GURPS D&D, part IV: Active Defenses and Saving throws

Read parts I, II and III before, if you prefer.

So, active defenses. In GURPS, unlike D&D, if an enemy hits you, you can still dodge or parry the blow. It makes a lot of sense; having a parrying weapon or shield is useful, but it can break, and parrying a blade with your arm is certainly going to hurt you. 

Like everything in GURPS, you must roll under a target number to succeed. This target number is usually much lower than the "attacking" skill, making attacks usually better than defense. Which makes sense; combat would take forever otherwise.

In fact, sometimes it feels that combat DOES take forever in GURPS. If your Dodge score is 12, for example, you must roll under 12 (with 3d6) to succeed, which means you can ignore 75% of the attacks that hit you.

The concept of "active defenses" is not that different from D&D saving throws.

Curiously enough, spell saving throws DON'T work in the same way in GURPS. At least not necessarily; a magic projectile is still an attack and can be dodged (the sorcerer must roll two times; once to "create" the projectile and the second to hit the target, and then the target rolls to dodge), but a mind controlling spell, for example, requires the target to roll 3d6 under his Will score (with 3d6) AND beat the sorcerer's margin of success, which isn't required when you dodge.

There are half a a dozen additional rules to make it more complicated (critical hits don't allow defenses, special maneuvers can increase or lower the defense scores, a defense of 3-4 always succeeds and 17-18 always fails, the rule of 16, etc), but that's the gist of the thing.

Why does this need fixing? Because it is too complicated and generates lots of useless rolls. 

How do we fix it? Unify and simplify.

Fortunately, using a d20 in a roll under system (like suggested in the previous posts) make things really easy: just use a blackjack mechanic.

(I've written about similar subjects before, here and here; also, Pendragon does something similar IIRC).

First, defenses. Forget GURPS; now defenses are half attribute + skill, like everything else. Obviously, you can defend with any weapon you can use, but "general" defenses should be easy to come by. In my own game, Days of the Damned, I created a "Survivor" skill that applies to, basically, all defenses but combat; we could probably do the same here.

Now, the combat procedure. Roll 1d20 under you skill. If you fail, well, you fail. If you succeed and roll over your opponent's skill, you hit. Otherwise, you opponent gets a chance of defending, but he must roll under his skill (as always) and OVER your skill to defend.

Example: say your Warrior skill is 17, and you roll a 13. You hit. If your enemy's defense is lower than 13, there is no defense. If your enemies defense is, say, 15, he can only defend by rolling a 15, 14 or 13.

Spells? Exactly the same. ONE roll to cast the spell, and one roll to defend (at most). Don't worry, we will talk about spells eventually.

If you want EVEN LESS dice rolling just divide the skill by two for one of the sides, instead of rolling.

Say, if you want an attack roll but not a defense roll in your games, the skill 17 attacker will hit an skill 12 defender with any number between 6 (i.e., 12 divided by two - although a 6 would be a tie, and ties go to the defender) and 17.

Likewise, if you prefer the PCs to make all the rolls, NPCs always divide their skill by 2 instead of rolling.

It seem that, sometimes, combining two games can create something that is simpler than either of them.

GURPS D&D, part III: Combat basics & weapons

Check Part I and Part II.

How would GURPS-D&D combat play out?

First, combat is a skill like any other, but it is ROLLED differently. Not because it is a special skill, but because combat is a special situation that requires multiple repeated rolls. Want to enter an archery contest? That is 3d6 (or 4d6, 5d6) under skill. Combat? A d20 all the way.

Why? Because predictably is necessary when dealing with skills, but boring when dealing with combat.

A natural 1 is a critical hit, by the way. And let's get rid of some of the most stupid rules of GURPS (critical hit tables with "nothing happens" as the most likely result) and D&D (the 3.x "confirming criticals" idea) while we're at it. Funny how those rules are similar, right?

Should we use DEX or STR for combat? Both are fine by me. I'd prefer using DEX "to hit" and STR for damage, including missile weapons, as in GURPS. The idea that you should be using a rapier or longbow if you're weak makes no sense to me! And, as you've seen in part II, combat is mostly skill in this hybrid system, so a low-DEX high-STR fight can still work very well, specially with a d20.

Aside from using a d20, combat is roll-under like everything else. Roll under DEX/2+Fighter (or Barbarian, Monk, etc.) and you hit. Active defenses (dodge, parry, etc) deserves another post.

