Anti-Freedom Specters for LotFP

(Image is from HERE. This was the only screenshot I could find on Google.)

I'm a big fan of FilmCow, so recently I watched Detective Heart of America: The Final Freedom. It's great, and you should watch it.

The movie had creepy aliens (or at least alien-like entities), and they inspired me to write up a similar monster for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. But what do I know? I'm just a stupid fucking BABY.

Anti-Freedom Specters from Outer Space

AC 12, Move 120' (Hovering up to 4 feet off the ground, can hover over water, cannot "run"), 1 HD, Morale 12.

One touch attack per combat round (at +0 to hit) for instant death - on a successful hit, the target dies, with no saving throw permitted.
Number Appearing: 1 per every 100 people in the target area who could be considered "residents," "natives," "locals," or "citizens," up to a maximum of 100.

These vaguely humanoid beings are completely covered in cloaks made of black ribbon-like strips of synthetic material punctuated by red, black, and gray plastic tubes, wires, and metal plates. Some of them also sport glass vacuum tubes, large strips or patches of rubber, or small metallic devices of unknown purpose. Their black, laminated hands are long and thin, with fingers that average two feet in length and have up to six knuckles each. They lack legs, and generally move by hovering through the air ponderously. They can climb things like ladders and ropes (at half the speed of humans), but are poor climbers (unable to scale walls or even really steep inclines without generous handholds), and will not climb unless they have absolutely no other obvious way of reaching their prey.

They appear on the horizon and move inexorably toward population centers of at least 100 people in which the legal or social conditions are in imminent danger of becoming more free. Places where voting laws are about to be implemented or expanded, where prohibitions are about to be overturned, or where slavery is about to be outlawed are popular targets for these beings. They go to such places and attempt to kill all humans (or beings of roughly human-level intelligence) within the area. They seem to be able to sense whether or not an individual is a citizen or native of a region - they will chase such people for miles, possibly even to the ends of the earth, but those who are foreigners or visitors to the place being attacked will not be pursued beyond the area's political borders (like the edge of town or a national border). The specters also will not pursue citizens beyond such borders if there are still any other living people in the target zone who are not already being attacked or pursued by another specter. They seem to prioritize killing those in the target area over killing those who have fled. When chasing someone, the specters will follow doggedly until they completely lose track of their prey - their senses seem to be about as keen as those of the average human.

Anti-Freedom Specters will attack cities of more than 10,000 people, but they will never attack in groups of more than 100.

Sometimes, their attacks are preceded by featureless, hollow iron cylinders which fall to earth like shooting stars. These cylinders always land far from the area that the specters attack (just over the horizon, in fact), and when they are observed to fall it is always within 48 hours of the specters' appearance. Strangely, the specters do not always initially approach their target areas from the same direction in which the cylinder lands. The cylinders weigh an average of 100 pounds, and the iron is of a high level of purity; blacksmiths may be willing to buy this metal for use as raw material.

Anti-Freedom Specters attack by touching people with one of their outstretched fingers. This attack works through thin clothing, but not thick coverings (i.e. anything that would count as armor, thus the necessary roll to hit). When a specter touches a victim, every molecule of fluid in the person's body bursts out instantly at high speed, spraying gore in all directions. The effect is like popping a water balloon full of runny paint. The specters attack with no sense of self-preservation, but they do employ some rudimentary tactics like surrounding targets or cutting off escape routes.

When injured but not killed, they seem to be hollow and emit small drafts of ozone. Upon dying, the specters completely turn into human blood. When a group of specters have completed their extermination (aside from anyone who has both left the target area and successfully evaded pursuit), they commit suicide through some unknown means, instantly dying at will.

Random Minor Treasure Table - Lamentations of the Fallen Lords

When my Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign based on the Myth computer game series was in its early stages, I made a small table of minor treasures to roll on when I felt that a player should logically find (or had properly earned) some small bit of loot, but I didn't have anything specific prepared for them to discover. It was helpful when I wanted to keep the game moving but I couldn't think of anything better right off the cuff. I haven't used it in a while, though, so I might as well post it here.

Lamentations of the Fallen Lords - Random Minor Treasure
Roll a d12:
1. Pile of 50sp
2. Knick-knack worth 75sp
3. Pile of 100sp
4. Knick-knack worth 150sp
5. Mage Spellbook with 2 new first-level spells
6. Scroll with 2 random first-level spells
7. Random Silver Masterwork Weapon (+1 to hit, +1 damage, non-magical, random chance of breaking as with normal silver weapons)
8. 3 Jarl Roots of Cure Light Wounds
9. 3 Jarl Roots of Delay Poison
10. Mage Spellbook with 1 new second-level spell
11. Scroll with 1 random second-level spell
12. 3 Arrows of stoning (Save vs. Poison or target instantly dies through petrification, only works on enemies 4HD or less, otherwise works the same as a normal arrow)

In hindsight, I should have probably made things more like "1d2 new first-level spells" and "1d3 Arrows" etc. Then again, one of my tentative goals when starting this campaign was to see what would happen when I went full Monty Haul with treasure/XP and otherwise went over-the-top when using the LotFP rules and adventures, so whatever.

Glaive of Temporal Deferment - Magic Item for LotFP

At an early stage of my Lamentations of the Fallen Lords campaign, one of my players asked if there was any possibility of discovering a magic item that would help ease the heavy encumbrance of wearing plate armor. This is what I came up with.

The Glaive of Temporal Deferment is decorated on both the head and the haft with alchemical equations and poetic verses venerating a being called "Camael." The wooden haft has a slightly reddish hue. The weapon is well-crafted, and the design of the head is somewhat fanciful, with lots of intricate, abstract detailing.

Unless the wielder is the "owner" of the Glaive, it counts as an over-encumbering item, and it will be either unable to hit or unable to do damage if used to attack - some accident or coincidence will always prevent a blow from being landed, or soften the blow so that it does no damage.

To become the "owner," you must sign your name on the blade in your own blood (or make some deliberate mark or symbol in place of your name if you are illiterate or otherwise unable to write your name). The signing ritual does 1d4 damage due to blood loss and takes 1 round - it's a big signature. The signee must also mentally agree to become the owner while signing. The instructions for this process are written in tiny script on the langet, along with a note that ownership can only be relinquished through death. A new owner cannot claim the Glaive until the previous owner dies.

To the owner, the Glaive counts as an unencumbering item. If the owner is within the same 10' space as the Glaive, the owner is treated as having two less points of encumbrance.

If the owner attacks (with any weapon) while within the same 10' space as the Glaive and rolls a natural 1 to hit, the owner gains 1 point of temporary encumbrance that can only be removed through a full day of rest. It is as if an invisible force is weighing the owner down.

If the owner is reduced to less than one-fourth of their maximum HP (round down) at any point, no matter how close or far away the Glaive is from the owner, the owner gains 1 point of temporary encumbrance that can only be removed by restoring their HP to one-fourth or more of their maximum amount.*

When the owner dies, all copper, silver, and gold within 10' of the owner at the moment of death transforms into solid Osmium.

(If you think the cons outweigh the pros a bit too much to make this weapon worthwhile, you could always either make the Glaive remove more points of encumbrance or give it a small to-hit and/or damage bonus. The player who got this weapon in my campaign was happy with it as-is, though. Besides, magic items in Lamentations of the Flame Princess are generally meant to straddle the thin line between useful items and cursed ones, right?)

*Originally, I wrote the rule to state "If reduced to less than 1/4 HP (round down), the owner gains 1 point of encumbrance that can only be removed through a full day of rest," but I think the new rule above makes more sense.

Holmes Basic D&D Rulebook Part 7 - Book of Erotic Web-Slinging

PART 7 OF 12

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Before I continue, I wanted to make a correction of sorts regarding Part 4. When I read the following passage...

"A character surprised by a monster may drop whatever he is holding [...]"

...I took the word "may" to mean "can optionally choose to." Looking around the OSR blogosphere, I think I was meant to take the word "may" to mean "must (if a 6 is rolled)." Don't you just love the ambiguity of the English language? Anyway, that makes a lot more sense than what I thought it meant. I added a note to Part 4 linking to this correction.

