Background
Deathbringer is a homebrew hack of 5E and B/X D&D made by Professor Dungeon Master (PDM) over on Dungeon Craft. It's not published or in any way official. He's constantly tinkering with the rules and polling his viewers and patrons for feedback to improve the system for his home game. He is also a big fan of Tracy and Curtis Hickman's book, X-treme Dungeon Mastery (XDM), which I also recommend and have discussed previously.
Professor Dungeon Master's most recent rules proposal is somewhat radical, blending the brilliance of the XD20 system from XDM with the traditional stats and stat-generation method of classic Dungeons & Dragons. I have been discussing an eerily similar concept with a friend and I was delighted to learn someone of PDM's notoriety is thinking along similar lines, validating the idea in my mind.
Up until this point, Deathbringer has used B/X stats and ability modifiers, but replaced the attack matrices with a 5E-style "proficiency" bonus that increases with your level.
Proposal
The proposed rule change for Deathbringer is to instead generate stats by subtracting 3d6 from 20 to obtain a default target number for that stat. No modifiers or proficiency bonuses. Simply roll the relevant stat to succeed. It's similar to the XD20 system from XDM (see PDM's review here), and the inverse of The Black Hack, but by rolling 3d6 for the traditional 6 stats of Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma it feels closer to D&D.
Pros
- Rolling 3d6 for the traditional 6 stats still feels like D&D.
- High rolls and nat 20s are still good, unlike roll-under systems such as The Black Hack.
- No modifiers and no bonuses = no math. Skip searching your list of skills and adding - just roll the number.
Cons
- Lower stats = better is counter-intuitive, esp. to experienced players.
- Static target numbers. Hitting a goblin should be easier than a dragon.
- No Armor Class. What does armor do?
- Not compatible with 5E or most OSR systems.
Reactions and Response
The reaction on PDM's Patreon has been mixed with most critics citing the Cons listed above. I am excited by this idea partially because it's so similar to the system I'm currently tinkering with, and I think all of the Cons are easily addressed.
Con: "Lower stats are better" is counter-intuitive
I don't disagree. Generally when people talk about stats in RPGs, videogames, etc. - higher is better. A good (higher) stat requires a lower roll to succeed.
D&D variants accomplish this by mapping stats to a modifier or bonus applied to the d20. Higher stats map to a higher bonus. But why roll for stats between 3 and 18 if we only care about a single digit modifier?
Another option is to put a "+" after each stat to indicate it's the minimum needed to succeed. This is cosmetic but may help players make the cognitive leap.
Roll-under systems such as The Black Hack flip the problem. High stats are good, but you roll the d20 under the stat to succeed. Natural 1s are critical successes and natural 20s are critical failures.
I think wanting both high stats and high rolls can be achieved without bonuses via something like the Target20 system. Use traditional stats generated by the sum of 3d6. Then d20 roll + STAT >= 20 means success. In other words, your default "target number" is the difference between your stat and 20. You can write this on your sheet as if it is your stat, or calculate it on the fly. But I recommend letting the DM handle it while they're setting the target number. This will make the most sense in a moment.
Con: Static target numbers. Hitting a goblin should be easier than a dragon.
Completely true. It was not clear from the rule proposal how "fixed" the target number is meant to be. But if you're familiar with PDM's philosophy and the XDM philosophy from which this idea is born, you'll know that the secret to Dungeon Mastery is picking a reasonable target number on a d20. Other rule systems codify this with bonuses, armor class, and difficulty class to make the world feel consistent and fair. This system relies on the DM to weigh the situation, including the default target number suggested by a PC's stat, and set a reasonable final target number to roll on the d20. Of course hitting a dragon should be harder than hitting a goblin. A PC's stat merely suggests a starting point.
But wait... is hitting a goblin easier than a dragon? Goblins are nimble and small where a dragon might be huge. It's easier to significantly damage a goblin than it is a dragon. Isn't that what Hit Points are supposed to model? Maybe static target numbers aren't a problem at all...
Con: No Armor Class
If the target number for a melee attack is the attacker's strength, what does armor do? This is a valid question and probably the biggest deviation from traditional D&D. Two options I see are modify the target number and damage absorbtion.
Modifying the target satisfies the same concern posed for static target numbers. Someone wearing armor should be harder to hit, so adjust the target up. This is exactly what armor class reflects, but instead of being a static value it's a modifier to the roll. Effectively the system is trying to put all the math on one side of the equation (the DM's side) so all the player cares about is what number to roll on the d20.
I'm not a fan of damage reduction because the previous method feels closer to traditional D&D and I'm generally opposed to things that negate something else in the game. Following the old improv theater adage of "yes, and" I would rather see the full effects of an event compounded and added to, rather than negated or cancelled. Armored foes regularly ignoring some portion of damage from every hit is a grind. It's hit point inflation in disguise.
If you're insistent on exploring damage reduction I would point you towards Into the Odd or its children, Electric Bastionland and Cairn. The idea is skip the attack roll entirely and roll a damage die depending on the weapon. Light, medium, and heavy armor absorb 1, 2, and 3 points of damage per hit. End tangent.
Con: Not compatible with 5E or OSR
I don't fully understand this criticism. This system is all about relying on the DM to set reasonable target numbers so any experienced DM familiar with an adventure should be able to wing it without much trouble. You can use most 5E monster stats as-is with the default target number = 20-STAT. For stats that exceed 20 such as Giant or Dragon strength, Lich or Beholder intelligence, Terrasque constitution, etc. give the monster a very low (5 or less) target number in the relevant stat. Magic items and spells would be no more or less compatible than any other rules hack or system. You won't be able to rely on anything system-specific, but you can improvise a target number and approximate the effect.
Praise
The pros of this system are all the benefits of XD20 with more of the familiarity of traditional D&D. It's surprisingly simple and hangs its hat on the fact that in order to succeed you need to roll a specific number on the d20. You can run simulations, calculate probabilities, and use lookup tables to factor in every little detail to your heart's content - but it won't make your game any more fun.
What you need is a good Dungeon Master that can look at a situation, decide the likelihood of success, and give you that final target number. The stats are just suggestions. Negotiation is encouraged. The DM's judgement is final. Trust is key and no set of rules will protect you from a DM you don't trust. Get a better DM. Be a better DM.
Room for Improvement
Less is more. In this case less actually solves the low stats = good criticism. The reason I'm so hyped about this idea is I've been experimenting with almost the exact same thing. The difference is I wouldn't subtract the stat from 20 and put it on the character sheet. Keep your classic stats. Let the DM do the math and implement whatever method they choose to determine a final target number so long as it feels fair. It's never going to be fair. This is a game of pretend.
As a DM I would to start with 20-STAT as the baseline target number, but by not putting that on the character sheet it cements that it is not a static number - it should frequently be modified up or down depending on the situation. But there's no reason an experienced DM can't look at a STR 18 and say "Hey, that's really strong. Like, super strong. You're trying to grab the dragon's tail and hold on for dear life to distract it? Hell yeah - roll a 10." No math needed.
Quiz: How did I come up with 10?
A. Calculate +3 strength +4 athletics proficiency vs DC 17
B. Calculate +4 strength +2 from the d4 proficiency die I rolled vs DC 16
C. Calculate 20 - strength 18 = 2, but this is a dragon so I modified the target by +8
D. Decide this attempt had about a 50-50 chance of success
Answer: If they're all the same result, does it matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment