One Man Army

Once again, I find myself marveling at the elegant simplicity of the D&D combat system.

It's just so lovely how two fighters, equally armed and armored, will have a (roughly) 50-50 chance at killing each other. Certainly, one might get lucky (or unlucky)...in fact, luck will (in such circumstances) be the deciding factor in their battle, assuming neither chooses to withdraw. And having more experience simply prolongs their struggle, as well it should.

But how does D&D model combat against non-fighters? Pretty good, in my opinion.

Mail armor...what most D&D books refer to (redundantly and incorrectly as chain mail) was really, really good stuff. Nearly impenetrable to most weapons of its time, requiring both specialized tools and tactics to harm a human so armored. Is an "armor class" of 5 sufficient to model this? Even an untrained combatant (what B/X calls a "normal human") can land a successful attack against a veteran (1st level fighter) in mail with a D20 roll of 15, 16 if the vet carries a shield. 16? That's a 25% chance to hit (1 chance in 4) with a decent probability of the blow being a killing stroke!

But let's talk law of averages here. Played "by the book" a first level fighter has an average of 5.5 hit points (1d8 roll, discarding 1s and 2s). Assuming average damage from the untrained opponent (3.5, average for a 1d6 roll), it will take the guy on average 6.3 combat rounds to finish a veteran dressed in mail and using a shield. How much damage will the veteran inflict upon unarmored opponents in six rounds? 11.55 on average, enough to kill nearly five "normal" humans. And that's assuming you're using 1d6 damage and no bonus for high strength; a 1d8 damage sword coupled with 13 strength (+1 attack and damage in B/X) pushes the damage output up enough to fell nearly eight (7.92) normal men whose average hit points are 2.5 each.

Of course, being B/X, you can't kill more than one peasant per round.

Still six men dead in sixty seconds...not too shabby for a 1st level fighter, and a testament to the fighter's training and equipment. And adding extra armor, beefier weapons, and more combat experience simply increases this lethality.

"But D&D is so deadly to low-level characters!" Sure it is...if you're entering the lair of a manticore or a nest of orcs with naught but a couple buddies at your back. Yes, getting mauled by a tiger or bear will probably mean the end of our poor veteran, mail dressed or not...and that seems pretty true to reality, no? It would take a pretty high level hero (and/or one armed with magical equipment) to face such a foe and live to celebrate victory. As it should be.

Against non-supernatural horrors and the majority of gentlefolk met in the streets, however, the armored warrior is the Angel of Death, and should command a similar amount of respect, awe, and/or fear. Here's what's NOT realistic: law-abiding communities (especially towns and cities) allowing armored, be-weaponed slayers to roam freely and unchallenged through their streets. No such individual should be allowed entry to a temple (unless a sworn member to the church's knightly order or some such). No such individual should be granted access to a guild hall or the home of a nobleman or town official. No such individual should be allowed to shop at the public market, unmolested by local militia (who are similarly armed and armored for the express purpose of dealing with threats like the character). Assuming the town has any sort of wall at all (as nearly all medieval communities larger than a village would), it's unlikely a strange warrior...or a party of them...would even be allowed to pass the gates girded for war.

Dude's a one man army, after all.

"Superheroes" get eight
attacks per round.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking about this morning. I like OD&D's multiple attacks against 1HD opponents based on fighter level, but I feel it likely needs a cap (probably around nine) and that it only really works because the OD&D combat turn ("round") is so long (1 minute, as opposed to 10 seconds in B/X). I like 10 seconds as a unit of measuring one "attack;" I think, for example, that four minutes is an extremely long time to optimally fight an ogre (one attack landing per round depleting one hit die of the monster). On the other hand, it seems to me that shoe-horning all spell-casting into 10 second rounds is a little too "cartoony" for my taste. Shouldn't it take longer to cast, a death spell or flesh to stone than a simple wave of the hand?

[yes, it probably looks fine in a cinematic scene...wizards in Thundarr doing all sorts of instantaneous, high-level hijinks. But then, cartoon sorcerers tend to shoot lasers at will, like 4E/5E cantrips, and I find THAT particular practice disgusting...]

But regardless. I like the simple fighting-person and "basic" combat system. That was the point of this post.

Vanilla DM

I have a tearful confession to make. I have all but abandoned my "grand plans" to run a D&D campaign set in the post-Columbian South America. I am, perhaps, being overly sensitive to the historical (and continued) atrocities perpetrated on the indigenous people and resources of the region; however, if anything I'd chalk up my resistance to laziness, seeing as how the sheer effort to create an adventure-worthy setting that neither disrespects nor ignores the actors of history feels like more than I'm willing to tackle.

Here's part of the deal: I'm 45, folks. I might incorporate aspects of Mayan or Incan or Aztec or European culture in my campaign, but I don't want to bother devising and adapting whole new systems that take into account the complex pre-hispanic cultures and crafts...things like advanced technology despite a written language (necessitating swaths of re-modeling for spell-casting), cloth armor and the effects of terrain and climate, manners of advancing in a way that doesn't require treasure-hunting (for the cultures that don't value gold in the same way as Europeans)...or that allow portage with the lack of beasts of burden or development of the wheel (without the need to harness slave labor).

Besides which, the more I delve into AD&D and its rules and systems, the more I find myself wanting to run something closer to the pulp S&S source material. There are fantasy game systems that have done a good job of modeling the pre-Renaissance world (at least in Europe)...Chivalry & Sorcery (1e) springs immediately to mind, though I've owned, and played, others. But while other, brighter minds than mine (like Alexis) have managed to shoehorn elves and dwarves and half-orcs into an historical Earth-based setting, I don't want to do that. I don't want a "real world" setting that has infravision, psionics, clerical spells, or "giant-class" creatures inserted into it. Yes, you can do it without creating a whole "alternate history" for planet Earth...but why would you? I assert that a world with dragons and Drow (let alone mind flayers and aboleths!) would completely and radically change the structure of human history as we know it. You can disagree. But if I can't suspend my own disbelief on the subject, how the heck can I expect to create a game or an experience where my players can?

I don't think I can. Not in a sincere fashion.

Consequently, I find myself wanting to run a game in a setting akin to the ones found in fantasy literature: the same fantasy literature that provided inspiration for the writers of the game. Maybe not Lovecraft or Vance, but certainly Leiber and Moorcock. Some kind of cross between Howard and King Arthur...less Tolkien in scope, more Bradley-type weirdness. With at least a sprinkle of Robert Asprin mixed in.

I know some folks will be a little disappointed by this turn of events. Truth be told, I'm a little disappointed myself, though probably not as much. After all, it's not like I can't (at a future date) drop the PCs through some sort of magical portal that drops them into 16th century South America. Have their sailing ship cross an inter-dimensional curtain and end up broadside of a Spanish galleon, or enter a pyramid in some lost fantasy jungle and end up exiting the Tower of the Sorcerer in Uxmal. Starting with "vanilla fantasy" may be a lot less ambitious, but it's utilitarian, and it provides a lot of possibilities that aren't necessarily present with a setting grounded in real world history and geography.

Plus, it's recognizable. I agree with much of what Anthony Huso writes with regard to using banal fantasy tropes as a starting point. It allows easy entry and buy-in to the players. I am absolutely certain there are plenty of individuals who would LOVE to play in a fantasy Latin America, especially one that is thoughtful, well developed, and semi-authentic/accurate. That being said, there are many, many, many players (including an awful lot of the ones who want to play in the setting) who are absolutely UNinterested in learning the ins and outs of the historical cultures that we'd be playing in...at least prior to play. Most folks (I think) would prefer to have information about the setting unfold in-play over time...the way we're used to learning information about most fantasy settings (in literature and celluloid).