Picking up where I left off, let's look at the spells included in Holmes Basic. The book lists spell names for three levels of Magic-User spells, but only describes the first two levels and notes of the third-level spells "They are listed above to give some idea of the range of magical possibilities." The book lists two levels of Cleric spells, including spell descriptions, but notes that the second-level Cleric spells are only listed for scrolls and NPCs, since a Cleric has to reach fourth level to cast them normally.

Since it's such a short list, I'm just going to go over each spell description individually.

First Level Magic-User
Charm Person - Instead of giving a Hit Dice limit, the description says the spell only affects "two legged, generally mammalian humanoids of approximately man size" and give some examples. I noticed that ogres are not a listed example, but I don't think the list is meant to be exhaustive, so I'd probably allow it to work on ogres. (I mention that because I remember reading a really good B/X actual play report that involved charmed ogres, so the possibility appeals to me.) It also notes that undead monsters are immune, and that monsters get additional saving throws over time based on their intelligence. There's a chart explaining which intelligence scores give which saving throw intervals, but the monster stats don't include intelligence scores. Presumably the DM could determine such scores through rolling (like with dexterity) or through fiat (just picking something that seems to make sense). What the spell actually does is handled by one sentence: "If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the magic-user." I guess you can boss it around as much as you want without refusal, even getting it to kill itself if desired. Powerful stuff. Who says first-level spells suck? (Of course, that's my interpretation of the wording, though.)

Dancing Lights - This creates floating lights similar to the lanterns carried by adventures, which the Magic-User can command. It seems to basically be useful for distraction. Strangely, it doesn't give a diameter of the spell's illumination like the Light spell does.

Detect Magic - Exactly what it says. Want to know if a door has Wizard Lock cast on it, or if that sword is more than a piece of rusty crap? Here you go.

Enlargement - This seems to be the kind of thing the DM needs to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis, since making things bigger doesn't seem to have any explicit, direct mechanical effects in most cases. I suppose you could also cast it on a monster to make it too big to follow the party through a small door or something.

Hold Portal - Kind of like a temporary Wizard Lock. Insert Game of Thrones spoilers here.

Light - Helps the thrifty Magic-User save a torch or two.

Magic Missile - Famously, the Holmes version of the spell is the only one in any official edition of D&D to require a to-hit roll. It also does decent damage in this version: d6+1.

Protection from Evil - Both Magic-Users and Clerics can cast this one, but it lasts 6 turns for the former and 12 for the latter. This is what one would call a "buff" spell in the modern gaming parlance: +1 to saving throws and -1 to enemy to-hit rolls when fighting "enchanted monsters such as elementals, invisible stalkers, demons, etc." The description notes that this spell stacks with other forms of magical protection, to use another gaming term that probably wasn't used when this came out.
Hold on, let me flip through the book again...Nope. No elementals, invisible stalkers, or demons in this book. My assumption is that the spell would apply to any creature of evil alignment, though, so it still seems quite useful.

Read Languages - Magic-Users can only cast this on themselves. I think that's typical of this spell throughout different editions of D&D, but I'm note sure. Anyway, this is another one with a function that's pretty obvious just from the name, besides the fact that Read Magic is sometimes needed instead (see below).

Read Magic - "The means by which incantations on an item or scroll are read." So wait, if your Magic-User wasn't fortunate enough to start with this spell (or maybe get it when leveling up), you just straight-up can't use scrolls? I hate to be so negative again, but that really sucks. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here. This is why all Magic-Users and Elves in the current Lamentations of the Flame Princess rules always start with Read Magic, even though their other spells are determined randomly.
Well, on the bright side, "once a scroll is looked at under a Read Magic spell, the magic-user can read it again without such aid."

Shield - Gives the caster AC 2 against missiles and AC 4 against other attacks. Probably another useful buff, although it's a shame it can't be cast on others.

Sleep - This one is based on HD, and no save is allowed. The stats at the beginning say "Duration: 4-16 turns" but the first line of the description under that says "Puts all kinds of creatures to sleep for 2-8 turns." Could that be an editing error? Also, I haven't been able to find an explanation in the book regarding what happens when someone attacks a sleeping monster. Normal damage (but without the need for a to-hit roll)? Full damage? Instant kill? It can vary a lot between versions of the game, from my understanding. I loved Sleep in Pool of Radiance because it meant auto-kills upon hitting the monsters, and I think that game was based on either 1E or 2E AD&D. In LotFP, I think that hitting a sleeping monster generally just does your weapon's full damage.
Anyway, this seems like a powerful and fun spell, as usual.

Tenser's Floating Disc - "The wizard, Tenser, always greedy for more treasure, devised this spell." I think it's kind of strange when setting details leak into D&D rulebooks that otherwise seem to want to remain fairly setting-neutral. Of course, you could just rename it "Tantalus' Floating Disc" or something in your campaign.
This spell is for carrying your excess stuff - up to 5,000 gp in weight. It stays six feet behind the caster at all times. I wonder if the Magic-User could spin around in a circle and knock monsters down with it.

Ventriloquism - Make the kobolds think their pet rat is talking to them.

Second Level Magic-User
Audible Glamer - (Yes, that's how the book spells it.) Basically the advanced version of Ventriloquism. It lets you make different sounds instead of just your own voice, lets you control the volume, etc. Like many others, this spell's power scales with the caster's level; the book gives a (frankly kind of unhelpful) guide for this involving a lion and a giant snake.

Continual Light - Light, but better. In fact, it lasts infinitely until dispelled. Wow.

Darkness - Stops normal vision and infravision in a 50' radius. Seems useful.

Detect Evil - "A spell to detect evil thought or evil intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object." Is this just a fancy way of saying that it detects whether or not a creature is of an evil alignment, or can I use this spell to find out if little Timmy, normally a good boy, is considering some mischief? If it's the latter, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding what the DM considers evil vs. what the player considers evil.
Also, this bit amuses me: "Poison, however, is neither good nor evil." Oh yeah? Then why does AD&D consider the use of poison such a wicked act, and why does this very book recommend that the DM "not allow players to make use of poisoned weapons in all but extreme situations," hmm?

Detect Invisible - The emphasis seems to be on finding invisible treasure, with invisible monsters being an afterthought. Interesting.

ESP - Seems to be about the same as the LotFP version of the spell, which was relevant last Saturday when someone had it mixed with the Permanancy spell in preparation for Death Frost Doom. Which is funny, because as Dr. Holmes put it, "The undead do not think."

Invisibility - The duration is infinite, at least until something happens that would break the spell. Wow! You can cast it on objects or other people, too.

Knock - Open sesame, basically.

Levitate - You can only use this to travel vertically (unless you crawl on the ceiling or something, of course). Still seems handy.

Locate Object - Find your car keys. Assuming all you need is the direction and they're within a limited range, of course.

Magic Mouth - Inflict Big Mouth Billy Bass on your enemies.

Mirror Image - Confuse idiots for fun and profit.

Phantasmal Forces - The silent, visual equivalent of Audible Glamer...except better in every way. It lasts as long as the caster concentrates on it or until touched (which makes it not as good of a fire-and-forget distraction, but otherwise seems like an improvement), it can be "nearly anything the user envisions," and best of all, it can do real damage "if the illusion is believed to be real." Holy crap! How does the DM determine how convincing an illusion is? I mean, couldn't the Magic-User conjure up an illusory dragon and just have it breathe fire on any monsters dumb enough to think a noiseless dragon that popped out of thin air is real? Or just summon an illusory Lightning Bolt or Fireball? Depending on how permissive the DM is, getting this spell could be like winning the Murderhobo Lottery.

Pyrotechnics - Makes a preexisting fire do fancy tricks. I'm not sure why this isn't a first-level spell.

Ray of Enfeeblement - Makes a monster temporarily lose 4 points of strength, which in turn makes the monster's physical attacks do 25% less damage. This is particularly interesting because low strength seems to have no such effect on PCs. Even more interesting, the ray is described as "a thin beam of coruscating graying light." That's a delightfully weird way to describe light.

