Fixing Magic Jar in B/X?

Trigger warning: This post contains suggested modifications to B/X D&D. If you feel strongly about the "artistic integrity" of B/X D&D, read at your own risk.

In my recent post about the spells in B/X D&D,  Magic Jar was listed as being particularly confused and confusing. I've since arrived at what I think is a rather simple solution for just about all its problems. Furthermore that solution requires none of the even more complicated AD&D machinery. I actually quite like the resulting spell, but your mileage may obviously vary! Let's start with the original spell itself, straight from the B/X Expert rules (in all probability "fair use" applies):

Magic Jar
Range: 30'
Duration: special

With this spell, the caster puts his or her body in a trance and transfers his or her life-force to an inanimate object (magic jar) within range. From this object, the spell caster may attempt to possess (take over) any one creature within 120' of the magic jar. If the victim makes a successful saving throw, the possession has failed and the caster may not try that victim again for one game turn. If the victim fails the saving throw, the creature is possessed and its body will do as the caster wills. While under the control of the spell caster no spells of the possessed may be used. If the possessed body is destroyed, the magic-user or elf must return to the magic jar. From there the caster may try to possess another body or return to his or her own. The caster can be forced out of the possessed body by a dispel evil spell.

Destroying the magic jar while the caster's life force is in it kills the caster. Destroying the magic jar while the caster's life-force is in another body strands the life-force in the possessed body. Killing the caster's real body strands the life-force in the magic jar until the caster can possess another body! Once the caster returns to his or her real body the spell is over.

The first complaint I had was about the two ranges used by the spell. I now think that those are fine provided we interpret them as follows: The caster's body has to be close to the magic jar to initially transfer the life-force. Once in the magic jar, the caster has completed "the hard part" and now has a somewhat larger range to find victims in. However, any "soul traffic" between victims and the magic jar must happen in that 120' radius. Finally, the "traffic" between the jar and the caster's body must happen in that 30' radius, including on the "way back" at the end of the spell.

This solves two more questions I had: What range counts for returning to the jar, the 30' or the 120'? What happens when a Dispel Evil pushes the caster out and the magic jar is too far away? It also solves a question I didn't explicitly pose, but one that's implicit in the spell as written: What happens if the possessed body dies and the magic jar is too far away? With the "strict ranges" interpretation, both of these result in the casters immediate demise. Neat!

But I had a lot more questions. Turns out that most of these become equally easy to answer when we add the following to the spell description (paraphrased):

The victim's life-force gets sucked into the magic jar while the caster has possession of the victim's body.

Let's see what this solves. Can the caster "chat" with the victim? No. Does the victim remember anything the caster made his possessed body do? No. Does the caster gain any of the victim's knowledge, spells, skills, etc.? No. Can the victim attempt to "push out" the caster's life-force, maybe similar to what Charm Person allows? No. See how easy that is? No need to write several unsatisfying paragraphs (and a custom "add wisdom and intelligence of victim and caster, then compare on this really complicated table" rule) like AD&D did.

It also solves a related, although mostly metaphysical problem: If the victim's life-force doesn't go into the jar, we now have two "souls" in one body. Can that be? Wouldn't the universe implode? (Don't complain, I said it was a metaphysical problem, didn't I? Actually there's a deeper one too, namely "Do souls that hop around bodies exist at all?" but let's not go there.)

Maybe least obvious is that our little addition explains (indirectly) why the caster should be allowed to make use of his or her spells while in the victim's body. (Always assuming that the body is capable of performing the necessary verbal and somatic activities those spells necessitate.) If what we're dealing with is essentially a "soul swap" that includes whatever is "stored in the brain," well, then the memorized spells of the caster should go with him. Just like the victim's spells (if any) go into the jar together with the victim's life-force and are hence not available to the caster. While the caster (or the victim) is in the jar, though, spells cannot be cast because there's no way to perform those verbal and somatic elements. And while the B/X version doesn't mention the caster using spells in the victim's body, AD&D clearly allows it. So there's predecent.