Consider, for example, Tolkien. The Hobbit introduces us to the Shire then the background of the Lonely Mountain dwarves then Elrond and Rivendell then Mirkwood (with rumors of "the Necromancer") - all gradually unfolding background. The Lord of the Rings introduces more history, more geography, more cultures...and not all in the first book (neither Rohan and Gondor, for example, appear till the second book of the trilogy, and Mordor not till the final book). Even then, the events of the prior two ages are only hinted at in any of Tolkien's first four novels, and it's not until the Silmarillion that we even hear the name Illuvatar or the story of Feanor, etc.

Consider, as a different example, the television series Game of Thrones. Even in the first season, we are introduced to very few places and a very small section of Martin's world. We have King's Landing and its politics, the North and its Old Religion, the Wall and the Night Watch, and a bit about the eastern lands (whatever it's called) following the trials and tribulations of the Targaryan girl among the Dothraki plains folk. But huge and important aspects of the setting don't even come into the story until later seasons: the Army of the Dead? the slaver nations? Highgarden? Dorn? The Faceless Men and the Maesters of Old Town and the Three-Eyed Raven? The setting, its geography, history, and cosmology are all revealed over time, as needed.

With a fantasy setting you can do this...you can have only the haziest of outlines, the roughest of sketches, and crystalize things (as necessary) to fit the needs of the campaign as situations arise and adventures happen. The DM is making stuff up, after all. I suppose it's possible to do this with a historical setting, but it requires much more up front work from the DM (unless the DM is already versed in the history and geography of the setting). I suppose I could do this, given the knowledge, notes, and information I've already acquired...I could do it...

But, again, if you (like me) want to incorporate the weirdness of D&D fantasy into your game (aboleths and elves) AND they're not naturally occurring parts of the setting (as they don't in South America), then you need something more open and vanilla-bland to start. At least, I do.

Just so folks know.

Pendragon Armor in B/X

So I was watching Vikings again last night (and, again, staying up waaaay too late), because of its fascinating portrayal of European cultures in the 8th century. As a product of the History Channel, I expect it to be at least somewhat historically accurate, even if the drama is created for...um...dramatic purposes. But things like the clothes, armor, artwork, village life, religion, politics, law...these are the things I'm interested in and the reason the show draws me.

Well, that and Norsemen hitting people with axes. I love that.

Anyway, the episodes I streamed last night (from the second season) raised some interesting thoughts about the medieval economy...not just monetary economy, but the economy of raiding (ships and men and armies). But in thinking about it, it brought me back to some recent thoughts I'd had...specifically an interest in having a B/X campaign set in the EARLY "middle ages," circa 6th century or 7th century.

[there's a bit more fantasy in this time period (think the film Dragonslayer or the Northern and Southern dynasties of China...the period of the historic Mulan hero), while still having recognizable fighters of the traditional D&D stamp. Hell, even some cities large enough to support thieves of the adventuring type, and characters that would pass for D&D clerics are performing miraculous deeds as well. Even if the setting isn't historic Earth, it's not a bad time period to emulate]

And as those little wheels started turning in my head, including the sticky wicket of economy that I've discussed before (and before that...jeez, another recurring topic), it hit me that I have at least some (again, presumably somewhat researched) economic information from that time period (at least with regard costs): Chaosium's Pendragon, and it's tasty supplement Knights Adventurous.

So it was that between 1ish and 3am last night (well, 2:45, really) I found myself with a bee-in-the-proverbial-bonnet, doing my usual song-and-dance crazy trying to reconcile internet-researched records of historic price lists with game product written by History majors in their spare time.

No need to remind me of the futility in such an exercise; I know the drill. Here's the part that MIGHT interest you: once I eventually circled around to giving up, I spent a good chunk of time converting the 6th century armor types of Pendragon to the B/X system. For your enjoyment (and for future posterity; i.e. so I don't have to do it again), I'll go ahead and post it here. Synchs up pretty well, actually.

[prices will be given as per Pendragon, where one pound (L) = 20 shillings (s) = 240 pennies (d). A campaign set in 6th century Camelot would probably want to change the "gold standard" of B/X to the silver shilling, and so prices will be listed using a shilling base]

Suit of Armor (without padding or helmet)
Leather: 1s, 3d
Cuir bouilli (boiled leather): 5s
"Norman" mail: 15s
Reinforced mail: 80s
Plate and mail: 200s

Helmets
Open helm: 3s, 4d
Great helm: 8s, 4d
Visored helm: 12s, 6d

Padding ("dublet")
Normal: 7d
Fancy: 2s, 1d
Silk, 3 colors: 20s

Armor value (AV) is subtracted from base AC 9 to arrive at the character's armor class.

AV 1: leather, padding, open helm
AV 2: cuir bouilli, closed helm (great or visored)
AV 3: mail with padding
AV 4: plate-and-mail with padding
AV 6: full plate with padding

Typical "Norman" Mail

Norman mail without padding has an AV of 1; both reinforced mail and plate-and-mail have an AV of 2 without padding. Padding is not worn with leather or cuir bouilli. All armors are generally worn with an open helm except reinforced mail and plate-and-mail which are usually worn with a closed (great or visored) helm. Full plate is always worn with a closed helm and padding.

AC Standard Armor Worn 9 None 8 Leather, dublet, or open helm (only) 7 Leather + helm, cuir bouilli 6 Cuir boilli + helm, mail 5 Mail + helm (Norman style), plate-and-mail 4 Mail + closed helm 3 Plate-and-mail + closed helm 2 1 Full plate armor

Plate-and-Mail; AC 3

These would be typical AC values (based on usual type of padding/helmet worn). A shield would, of course, subtract 1 from the listed AC, providing a range of 9 to 0. Please note that no cost is given for "full plate armor" (the typical Milanese variety and similar) because it's not widely available prior to the 15th century; however, in a fantasy world it might be something created by some genius wizard or mad dwarf inventor. As with the author of Pendragon, I provide it here for the sake of "completeness."
: )

Worrying About The Economy

That is to say, the fantasy economy.

I mean, I could share my opinions on what I think of the price of RPGs and the pay rate of game designers. I could just as easily talk about Argentina, whose economy (to me) feels like its on the brink of collapse. Have you ever been to Buenos Aires? To me, it's kind of the Paris of South America (especially considering the size and beauty of its boulevards and the presence of dog shit that no one bothers to clean up). But when you ask a hotel concierge where you can exchange some money, and he says "Oh, yeah...there's a guy on the street corner about 20 meters down the block who seems pretty legit" there's a whole new type of surreality you've entered as a world traveler.

Seriously. Shady dudes propositioning you "Change money?" as you walk down the street, with the same frequency as I used to hear "Buy some acid?" in the University District back home. And then there's the whole counterfeit money thing going on (where even the black-market dealers warn you about trying to give 100 peso notes to taxi drivers, 'cause they'll flip it on you, and the tourist warnings that you're slightly less likely to get counterfeit cash at the bank). For a city that's so big and hip and educated (you can't throw a rock without hitting a couple book stores)...maybe it's just me, but it sure seems to be teetering on the edge of (economic) destruction.

Anyway, NO...that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the economy of the fantasy campaign setting I'm working on. Worrying about the real world economy is waste of my sweet, precious time, considering all the power and control I have over it (i.e. "not much"). The new fantasy world, though...well, there I have a chance to make a difference. Maybe. If I can get it straight.