Strength - Increases a character's strength by an amount based on their class. Unless DM fiat is used, this seems almost useless, since Strength has no explicit mechanical effects other than affecting the XP gained by Fighters. I guess it wouldn't hurt to help the Fighter gain slightly more XP for 48 turns.

Web - It does the usual thing, which is a useful thing, but I just want to point out the accompanying illustration by Dave Trampier (picture borrowed from this post from the always awesome Zenopus Archives).

This is a genuinely cool picture. This is also the kind of fantasy art I find sublimely hilarious. What did the bald, naked dude do to that wizard to make him so grumpy? Is the wizard not a fan of baldness and/or bare, muscular bodies? Is the wizard repressing his true feelings, as symbolized by the sticky fluid he shot all over the nude dude? Doth the wizard protest too much? Look at the force of that splatter on the guy's left hand! Was the guy with the sword truly threatening him, or just flashing him while simultaneously showing off his cool new sword? Will we have to excuse the wizard, because this sort of thing doesn't usually happen, or at least not so quickly? What is that multi-pronged device the wizard is wielding? Does it indicate he come prepared for some action? Is that a halo behind the wizard's head, signifying the majesty which the prone figure now beholds? Is this some kind of elaborate role play? Should we give these two some privacy? Dungeons and Dragons indeed.

Wizard Lock - Prevents a door from being opened. (That link is NSFW.)

My nominations for the coolest Magic-User spells: Charm Person, Magic Missile, Sleep, Continual Light, Darkness, Detect Invisible, ESP, Invisibility, Knock, Levitate, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Forces, Ray of Enfeeblement, Web, and Wizard Lock.

A quick note: like in most versions of old-school D&D (to the best of my knowledge), Clerics gain access to their whole list of spells, although they still have to memorize specific spells each day they go adventuring.

First Level Cleric
Cure Light Wounds - The usual. Heals d6+1 HP. The Cleric must touch the target. Strangely, the book specifies that the spell works on elves, dwarves, and "hobbits." Was there any reason to think it wouldn't work on them?

Detect Evil - The same as the Magic-User version, except the range and duration are greater.

Detect Magic - Exactly the same as the Magic-User version.

Remove Fear - Counters a "fear wand attack." Unless it also fixed failed morale checks in hirelings or something, it seems like this spell would be of very limited usefulness. I don't see why most Clerics would even bother to memorize it unless they know for a fact that some upcoming villain has fear-based magic.

Resist Cold - Reduced cold-based damage by 1, gives a +2 bonus to saving throws against cold-based spells and abilities, and most likely makes cold weather and such more bearable, at the DM's discretion. Probably most useful when the party knows a white dragon is in the dungeon.

Light - The same as the Magic-User version, except the Cleric version last a flat 12 turns while the Magic-User version lasts 6 + the caster's level in turns.

Protection from Evil - The same as the Magic-User version, but longer lasting.

Purify Food and Water - Makes enough spoiled or poisoned food edible for up to 12 people. Reminds me of da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper.

Second Level Cleric
Bless - A buff that boosts morale and to-hit rolls by 1. Perhaps the most classic and iconic of all buffs.

Find Traps - Does what it says. Could be a lifesaver.

Hold Person - What that wizard secretly wants to do to that naked guy. Basically paralyzes enemies. The book compares it to Charm Person, but I think it's really closer to Sleep.

Know Alignment - Not only does it tell the caster if you're good or bad, it also tells the caster how good or bad. Oh boy. Let's hope the DM's moral compass is well-calibrated.

Resist Fire - Basically Resist Cold, but for fire. The duration is 6 turns, but the target can apparently only deal with direct exposure to fire for 2 rounds before the damage begins. Reminds me of this.

Silence: 15' Radius - Does what it says. Good stuff.

Snake Charm - It's like Charm Person, but for a much more limited duration. Oh, and it only works on snakes. Is this some kind of obscure religious reference?

Speak with Animals - Become Doctor Dolittle. Useful in all kinds of situations.

EVIL CLERIC SPELLS - Evil Clerics have some spells that follow Opposite Day rules all the time: Cause Light Wounds, Detect Good, Darkness (is this the same as the Magic-User spell?), Contaminate Food and Water, Cause Fear, and Curse. The way these work is probably pretty obvious, but I would have personally appreciated some extra guidance. How much damage does contaminated food do? Does Cause Fear work anything like the Turn Undead ability? Why no Protection from Good? Etc.

Coolest Cleric spells: Cure/Cause Light Wounds, Cause Fear, Resist Cold, Light/Darkness, Protection from Evil, Purify/Contaminate Food and Water, Bless/Curse, Find Traps, Hold Person, Resist Fire, Silence: 15' Radius, and Speak with Animals. Huh...that's most of them. I guess I'm one of those weirdos who likes Clerics, at least in this edition.

I like that the Magic-User spell list has more variety than the Cleric one. If you're going by the classic D&D archetypes, someone who dedicates their life's training to magic usually should have more options and more potential for magical power than someone who splits their training between martial and magical matters. I do think the Magic-User could use a little beefing up, though. I'm sure I'm not the first person to think that.

Despite some quibbles and confusion, I really like this spell list. There's a lot here that makes me want to play a Magic-User or Cleric. My only major points of contention are 1) the dependence of Magic-Users on Read Magic when actually getting that spell seem to be a crapshoot, 2) my usual problems with alignment, and 3) a very large reliance on DM fiat for the basic workings of many spells. That last point isn't necessarily a problem, and often it can be a strength, but it can be a major problem if the expectations of the DM and the players don't line up as well as everyone thought they would. Too much explanation and codification can kill creativity, but too little can lead to a lot of arguments or a greater possibility of inconsistency or unfairness on the part of the DM. It's hard to strike a balance. For a lot of people, I'm sure this rulebook strikes that balance well. For my tastes in particular, I'm not entirely sure. Still, the spells in this book seem fun, evocative, and most importantly, magical. They make me want to round some people up and play.

Next time: What is best in life?

PS This isn't directly related, but I just read this blog post from Basic Red, and it's very smart and very beautiful.

Death Frost Doom Random "Encounter" Table

I wrote this random encounter table (really more of a "random spooky effect" table) for Death Frost Doom, and then ended up not using it because I was distracted by various chaotic things in both the game and reality. Perhaps someone else could get some use from it.

The idea, as per this excellent blog post from Dungeon of Signs, was to create a table of "odd noises and atmospheric effects." I tried to avoid things that affect the characters in terms of mechanics and concentrate on creating paranoia and unease in the players, instead. The lack of monsters throughout the beginning of the adventure really helps build the suspense, so I wanted to add to that instead of taking away from it.

Some of my inspirations include Oculus, the Silent Hill series (especially Silent Hill 3), Jacob's Ladder, House of Leaves, and In the Mouth of Madness. My wife provided some cool suggestions that wound up on here. I also recommend reading this very useful blog post from Lamentations of the Blood Countess.

