Putting the "plus" back into +1

[jacar]

I have come close to completing my own brand of ODD. It really is not my own brand. Rather it is a reworking of Swords and Wizardry by Mythmere Games.

I was originally going to do the highly granulated +/- attribute system that 3.5e uses. Then it occurred to me to go way back to the original LBB but with a kick.

An attribute of 9-12 gives you nothing. 13-17 gives you +1. 18 gives you +2. 8-4 gives you -1. 3 gives you -2.

Weapons do a D6 always. 2 handed weapons allow a roll of 2D6 and you take the best. Some weapons have a kicker if you roll max damage.

You can still use attribute comparison for things like battles of wits or strength or pretty much any sort of non-combat competition.

The big thing about this is that people won't scoff anymore about the lowly +1 sword or dagger. It will be back to being a weapon to be reckoned with.

Similarly, I saw a post about LBB "skills". Since these are all based ona D6, the attribute system works nicely in this vein. The thief might need a 1 to disarm a trap at first level. But maybe his 14 DEX gives him a 1 or 2. Works rather nicely. Also, simply allowing some non-combat skills to players within reason works in the same system. You can allow an additional +1 to skill rolls for every 5 levels of experience.

John

[Finarvyn]

Sounds like you've thought this through pretty well.

Certainly, the smaller +/- range allows you to modify d6 rolls better than if there was a larger +/- range, but in the true spirit of OD&D you might eliminate those +2 and -2 modifiers entirely. They make 18's too valuable and 3's too wimpy.

Just a thought.

[jacar]

Apr 1, 2011 12:17:30 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Sounds like you've thought this through pretty well.

Certainly, the smaller +/- range allows you to modify d6 rolls better than if there was a larger +/- range, but in the true spirit of OD&D you might eliminate those +2 and -2 modifiers entirely. They make 18's too valuable and 3's too wimpy.

Just a thought.

They ARE valuable. I am not a believer in the racial attribute bonus. So there will be no min-maxing in that respect. If you are fortunate enough to get an 18, you should be able to reap the benefits. Similarly, if you roll between 13 and 17, I would argue that would be a considerably better character than one with an 18 and a bunch of average rolls.

Also, understand that you won't be able to do stuff by default either. A fighter with an 18 intelligence won't be able to read magic scrolls for instance. All of that should be kept within reason based on the game masters decision.

[Mr. Darke]

I am using a similar method. In all honesty, I adapted it from Supplemental Lore. So far I have had no issue with the change and really like that there is a bonus for getting the d**n near unattainable 18.

[waysoftheearth]

I use something very similar myself, with a +2 adjustment (to a d20) for an 18.

Funny thing is, even though I write it tables that I show players, not one player has actually rolled up an 18 that I can remember. Not one.

So it's only academic really. But I do like to think that one day someone might roll one, or else an 18 might come into play with an enchantment or magic item.

[jacar]

My idea comes from the notion that the ODD game has players rolling D6s for stuff like hearing and finding secret doors. So I figured, why not have the same thing for other skills? Simple and to the point. It also limits how many different dice you roll. For most items, you will now roll a D20 (combat, saves etc) and for everything else, a D6.