sword A give that unarmed guy a spear and he’s not going down so easy.

[@Armitage_Shanks]

Very cool. Might try this with my crew. One issue maybe though (or a possible tweak) is the idea of 'range' in close combat. Just thinking that 'Yes', spears and polearms and Greatswords would be great for defense up to a certain point (keeping foes a distance) but once an opponent gets in real close they become a hinderance to defense. So maybe long weapons have some kind of a split value with a lesser defense bonus up close (might even be less damage up close since they need room to effectively wield?) - Dont want to make it unnecessarily complicated but might be easy enough to implement?

[@BanditsKeep]

This seems reasonable but I felt like it would add too much complication- let me know if you try it and how it works out!

[@JGroomsMMA]

Any thoughts on flintlock pistols etc in this style of system. Love the stuff.

[@BanditsKeep]

I’d treat either them like other missile weapons and just make the ranges appropriate or create a black powder missiles chart with the numbers a bit higher

[@DDCRExposed]

I'd certainly give it a shot but would require extra time (at first) to setup encounters. I also enjoyed that disarming targets is now pretty important since weapons add to the AC bonus, which is something missed from D&D. 👍 Also, how does this system work with picking up a weapon vs drawing one?

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool, let me know how it works. As far as picking up a weapon - if it’s been knocked out of melee (with a crit) they would need to break from melee to get it - so depending on the system this could trigger an opportunity attack. Drawing a weapon would usually be a free action.

[@jeffallen559]

Do you have any play sessions where you used this that I could watch?

[@BanditsKeep]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gouWgp99iJeklas

[@dansantospirito5310]

Note to self: get a Sons of Gygax t-shirt.

[@BanditsKeep]

🙌🏻🙌🏻

[@KayttakaaHumehia]

It is rather simple, I see Bandits Keep video, I click. What do you think about random generators Daniel? I am making my own NPC and encounter generator in javascript for my own world-setting so doesn't it basically count as prepping? lol

[@BanditsKeep]

Yes that’s prepping 😊

[@Vasious8128]

You have a podcast and discuss chainmail Why haven't I been paying attention

[@BanditsKeep]

I don’t “push” the podcast much as Intend to post there pretty infrequently

[@deathbare5306]

Yeah anytime you add nuance you slow the mechanic down at the table, and generally for nothing more than a few numbers more on a D20 which will be statistically insignificant. Easier just to add one or two to the armor and call it a day.

[@BanditsKeep]

I’d agree if you are doing the math on the fly - but here the bonus is a single number (if you pre calculate) so doesn’t seem to slow things down from my limited play testing anyway

[@deathbare5306]

@@BanditsKeep I'm with you, and to that end THACO works too - just use the chart right! But it goes back to what problem are you actually trying to solve with the solution? I assume it's early characters dying because their AC and HP too low and this would compensate. Thoughts?

[@BanditsKeep]

@@deathbare5306 nope, I’ve actually found this to be more deadly in my playtests. My thought was someone unarmored but with a spear is still gonna be hard to hit with your sword - the spear makes a huge difference in defense (as does a sword for that matter) my objective was -#1 to showcase the defensive nature of weapons. #2 have the d20 roll be more meaningful than hit/miss.

[@VitorRedes]

I don't really understand why range attacks are so bad in most OSR's, ranged attacks are powerful and in my way of understanding, should translate as powerful to any game.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed - they are. In this system your melee AC bonus does not protect you so on average (besides the attack bonus granted) you are shooting at AC 4 points easier. Only against shield bearing opponents are your thwarted.

[@ericpeavey]

How did you find the original bx font?

[@BanditsKeep]

It’s Soutane - I just googled it I believe

[@ddis29]

comment

[@BanditsKeep]

Ok, I will 😊