Forget AC; in GURPS, armor means damage resistance (DR; for example, DR 2 reduces 5 points of damage to 3 points of damage). You don't even need the book; DR is 2/4/6 for light/medium/heavy armor. Flexible armor is easier to don and hide under clothes, but has half DR against crushing attacks. Weight is 15 pounds per point of DR, cost is $300/$1000/$3000.

By the way, the paragraph above fixes one of the most annoying aspects of GURPS: it doesn't have "complete" armor sets in the core book. You must buy armor separately for the torso, legs, arms, etc. You can still use the original method if you prefer more detail.

GURPS equipment is in some ways more interesting than D&D equipment, and GURPS Low-Tech is a thing of beauty if you're looking for detail. But even in the core rule book you've got rules for obsidian blades, different weapons against different armor (no table needed!), and so on.

GURPS does have a few interesting twists when it comes to weapons. Basically, stronger characters are more efficient with axes, maces and other "swung" weapons, while weaker ones would better use spears and arrows ("thrusting" weapons). Some swords and pole-weapons have both options! Nice, huh?

But probably too complicated, and you still need a table to find your damage. It is not a difficult one to use, but I'd rather avoid it.

Let us make it simple: just give an WotC-era bonus to damage (+3 for Strength 16, for example), but DOUBLE the bonus for swung weapons (do not double the penalty for weak characters!).

You can still use damage from your favorite D&D edition (1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10; save the 1d12 for halberds only). It works better, and polyhedrals are more fun, right?

GURPS have lots of "realistic" rules for maximum damage, minimum Strength, etc., but they can simplified to this: you cannot have a bonus greater than the dice you're rolling (so, a 1d4 weapon deals 1d4+4 damage at most). If you want to enforce minimum strength, you need Strength 4 to use 1d4 weapons, Strength 6 to use 1d6 weapons, etc.

It also has this cool little rule where cutting/piercing damage that penetrate armor gets a bonus. Piercing weapons DOUBLE that damage (for example, 10 damage, minus 2 from armor would be 8 damage, but 16 if the weapon is piercing). Cutting weapons add 50% to damage after armor. It is easy once you get the hang of it, I promise.

This means a barbarian with a halberd and Strength 20 (assuming 22 as a maximum) deals 1d12+10 damage, plus 50% of any damage that penetrates armor. Which - surprise! - very similar, in average, to the damage he'd deal using GURPS unadulterated rules (3d+7)!

These rules seem simple enough, but cause lots of interesting effects:

- Strong characters are encouraged to use big weapons, and very strong characters are encouraged to use two-handed weapons.

- Certain weapons are better against certain types of armor by default.

- High DEX and high STR Fighters are BOTH feasible, but they FEEL different in play. Unlike 5e D&D, for example, high DEX characters hit more often, but deal significantly less damage per hit.

- A combat between the Red Viper and the Mountain will play somewhat like... well, the combat between the Red Viper and the Mountain (from "A Song of Ice and Fire").

- The result is both more "realistic" than D&D and more fun than GURPS. Which, come to think of it, might be the whole point of this exercise: making combat faster and more fun, while still giving plenty of meaningful tactical choices to warriors.

GURPS D&D, part II: Skills

Click here for part I, where I explain why D&D does attributes better than GURPS. I started writing this because of GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, but I have no idea if they use a similar system to the one I propose here, since I haven't played GURPS for a while. Let me know in the comments!

One of the reasons I stopped playing GURPS was "too many skills". I know some versions of TSR-D&D (and, obviously, 3e) had lots of skills too, but eventually I decided I prefer 4e and 5e in this regard.

How many skills do I need? Well, around a dozen will do, but I'd take a few extra skills if needed.

GURPS has about 18 skills... that start with the letter A!

But - wait - there is more! At least a few of those MUST be taken with a specialty, so you have Area Knowledge (Neighborhood) and Area Knowledge (City) as two separate skills.

Unfortunately, choosing skills is not enough. Each skill has a different difficulty - easy, medium, hard, or very hard - with different costs (mercifully easier in GURPS 4e than in 3e).

At least you don't have to buy all skills you want to use. Some skills default from attributes, so if you have Intelligence 15 you automatically get Accounting 9. Unless you have the Finance skill. Then you have Accounting equal to Finance -4. Or Merchant -5. You also get a discount to Accounting if you have Finance and want to raise the other skill...

Is accounting a bad example for D&D? Try swords: there is a skill for broadswords, other for short swords, rapier, saber, smallsword, two-handed swords... and they all default to each other.

Even if you don't play GURPS, I think you can see why some people have headaches while reading it.

(And yes, I will STILL say that GURPS is a simple game to PLAY, although character creation can be a hassle).