Roll for a random encounter as usual. If one would normally occur, roll a d30 on the following table:

1. For the next d6 turns, everyone in the party will be under the delusion that they number one more person than they really do. They will not perceive any specific extra individual, but any count will come up wrong, and they will have the feeling of an extra person in their midst.
2. The cry of a baby is heard, very loud and close, from the direction the party just came from. It will be suddenly and immediately silenced.
3. For the next d6 turns, everyone is colorblind except when they hold their heads very still or focus very hard on one spot.
4. A big gust of freezing wind sweeps past the party.
5. A random party member finds a moldy, frozen apple in their pocket or bag.
6. Groaning is heard from the walls as the shrine settles like an old house.
7. For d6 turns, a random party member smells like a putrid corpse.
8. From an unknown source, a voice mimicking a random party member viciously and personally insults a single other random party member. The voice only speaks one or two sentences, then goes silent.
9. For d6 turns, everyone present perceives each other's eyes to be black and empty.
10. A hissing noise, like a steam vent, is heard in the distance.
11. For one turn, the sound of their own blood pumping through their ears becomes almost intolerably loud for everyone in the party.
12. For a split second, no one present can catch their breath, as if the air is gone.
13. Tiny bits of ice fall from the ceiling with a low, subtle rumble.
14. Cracks abruptly open in the ice or stone on every surface.
15. For one turn, everyone present experiences hemineglect - they cannot perceive things on either the left or right (determine which side randomly for each person).
16. Pick a random player - for d6 turns, everyone looks like that player (Fregoli Delusion).
17. A clinking noise is heard in the distance, like chains.
18. The party encounters an inexplicable warm spot.
19. The scent of burnt hair and the taste of blood are faintly detected.
20. The party finds a tangle of human bones in a shallow, frozen puddle.
21. For a moment, agonized faces seem to writhe in the corners of everyone's vision.
22. Footprints are found going in circles and into walls.
23. Dried vines block the passage of the party where there were none before. They break into ashes when touched.
24. Dried blood and skull fragments are found on the wall, as if someone recently had their head bashed against it with great force.
25. For d6 turns, everyone present experiences an extra, phantom limb.
26. For one turn, everyone's ears seem to ring loudly.
27. Everyone must Save vs. Magic at a -4 penalty or experience a random emotion for one turn. Roll a d4: 1=Depressed, 2=Enraged, 3=Manic, 4=Numb.
28. For one round, everyone's joints ache and feel stiff.
29. Everyone must Save vs. Paralysis at a -4 penalty or else suffer unpleasant sensations. To each person, their skin will feel sweaty, sticky, ichy, hot, and generally uncomfortable, but to others, their skin will merely feel cold and clammy. Covered skin feels these sensations more acutely than bare skin.
30. All light is magically extinguished for d10 rounds, after which it returns as if nothing happened. During the blackout period, sounds are heard in the distance, coming slowly closer: moans, screams, tearing flesh, breaking bones, sobbing, wailing, whipping, clanking chains, thumping, grinding stone and metal, and vomiting. No time actually passes during this incident - in terms of spells, hunger, fatigue, items/resources, and any other time-based mechanics, treat the situation as if no additional time has passed.

Holmes Basic D&D Rulebook Part 6 - I'm Picturing a Wizard With a Bandolier Full of Scrolls

PART 6 OF 12

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

"He can then throw the spell by saying the magic words and making gestures with his hands."

Elf games are serious business, you guys.

Clerics don't get a spell until second level, in keeping with OD&D. But they can turn undead and wear plate mail at first level, so it's not like they aren't useful.

Here's that rule I was wondering about back in Part 1: what state does a Magic-User need to be in when casting a spell?

1. Not bound and gagged (or presumably in a similarly helpless or constrained state)
2. Not walking or running while casting
3. Not engaged in combat (which presumably means not attacking or being hit lest the spell be interrupted)
4. "In some cases the spell may require substances or apparatus, such as conjuring a water elemental (5th level) requires the presence of water, a sleep spell requires a pinch of sand." Presumably this is often just a "flavor" thing and not mechanically enforced, since the example inventory of Malchor the Magic-User didn't include any "spell components," as they were called in D&D 3.5. Still, I could see a DM requiring a Magic-User to be near a body of water for a water elemental summoning spell, or an unholy altar for a demon summoning, or whatever, since they're presumably more powerful/complicated spells than Sleep or Magic Missile. (Also, 5th level spells aren't in this rulebook, obviously.)

I don't see anything that explicitly states that a Magic-User couldn't, say, cast a spell with a torch in one hand and a dagger in the other, as long as they can still make the required hand gestures with any kind of accuracy. This would probably differ from DM to DM, but I would almost certainly allow it. Besides, by my reading, drawing a weapon that is at hand (presumably in a scabbard or hanging on a belt for easy access) seems to be a "free action" (to borrow another 3.5-ism) in most cases, so putting away a dagger to cast a spell should probably be quick and easy anyway. At any rate, Holmes Basic doesn't seem to concern itself with having one's hands free for casting in anything but an abstract way. This is an approach I'm very fond of. If you're not bound and helpless and you're able to concentrate, you can probably cast a spell.

Here's an interesting bit that I think is unique to Holmes Basic: Magic-Users can't take their spellbooks into the dungeon with them. They have to go back to their "study" (presumably in town) to re-memorize spells. That's kind of weird to me. Granted, there's no reason to want to bring your spellbook into the dungeon and risk losing it in this version of D&D, since you can't rest (and thus can't memorize spells) in the dungeon, but I still find it odd that you just flat-out can't do it, with no explanation given. Presumably this is just another method of abstraction. It's not like spellbooks are too heavy or something, since the rulebook states that Magic-Users learn new spells by finding them in books in the dungeon and bringing them back to their study. FAKE EDIT: Actually, the exact wording is "The magic-user acquires books containing the spells, the study of which allows him to memorize a spell for use." I interpreted "acquires" to mean "finds in the dungeon," but now I'm wondering if it just means "acquires at character creation" or something. See below.

Also, there is no need to spend time and money to copy spells from one book to another in Holmes D&D. Just get the book back home and you're good to go. I like this. My LotFP players would be jealous. I guess this means that accomplished Magic-Users in Holmes Basic don't have a spellbook so much as a shelf full of them. That's a nice image. Very flavorful. I've always liked the idea of wizards as book-hoarding librarians with quirky super powers born from studying a ton of tomes.

FAKE EDIT: I might have been wrong about the "finding spell books in the dungeon" thing. See below.

Holmes Basic doesn't concern itself with breaking spell memorization down by a specific number of hours. Like resting to recover HP, it just flat-out takes a single day to memorize a full arsenal of spells. I like this simplicity. It meshes well with the idea that resting in the dungeon isn't an option and delves are broken up by downtime in town, which is measured in one simple kind of unit. Considering the year Holmes Basic was released, this might be a weird thing to say, but it feels "video gamey" (or perhaps "board gamey") in a way that appeals to me, since I have fond memories of a lot of non-tabletop RPGs which roughly follow this pattern.

And now for what might be my favorite unique aspect of Holmes Basic: really permissive and simple rules for scribing scrolls. Get this: it only takes 1 week of time and 100gp per level of the spell you're scribing to make a scroll! Extrapolating from those rules, scribing a ninth level spell scroll would take a while (9 weeks), but it would only cost a mere 900gp. More significantly, a Magic-User that makes a decent score on a dungeon delve could spend a few weeks scribing a bunch of cheap first level scrolls and go into the dungeon loaded with extra castings of Charm Person. Your level 1 Magic-User could start building a small army of monsters with a pretty small investment. Granted, it takes time to make scrolls, but it's cheap and it's probably more than worth it. So far, I haven't found any rules for aging, so unless there's something time-sensitive the party needs to worry about, everyone else can probably just kick back and put their feet up while the Magic-User loads up on scrolls. That one spell per day limit for level 1 Magic-Users doesn't seem so bad now.

There are some rules for creating new spells, as well. I wonder if a "new" spell created in this way has to be something actually new to the game, or if the Magic-User could also gain spells off of the rulebook's pre-existing spell list through (costly and time-comsuming) research if they get tired of sifting through books in the dungeon hoping and praying for that one spell they really want. I'd probably allow it, but I don't know if that was intended by the designers. At any rate, it's nice to see the game encourage players to be creative and proactive in such a way. LotFP has similar rules for players to create new spells, and it's something I really enjoy about magic in D&D-style games.

There is a large (80%) chance of failure in the spell research rules in Holmes Basic, though. I'm not too happy about that, since the research costs 2,000gp per level of the spell and the spell has to already be approved by the DM ahead of time. I'd personally just let the poor player have the freaking spell after spending that much, but then again, I'm a big softie.

As I alluded in Part 1, intelligence affects the minimum and maximum "Number of Spells Knowable per Level" as well as the "% Chance to Know Any Given Spell." The way this is presented is a bit ambiguous to me. Is this table just meant to be used at character creation to see what starting spells the Magic-User gets, or is this meant to be continuously referenced throughout the game. If it is the latter, that would mean that the Magic-User can only have a certain number of spells in their "study" available to memorize in the first place, which I don't really like.