That leaves only one of my original questions, namely whether the caster can leave the victim's body and return to the magic jar voluntarily. I think that has to be a resounding "Yes!" because if it's possible for the caster to get stuck in a beetle by accident, well, presumably that's not where our hero wanted to end up, is it? If he or she now had to commit "beetle suicide" as the only way out, that's just too depressing.

But I have two twists left, at least one of which I hope you'll appreciate (I try so hard to write pleasing D&D posts).

First it seems pretty sad that the victim of Magic Jar can do nothing but sit in the magic jar until the caster decides to return. Imagine the victim's body (and the caster's life-force with it) dying miles away: The "poor soul" would be in the magic jar forever. Literally. (Unless someone casts Dispel Evil on the jar by accident, of course killing the victim in the process.) How do we solve this?

Let's add a chance that the victim can take over the caster's body! 

Where do we take it from? Charm Person of course! After all a "smart soul" should be able to figure out what's going on much more quickly than a "dull soul," right? (A scary alternative would be to allow the victim to use the magic jar just like the caster did. Think it through, hilarity would ensue for sure as entire cities start swapping bodies and souls.)

Twist number two is only applicable if you import certain BECMI spells into your B/X game like I tend to do: A cleric can use Speak with the Dead to communicate with the life-force trapped in the magic jar. Why? Well, it's a "disembodied soul," right? Potentially the "disembodied soul" of someone who is actually dead as well. Seems perfectly sensible to me! And in terms of the game it also gives players a way to communicate with that evil wizard in the magic jar to maybe negotiate some kind of deal. More options are always better!

Alright, that was a lot of talking. I now give you my version of Magic Jar written up in B/X style (well, as much as I am able to copy that style anyway):

Magic Jar
Range: special
Duration: special

The caster puts their body in a trance and transfers their life-force into an inanimate object within 30'. From this magic jar, the caster may once per round attempt to possess any creature within 120'. If the victim saves against spells, the possession has failed and the caster must wait one turn before trying that creature again.

If the victim fails to save, the victim's life-force is transferred to the magic jar as the caster's life-force takes control of the victim's body. The caster's life-force can return to the magic jar (and thus reverse the process) only if the magic jar is within 120' of the victim's body. This applies whether the caster leaves voluntarily, is forced out because the victim's body is killed, or is forced out by a Dispel Evil spell. If the caster's life-force cannot return, it perishes. While in the victim's body, the caster may use any memorized spell as long as the body is in principle capable of spell-casting.

While in the magic jar, the victim's life-force gets another save against spells as per Charm Person: Intelligence 13-18 once per day, 9-12 once per week, 3-8 once per month. If successful, the victim's life-force can take over the caster's body. Destroying the magic jar kills any life-force within it and possibly strands the caster's life-force in the possessed body. Killing the caster's body prevents any life-force from returning to it. Once a life-force returns to the caster's body from within 30', the spell ends.

Okay, so it's a little longer than the original, but I think it's worth it. Let me know what you think of the new version! And maybe someone even notices the one thing I totally left open to interpretation despite it being addressed in the AD&D version of the spell. Anyone?

Update 2015/10/19: There's one big tradeoff I forgot to discuss, sorry. Allowing the caster to cast further spells in the victim's body means that he or she could cast Magic Jar again! Visualize this as a "trail of bodies and magic jars" if you wish.

I didn't want to add a restriction of the "any spell except another Magic Jar" kind because that seems petty. On the other hand, repeated casting of the spell requires that we fix which body counts as the original. The simplest story is probably to just use the body the caster was in for a certain Magic Jar as the original for that spell. So the caster could return from the second victim to the body of the first victim for example, thereby ending the second Magic Jar spell.

This works for the most part, except if the truly insane is attempted: The second (or tenth, or onehundredfortyseventh) Magic Jar is used to "possess" the original caster of the first Magic Jar again. (In other words, the caster is trying to "imprison" a whole bunch of people in magic jars and come out "on top" by possessing himself again.) Two things help to avoid that:

First, note that I didn't specify whether the caster can memorize spells while in a victim's body. True, the way I interpreted the rest I guess it would be natural to allow it, however that would mean that no upper bound on the length of the "chain of jars" exists, a spooky proposition. So the concerned DM could certainly use that to keep things "managable" as it were.