There's a lot of stuff that's gone into my mind to make this mess of soup that's currently driving me crazy. I mean, so many that, well... *sigh* Let me post a few just so you can get where I'm coming from:

- There's this recent post from Peter Schwieghofer. A lot of my recent game designs have included rules for choosing equipment without going shopping. This is a practice that I first started when I began rebooting Cry Dark Future in an attempt to cut down the absolute torture of chargen from scratch when you have an equipment list roughly the size of Shadowrun (the same issue holds true with actual Shadowrun, which is why they give you a robust list of pre-gens...um "archetypes"...to choose from). The thing is, choosing equipment for one's character is one of the very fun and captivating things about D&D. It puts you in the mindset of your character, it helps you feel the character, selecting your gear...so long as the list isn't overwhelmingly long, of course. For a D&D-style game, I want that feeling of "equipping oneself for an expedition." It's damn necessary to the feel of the game.

- Then there's this article from Mr. Lizard regarding the various coinage of Arduin which (like Mr. Lizard) I find incredibly inspirational and suggestive of the scope and possibility of a fantasy campaign. Of course, it helps (or doesn't help) that I've had this other post from Tim Shorts saved on my laptop since March, because I've been wanting to talk about it and the possibilities it suggests. Not just the different cultural currencies, but as a medium of exchange...how different coins are worth different values to different peoples. Maybe the "10 gp = 1 pound" measurement makes a bit of sense...if you consider that (due to the exchange rate) you need a pound of coins to get 10gp worth of value.

- There's my own recent work on a B/X supplement in which I finally managed to hash out a cosmology that (for me) justifies the way magic works vis-a-vis the B/X rules/systems. And how, if the DM plays RAW and doesn't give away spells for free, the acquisition of spells for magic-users and elves can be a good train of excess party gold. It's got me thinking of all sorts of ways to balance the fantasy economy. This recent post by Alexis regarding henchmen is also excellent food for thought...even PCs who steadfastly refuse to "settle down" and buy castles should have things to spend cash on. There's no reason for PCs to be hauling "useless" hoards of treasure at the mid-to-high levels.

- Then there's Alexis again. Damn it, Alexis. If you're a regular reader of his blog you've been subjected to all manners of posts on the fantasy economy via the man's extensive and elaborate trade tables (here's an example). The point often missed by folks, including me when I first started looking at them (*cue eyes glazing over*) is that they're NOT about modeling "reality" or a "realistic" economy. They're just about modeling an economy...period. In aid of making his campaign setting a more immersive experience for his players. Mr Smolensk doesn't want a world where every town carries an identical "adventurer store" stocking the same inventory found on page XX of whatever edition you happen to be playing. Likewise, the inclusion of such a system creates ideas for adventures based on its very system, as the players (via their characters) interact with a world with an uncaring, driving, elemental (economic) force. I don't want to create (or recreate) a system or world like that of Alexis, but its worth noting the power that having such a system...such detail...gives to one's game. Now that I've seen that, I can't "un-see" it, you know? The idea is there.

So, then how does all this stuff combine to cause me worry? Let me give you an example from this morning:

I was taking a break from my analysis of clerical spells (that's a subject for a different post) and thinking about armor in general. This may have been due in part to some recent thoughts about two-weapon fighting (another subject for a different post), and considering whether or not I wanted to have an actual list of armors in this fantasy world I was building, or just go with something abstract ("light armor" versus "heavy armor," for example). Going back to that idea of "the fun" and potential immersion of actually buying something for your character, I started considering what specific armor would I like on a list, were I to do that.

From there I started thinking about there really not be something called leather armor, but if we were to say a gambeson, or thick furs, or other type of "padding" and then add the armor value of a simple helm (not a fully enclosed, visored thing), we might be able to get to the light armor category B/X calls "leather armor." That would be AC 7, two points better than the unarmored AC 9, and we could even go so far as to break that down into:

Gambeson: 1 point of armor (+1 to AC), and

Simple helm: 1 point of armor (+1 to AC)

From that little idea, it was short trip to breaking down all the standard B/X armors (chain mail and "plate mail") into their component parts. For example:

"Half" chain mail (short hauberk) (+1 to AC),

Full chain mail (+1 to AC)

This guy? AC 4.

Which, when added to the gambeson and helm gives one the AC 5, right? Once you start breaking things down, you can do all sorts of fun things, like add greaves and vambraces to a cuirass without the benefit of mail in order to model some ancient soldiers, or add little bonuses like AC +2 for a great helm (instead of the standard +1). You can even list full suits on your "shopping list" for people who don't want to bother mixing-and-matching various armor pieces.

Anyway, I thought it was a neat, rather simple way to add a little detail, a little extra "player choice" to the game, or even to spice up NPC encounters with component bits of armor.

[hmmm...note to self: need to review the partial armor system in BECMI's Orcs of Thar]

*ahem*...as I was saying, it was a neat little idea, but then I started thinking:

How much should I charge for a gambeson?

And it all went to hell. Because the implication...of doing the research and getting consistent values for something based not only on game considerations but also a modeled (fantasy) economy, just made me want to throw up my hands and quit.

Because even though it's possible to do some research on what things really cost 5-600 years ago and then transcribe those costs onto the currency/value of an Arabian world that had a similar level of technology (as I did with Five Ancient Kingdoms)...or even to look at current, real world costs and extrapolate them into the future using a fantasy currency (as I did with Cry Dark Future), what do you do when you're making a gonzo culture that mixes medieval tech with super science and magic in a post-apocalyptic landscape? Especially one set on a different planet with (presumably) different levels of resources, not to mention and ecologic and geographic features that may make trade of some goods more or less valuable? Even if take some arbitrary number or coin or measure to start, I've got to balance it against everything else.

I spent a lot of time reading through the Song of Ice and Fire Wiki, looking at that particular fantasy world and it's currency and trade info. While there's neat stuff there, it's ill-defined because it only gets brought up in relation to the plot at hand (i.e. as Martin requires for his fiction). We learn that 100-300 gold dragons is a reasonable ransom for a captured knight, and that a complete set of good steel armor costs 800 silver stags (a bit less than four dragons), but these are subject to wild fluctuation based on the state of the fantasy economy (things like war causing rapid and incredible inflation of prices)...which means "these things can change at any time," right? How do you build that into a game?

The end result of all this? Probably just spinning my wheels again. That's really the sad truth of the matter. I will probably, probably just throw up a bunch of arbitrary numbers on a sheet of paper (or spreadsheet), most likely arbitrary numbers based in whole or part on B/X or Holmes. Because it's expedient. Because there are other aspects of game play and world building that requires attention. Because it's just a game.

BUT...but, I'm not sure that's really good enough for me. I've got too many ideas crammed into my skull. If my posting seems slow this week, it's because that's what's occupying my focus.

Armor Thoughts

The following is a bit of a thought exercise.

There are lots of different ways to handle personal (body) armor in an RPG. Most folks probably already get that, but...well, it feels like a necessary disclaimer before I start. D&D's "armor class" concept is a popular one (at least judging by the number of system knock-offs that continue to use it), despite certain problematic aspects of the mechanic.

Conceptually, personal armor is supposed to prevent personal injury. The usual way this gets modeled in a fantasy game includes one (or some combination) of the following mechanics:

1. Reducing the chance that an opponent can inflict injury at all.
2. Reducing the actual injury inflicted by an opponent's successful attack.
3. Providing additional "health levels" (whatever form that takes) to the person wearing it.
4. Providing a "saving throw" against damage to the person wearing it.

Additional considerations include how the use of a shield or personal agility/prowess might factor into armor, the deterioration of armor from wear-n-tear, specific hit locations versus general defense, and the usefulness of armor in preventing non-combat type injuries (like falling off a cliff, or protecting its wearer from traps and hazards).

[I may be forgetting something...it's 2:30am my time...but that's about all the iterations I can think of at the moment]

All armor systems "work" (i.e. they are functional game mechanics), but folks have different preferences when it comes to picking a specific system. System preference is based (or, IMO, should be based) on a combination of two things: personal perception of armor (perhaps changing with regard to genre), and playability (how easily it works as a game mechanic).

D&D's system (a "Type 1" mechanic) has a long history of eliciting gripes and complaints from people who have a different perception of armor and how armor should function/model. However, D&D's system is eminently playable...from a mechanic standpoint, it is incredibly simple to use in play, incredibly easy to grasp (even for new players), and incredibly quick to resolve. Its playability...and familiarity...are what has led to its staying power and proliferation across other fantasy RPGs.

Heck, its playability is probably what led to it supplanting the Chainmail combat system as the default combat system for D&D; the "D20-versus-AC" system was an alternate combat system in the pages of Men & Magic, remember? But Chainmail's personal combat system was an add-on to a mass combat war game...an afterthought for occasional "small battles and castle sieges" (when, I presume, you would have narrow battlements ramparts to defend).

But let's, for a moment, consider another fantasy RPG with war-game roots that does armor in a different flavor: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

Where "dungeon crawl" =
"pub crawl" + weapons

While WFRP contains elements of Dungeons & Dragons, I think it's pretty clear it's descended from different roots than Chainmail/D&D. Sure it has elves and dwarves and halflings and orcs...these are things taken from Tolkien (the same place D&D gets them). But nearly all of its systems come from (or have their genesis in) the Warhammer Battle war game, just as D&D takes its cues from Chainmail (including magic, saves, attacks, monsters, etc.). Combat in WFB is D6 based and WFRP is D% + D6 based (if I'm remembering correctly). However, it has quite a few steps compared to the standard attack mechanic of D&D. Whereas D&D does an attack roll + damage roll (if successful), sometimes followed by a saving throw (for certain special attacks), Warhammer goes:

• Roll to attack
• (if successful) Roll to wound (Strength versus Toughness)
• (if successful) Defender rolls to save (using armor)

And there are sometimes additional effects that need to be determined; in some editions, a failed save requires a random number of wounds (damage) to be rolled, depending on the strength of the weapon. While it seems like a lot of steps, in practice it's fairly quick and easy because of the limited range of probabilities and the ease of rolling multiple D6s and removing "dead" models. Playability, again, makes it a popular system for wargaming. The translation to RPG is a bit more clunky in execution, but because combat tends to be over quickly (with a high degree of lethality), it's fairly forgivable.

The "armor as saving throw" is the part that I find most interesting, as well as its translation to the RPG. In WFB the armor save is (was? I haven't kept up on recent editions):

• 6 for light armor
• 5-6 for heavy armor
• +1 if using a shield
• +1 if unit is mounted

That means a guy using plate and shield has a 50% chance to resist (D6 roll of 4+) any wound that would otherwise by inflicted on the character...unless struck by a weapon that ignores or penalizes the armor save (some magical or especially strong attacks).

WFRP does not have an armor save; instead armor worn reduces damage inflicted to the tune of 1 point for light armor and 2 points for heavy armor. It seems like a strange choice (to interpret the save in this way) until you consider that damage in WFRP is on a 1D6 scale...which is to say that, like OD&D (or Holmes or default B/X), all weapons in WFRP do 1D6 points of damage towards a target's wound total (hit points). If you subtract 1 point from the D6 roll (as with light armor) that means you have a 1 in 6 chance of taking no damage; if you subtract 2 points, that chance of "no damage" goes up to 2 in 6...both of which matches the save percentages of light and heavy armor.

'Course it also has the benefit of reducing damage from the blows that do land which, coupled with the multiple wounds PCs carry in WFRP, gives characters a chance to show-off some of that "heroic sticking power," even if its not as much as your typical D&D character (characters in WFRP have nowhere near as many hit points as even a mid-level PC from D&D).

Had some neat ideas.

D&D has, on occasion, provided similar alternate armor rules where armor reduced damage sustained rather than chance to hit (see the BECMI Gazetteer Dawn of the Emperors: Thyatis and Alphatia, for one example. I believe I've also seen something in a past Dragon magazine). But doing this...removing the "armor" part from "armor class"...really requires a re-tooling of the whole combat system from the ground-up. And THAT is something I haven't seen for D&D.

WFRP, like other systems that use armor as "damage reduction," has a straight skill roll based on a person's combat ability...you see similar systems like Chaosium's BRP (Stormbringer, ElfQuest, and Pendragon as three variant examples). But those systems also get caught up in granularity...the one attack equals one swing thing (followed by a defensive dodge or parry...and possibly a riposte). While that way lies madness (I'm not interested in that type of granular scale for D&D) the point is somewhat moot, as D&D does not measure combat ability as a skill in the same way as, say fire-building or rope-tying or whatever. Not even in later editions.

Do I have a problem with the D&D combat system, with the way armor is handled? I'm not sure I do. I do like the idea of making armor a bit more important, as the ability to wear heavy armor is one of the fighter's main advantages in early editions of the game. And there are problematic aspects of the AC-system (which I've written about before). Still...this is just "thinking out loud" at this point. I'm certainly not interested in sacrificing playability, just to skew a system to match my own perception of how armor should function.

Basic Weapons

Most of my blog posts are fairly "off the cuff" (in case anyone hadn't noticed), something that gets me in trouble more times than I'd like. Of course, even when I do "plan out" posts, things don't always go as planned, so most of the time I'm, like, "why bother?"

Well, here's one of the times I'm bothering (just a little)...I wanted to talk about the weapons I'm including in the new "heartbreaker," but then I realized that just a little explanation might need an extra post or two, and then I thought, shit, I probably need to explain where these damn weapon list come from in the first place. Because, you see, I'm not terribly interested in including "design notes" in my publications. It's not that such design notes aren't useful or interesting (usually I find them interesting, when I'm reading other people's work), but A) I try to NOT pad page count (to keep costs down), and B) I have a blog to ramble on about why I do stuff.

[for instance, remember last month's multi-part discussion on chopping saving throws? See, that kind of stuff I don't want to have to explain in the game book itself. Putting it on the blog allows interested people to see my bizarre thought process...it also provides a forum of sorts for feedback in the form of dissenting opinions expressed in the comments section]

ANYway...basic weapons. Let's talk about where these weapons come from.

Prior to AD&D (1st Edition) with its extensive list of diverse and different pole arms and swords, we had an extremely simple list of weapons to choose from. The list in Holmes Basic (published prior to the release of the 1E PHB) is the exact same as the list found in Men & Magic, LBB #1 of OD&D. For the sake of the post, here it is (exactly as it appears in OD&D):

Dagger 3
Hand Axe 3
Mace 5
Sword 10
Battle Axe 7
Morning Star 6
Flail 8
Spear 1
Pole arm 7
Halberd 7
Two-Handed Sword 15
Lance 4
Pike 5

[the number listed next to the name is the cost of the weapon in gold pieces. There's no difference between OD&D and Holmes, save that Holmes charges 2 gold for a spear instead of one]

I won't bother with the missile weapons but the list is the same in both OD&D and Holmes.

It's not a bad starting list but there are a couple interesting things to consider. First, it has separate entries for "pole arm," "halberd," and "spear," and "pike." Second, it's listed in no discernible order: the list is neither alphabetical, nor arranged in ascending order of cost, nor by grouping of weapon type (for example, axes together). There's also some conspicuous absences that we find in later editions (like the "short sword" and "war hammer"), yet it includes weapons that are missing from later Basic editions (morning stars, flails, halberds, and pikes).

So where does this list come from? I mean, sure, Holmes gets its list from OD&D, but where does the list originate? And why was this the list the one finalized for inclusion in OD&D?

As usual, we need to go back to Chainmail to answer these questions.

The weapons found in OD&D are the exact same weapons (and presented in the same order) as those found in the Man-To-Man combat section of Chainmail. Chainmail has, in fact, three different combat systems within its contents: a mass combat system for troops on the battlefield, a "fantasy combat" system (for fantasy types engaged with other fantasy types: hero versus dragon, etc.), and a "man-to-man" system for one-on-one fights between individual, normal folks.

[actually, it has separate rules for tournament jousting, too, but I'm not sure I'd count that as "combat"]

Note I'm saying normal, non-heroic types: "hero versus hero" falls into the "fantasy combat" system (a hero kills another hero on a 2D6 roll of 8+, regardless of weapons and armor...well, unless the hero's wielding a magic weapon), and "hero versus normal" is better represented by the standard battlefield system (as heroes and superheroes mow through groups of troops). Nope, the man-to-man is strictly for two normal dudes facing off in a duel. The man-to-man system is supposed to be used for "small battles and castle sieges" and it compares the attacker's weapon with the defender's "armor protection type" to arrive at a (2D6) target number for killing the dude.

The classes of "armor protection" will be familiar to players of the basic D&D: no armor, shield only, leather, leather & shield, chain, chain mail & shield, plate armor, and plate with shield. Each weapon has a different "kill" number depending on the armor type: for example, a battle axe only needs a 7+ against chain (even with shield), but an 8+ against lighter armor types, a 9+ against plate, and a 10+ against plate and shield. A dagger is great against "no armor" (6+), but it's chance of success goes steadily downward from there up to 12 for plate (with or without shield).

The weapon types are classified by numbers, from #1 through #12 in the exact order presented in both OD&D and Holmes Basic:

1. Dagger
2. Hand Axe
3. Mace
4. Sword
5. Battle Axe
6. Morning Star
7. Flail
8. Spear
9. Pole Arms & Halberd*
10. 2-Handed Sword
11. Mounted Lance
12. Pike

[*halberds are indistinguishable from pole arms in man-to-man combat but provide an extra die in mass combat]

Here, the number or "class" of the weapon makes a difference in who hits first in melee, whether or not the defender has a chance to parry, and whether or not either party receives additional blows in the exchange. This is provided by comparing the weapon class of each opponent to one another. For example, the attacker (person who initiates combat) always strikes the first blow, unless the defender has a weapon "two classes higher" (say, if the defender had a spear (#8) and the attacker was using a morning star (#6) or lesser weapon).

This can get rather complex. For example, a person using a sword (#4), attacks a Swiss pikeman (or "piker," as I prefer to call 'em). The piker (#12) gets the first blow in the 1st round (defender with weapon two classes higher), but strikes second in all subsequent rounds (opponent with weapon class two classes lower than the other strikes first). However, because the swordsman is eight classes below the pike, "the defender gets the first blow and may parry the second or strike the second." Based on the text that follows, it appears that this only applies when the defender is the swordsman, although pikes still always receive first blow over lower class weapons if there is a charge. Furthermore, because the sword is more than eight classes lower, the swordsman is allowed to strike three blows every round. If the swordsman was wielding a flail instead, he'd only get one extra blow (two total)...though when exactly these blows occur (prior to the piker? divided before and after the piker's blow?) and how the parries apply are mysteries unsolved by the text.

The point here is that these weapons and (especially) their arrangement matters. They are classified by length and weight, because this is Very Important Thing in melee combat. Not damage (they all kill their opponents, though the degree of success they have is dependent on their effectiveness versus the type of protection utilized). Timing and distance, folks.

I used to hate combat in ElfQuest (the RPG) back in the day because its "strike rank" system based on combatant size and weapon length did not model the fighting found in the comic books. In the comic, Cutter and his short sword makes quick slice-n-dice work of trolls with their spears and pole arms, he's so fast on the scamper...in the game, he'd have his arm cut off before he could strike a blow. What I didn't realize was that the Chaosium's combat system was taken from RuneQuest (I presume) which tries to model a more historically accurate form of combat. At least, that's what I've read (never having played RQ).

Prepare to die, shorty.

This is very different from how combat in D&D eventually developed, using the D20 roll and the "Alternative Combat System." The advantage the ACS has is that it's applied consistently...there's only one method of combat in D&D, whether you're dealing with man-to-man duels, man-on-troop brawls, or man-on-monster slaughterfests. One unified system. Unfortunately, the system leaves quite a bit to be desired (see prior discussions on ghost-fighting and dragon slaying, not to mention everyone's usual bitches about mass combat, armor reducing damage, etc.).

Moldvay's Basic game at least steps away from the Chainmail battlefield and gives us a weapon list more befitting what one might take into a dungeon setting. No pikers here, though even a spear is a stretch (and I'm with Charles on the 10' pole, too). Here (in Moldvay) we also see the advent of two-handed weapons striking last...not a terrible attempt to model the difficulty of fighting with a large weapon in cramped spaces. However, Moldvay has its own problematic parts, like short swords and "throwing hammers."

But we're going to talk about those in subsequent posts this week.
: )

By the way, one thing I do NOT intend on discussing is the extensive AD&D weapon charts...they're a hot mess because of their attempt to "patch" the realism that got dropped in the move from Chainmail combat to abstract combat. Yes, "realism"...Chainmail wasn't supposed to be abstract, it was blow-for-blow, only intended to model killing an opponent (anything that wasn't a "kill" - lesser wounds and fatigue, for example - are ignored outright). But all that space requirements and attack versus armor and speed factor jive...all that just served to complicate (and render absurd) the abstractness of the Alternative Combat System suggested in OD&D. For folks who love it...have at it. I don't plan on discussing in much in the coming days.

Armor...Why the Hell Do I Bother?

People who dig fantasy artwork (like myself) or watch a lot of fantasy films or read fantasy comics, or appreciate a decent Frazetta cover (or his many imitators) have been treated to a wide range of terrible, historically inaccurate images of armor over the years.

Kayce down at Gary's Games is a trained visual artist and has at least some experience with both costume design and historical armor and I showed her the following image and put the question to her:

What the hell is this supposed to be exactly?

Bronze Age?

Keep in mind that I realize actual gladiators didn't tend to wear much in the way of torso armor. But here's this...what? Leather breastplate? It's not metallic, it appears to be flexible. Despite a ceremonial appearance, it would appear to offer at least some protection compared being bare-chested or just wearing a toga. But what would you call this, and was such a form of gear ever actually worn in battle?

And the reason I ask is you see this kind of thing in film. Conan the Barbarian is full of stuff that looks like this...perhaps more or less decorated but the same general theme...something stiff, but flexible, perhaps moulded from rubber like the Batman costumes of the last twenty years.

[speaking of the last twenty years, man, do I feel old sometimes. I heard a Nirvana song playing at a restaurant the other day and realized it's been twenty years since that song was first on the radio. In the 90s I used to listen to the "classic rock of the 70s" radio station...now, something that was NEW when I was in college is just as old as those "oldies" I used to listen to. That's just...ugh. I feel OLD. And going to yoga classes this week has just made me feel FAT and old. I better hurry up and get these books published before I'm too fat and old and decrepit to get out of bed!]