Sample skills from the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

Still, GURPS has some advantages over D&D when dealing with skills. Probabilities make way more sense, for example. Nope, the Strength 10 guy won't beat the Strength 20 gal in an arm-wrestling match 20% of the time. Maybe 1% of the time, probably less.

The problem, then, is the skill list.

Fortunately, GURPS has a built in solution: Wildcard skills. They replace ALL the skill in any given "umbrella". If you have a "Sword!" skill you can fight with all swords and knives, fast-draw your sword, and jump around while fencing. The good thing is that you can still use GURPS's humongous list of skills if you need to know exactly how Aerobatics work. Or Accounting.

For a "GURPS D&D" game, its easy to see you can use these skills in lieu of classes.

Of course, in D&D classes are often MORE important than attributes/abilities, so a few tweaks might be useful.

Try this: all skills default to Attribute/2, and each +1 bonus costs 12 points. Since you have a bonus instead of a fixed number, you can add it to different attributes: an Dexterity 16 Intelligence 8 fighter with a Barbarian! +5 skill attacks with a skill of 13 but can also identify plants in the wild with a skill of 9 - better than than the group's wizard!

This is even better than Wildcard skills, because I don't want barbarians to jump around while wielding a rapier... but "Swashbucklers!" certainly will! It is all about archetypes, IMO.

Also form the RC. Same page, actually.

Attributes are still useful to define speed, HP, etc., but less useful for class abilities. Which is good because now my barbarian doesn't have to be able to pick locks (high Dexterity) in order to be a fearsome fighter.

It also fixes the need for a skill list, and makes the "Dexterity as an uber stat" a lot less severe.

Come to think of it, this system would also work very well for D&D games.

BTW, "specialty" skills cost 6 points and are added on top of the existing skills (cannot be more than twice the wildcard skill bonus). If you want multiple specialty skills, all but the highest cost 1 point only (then you can have Barbarian! +5, Axe +8, Survival +7, Climbing +7, etc).

Is this too complicated? I think it is easier than 3.x D&D or BECMI weapon proficiencies, but what can I say... I am a GURPS fan after all!

The fallacy of unified mechanics

In the classic TSR-era, D&D famously had a big number of task resolution mechanics. Some things used 1d20, roll high. Others, 1d20 roll low. Thieves skills used both a d% and 1d6 roll low - same as most other tasks. Reactions and morale used 2d6. Initiative, 1d6 roll high. And so on.

The number and type of dice were not the only thing the varied: attacks with a weapons would be rolled by the attacker, while spells would grant a roll to the defender, etc. A number of tasks would require having the necessary resources (spells, equipment, HP, etc) and no roll. Some stuff seems to be decided by GM fiat (a witches reaction to a high-charisma PC, for example).

And, of course, many old school enthusiasts believe most challenges would be resolved without using the dice, just by describing the PCs actions. Some will even rage against thieves skills as detrimental to the whole game.

Nowadays, I'm somewhat used to it. But at some point in the nineties that irritated me greatly; the "new" D&D stuff that I liked (AD&D 2e and the Rules Cyclopedia) insisted in the same confusion as the original versions, when there were more streamlined games around. Why not just use one single method of resolution?

As you might know from my last post, I eventually started playing GURPS, and when D&D 3e hit (to supposedly fix such problems, but we all know how that went) I already thought D&D was too complicated. One of the things that attracted me in GURPS is how everything was "roll 3d6 under your attribute or skill". So simple!

People call this "unified mechanics" - all "modern" games do it. And, of course, D&D eventually followed suit in the year 2000. 1d20, roll high, for everything! Quite elegant!

Well...

It is easy to see how old school D&D might look messy at first. Let us take what, in my opinion, is the simpler, cleaner, and easier version of D&D ever (Moldvay´s) as an example:

- Attack and saving throws use a d20 - you want to roll high.
- Well, there might be a saving throw for falling, if the GM allows it. It uses a d%.
- Thieves skills use d%. Well, except hear noise. It uses 1d6, like most other tasks anyone can do (forcing doors, etc). Roll low.
- Oh, initiative also uses a d6. You want to roll high.
- There is also some uses of 2d6, but the GM rolls them. Monster reaction uses 2d6 - rolling low means the monster is aggressive. Morale (optional) uses 2d6 - you want to roll low, because rolling high means surrender.
- Other tasks use a d20. Except you want to roll low, lower than your ability score. A "20" is always a failure. Climbing a rope, for example. No, climbing sheer surfaces use a different mechanics. Yes, most thieves might have better chance at climbing sheer walls than climbing ropes...