Second, note that the original body of the first Magic Jar does not contain a life-force. Since we described the process of possession as an "exchange" of life-forces, the concerned DM could rule that the original body cannot be possessed again: it lacks a life-force to imprison in turn.

And if all of this sounds like a huge hassle to you, the line "The caster's life-force can only participate in one Magic Jar spell at a time." would also fix everything. (At least if we ignore that the caster of one Magic Jar could be the victim of someone else's Magic Jar as well. Dicey!)

All three options work for me. Now I wonder if I should I rewrite the spell for this or just leave it as commentary? Hmmm...

Concentration in B/X D&D

This is a first follow-up to yesterday's post about B/X spells. Instead of going spell-by-spell I'd like to point out a few more general issues with the spell descriptions in B/X and propose some small fixes. This will no doubt take several posts, so today I am starting with...

Concentration

A number of spells such as Phantasmal Force, Wall of Fire, Insect Plague, Conjure Elemental, and Control Weather use the notion of "concentration" as part of the spell's duration. There are also several magic items that make use of "concentration," for example the Ring of Animal Control, Helm of Telepathy, Medallion of ESP, and Wand of Illusion. And of course there's the general rule (B47) that using magic items requires "concentration" as well.

However, there's no real definition of what "concentration" means anywhere, it is defined more-or-less "ad-hoc" in every spell or item description. The glossary of the Basic Set does provide a definition as well:

A character putting all his or her attention on an object or action, during which the character may do nothing else, and which, if distracted (attacked) will cause the concentration to be lost.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't jibe with all the other definitions. Here, in the "official" definition, it's enough to be attacked to become distracted. In the Phantasmal Force description, nothing is said about concentration. The Ring of Animal Control and the Helm of Telepathy are in agreement that the user cannot move while concentrating. However, the Medallion of ESP does allow regular movement while concentrating, just not casting spells or fighting. Insect Plague and Wall of Fire require the caster to remain stationary again. Conjure Elemental and the Wand of Illusion allow half movement but neither casting nor fighting. The Wand of Illusion also states that a successful attack that does damage or a failed save (against charm for example) breaks concentration.

What gives?

The default answer to all complaints about B/X is of course "this is how it is, it's magical, you're wrong to even think there's something wrong here, move on and play the game" but I don't find that very satisfying. I want B/X to be simple enough for me to memorize, and that requires some "regularity" to the rules. So call me dense or something, but I think "concentration" should mean exactly one thing, not five different things.

At least all the various definition of "concentration" agree that it's not possible to concentrate and cast a spell or attack someone at the same time. So we can start from there.

Next movement. The majority of definitions seems to require remaining stationary, but this doesn't scale to all applications. For example, it is essential for the utility of the Phantasmal Force and Conjure Elemental spells that the caster can move with them to some degree. Think illusion of an ogre moving down a dungeon corridor with the party trailing behind at a distance. Think elemental conjured to help excavate the wizard's dungeon complex. However, I think full movement is too much because then there's literally no penalty that must be paid. Half movement seems quite appropriate though. On top of that, it's in line with "Fighting Withdrawal" in regular combat. The only thing it doesn't line up with is casting a spell in the first place: the rules don't allow for any movement. But I think that "maintaining a spell" should be less stressful than "casting a spell" in the first place, so that's alright with me as well.

Which leaves the question of whether an attack is enough to distract or whether the attack has to do damage. Luckily the expert set comes to our rescue because it finally has a rule for interrupting spell casters (X11):

The caster must inform the DM that a spell is being cast and which spell will be cast before the initiative dice are rolled. If the caster loses the initiative and takes damage or fails a saving throw, the spell is interrupted and lost.

I feel in pretty good company accepting this as the rule for concentration as well. If we don't require damage or a failed save, it is way too easy to interrupt spell casters. The same should be true for concentration which (as I said above) I consider "maintaining a spell" and therefore easier. And distracting someone from an easier task should be harder, if anything. So here's my revised definition for what "concentration" means in B/X and I am happy to apply this rule for all situations where concentration is called for.