It's possible that this is supposed to be some sort of light, embossed cuir boulli (what gamer folks often equate to "leather armor") but from everything I've read, people weren't boiling leather for armor until around the 8th or 9th centuries (if that early), whereas the Gladiator film is supposed to take place in the 2nd century (and Conan is set sometime 1000 years plus earlier).

But these are films, sure, and films designed to be visually spectacular, which leads to all sorts of weirdness: like King Arthur and his knights wearing full plate armor in the movie Excalibur (despite the Arthur's legend being set in the 5th or 6th centuries...only missed this technological development by a millennium or so). Or this from the most recent Conan movie:

What IS this?

Fantasy armor is cool and all...it's fun to look at, it's fun to fantasize about , and it's neat to visualize one's character (or a neat NPC) wearing some sort of weird hardware in your fantastical, semi-mythological RPG world...but then why even bother trying to inject ANY kind of historical reality into your game?

Padded armor in action!

Have you SEEN what padded armor looks like? Do you think wearing heavy, knee-length padding would make it any easier for a thief to scale a sheer castle wall than wearing a hauberk of chain? Come on! You've got to be friggin' kidding me!

The point is this: in my opinion you've got two ways to go with your armor in an RPG...specific or abstract. And if you're going to be specific, you should either being paying close attention to historic accuracy (like not including plate armor in a time before the invention of firearms, for instance), or making up your one whole-cloth fantasy environment with people wearing crab carapace armor and fiber-and-hide and whatnot. In other words, go big or go home.

[by the way, you CAN choose to go the way of D&D and just include a big mish-mash of nonsensical and historic, though inaccurate, armor types lumped together, where a brigandine jack from the 17th century is seen on the thief in your pseudo 10th century world. Maybe YOU have more important things to worry about like what orcs plan on doing with all that hard earned coin they've stolen and hoarded. When I say "you've got two ways to go," I really mean I have only got two ways to go, for my own peace o mind]

Of course, if you go for the "specific" approach where you actually want to say, "Here's your chain mail...it costs 100 silver shillings and weighs X number of stone and is this effective against axes and that effective against bludgeoning weapons..." if you're going to model that degree of specificity then you had better make sure it actually makes sense, or else people are going to give you a shit hard time...the same way people give Gygax crap (even in death) for originally charging 60 gold pieces for plate mail armor.

You can say, "it's just a game," or you can give it specificity...you don't get both ways.

For me, I've decided to go abstract, because...well, because it's easier. Originally, Gygax was abstract, too (with his CHAINMAIL rules), grouping individuals as light or heavy or armored (for plate armored). Since my game (5AK) is set in the 8th century, I don't have plate armor so I can get away with just saying characters are wearing light armor or heavy armor (or that they're unarmored). And even if I ditch my semi-historical setting and shift back to a prehistoric myth age like Howard's Hyboria, I'll probably do the same. 'Cause it's just damn easier.

People have worn armor, in some form or another, throughout history. Protective gear is important when people are trying to do you bodily harm (duh), and what you wore was pretty frigging custom compared to the way we treat it. You didn't just walk into Sears and pick up a size 42 long coat of chain off the rack...you got sized and measured and paid a ton of scratch for a decent armorer to fit something to you. And hopefully the person knew their craft and wasn't having an off-day or suffering from a lack of decent material or the need for new tools or some other monkey wrench that might throw the process off. But even so, different cultures did their tooling and lacquering and styling differently from each other...resulting in very different pieces of the (ostensibly) "same armor type." And, no, I'm not just talking about different looking helmets.

So rather than try modeling how one guy's double-layer pauldron and vambrace gives him a better AC than the guy with the outmoded spaulders, I'm just going abstract: are you lightly armored or heavily armored. Now, sure, it's a bit more fiddly than that because, well, because I'm a big nerd...but not much more. And while I realize it's not terribly ORIGINAL of me to go this route (Randall Stukey does this in his book, as I recently noted...and the earliest place I've seen it in a true RPG is probably WHFRP), but being "original" isn't, in the final analysis, the point of the exercise. The point is to craft a game that I want to play and that models what I want it to model and leaves out what I don't need.

Good against stakes.

My RPG isn't about historic reenactment, it's about playability, and the different armor types found in most versions of D&D just include more minutia than what I care to include solely for the sake of "options." My players already have PLENTY of options and choices to make (as they should)...the type of armor one wears, in the end, is more a matter of STYLE when it comes to fantasy role-playing. Does your character wear a heavy chain coat that would drop a lesser man to his knees? Do you have interlocking plates, lacquered with the colors of your family crest? Or is it simply a quilted coat with metal studs, easily pierced with a well-placed spear or sword tip?

Now folks using the standard D20 versus AC combat system that want to go this same (abstract) way will need to look to something like Stukey's book...or else rename "leather, chain, and plate" to "light, medium, and heavy" or similar. Folks playing AD&D or Pathfinder with their wide range of armor nuance are going to have a much tougher time, because those editions of the game are designed to be more fiddly (i.e. "detailed") than OD&D or B/X or Chainmail. And if you're playing a more detailed version, there's a chance you're doing so specifically because you LIKE detail and specificity and so an abstract method of doing armor ain't your cup o tea. But boy-o-boy you folks have your work cut out for you...unless you're not into taking yourselves (or your game) too seriously.

But then, if you weren't about taking it seriously, why would you opt for a system of specificity? Just saying.

For me, abstract is the only way to do armor that's going to keep me sane. It doesn't matter to me if your armor looks like something off a medieval tapestry or something out of the Road Warrior. The form doesn't matter nearly as much as the function. At least, for the sake of modeling the armor's effect in combat. There are, of course, other considerations (like cash outlay and routine maintenance, but I generally hand-wave the latter for the sake of expedience...like I hand-wave characters answering the call of nature).

Thus ends my game design "thought of the day."
: )

Armored Spell-Casters

Previously, I wrote that a cleric’s ability to wear armor wasn’t “worth mentioning” by which I meant “isn’t pertinent to the subject at hand,” said subject being what the cleric brings to the game that isn’t there otherwise.

Red commented that the cleric’s ability to use spells and wear armor is a special ability…that what the cleric brings is a hybrid of the magic-user/fighter class for humans that isn’t already present (said hybrid being present with elves) and that prior to the thief class, clerics were the jack-of-all-trades class (for humans) in the game.

Okay, I guess it does bear discussing. Let’s discuss.

First off, I disagree that the cleric is a “hybrid” anything. Elves, with their ability to fight as fighters and magic as magic-users are the only hybrid in the game. Clerics are spellcasters (that discussion is in the next post…which has been put off because I need to write this, thanks a lot!), but they do NOT cast magic-user spells…they have their own suite of spells, different in nature and effect from wizards.

Personally, I dislike calling a thief a “jack-of-all-trades” but I guess it really is the closest thing prior to the bard class of AD&D. They have the full use of weapons, the ability to read magic scrolls, attack ability equivalent to a cleric (if none of the cleric’s other abilities) at the cost of wearing heavy armor. The latter, while probably a game balancing effect, at least has an in-game justification that a big noisy human can’t perform their thiefly skills while bedecked in clinking mail. I don’t see any reason to rule that a thief can't wear armor (when not performing their thief skills)…I mean, it’s not like it burns their skin or something to put it on.

[likewise, you can justify making any thief that wears armor fight as the equivalent of a 1^st level fighter, regardless of actual level; his better attack rolls at high level are in part due to his “thiefly fighting style” and being constricted by armor hamstrings his ability to duck and weave and feint and throw sand and fight dirty, etc.]

But the baseline human in OD&D has the ability to wear armor. Any of the NPC men found in the monster section could be kitted out in full armor and suffer no worse for it (they’re not the equal of an adventurer in fighting ability anyway, but they are unhindered by a little plate and mail). A cleric’s ability to wear armor isn’t unusual…the magic-user’s lack of ability to wear armor IS.  The real question isn’t why the cleric can wear armor and cast spells; the real question is why CAN’T the magic-user? After all, the elf can wear armor and cast spells, the cleric can wear armor and cast spells, what’s the bug up the wizard’s ass that prevents him (or her) from doing the same?

Under the elves’ description (in LBB #1) it states they “may wear magic armor and still act as magic-users.” The implication here is that magic-users can wear armor (like any other human) but their magical ability dries up (at least for the duration of wearing armor). Why?

The short, pithy answer is, of course, “game balance.”

In CHAINMAIL originally, wizards were of variable ability but all fought the same: as two armored foot, or as two medium horse (when mounted). For recognition of scale, an “armored foot” is the equivalent of a dismounted knight on foot (presumably with all the armor, weapons, and know-how to use them). A medium horse is the equivalent of pre-plate armored cavalry (the examples cited as "medium horse" are mail-wearing equivalents, like “Norman knights” and “Saracens” while “heavy horse” are simply “knights”). That wizards fight as two men gives them double the effectiveness…quite a bit more effectiveness than a single fighter, in other words.

Now whether this advantage is due to the actual wearing of armor or some magic that protects the wizard and strengthens his sword arm is not said (Chainmail is an abstract war game, not an individual-scale skirmish game), but either interpretation could be valid with the same end effectiveness. Certainly nothing indicates the wizard in Chainmail does NOT wear armor. In the list of spells presented for wizards none of them are of a “shield” or “armor” variety (the spell “protection from evil” IS present and simply keeps all “evil” opponents outside of a 12” diameter circle). If the wizard’s “armored” value is based on magic, then it is inherent magic that does not need to be cast to be effective.

So really, the only reason I can see for taking away a magic-user’s ability to wear armor (at least presuming OD&D is based on the standards of the Chainmail war game…and there is ample evidence that this appears to be the case) is one of “game balance.” If all magic-users can wear armor AND cast spells, it provides too much of a “leg up” over all the other character classes…despite the fact that elves are already doing this. The only reason not to play an elf is the level restrictions on the character for being a non-human…but to exceed an elf in magical prowess means achieving 9^th level (“sorcerer”) with 100,000XP…a long, hard road indeed!

[especially considering the elf maxes out at both fighter (4^th) and magic-user (8^th) with a paltry 83,000XP]

Now an elfish warlock never achieves the ability to cast 5^th and 6^th level spells, so certainly missed out on some crucial ones (like teleport, animate dead, disintegrate, and weather control)…but everyone misses out on these high level spells unless your campaign lasts up into the 9^th and higher levels of experience.  It took roughly four solid months of weekly gaming, with a LOT of treasure to get guys up to the 3^rd to 5^th level range in B/X (about 8000-9000XP apiece), and even if I kept the same rate (scaling treasure) it would take close to a solid year of gaming to hit 9th level…maybe longer. My recent experience (the last couple-three years) indicates gaming groups get bored a lot faster than that.

But whatever…that’s really straying from the point which is that there is no in-game justification for magic-users to not wear armor. It’s a stylistic (or silly) game balance choice. I mean, at low levels, wizards could simply don their plate armor after their spells had been exhausted, right? Even if it wrecked their “fighting ability” to do so (it’s a lot poorer in OD&D than Chainmail anyway), at least armor could give them the breathing room they need to make it out of the dungeon alive.

Now, why am I wasting all this time discussing the magic-user (and elves) when this post is supposed to be about clerics? Because a comparison was drawn between clerics and magic-users stating that clerics had the ability to be human AND cast spells while wearing armor (bonus!) while both elves and magic-users miss out on some part of this (magic-users lose the armor, elves lose the “human-ness”). As a "hybrid," clerics gain the ability to attack with both magic AND weapons, and are not limited in level like elves.

Okay, they’re not limited in level.

However, the cleric’s spells are NOT attack or combat oriented. For the most part (and I’ll write about this more in the next post), all the cleric’s spells are of the curing, detection, or protection variety. The clerics spells are designed to AID the party members (whether this be with a light spell, locate object, or raising the dead)…whereas the magic-user spell list provides more variety of both type and effect, including a lot of offensive spells along with the miscellaneous/helper offerings.

This, to me, doesn’t suggest a hybrid. If the character is still dealing damage with one’s weapons then there’s nothing “hybrid” about it: armor is necessary to get “stuck in” and fight. Magic-users don’t get stuck in, and they don’t need to due to the types of spells they know.

Does this make sense? Maybe I’m not being clear here. Let’s try this:

It’s not a class feature to wear armor (combat/defensive mechanic) and cast spells (aid/utility mechanic) when the two features are used at different times under different circumstance.

OD&D clerics aren’t casting flame strike and spiritual hammer, and blade barrier while simultaneously soaking up damage with their +3 plate mail. They are fighting like a fighter (armor and weapon), and then casting spells after the fight for other reasons (like healing buddies or detecting traps). There’s no double use one’s getting out of the two attributes of the cleric class. It’s one or the other.

On the other hand, contrast that with the elf. The elf does wade into battle with sword and armor…and then can switch to spell use (Fireball! Lightning bolt!) before switching back to sword and board. Afterwards, the elf might use detect magic or remove curse or wizard eye or whatever, but it’s in the midst of battle that you see the true "hybrid character."

No such hybrid is viewed with the cleric. The magic-user, too, can put on armor (after her spells are exhausted)…so what?  I don’t consider it a class feature that the cleric spends less time changing in and out of their clothes.

Hopefully that all makes sense. Now, let’s talk about the cleric spells, since those ARE something “new” being brought to the table by the class.

Land of Ice (Treasure, Part 2)

[continued from here]

SWORDS

Unless otherwise stated, all swords function as “+1 swords” unless psychic attunement is achieved. A wielder is never forced to attempt psychic attunement with a weapon. Bonus is added to wielder’s attack roll, and increases the damage die rolled (as described in Chapter 5; for example a +1 sword does D8 damage and a +2 sword does D10 damage, rather than the standard D6).

Magic weapons are less likely to break in combat: a magic sword will only break when being used in melee against a weapon of equal or greater enchantment (i.e. equal or greater “+”), or when wielded against a monster with hit dice greater than three times the weapon’s enchantment (for example, a +2 weapon would never break against a monster with less than seven hit dice). Always count a weapon’s highest bonus when determining its chance to break, regardless of psychic attunement. A broken sword that is still useable (as a dagger or short sword) has a 50% chance of losing any psychic imprint powers, although it will still retain a value of “+1” for the duranium with which it is constructed.

Sword +1: a finely crafted weapon of duranium alloy.

Sword +1, +2 vs. Beast: (stage 1) additional bonus is applicable against any non-psychic creature of animal intelligence (like bears, wolves, frost worms, etc.) found in LAND OF ICE. In addition, the first time a subject creature is struck with the weapon, it should make a morale check adding the weapon’s bonus to its roll. These abilities only apply when the weapon is attuned.

Sword +1, +2 vs. Proto-Human: (stage 1) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against sub-human creatures found in the LAND OF ICE (snobolds, trolls, and troglodytes).

Sword +1, +2 vs. Psychic: (stage 1) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but applies to creatures with psychic ability (including magicians and witches) and psychically corrupt (like draugar, ghouls, and wraiths). Creatures not normally subject to morale checks must check morale when struck as if they had a morale score of 9 (sword bonus applies to roll).