Also, that would imply...wait a minute, let me flip to the TREASURE section...

There are no spellbooks on the random treasure tables, and none are listed in the treasure description. And the way scrolls are described, they are just meant for one-off spell casting and not copying down into a spellbook.

Wait, so was I wrong about the hauling of books out of the dungeon and the amassing of an awesome wizard library? Are the only ways to learn new spells through either leveling up enough to unlock a new spell level, somehow increasing your intelligence, or doing magical research with a crappy success rate and a hefty price tag? Is there no chance of finding new spells in the dungeon or getting them as quest rewards? Even if you did get them, would you be unable to add them to your collection if you're not smart enough to figure out how the fit more books on your damn shelf?

I'm sorry, but that sucks.

At least the game throws Magic-Users a bone in letting them try to pick their starting spells. That's where the "% Chance to Know Any Given Spell" comes in. You roll randomly for the spells you want, and if you don't get them you roll randomly for the spells you don't want, and if you don't get those you start over until you at least have your minimum number of spells know. That seems like an okay system, at least. It's not my favorite approach, but it's not bad. The wording of the example in the rulebook does make it kind of ambiguous whether or not this is just supposed to be done at character creation or before every adventure. If it's the latter, does that mean that the Magic-User is constantly losing access to previously-known spells and getting new ones? I didn't expect all of this to be so confusing. Most of what I've discussed in this post is on just one page of the book.

There's also a section on SAVING THROWS. It seems pretty straightforward for the most part, but it's not entirely clear to me which monsters use which saving throws. The specific part that trips me up is this: "Large or powerful creatures like demons, balrogs and dragons may be highly resistant to certain kinds of spells especially if thrown by a magic-user of lower level than their own level." I'm not sure how the DM is supposed to adjudicate this higher difficulty based on the table as presented.

I didn't expect to get so confused by this part of the book. It looked really simple at first glance. Am I missing something? Please feel free to tell me in the comments if I'm grossly misunderstanding anything here.

On the plus side, there is a lot I really like here. Especially the scroll-making rules.

Next time: A grumpy wizard unloads his sticky mass on a naked bald guy.

Old-School Class Idea: Fighters=Thieves

Between my in-progress read-through of Holmes Basic (especially this part), my proposed method of separating race and class in LotFP, my re-reading of this post from James Raggi's blog, this Google+ discussion about Thieves in Holmes Basic, this blog post about the supposedly "preternatural" aspect of Thief abilities, and a whole bunch of posts and discussions all over the Internet about whether or not Thieves suck (like this and this and this and this), I've come to a realization:

Mechanically speaking, I don't really like either Fighters or Thieves all that much in most or all of the old-school D&D (and D&D related) games that I'm familiar with, but I think I might like them a whole lot if they were combined into one class.

My proposal is this: Remove the Thief class (or equivalent) Keep the Fighter exactly the same as it is in terms of Fighter class abilities, equipment use, HP, XP, saving throws, etc., except that the Fighter can also use all Thief abilities (or skills or whatever) as if they were a Thief of the same level. In LotFP, they would get skill points like a Specialist. In OD&D + Greyhawk or Holmes Basic or AD&D or whatever, they would use the percentages from the Thief table for picking locks and hiding and stuff, and they would be able to sneak attack/backstab.

Optional caveats: You could make it so that only human Fighters get these Thief abilities, since demihuman Fighters already have other extra abilities in many games. This is similar to what I suggested in that aforementioned post about separating race and class in LotFP. Also, Thieves gain the ability to use magic scrolls or wands in some versions of the game. If the idea of a Fighter being able to do that bothers you, it would be easy to disallow it.

(Please keep in mind that I'm specifically thinking about pre-Wizards of the Coast D&D and OSR games based on old-school D&D. I don't know that I'd want to make this change in D&D 3.5, for example.)

Here are some objections I could see being raised, and my responses.

"Wouldn't this make the Fighter/Thief too powerful compared to the other (core) classes?"
 I could maybe see this being the case in LotFP, since the classes are so hyper-specialized and niche-protected in that ruleset, but even so, the idea of a Fighter who also has a knack for Languages or Bushcraft or Stealth is deeply appealing to me.
Regarding old-school D&D, I often hear complaints that the Cleric is way more powerful than the other classes (or at least the core ones, if you're talking about AD&D or OD&D with all the Supplements and such). I also hear a lot of people say that both the Magic-User and the Cleric have way more potential for growing in power than both the Fighter and the Thief. While initially weak in many ways, even the Magic-User is arguably more powerful overall than other classes. Perhaps by combining the Fighter and Thief, the resulting class would actually catch up to the Cleric and Magic-User in terms of individual utility. If you allow Paladins and Rangers, this house rule might also help the Fighter differentiate itself from those classes a bit more.
Also, both Fighters and Thieves are already able to use magic swords and other magic weapons in many versions of the game, and the guy clanking around in full plate is probably not going to be that sneaky regardless of Thief abilities unless they strip down, so I don't think this house rule would throw things off too much in that regard.

"Wouldn't a Fighter be too busy focusing on fighting during their formative training to also pick up Thief training, or vice versa?"
In real life, soldiers train not only in fighting, but in wilderness survival (bushcraft), stealth (and attacking from stealth while targeting vital organs), climbing, searching for and disarming or avoiding traps, and numerous other skills that would fall under the mantle of the Thief in D&D (and the Ranger, for that matter). One can be good at fighting without devoting every single minute of one's life to that pursuit alone. It seems weird to me that the Fighter is often portrayed as being good at nothing but fighting, aside from the basic things that any adventurer of any class should be able to do. It seems logical to me for someone who intends to go dungeon delving to try and pick up Thief skills, since they could be crucial for success.

"Aren't Thief skills supernatural or almost-supernatural abilities that deserve a class of their own, or that would be too hard for someone to pick up without sole dedication to those skills?"
This is a perfectly valid and very cool way to imagine Thief skills, but it is not the only way. One could be much better at certain (usually non-combat) physical activities than most people while still only acting within the realm of non-magical capabilities - in real life, we call these people athletes, experts, and prodigies. I don't see why dexterity in combat couldn't also translate to dexterity in picking locks, or why the upper body strength, bodily coordination, and expert balance of a sword-fighter couldn't be transferable to climbing, given practice. Fighting skills can be transferable to other activities, and vice versa.
Besides, in my mind, Fighters are often the action heroes of D&D, the Schwarzeneggers and Van Dammes of the dungeon. Those characters aren't just good at fighting, but also at feats of agility that one might consider to be in the Thief's wheelhouse - they tend to do a lot of climbing and sneaking and running from explosions. And the Thief, on the other hand, is often thought of as an Indiana Jones type of character, and Dr. Jones sure knew how to handle himself in a fight, to the point that I tend to think of his movies as action films, among other things. And don't forget the pop-culture ninja, who is an unparalleled warrior in straight-up combat and a master of stealth, sneak attacks, climbing, disguise, using and avoiding traps, finding hidden things, and spying.

"Wouldn't this be against the genre conventions of the fiction that inspired D&D (or fantasy fiction in general)?"
Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that. According to the Giants in the Earth series in Dragon magazine, Gary Gygax's Conan write-up in Dragon #36, and the stats in Gods, Demigods & Heroes (and supposedly Deities & Demigods, although I don't have that right now), many classic Sword & Sorcery heroes are both Fighters and Thieves: Conan, Moonglum, Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser, Kane, Shadowjack, Muirtagh, Captain Blood, and Dark Agnes. To my great shame, I don't even know who about half of those people are, but they're apparently from the kinds of stories that directly inspired D&D.
Besides, in the classic kind of "kill things and take their stuff" campaign, isn't everyone really a Thief at heart?

"Wouldn't this make AD&D style multiclassing and dualclassing obsolete as far as a Fighter/Thief combo is concerned?"
 Yep. I don't really care

"Shouldn't you come up with a new name for this combined class?"
 Yeah. I'd love to hear some suggestions.

"Do you think you're the first person to think of this?"
Not at all. I know someone by the name of Lorgalis came up with the idea before I did in a really cool post in a cool thread, for example. To be fair, I think I did come up with this independently before seeing that someone else had already suggested it, but it's such a simple idea that I didn't expect to be a very original thinker here.

"I just don't like this idea for reasons of flavor or aesthetics."
That's fine. It personally doesn't bother me (quite the opposite), but I know this idea just won't be fun or appealing for everybody. I think it would put an interesting spin on the rules without compromising too much in terms of flavor, but it's obviously fine to disagree with me. Really, I'm just addressing some pet peeves of mine in terms of both game balance and flavor, and my pet peeves might be beloved aspects of the game to others.

Besides you could play a Fighter/Thief in so many different ways. You could be a typical platemail-clad walking tank who also happens to be particularly attentive when searching the environment. You could be a member of the Thieves' Guild who happens to also be handy with a blade. You could be a ninja, always looking to gain the element of surprise. You can be a scout, a swashbuckler, a bandit, a mercenary, or a particularly clever knight. You can lean more toward the Fighter end of the spectrum or the Thief end, based on your equipment and preferred tactics. I don't think extra HP and a to-hit bonus ruins the flavor of the Thief, and I don't think being able to climb and sneak and listen through doors and look for traps would ruin the Fighter. Even picking locks are disarming traps don't seem to me like things that are necessarily foreign to a tough, smart, well-rounded warrior. Or even a stupid warrior who managed to pick up some tricks on the mean streets of Phlan - they managed to pick up fighting, after all.

I'd love to hear opinions and suggestions if anyone is interested.

EDIT: If you want to nix the Thief but don't like my way of doing it, HERE is another suggestion that I like from Vaults of Nagoh. Also, I want to note that I don't hate the Thief; I just don't usually care for the specific mechanics of the class. Likewise, I don't hate the Fighter, but I feel like the Fighter is often pretty boring or limited in terms of abilities in comparison to the other classes. This is just a possible way of addressing that, along with my belief that it would make sense for Fighters to have some of the skills that are traditionally in the domain of the Thief (as well as some other skills). Finally, I should note that the main games I had in mind for this suggestion were OD&D, Holmes Basic, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess, but it could probably apply to many others, too.

My Death Frost Doom Playlist

So I'm running Death Frost Doom this Saturday. I don't usually play background music during our group's games (the players usually take care of that), but running DFD is sort of a special occasion, and a lot of people have recommended using creepy ambient audio to enhance this most atmospheric adventure. So with some help from my wife, I put together a playlist on Youtube. (I can't guarantee that the link to the playlist will always work, so I'll list the songs/videos below as well.)

The Celtic Frost and Samael songs were recommended in the 2014 version of Death Frost Doom. Sunn O))), the Sicario soundtrack, Sakrateal, Nadja, and OM were suggested by various people on Google+. There are a ton of great suggestions there (and elsewhere) that I haven't used as well. Sunn O))) was also recommended in several other places that I don't currently remember, and I used the TV Tropes page to pick out specific tracks.

Swans is a band I'm very fond of, and I think they fit the adventure perfectly. (I also used their song "Animus" in my preview for that adventure on Facebook, as discussed in the linked post.) Doom 64 just has an awesome and super disturbing soundtrack by Aubrey Hodges, who made similar fantastic soundtracks for other video games, like the Playstation port of Doom. The other videos on the playlist were suggested by my wife. She also picked out which Doom 64 tracks to include on the playlist, narrowing it down to the ones she found the scariest or coolest so I wouldn't end up just playing the whole soundtrack and excluding other stuff. And she helped me nail down the final order of the songs, because she's awesome.

EDIT: Over on the excellent LotFP Facebook group, fellow member 智彬 recommended another album by Sunn O))) as well as the work of Moss. I have added both of these to the end of the playlist, as continuations of the 93 Ave. B Blues "event" (see below). Thanks for the great suggestions!

The plan is to start at the beginning of the playlist when the party gets near the top of the mountain (probably around when they find Zeke) and just let it play straight through at low volume, with two exceptions: "Baphomet's Throne" by Samael will be played at the point recommended in the 2014 rewrite of Death Frost Doom, and "93 Ave. B Blues" by Swans will be played if and when a certain major event happens (if you know this adventure, you know what I'm talking about).

There's a good chance that the playlist will be either too short or too long, depending on how things go, but that's okay: I can just repeat things if need be. Hopefully, repeated tracks won't be annoying, since many of the tracks are ambient pieces with few or no vocals.

As always, if you enjoy any of these songs or videos, or use them at your own table, please consider financially supporting the artists responsible. A lot of Swans' albums are sold on their website, for example.

The Official Lamentations of the Fallen Lords Playlist for Death Frost Doom:
1. Celtic Frost - A Dying God Coming Into Human Flesh
2. Doom 64 - Map 01 - Staging Area
3. Halloween Horror Music (Forrest Wilson) - The Road to Nothing (I think this is the name of the track - the Youtube video doesn't seem to specify other than providing this link.)
4. Swans - Just A Little Boy (For Chester Burnett)
5. Doom 64 - Map 02 - The Terraformer
6. Nature - Underworld
7. Doom 64 - Map 07 - Research Lab
8. Swans - Some Things We Do
9. Doom 64 - Main Menu Music
10. Sunn O))) - Big Church (megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért)
11. Doom 64 - Map 06 - Alpha Quadrant
12. Nature - Otherworld
13. Sicario (soundtrack) - The Beast
14. Doom 64 - Map 12 - Altar of Pain
15. Swans - I Love You This Much
16. Doom 64 - Map 13 - Dark Citadel
17. Sakrateal - Where the moon rises
18. Doom 64 - Map 20 - Breakdown
19. Sunn O))) - Why Dost Thou Hide Thyself In Clouds
20. Nadja - Radiance of Shadows
21. Doom 64 - Map 18 - Spawned Fear
22. Swans - Helpless Child
23. Doom 64 - Map 10 - The Bleeding
24. Nature - Nightmare
25. Doom 64 - Map 21 - Pitfalls
26. OM - Pilgrimage
27. Doom 64 - Map 08 - Final Outpost
28. Sunn O))) - Aghartha
29. Swans - The Seer
30. Vinterriket - Dark Ambient
31. Samael - Baphomet's Throne
32. Swans - 93 Ave. B Blues
33. Moss - Crypts of Somnambulance
34. Sunn O))) - ØØ Void (the whole album)

Holmes Basic D&D Rulebook Part 5 - Cowards Deserve XP, Too

PART 5 OF 12

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Most of the rules about EXPERIENCE POINTS AND EXPERIENCE LEVELS are typical of old-school D&D, so I'll just note a few things that popped out at me.

As I stated before, Holmes Basic only goes up to third level. Since this is intended to help beginners get into D&D, among other purposes, that's probably a good thing. It certainly keeps most of the tables and charts nice and compact. It's not like getting to third level isn't an achievement or anything. Wait until I get to the part of the book with the monsters!

PCs in Holmes Basic actually get less XP for killing/subduing monsters lower in level than them. In such cases, the book says to divide the monster's level by that of the character's level to see what fraction of the monster's XP value is actually gained. I'm not sure I like this idea. The XP requirements already increase for each level, so this feels like overkill to me. I don't know if other versions of D&D use this rule or not.

"The Dungeon Master should have the option of lowering the number of experience points gained under special circumstances. If one character sneaks out of the dungeon with all the treasure while the rest of the party is being eaten, he should gain some experience points but not necessarily all of them!" Um...I hate to be the "every man for himself" kind of guy here, but why? It says earlier on the same page (page 11 in my copy of the book) that a character who gets a bigger share of the loot by stealing some of it from the other PCs should get a proportionately larger share of the XP using the standard formula (1 GP = 1 XP). Earlier in the book, it said that Thieves shouldn't be completely trusted by the rest of the party. Obviously, conflict between PCs isn't off the table here, so why punish a player for profiting from the misfortune of the rest of the party? Is it because they didn't "earn" the treasure? Bullshit. These are murderhobos we're talking about here. They earned it in deception, quick thinking, and blood. Especially blood: theirs, their enemies', and even their "friends'."