Compare this to 5e (and most WotC D&D):

- Attack roll? Roll a d20, and roll high. Saving throw? Same thing. Skills? Yup, d20, roll high. Thieves too? Yes. What about ability checks? Same deal. Initiative? d20. Morale (optional)? That is a d20 check. Roll high.

Pretty good, huh?

However... Skills and abilities become quite unreliable. Your dexterity 18 gives you 40% extra chance in succeeding in some crazy acrobatics test in B/X (if you use "there is always a chance"), but only 20% in modern D&D. And a 3rd level thief can often succeed where a 10th level thief has failed.

Same with initiative - you could be quite sure of acting first in B/X, but with a d20 your dexterity means very little. Forcing doors with Strength 18? That would be a 5/6 chance in B/X, more than double the usual 2/6 - but in modern D&D your Strength bonus will mean nothing 80% of the time. Likewise, morale becomes quite the coin toss.

The problem isn't numbers; the problem is my players that don't even care about the math realizing the dice is more important than their characters when resolving most tasks (and they do).

Well, at least everything is resolved the same way now, right? From fighting to, say, climbing? Really straightforward! Not quite.

When you climb, you roll a d20. If you roll high enough - success!

When you attack, you roll a d20. If you roll high enough - success! But wait, roll for damage. No, no d20s here - a d4, d6, d8, d10 or d12, depending on the case. Rolled a 1? Yeah, not such a great success after all. What if you rolled the maximum number? Well, then your enemy loses some HP. Success? Not quite, you must roll the d20 again next round to attack again. Did we roll initiative? Yeah, you must roll a d20 BEFORE attacking, to see who goes first...

I see no honest way to say that combat and skills use the same mechanics in any version of D&D. And, if they don't, using a d20 for both seems forced - because there are many more effective ways that have been used before.

Even when 5e tries to fix the d20 problems - but giving reliable skills to rogues or reliable strength for barbarians - it does so by adding NEW mechanics, often more complicated than just rolling a different kind of dice.

Back to GURPS then! At least 3d6 creates a good bell curve, making skills reliable, and all damage uses d6s. Not 3d6, but, still...

The problem is that "reliable" and "combat" don't mesh too well. Fighting can become quite predictable, and depending on the rules you're using, you can spend rounds and rounds with nothing happening because both foes have more than 70% chance of blocking an attack! There are some critical hits, but they are hard to come by... and then you roll in a critical hit table where "nothing happens" is what you 37% of the time!

You can imagine "reliable combat" got a bit boring after a while.

Now, let us make a few things clear. B/X. GURPS, and D&D 5e are some of my favorite RPGs.

And I quite LIKE the idea of unified mechanics - as one possible goal, not as a straitjacket. Yes, I have proposed some for B/X in this very blog and I use them in my own RPG, Days of the Damned.

But, here is the point:

The most important thing about a game mechanic is that it is FUN and it WORKS.

The rest is secondary. The fact that mechanics are similar to each other is a nice addition, but not a requirement. Games are meant to be PLAYED, not to be admired by the reader ("oh, how elegant, armor class is equivalent to difficulty class"...).

If the price for fun is using some different types of dice, I'll pay it gladly.

ADDENDUM: how to solve all my problems with GURPS, B/X and 5e, "unified" style!

These ideas are old, but they work well enough.

- Combat uses 1d20. A "bell curve" effect is created by dividing it in many rolls. Saving throws use the same because the risk is exciting. Skills uses 3d6. "Natural" bell curve.

- For 5e: use 3d6+mods, 4d6 if you have advantage, 2d6 for disadvantage. DC 30 is actually "nearly impossible" now. Or just fix the DCs accordingly (maybe 10/14/18/22/26).

- For B/X: everything but combat and saving throws is now 3d6 roll under, 4d6 if the task is hard, etc. Thieves have no skills, but they get a bonus equal to their level when trying to hide, climb, open locks, etc. It is not hard to remember: roll high with 1d20, roll low with d6s. Natural 20 good, 666 bad. Morale and reactions stay as they are, because they work.

- For GURPS: use a d20 in combat and high-risk scenes. And no more "nothing happens" results in the critical hit table!

GURPS D&D, part I: some quick thoughts on the matter (and attributes)

As you probably know, there is a kickstarter  for GURPS Dungeon Fantasy going on. For all I know, it should be great. And I should know a little about the subject, since I've been playing GURPS fantasy for more than 20 years until switching to old school D&D, a few years ago.

Reading about new GURPS stuff fills me with nostalgia. It is an awesome game and I should probably write more stuff about it.