Sword +1, +3 vs. Dragon: (stage 2) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against dragons.

Sword +1, +3 vs. Jotun: (stage 2) as a sword +1, +2 vs. beast but bonuses apply against jotun.

Sword +1, Berserker: (stage 1) a psychic character sees a blood-red haze around the blade of this weapon. When attuned, character is able to enter a frenzy when in melee combat, gaining a 2nd melee attack, a +2 bonus to all attack rolls, and D8 extra hit points (which disappear at the end of combat). Once all opponents are downed, the character must make a save versus petrifaction to stop fighting, or will turn on his own companions to slake his blood lust.

Sword +1, Firebrand: (stage 2) to a psychic character, this weapon seems to glow with a. When attuned, the weapon becomes white-hot in its wielder’s hand, doing an additional 2D4 damage to opponents struck (unless they are immune to heat and fire, like jotun), and capable of setting flammables alight. Wounds caused by the firebrand cannot be regenerated by a draugr.

Sword +1, Illumination: (stage 1) when attuned, this weapon can exude illumination upon command, equal to a very bright lantern or bonfire. Primitive sub-humans (trolls, troglodytes, etc.) must make an immediate morale check or flee in superstitious dread. The light lasts until sheathed or the death of its wielder.

Sword +1, Necromantic: (stage 2) to a psychic character, this weapon seems to have a deathly pall about it and is cold to the touch. When attuned the blade acts as a vampiric conduit, draining D4 constitution points from any creature hit, and awarding an equal number of hit points to the wielder. Monsters that do not have constitution points lose an additional D4 hit points instead (the number drained being added to the wielder of the blade). Lost constitution returns at a rate of 1 point per day of rest. Hit points awarded to the blade’s wielder cannot exceed the character’s maximum (though they will heal any damage taken to hit points and constitution).

Sword +1, Pathfinder: (stage 1) when attuned, the wielder can use the weapon as a sort of divining rod to direct him towards any object on which he concentrates. The object of desire must be within 50 yards of the character; the blade points in the proper direction. Useful for finding lost friends, metal ore, and running water the blade always picks the closest object when more than one option lies within range. Using the blade in this weapon is draining; the sword wielder takes D4 damage from using this ability.

Sword +1, Resurrection: (stage 2) a psychic who handles this weapon will see a golden aura of healing light about its blade. When attuned, the wielder may use the weapon to save a mortally wounded character from death. The ability must be used within D4 turns (10-40 minutes) of death, and the deceased body must be present (not disintegrated or in the belly of a frost worm, for instance). The dead character is brought back to 1 constitution point and cured of any effect that may have caused death (for example, poison or disease; the effects of major wounds remain, however). Using this power is very draining; the sword wielder takes D8 points of damage just attempting the resurrection. If this damage would incapacitate the wielder, then the blade will NOT function; the damage suffered is too severe for the power of the blade (and its wielder) to heal.

Sword +2: (stage 2) save for its psychic imprint, this weapon is much like a +1 sword. When attuned, it is capable of damaging wraiths.

Sword +2, Enchantment: (stage 3) as a sword +2; in addition, the character can use the weapon to mentally control another individual. The target is allowed a save versus spells to resist; control lasts until the blade wielder releases the individual (the controller can take no other action while controlling the target). The process of control is exhausting; the sword wielder takes D6 damage upon release of the controlled subject.

Sword +3 (Runeblade): (stage 3) a duranium weapon covered in ancient runes denoting a particularly powerful psychic imprint pattern. Openly carrying such a legendary weapon gives the character a +2 bonus to reaction rolls with northmen, or a +1 with alfar and dvergar.

Sword +1, Flawed: although this weapon appears to be a standard duranium weapon, a flaw in its construction makes it as brittle as a standard sword; further it will immediately shatter if an attack roll achieves maximum damage. 25% of these weapons have a corrupt psychic imprint; they give off a psychic resonance as a normal imprint item, but any attempt to bond with the weapon increases the character’s corruption points by D4 and forces a save versus corruption.


ARMOR

Except for leather jacks, all armor is made from light-weight, super-strong duranium alloy and weighs one-half its normal weight (though see the notes on encumbrance in Chapter 4). All armor and shields with bonuses of +2 or greater, and all leather jacks, require psychic attunement to function at the proper level; however, characters are never forced to attempt psychic attunement. Armor must be worn to attempt attunement.

Shields subtract their bonus from a character’s armor class, improving AC (in addition to the normal improvement afforded for using a shield). Armor bonuses do NOT change the wearer’s armor class; instead the armor’s bonus is subtracted from the damage roll of any successful attack. For example, a character wearing +2 half-mail has an armor class of 6 (as per half-mail armor) but reduces any damage sustained by 2 points from the damage rolled. If the damage is reduced to 0 or less, the attacker immediately checks to see if the weapon breaks (see Chapter 5). Monsters using natural weapons (claws, teeth, etc.) take D4 damage instead.

When mail is rolled check on the following table to see which pieces are found:

Roll D% – Metal Armor Found
01-10 – Full Helm*
11-30 – Full Mail
31-45 – Full Mail + Full Helm*
46-80 – Half-Mail
81-00 – Half-Mail + Full Helm*
*a full helm, when worn, will reduce damage taken by 1 additional point, so long as it matches or exceeds the bonus of the mail worn. A helm +2 or +3 is a psychic imprint item and must be attuned separate from the suit proper or else it will function as +1 only.

Leather Jack +1: (stage 1) this ancient leather armor is a psychic imprint item incorporating very little duranium metal. As the northmen’s technological ancestors ran low on duranium supplies, they sought other ways to create defenses, and many of these leather jacks were crafted. With proper attunement, the armor becomes +1 (absorbing 1 point of damage from attacks); without attunement it is simply a nicely crafted suit of leather armor.

Jack & Shield +1: (stage 1, armor only) as for leather jack +1; however, this set includes a matching shield of duranium (+1) that does not require attunement.

Mail +1: a suit of well-crafted of duranium metal alloy.

Mail +2: (stage 1): as mail +1, but with attunement provides a more stable defense, bolstered by latent psychic energy. Still functions as +1 armor without attunement.

Mail +3 (Rune armor): (stage 2): duranium metal armor covered in intricate runes insuring the attuned wearer receives the maximum defense possible (functions as +1 armor without attunement). Openly wearing this legendary armor provides a character with a +2 bonus to Reaction rolls with humans, alfar, and dvergar, and reduces the morale of sub-human creatures (snobolds, trolls, and troglodytes) by -1.

Set: Mail & Shield +1: armor and shield of matching style

Set: Mail & Shield +2: (stage 1, each individually) as a set +1, but this matching set is psychically imprinted. Each piece of the set (shield plus armor and/or helm) requires individual attunement; will function as +1 without psychic attunement.

Shield +1: a lightweight, duranium alloy shield, often crafted into fantastic (if practical) shapes.

Shield +2: (stage 1) as a shield +1 but with psychic attunement can actually provide a stronger defense. Without attunement, still provides benefit as a shield +1.

Mail, Flawed: although this armor appears to be a standard duranium suit (+1), a fatal flaw in construction renders it unsuitable as protection. The armor shatters into pieces the first time the wearer is struck with a successful attack. 10% of this armor has a corrupt psychic imprint; it gives off psychic resonance as a normal imprint item, but any attempt to bond with the armor increases the character’s corruption points by D6 and forces a save versus corruption. Flawed helmets increase corruption by D8.