A creature concentrating on maintaining a magical effect cannot cast another spell or perform an attack. The creature can move at half speed though. If the creature takes damage or fails a saving throw, however, concentration is lost.

Note that with this understanding of "concentration" as "maintenance" the use of the term "concentration" for casting spells or activating magic items in the first place has to cease. Those things do not allow movement in line with the existing rules. I guess a new question that comes up now is whether someone activating a magic item can be interrupted just like a spell caster, but I'll leave that for another post...

Debating B/X Spells

I've been working on my little side-project: producing a concise "cheat sheet" for all the spells in B/X D&D. In the process I ran across a couple of slightly confusing things that I would love to get feedback on, especially from other "B/X fanatics" across the interwebs. I'll just organize this spell-by-spell for now, general themes will probably be dealt with in a later post. Let's start with cleric spells:

• Bless: Does the reversed version, Blight, also only work if cast before melee is joined?
• Hold Person: For the group version, does the caster pick who gets affected? Or should there be a rule similar to the Sleep spell that lower HD creatures are affected first?
• Resist Fire: Why is the duration so much shorter (2 turns versus 6 turns) than for Resist Cold, a lower-level spell? (AD&D gives them both 1 turn/level.)
• Create Water, Create Food: These two are listed with a range of 0' which usually means "self" or "touch" but I presume that neither does the water "come out of the cleric" nor does he or she have to "touch" all the food that everybody else will eat later. A close range like 10' seems more reasonable, no?
• Cure Serious Wounds: A spell that's three levels higher but only does twice the healing of Cure Light Wounds? Doesn't seem quite fair, especially since Neutralize Poison is the same level and potentially much more helpful. (Alas AD&D has the same problem.)
• Speak with Plants: This spell allows for "favors" similar to Speak with Animals but doesn't explain how to determine whether a favor is granted; the latter spell uses a reaction roll, why not do the same here? Or should we just assume that the favor will be granted to make up for the much shorter duration?

Alright, and on to the magic-user spells. Here I have a lot more questions, and many are a lot more complex as well:

• Invisibility: First the duration is "permanent until broken" which begs two questions: Since objects cannot "attack or cast" they simply stay invisible forever? Seems a tad powerful for a level 2 spell. Also, no other spell uses "permanent until broken" they usually say "special" or "indefinite" for their duration. Second the description says that a "person or object" can be made invisible, but I guess that the intention really is "creature" right? Shouldn't I be able to make my kobold retainer invisible as well? Or really just folks with character classes?
• Knock: The spell description is written in plurals. Does that really mean all the doors/locks in the area will be blown open for 1 round?
• Wizard Lock: When they say "magic-using character (or NPC) of three or more levels greater" do they mean to include clerics as well? And what about magic-using monsters with 3+ HD over the caster?
• Dispel Magic: Does it really dispel all spells in the area? It cannot be targetted any better? Also, it's listed as effective against "magic-user, elf, or cleric" spells but it leaves out spells created by spell-casting monsters like Dragons?
• Haste: Does the caster get to pick the recipients or are all creatures in the area, up to 24, hasted?
• Confusion: Shouldn't undead be immune since this is a kind of charm or at least mind-altering?
• Growth of Plants: What does "all but the largest creatures" mean exactly? Giants? Rocs (ignore flying for the moment)? Purple worms? Maybe we can just put a HD number on it to be clear?
• Hallucinatory Terrain: Unlike Phantasmal Force this doesn't require concentration. So once cast, it just "sits there" as an illusion. Now it says "touch by intelligent creature dispels" which presumably means that insects and foxes and so on can stumble through the illusion with no effect even if observed. A goblin passing by, however, who touches the illusion by accident will ruin it. Not just for itself mind you, but totally ruin in. (This may be a more general complaint about illusions and how to handle them.)
• Animate Dead: There is no upper limit to the number or HD a magic-user can control. So cemeteries should be amongst the most well-guarded places in any civilization? And all evil magic-users should be awash in skeletons and zombies.
• Wall of Ice: Doesn't say "up to" in the spell description, unlike Wall of Fire. So it's always exactly 1,200 square feet? But what's to stop the caster from making whatever is "left over" really long and really low? The wall can be "any other shape the caster desires" after all. Shouldn't we just add the "up to" to the spell description?
• Feeblemind: Can only be used against magic-users and elves, nobody else? Not against dragons or other magic-using monsters? Not against clerics? Hmm.
• Magic Jar: Wow, what a complicated spell. First it has two ranges, 30' and 120', and it's not 100% clear which one is which. But then the hard questions start. Is the victim's soul displaced into the jar or not? If not, where does it go? Can the magic-user "chat" with the victim's soul while his soul is in the victim's body? Does the victim remember the actions the magic-user forced his body to take? Does the magic-user have access to the victim's memories or languages or skills? The spell description says that the magic-user cannot cast the victim's spells, but can the magic-user cast his or her own spells while inside the victim's body? Can the magic-user leave the victim's body and return to the jar voluntarily? Should the victim get more saving throws to "push out" the magic-user's soul, similar to what happens for Charm Person? What range counts for returning to the jar, the 30' or the 120'? What happens to a "pushed out" magic-user when the jar is too far away? (The AD&D version answers some of these questions but it also makes the spell even more complex in other ways, something I'd like to avoid.)
• Wall of Stone: Unlike the other wall spells, this one says 1,000 cubic feet instead of 1,200 square feet. However, it also says the wall is 2' thick. What gives?
• Invisible Stalker: There is no upper limit to the number of stalkers a magic-user can have concurrently. True, there cannot be complex long-term missions without a risk of the stalkers "reinterpreting" their instructions (see X34), but what's to keep a level 14 wizard from traveling with a revolving retinue of about 21 invisible stalkers guarding him or her? Dismiss the three that are getting grumpy, summon three more, off we go on another day of adventure...
• Projected Image: Does the position of the image determine the effective range of a spell or does the actual position of the real caster? The description says that the real caster must be able to see the target, but it doesn't detail range issues.

Sorry, I realize this is a lot of spells and a lot of questions. I hope you, dear reader, will take the time to at least set me straight about those closest to your heart? It would be much appreciated! I really hope I get lots of feisty opinions about these things!

Linux on Lenovo z585

The Lenovo z585 is literally a piece of shit when it comes to installing Linux. Just google around for a bit, you'll see lots and lots of frustrated users almost ready to give up, some even ready to use Windoze instead. I'll never buy one of these again, not ever. But I am stuck with one for now, and I had to finally replace my old Lubuntu 13.04 install with 15.04 today.

Of course I had forgotten about all the pain that is involved in getting this thing to boot a Linux LiveUSB. But this time I swore I'd write this blog post so I won't forget again how to make it work. So here's how I got Lubuntu 15.04 to boot just fine from an old USB pen drive:

1. Power the darn thing off and stick your USB drive into one of the USB 3 ports. Yes, for some reason it didn't work for me on the USB 2 port, go figure.
2. Right after switching on power you should get a "Lenovo" logo on your screen. Hit F2 quickly to enter the BIOS. If you have an admin password set, I hope you remember it. Luckily I remembered mine.
3. Under "Configuration" make sure that you have "USB Legacy" enabled. I also have "WLAN" enabled and "SATA Controller Mode" to "AHCI" but that shouldn't matter. Nevertheless, if things don't work for you, you might as well try setting those two as well.
4. Under "Security" you'll first have to "Set Administrator Password" to enable some other options. Make sure you use a password that you'll remember easily! Once you've done that, you can switch "Secure Boot" to "Disabled" and that's what you want.
5. Under "Boot" first you'll want "Boot Mode" set to "Legacy Support". Then you want "Boot Priority" set to "UEFI First"; yes, I am aware that this sounds insane, but without this setting I cannot boot a single Linux LiveUSB. Obviously you want "USB Boot" set to "Enabled". I also have "ESATA Boot" enabled, but that shouldn't matter. See above regarding shouldn't. You should have your USB stick plugged in already when you get here, just move it all the way to the top in "Boot Priority Order".
6. Under "Exit" select "Exit Saving Changes" and voila, your crappy laptop should finally boot that LiveUSB and let you install a reasonable OS.

I doubt there's any rhyme or reason to this, the entire machine is crap, the BIOS is crap, etc. But the only thing that matters is that it works now. At least on my machine. If you get yours to boot Linux, whether with these BIOS settings or different ones, please leave a reply below. I am curious how others made it work, maybe I can learn something.

Them B/X Celebrities

I noticed a curious thing about some of the "celebrities" of the B/X Basic Rules, specifically Morgan Ironwolf, Black Dougal, Fredrik, and Sister Rebecca: Apparently they were actual PCs in someone's AD&D campaign before becoming world-famous in those B/X "Examples of Combat" and "Sample Dungeon Expedition" sections.

If you grab yourself a copy of the 1980 AD&D Dungeon Masters Adventure Log supplement, you can check for yourself. There's a filled-out example sheet at the back that has the following:

• Fred 9802 (male dwarf fighter) played by Dave Cook
• Black Dougal (male human ranger) played by Kevin Hendryx
• Sister Rebecca (female human cleric) played by Rebecca Moldvay
• Morgan Ironwolf (female human fighter) played by Tom Moldvay

The only elf in that product is "Elron Hubbard" (male elf fighter/magic-user) played by Lawrence Schick, and presumably that was changed to "Silverleaf" because nobody wanted to get sued by Scientology? :-)

Now granted, there's no way of telling whether these were really really really player characters short of asking (and I might be able to ask Dave when I see him next) but I find that to be a pretty reasonable assumption.

Also funny: Black Dougal is listed as "slain by a fire giant" in the Adventure Log so that poor guy always seems to end up dead. Sadly Sister Rebecca is also listed as "falls in valiant combat with a black dragon" so I am kind of glad that she survives in B/X.

B/X Trollery Continued

See this post for some background on how easy it is to be "peer-pressured" in the OSR. So here's part two, again inspired by Alex Schroeder's answers, again to questions that Random Wizard originated as part of an evil scheme to take over the Trolls of the world.

Should energy drain take away one level of experience points from the character? Yes or No? If no, what should level drain do? I've actually never run into this. I guess I don't play enough D&D? I've had characters turn into werewolves and eat the rest of the party, I've had characters die while riding into town to start their adventuring career, I've had all kinds of bad stuff happen to characters in my games. But not this. So I'll put on my "player hat" for a second and say that I hate energy drain. Not because of the loss of level and XP mind you, but because of the book-keeping horror it entails. I'd rather just fail a save and have the character die instead! Wanted to try playing a halfling bard anyway...

Should the oil used in lanterns do significant damage (more than 1 hp in damage) if thrown on an opponent and set on fire? Yes or No? If yes, how much damage should it do? I realize that for all kinds of somewhat scientific reasons, lamp oil should not be the cause of an inferno that sets entire dungeons on fire. But it's sometimes fun to set shit on fire (in game mind you!) and I've had my share of laughs with players fumbling attack rolls and dropping the darn things on their own party instead. Good times! The B/X standard of d8 damage may be a bit excessive, but I'd probably stick with it just for the heck of it. Also holy water does d8 to undead, so at least it's consistent with that. BTW, many monsters can toss those things right back at you if you fail to hit...

Should poison give a save or die roll, with a fail rolled indicating instant death? Yes or No? If no, how should game mechanics relating to poison work? I think that should depend entirely on the poison, don't you? There are different kinds after all, at least in my worlds. The real question trolly-troll hid here is "Should there be save-or-die rolls at all?" so I'll go with that instead. Sure, there should be "save-or-die" rolls, at least every now and then, at least for certain very powerful monsters, at least for (some) climactic encounters. Those saving throws on your character sheet get better for a reason: They measure how much work you've put into your character so far and how sad it would be to lose that character. It's a perfectly fair setup and you sat down to play the game. Now roll up another character! That said, I am not opposed at all to converting "save-or-die" things written into a module to something completely different if it suits me better. There's little point in tricking noobs with yellow mold spores for example. They just don't know, so they'll have their first character die on entering that room without really having a say in the matter. Not fun at all. So I'd replace that with a huge coughing fit that attracts monsters, maybe some minuses for 6 turns, etc. Oh, also important: If you use "save-or-die" stuff on player characters, be fair and allow them to use it on your favorite villain as well.