So, why did I stop playing? Well, I think GURPS can do a lot MORE than D&D with fewer rules. For all the "complexity" fame that GURPS has, I am constantly reminding people that I played GURPS because I though D&D was too complicated and made little sense - of course, had I know B/X before, my experience might have been different.

Still, I switched to old-school D&D because I think there are quite a few things that D&D can do a lot BETTER than GURPS.

First, GURPS combat got boring after a while, for reasons I will explain later. But this might be contentious; a better example is old D&D adventures and OSR stuff - GURPS has nothing quite like it (on the other hand, it has great sourcebooks on everything, and you can use most of those for any RPG). And those Monster Manuals! GURPS has a few good ones, but nothing compared to D&D.

Much of this is OGL's fault. Anyone can do D&D nowadays, and, although there is lots of trash, there are also more hidden gems than I can count. On the other hand, only SJG can do GURPS. The upside is that I used to buy EVERY. SINGLE BOOK. that SJG published because I already knew that they would be good (more than I can say about WotC, to be honest).

In my last years of GURPS, I spent lots of times trying to convert D&D stuff to GURPS. Eventually, I didn't see the point anymore. GURPS is quite simple, despite what people might say; but there is just TOO MUCH stuff (too many skills, advantages and disadvantadges, for one).

So I probably won't back the kickstarter, for lots of reasons - mostly, time and money, but if you have those available, I think you should. I can guarantee GURPS has useful stuff for pretty much everyone.

In any case, there is still a place in my heart for GURPS stuff. There is so much I learned from it, and I reckon some people that never played GURPS can find something useful in it. There is so much I would change too - that is why I play D&D.

And I think Ic an explain GURPS in D&D-speak, which might be relevant to some readers.

If there is enough interest, this might become a long series of posts; if not, maybe I will go back to writing about D&D sooner (who knows, I love when people read and comment on my blog, but I'm doing this for fun).

This probably beats most D&D settings, Seriously.

So, how would my version of GURPS D&D be like? Let us start with attributes.

First, if you've never played GURPS, it has "attributes" instead of abilities. Strength [ST], Dexterity [DX], Health [HT] and Intelligence [IQ].

All attributes start at 10. You can roll 3d6 in order, if you want, or use point-buy, which is quite central in GURPS. Most skills are based on DX and IQ, so they cost 20 points to raise (from 10 to 11, 11 to 12, etc). ST and HT cost 10.

All combat skills are based on DX, unlike D&D, and although ST is what causes damage, a good DX can make up for it, by targeting the throat, etc. This made lot of sense to me back in the day. For combat, DX is probably the main stat.

IQ is another important stat. It is Wisdom and Intelligence rolled up in one, as it includes magic, many skills, perception and will power (and you thought D&D was silly to use Wisdom for the last two!). It also includes Charisma stuff - fast talk, diplomacy, etc. I am not the first person to suggest this is just too much stuff for a single attribute; there are lots of house rules that address this in one form or another.

There is no easy way to elegantly fix that that I can think of without making it too complicated.

One could just use D&D abilities, and it would actually IMPROVE the game in lots of ways. Everything should cost 10 points per level - this is actually very close to how GURPS does things (see Sean Punch /Kromm about charisma cost here).

DEX and INT are too powerful in GURPS terms, since it is a skill-based game and most skills are based in DEX and INT, but INT can be easily fixed if you move some of the skills around.

DEX, on the other hand, is harder. Not only is the one you use to attack, but is also useful for dodging, no matter your armor. And, of course, most "thief skills" are also DEX-based. This is one thing you could change - maybe lock-picking and sneaking require more attention than agility - but then you've got a lot of wise thieves walking around... Not a good idea when you are trying to create archetypal characters.

You might just keep the cost at 20 points per level, if you want the six abilities or think the ability to dodge a punch is akin to the ability of picking as lock. In my own game, I just use two "Dexterity" and "Agility" instead, but adding a new ability kinda ruins my whole "GURPS D&D" theme. To stay true to my D&D house rules, I could rule there is NO combat attribute, and you must rely on classes/skills instead, like in OD&D. This seems quite natural to me in D&D, but feels very strange in GURPS, which has no other skills without attributes that I can think of.

In short, to make this compatible with both GURPS and D&D in some way, I guess I would prefer to have six abilities with DEX defining all attack rolls but having twice the cost of other abilities.

GURPS' way still makes a lot of sense to me, but this whole exercise always makes me reflect on how elegant and effective the six D&D abilities are for this kind of fantasy. There are plenty of reasons to like D&D, but some good ones' for playing GURPS too - which we will cover on future posts.