I'm sorry, Dr. Holmes (or Mr. Gygax, and/or Mr. Arneson if this comes from OD&D or AD&D). I don't mean to be a dick. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to discourage backstabbing within the party, why allow uneven XP distribution at all (aside from prime requisite bonuses and such)? Why write untrustworthiness into a class description? And if the cowardice of the sneaky character in your example is the reason for the penalty, rather than the lack of cooperation or friendliness, why award all treasure pulled out of the dungeon with XP instead of just treasure obtained bravely? If a group of 20 fighting men, all at level 3 with maximum HP and equipped with plate mail and shields waltz into the first room of a tiny dungeon known to be inhabited by a single sickly goblin (with one HP and only a broken toothpick for self-defense) and bully the poor sucker into handing over his unlocked, untrapped treasure chest containing 100 gold coins he inherited from his Aunt Bertha, that's not very brave of those fighting men, is it? Yet unless I'm misinterpreting the rules, they'd still get 100 XP for those 100 coins. Unless the DM decides otherwise by fiat, which seems to be what the passage I quoted above suggests, but how does one make such ruling fair and consistent? And why should cowardly characters earn less XP than brave ones if they get the same treasure?

Maybe the idea is that XP represents lessons learned and wisdom gained through adventuring, and that grabbing the treasure and running like a coward doesn't impart any useful lessons or wisdom. If that's the intended thought process, I simply disagree. The experience of running away should help the player learn how best to flee, avoid conflict, dodge danger, etc. Since hit points are an abstract measurement of how hard it is to kill a given creature, it makes sense that learning how to dodge and run away and be clever and tricky could lead to more HP (via leveling up). Also, it seems to me that "leave your friends to die and you can make a tidy profit" is a pretty strong lesson, and perhaps a wise piece of advice in a world full of man-eating monsters. Unless the game is trying to push heroic, morally-upright behavior on the players, but most OSR sources seem to insist that old-school D&D is absolutely not about that.

Perhaps the idea is that XP merely represents experiences that increase one's capabilities in combat and/or class activities. But if so, why reward treasure with XP at all? Grabbing coins doesn't seem like the kind of activity that would automatically make you more badass. Yes, I know it's not about the coins themselves but rather the dangers overcome in order to get those coins, but come on, not every coin in every dungeon presents equal danger. And no, I don't think you should give different coins different XP values based on where or how you get them, since that would over-complicate things. Instead, I think you should stick closely to the GP=XP rule and avoid arbitrary DM fiat - just allow the abstract system to be abstract and imagine that the characters face enough danger and learn enough lessons in other aspects of their adventures to make up for the rare situations in which they get treasure easily enough to not "learn" from the hunt for it. And maybe design your dungeons with encounters, traps, and puzzles that reward cooperation and bravery while making it difficult for cowards to flee with all of the treasure. After all, if you track encumbrance, you're already incentivising cooperation - how is one wimp going to carry out more than a small portion of the treasure during a deadly and chaotic melee?

Sorry. I know I'm ranting again. I really do love this book, but sometimes it confuses me, just like any other version of D&D I've read...or any other tabletop RPG I've read at all, for that matter. My point is that I love the concept of getting XP for treasure, but if you're going to use that kind of system I don't think you should then penalize characters for being amoral, greedy scumbags. You know, outside of the natural consequences of being scumbags.

I guess I just feel like heroic PCs are more special and more enjoyable when they act heroically without any direct mechanical incentives for heroism. Sometimes being good is its own reward.

Of course, if you disagree with me on any of this, I'd be interested in discussing the matter in the comments. I could be overlooking something.

Anyway...

I like how the chart showing the minimum XP, hit dice, and spells of each level of each class includes Thief abilities under the "spells" column. I know this is probably just to save space, but I like the idea of Thief skills as a set of spells with theoretically "unlimited" uses but a small list of spells and percentage-based chances of casting failures. Mechanically speaking, that is. Not necessarily in terms of the "fluff," although the latter is also amusing. "He climbed that sheer cliff face so quickly it was like magic!"

What the "Spells" column actually lists for Thieves are the letters A, B, and C, which correspond to lines on the chart titled EXPLANATION OF THIEF'S ABILITIES on the next page. As usual, a Thief's class abilities increase their chances of success with each level. I really like the charts in this book, because I am, predictably, a nerd, and proud of it.

If I'm not mistaken, many old-school D&D-type games will allow Thieves to try certain class-based tasks like opening a lock over and over again until they succeed, with the time spent acting as the cost, since spending time means spending resources like torches and risking random encounters. Holmes Basic takes a different approach: a Thief only gets one try per lock. In the given example, Drego the first-level Thief fails to pick a lock, and Holmes writes "no matter how long he works on the lock there is only a 15% chance that an inexperienced thief can get it open." Does this mean that Drego could come back and try again after he gains a level, since he is no longer so inexperienced? Also, does this one-try rule apply to, say, picking pockets or hearing noises?

The Holmes Basic Approach to Failing to Open a Lock
Pros: Everyone else at the table doesn't have to sit there bored and annoyed while the Thief's player tries the same action over and over again. Play is sped up. Some locks appear "in-universe" to be more complicated or difficult than others without needing to worry about establishing a Difficulty Class ahead of time or on the spot like in D&D 3.5. People who like to gamble can play Thieves and get more opportunities in which a single, high-stakes roll determines success or failure.
Cons: The DM doesn't get the grim satisfaction of watching the party waste resources and encounter monsters over a single stupid lock. Thieves look like either complete idiots or impatient jackasses more often: "I tried once and failed. Might as well give up forever." People who like to minimize the gambling in their class abilities may be even more put off by the Thief class than in similar games.
Conclusion: I don't lean toward the Holmes approach, but I can see the appeal. I'd be more okay with only allowing one attempt per day (or other unit of time), but one attempt ever, or even one attempt per level, seems a bit harsh, and it frankly hurts my immersion a bit. Still, rolling skill checks over and over again can get boring, and abstraction often serves D&D well, so if you like the Holmes way of handling Thief skills, more power to you.

The Cleric's ability to "turn undead" seems pretty standard in execution. The book mentions that higher-level Clerics than those covered by Holmes Basic can "dispel" undead, but that's beyond what a level 1 to 3 Cleric can do.

There's a section explaining the USE OF THE WORD LEVEL. It's a nice touch, and probably super helpful to beginners. This book is full of nice details like that, written in a style that is straightforward yet enjoyable. Maybe I've been a bit negative in this post, but please don't doubt that this book really is a great read. It makes me want to sit down and just start playing.

Countless people have commented on that special something, that je ne sais quoi that surrounds low-level play. I've even read suggestions that it could be fun to play a Holmes Basic campaign that caps the party's level at 3 and doesn't move on to OD&D or AD&D or B/X or anything else. I'm personally fond of mid- and high-level D&D, but I think the folks who prefer low-level play are really on to something, too. This book has me feeling it. Sometimes, three is all you need.

Next time: Wait, scrolls only cost how much to make?

EDIT: I wanted to link to THIS POST from Dungeon Fantastic because it's a good read that covered much of this same ground over four years ago. The comments are insightful, too.

Holmes Basic D&D Rulebook Part 4 - Stop, Drop, and Run

PART 4 OF 12

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

"Each turn takes ten minutes (scale time, not actual) in the characters' magical universe. In the players' universe arguments sometimes develop and a turn may take considerably longer!"

Amen to that, Dr. Holmes.

The rules in this section are mostly the same as in Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which to my understanding are mostly the same as B/X, which is essentially the next edition of what I'm reading now, so that makes sense. A few things jump out at me.

There's a cool example of how the length of a turn combined with a random encounter (a purple worm in this case, one of my favorite D&D monsters) can create time pressure on the players. It mentions that the monster will be 60 feet closer to the party than it was when it first appeared if the players were to take ten minutes to search for a secret door. It doesn't mention how the DM is supposed to determine the starting location of the purple worm, though. I assume the rulebook with either cover this later (Hint from my future self: it does) or leave it up to DM fiat. I usually try to run random encounters so that they seem somewhat logical, like having the monster walk around the nearest corner in front of the party or wait in a room the party is approaching or something like that.

The book says that PCs need to stop and rest for one turn out of every six, or two turns if they have been running. I don't think I've heard of this rule before, or at least I don't remember it. Honestly, I'd probably skip this rule when the PCs are moving at exploration speed, since they are assumed to be moving pretty slowly, looking around carefully, and stopping to poke at suspicious things a little bit. (Maybe one turn every two hours would be okay. I just like to keep things moving, I guess.) I would probably still require resting if they moved any faster than that, though.

Interestingly, the default exploration speed of an unencumbered PC in LotFP, 120' per turn, is only the default speed of a fully armored and/or heavily encumbered PC in Holmes Basic, while an unencumbered and unarmored character in Holmes Basic can move 240' per turn. And those speeds are doubled for normal, non-exploratory movement! Holmes PCs are speedy! When full-out running, armored characters can go 360' per turn and unarmored/unencumbered ones can go a whopping 720' per turn.

It's nice to see time used as a major factor in the resource-management aspect of the game. Why else would anyone need to bring rations, or more than one torch? How else are you supposed to make the number of random encounters fair and impartial? This aspect of the game is something I overlooked when playing D&D 3.5 in college. I had a blast playing back then, but I'm glad that I've changed my gaming habits a bit since those days. I enjoy making time-based pressure a slightly bigger part of the games I run today. I hope my players like it, too.

Oh boy, time to talk about encumbrance. All coins weigh the same, and a backpack or sack can hold 300 gold pieces, which weigh in at 30 pounds. I'm fine with this kind of abstraction - I play a lot of video games, after all. It takes about 600 gold pieces to actually make a character heavily encumbered. Besides that, the book doesn't give a whole lot of guidelines on encumbrance - it seems pretty laissez-faire about the concept. Of course, most people with whom I've played any version of D&D are just as laid back about encumbrance, if not more so. LotFP is about the only D&D-type game I've played with an encumbrance system I actually like, rather than just begrudgingly respect, and even that can be a chore sometimes. "I think it's perfectly fair to love D&D as a whole without loving every single rule," said Captain Obvious as he taped a NOT FOR JUGGLING sign to the porcupine exhibit at the Obviousville Zoo.

Still, I like how encumbrance is handled in Holmes Basic. Simple, abstract, and mostly left up to the judgement of the DM (or perhaps the group as a whole). It gives an example inventory for a Magic-User named Malchor. If my calculations are correct, this character would (barely) count as unencumbered in LotFP as well, assuming multiples of the same item share a "slot." I like how Malchor is carrying around a quart of wine in a dungeon. I've heard of dungeon punk, but I guess this is more like dungeon crunk. I also like how the book recommends that players write down not only what items they possess, but where on their bodies or in which bag they are carrying each item. Finally, here's an interesting note: "a fighting man will be far more loaded down, but it is assumed that such individuals are trained to be stronger and so able to carry more weight" than the 75 pounds or more that would make characters of other classes heavily encumbered. It's nice to see Fighting Men excel at something besides bashing in heads.

The rules for light are pretty standard. It does mention that all monsters can see 60' in the dark, just like a Dwarf or Elf. It also says that the light of a torch or lantern will reduce the distance a Dwarf or Elf can see from 60' to the normal 30' range in which humans and halflings can see. A party of all Dwarven and Elven Thieves would be amazing as far as sneak attacks go, and they would probably save a lot of money on torches and lamp oil.

Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings have a better chance of hearing noises through doors, and Elves have a knack for just magically stumbling across secret doors without even looking for them. Wow, humans really are obsolete.

On rolling dice to open doors via brute force: "Of course, if the party has to hit the door several times before getting their roll of 1 or 2, there is no possibility of surprising the occupants of the room." I like the idea that an Open Door check isn't about whether or not a PC can open a stuck door at all, but rather whether or not they can do it quickly and/or quietly.

Doors are evil - if you don't spike or wedge them open, they tend to close by themselves, and on top of that, they open automatically for monsters if not spiked or held shut. I think this was the case in OD&D as well. Why do doors hate adventurers so much?

RANDOM ADVENTURER: Stupid door! What did I ever do to you?
DOOR: An adventurer killed my father!

I wonder if they're also double-hinged doors that swing both ways, like I seem to see in video games all the time.

If the party is surprised by monsters, PCs can drop whatever they are holding if they roll a 6 on a d6. I'm not sure what the purpose of this rule is. Maybe to make drawing a weapon faster when the party finally gets a turn? Or maybe so if they're in the middle of robbing the monsters blind they can drop the loot and play dumb?

EDIT: I think the actual point of this rule has penetrated my thick skull. Please see Part 7 for details.

Ah, here's some more information on random encounters. The DM rolls for one every three turns. If the party has someone watching for monsters, they can see or hear them from up to 120 feet away in most situations. If the DM is unsure of how far away a monster should start from the party, they can roll 2d6 and multiply that by 10 to get the distance in feet.

The WANDERING MONSTER TABLE and HOSTILE/FRIENDLY REACTION TABLE are pretty typical (which is to say, awesome). I do want to point out a very important quote from the book: "The number of wandering monsters appearing should be roughly equal to the strength of the party encountering them." The book then goes on to explain ways to justify this in-universe. The next time someone who hates Wizards of the Coast-era D&D tries to tell me that the concept of Challenge Ratings is entirely foreign to the game, I should just point them toward this quote.* That's not to say that parties should never get in over their heads or meet creatures that are over their power levels, but rather that it's okay if the players want to play a game in which the challenge is at least somewhat adjusted to match their characters' current abilities. I love how fighting is usually the worst option when confronted by monsters in, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess (or in many non-D&D horror games like Call of Cthulhu), but I also love D&D-type games in which combat is often worth engaging in. D&D is allowed to be different things for different people in different campaigns. It's a rich, diverse game. Please don't judge people who like balanced combat and CR too harshly. For beginners at the game, like a large portion of this book's intended audience, for example, I think balanced combat especially makes sense because players need to be able to learn the rules and find out which options are easier or more effective than others. Being killed too early in the game can also kill the enthusiasm of some players.

Here's a detail about Charisma I missed in my first Holmes post: "The Dungeon Master should make adjustments if the party spokesman has high charisma or offers special inducements." Presumably, the specifics of this could be handled either by DM fiat/pure roleplaying or by a house rule.

And here's something that might explain that bit I mentioned earlier about dropping items when surprised: while fleeing, PCs can drop items like food or treasure, and there is a random chance that the pursuing monsters will stop to pick those items up, depending on whether they are "intelligent" or not. Burning oil can also deter pursuit. Maybe the intention is for a surprised party to be able to start dropping stuff like this immediately, in anticipation of fleeing after the surprise round. Maybe Malchor's dungeon wine is for distracting alcoholic owlbears. Maybe what D&D really needs are more piss-drunk purple worms. How terrifying would one of those be?

Next time: On how many LEVELS can we EXPERIENCE Holmes Basic D&D? (Three. The answer is three.)

On an unrelated note, THIS is one of the best actual play reports I have ever read. I bought the hardcover of World of the Lost. I should probably get around to reading it if it produces games this good.

*If I just constructed a straw man argument about players who don't like WotC-era D&D, I apologize, but I believe I really have seen people on the internet make such claims about the Challenge Rating system at least once or twice. And I understand the argument that using the recommended CR for a given party to build encounters balances the game in such a way as to make it too easy. If you feel that way, then I think that either A) that indicates a flaw in the execution of the CR rules and not necessarily the concept of CR itself, or B) you might just want to pit your players against higher-CR enemies, then. Option B is what one of the DMs I played with in college did, and it rocked. My point is that I think balancing encounters isn't always necessary, but it is often a good idea, and I like it when the books I'm using help me do that.