Do characters die when they reach 0 hit points? Yes or No? If no, then at what point is a character dead? The house rule from my "Expedition to the Borderlands" open-table game is pretty representative of what I usually do: "Characters are unconscious at 0 hit points and dead at their negative constitution score. Serious injury (negative hit points) can have permanent effects such as scarring, broken bones, missing limbs, etc." I don't specify a particular table, and usually I don't do evil things like letting the player roll for their character's new disability. Maybe I should? After all there's an entire blog dedicated to this stuff! (As a side-note, I am not too fond of critical hits. Most players aren't either once their character has been on the receiving end of a Stone Giant who crits his thrown rock.)

Does the primary spell mechanic for a magic user consist of a "memorize and forget system" (aka Vancian)? Yes or No? If no, what alternative do you use? Yes. In my "home game" however, I am giving wizards a permanent "detect magic" and priests a permanent "detect evil" as it were. I'd roll it, like finding secret doors or something, but those things wouldn't be spells. They are silly as spells. (Also here's a cursed sword for the fighter-types who keep complaining about that "one-shot" wizard in the party.)

Should all weapons do 1d6 damage or should different weapons have varying dice (1d4, 1d8, etc...) for damage? I know I'll get at least one "but you're double-dipping" comment for this, but anyway. Let me quote another house rule from my open-table game (which I just noticed I had never posted to our G+ group, something I'll have to remedy): "Damage is primarily class-based: Fighters do d8, Clerics do d6, Thieves and Wizards do d4. Light weapons (dagger, sling, etc.) get -1, heavy weapons (two-handed sword, pole arm, crossbow, etc.) get +1 to damage." The "home game" would differ on a few details (I give Thieves d6 hit-dice so they'd do d6 damage), but overall the system would be the same.

Should a character that has a high ability score in their prime requisite receive an experience point bonus? Yes or No? Depends. If I run B/X straight then there's an XP bonus. In my "home game" there wouldn't be.

Should a character with an constitution of 18 get a +3 bonus to hit points, or a +2 bonus to hit points, or a +1 bonus to hit points or no bonus to hit points? And should other ability scores grant similar bonuses to other game mechanics? Depends again. I am so fickle! "Moldvay knows best." is what Alex says and for B/X RAW I agree. The "home game" is again a special snowflake because I use standard deviations (strictly speaking 2.9581 but I round up to 3) from the "average 9-12 range" as the measure for bonuses: 13-15 is +1, 16-18 is +2, and the same on the other end.

Should a character have 1 unified saving throw number, or 3 saving throw types based on ability scores (reflex, fortitude, will), or 5 types based on potential game effects (magic wand, poison attacks)? or something else? Finally one of these questions really gets to me. Of course the B/X answer is easy, just roll with the five classic saves and we're good. I've looked at saving throws in different editions and various clones before, trying to figure out what I really like. But those posts didn't help in the end because I'd still really like a simpler approach (or better rationales for the existing numbers). As per usual, Daniel Collins has a good answer. But I am still hopelessly undecided.

Should a cleric get (A) 1 spell at 1st level  (B) no spells at 1st level (C) more than 1 spell at 1st level? Straight B/X for the open-table game, although all characters start at level 2 in that one so it's not something that bothers people. Priests in the "home game" would use the same progression as wizards, the one I first suggested here and later compared across various systems. (Back when I still had clerics, they would have used a slower progression to compensate for their "martial" aspects. Alas that's now taken care off by my strange approach to multi-classing.)

And done?

B/X Troll-ol-lol

I posted a link to Jeffro's blog on G+ the other day. Now Alex Schroeder insists that I shouldn't be allowed to just post stuff, I have to work for it and answer the Trollish Questions myself. Much like he did here and here. Well alright then!

Race (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) as a class? Yes or no? Depends on the kind of game I run. For my current "Expedition to the Borderlands" open-table game I use B/X as written. I might tweak it if there was a reason for it, i.e. if the players went to the Dwarven Clan in the West and begged to recruit a cleric of Moradin or something. For a "real" campaign, the ominous "home game" I keep dreaming about, I'd go with my own version that splits race and class although the "chassis" of the rules would still be B/X.

Do demi-humans have souls? Does anybody? Under the weirdo D&D-esque assumption that the dead "transcend" to a plane according to their alignment, sure. Whatever it is that "does the transcending" could be called a soul. Doesn't really matter though, I don't run planar games. (Wait, maybe I would. If the only way to get to the planes was if the characters killed themselves, that would be kinda cool.) What matters is that you can resurrect everybody just fine, doesn't matter if they are human, demi-human, humanoid, or intelligent mushroom. And nobody even gets a saving throw against it. :-)

Ascending or descending armor class? I really don't care, plays more or less the same. But Target20 works great with descending AC and I grew up with descending AC and I use resources that have descending AC listed so that's what I use. (I only get annoyed by the silly little difference between D&D and AD&D.)

Demi-human level limits? Sure. It's only fair. Again, it depends on the kind of game I run. In the "home game" I'd use my own version with my own crazy "rationale" behind it all. You should try inventing your own rationale as well!

Should thief be a class? Sure. If you don't like them, don't play one! But anybody can attempt to do what a thief is able to do, they just never get much better at it. Wizards can fight with swords too in my game, they just suck at it so it's a really bad idea for them. And if a halfling decided to cast a spell from scroll? I'd probably give them a chance! A very, very low chance. With hilarious consequences if they mess up.

Do characters get non-weapon skills? Sure. But it's not really formalized. If you want your character to be good at something that's not in the rules, ask me: Maybe I'll let you write something down. I won't let you write things down again and again, not even if you're playing an elf who could have learned 27 different trades by the time they turn 314. (And of course it's easier to convince me that your halfling can cook and that your dwarf is a decent smith than to convince me that your elf is a deadly assassin and that your fighter can fly.)

Are magic-users more powerful than fighters (and, if yes, what level do they take the lead)? Sure. Wait what? Troll-trolly-troll left out thieves and clerics and all the other fun things like Balrogs and Gargantuan Purple Worms. Useless question. Next!

Do you use alignment languages? Not as they are usually defined in D&D. So let's just say "No!" and be done with it.

XP for gold, or XP for objectives (thieves disarming traps, etc…)? I use B/X RAW for the open-table, so XP for gold and some for monsters overcome. I'd probably switch to "XP for money spent" for the "home game" I keep talking about. Sometimes I like "objectives" but they are so anti-sandbox. (I hate AD&D2 in this regard, so that's a total no-no. But I suffer through it for the game I play in.)

Which is the best edition; ODD, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, 1E ADD, 2E ADD, 3E ADD, 4E ADD, Next? I grew up on BECMI and really liked RC for a good long while. But that was because I never knew about B/X, it wasn't available in Germany when I got started. There's no question in my mind that B/X is the best overall package, period. I do like AD&D as well, but only Gary's and only in mild doses. So I guess what I am saying is I tend to like some of the AD&D classes (hence probably my fascination with this thing). AD&D2 is horrible, just horrible. I'd probably play AD&D3 if it's just the core three books, but I wouldn't touch 3.5 or 4. I have no real opinion on 5 yet. I like some mechanics and I appreciate that they rolled some nice options into character generation. But really it's B/X for me. OD&D and Holmes win special prices for being, well, special. But I don't play them.

Unified XP level tables or individual XP level tables for each class? This was Jeffro's bonus question. Again, depends on the game. In my "home game" I would use a unified XP table, the 2000/4000/8000/... Fighter table. Edit: Should have linked to this post.

And done?