OD&D OD&D (Please critique my house rules!)

[jdrakeh]

I posted the other day about running OD&D without Chainmail and got several suggestions. Until I obtain a copy of Swords & Spells, I decided to borrow some snippets from the Holmes-era Basic D&D, as well as AD&D 1e -- not much, mind you, just enough to patch the obvious holes in my OD&D collection (which, again, got much smaller recently). Here's what I came up with:

OD&D House Rules

All constructive criticism is requested and welcome. Also, if you think that I may be missing a hole or, if you have a house rule of your own that you feel may benefit me, by all means, let me know about it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Task Resolution
I'm not a fan of the "roll under your ability score on a d20 method -- it's too broad and doesn't allow for difficulty, IMO. On the other hand, I don't think a d20-ish solution would work well with OD&D, given the way OD&D does ability modifiers, etc. I'd go with one of the following, depending on the situation:
1. Roll under ability using Xd6. It gives you a bell curve, and you can shift the difficulty higher or lower by modifying the number of d6s that are rolled (i.e. 2d6 is easy, 3d6 is average, 4d6 is hard, et cetera). Works well if level/skill isn't a big factor, but gets weird if level/skill should be a factor.

2. DM assigns a % chance based on the circumstances and the PC performing the action, and the player rolls d100.


Acting Order in Combat
I see you're using the Holmes system. I'd not roll monster Dex unless there is some question. That is, I'd just assign Dex to something like a panther or a giant slug, and only roll if it wasn't obvious (e.g. an orc). (Also, I suggest staying away from the "light weapons hit twice, two-handed weapons go every other round" stuff from Holmes, just in case you're considering that, too.)

I usually do this:
1. If it's obvious an action or PC should go first, he goes first, et cetera.
2. Then by Dex.
3. For ties/very close, resolve with an initiative check.
(That is, common sense->Dex->die roll)

Critical Hits and Misses
For critical hits, I allow maximum damage on a natural 20, with no need to roll for damage. I think this models "the best hit possible" without unbalancing anything. Plus, it's not any extra die rolls.

For natural 1s, I ask for an ability check or saving throw appropriate to the situation; failure means something bad happened. I usually just rule on that (e.g. drop your weapon, shoot your friend, fall down, et cetera).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(Also, if you haven't poked around the OD&D forums at Knights-n-Knaves, you might want to take a look, there.)

 

[jdrakeh]

Thank you for the fedback (and the link). As to your specific comments. . .

Task Resolution
I'm not a fan of the "roll under your ability score on a d20 method -- it's too broad and doesn't allow for difficulty, IMO.

Well, yes, but OD&D (or, really, D&D of any stripe save for 3x) isn't about mechanical balance or internal conssitency. I specifically chose this method because it seemed to best represent the spirit of the game. That said, the percentage option sounds good, too, though it fails to take character ability into account (the other reason I went with the d20 roll under mechanic).

Acting Order in Combat
I see you're using the Holmes system. I'd not roll monster Dex unless there is some question. That is, I'd just assign Dex to something like a panther or a giant slug, and only roll if it wasn't obvious (e.g. an orc).

Yeah, the "roll it" is only there to provide some randomness (don't want monsters getting too predictable, after all).

(Also, I suggest staying away from the "light weapons hit twice, two-handed weapons go every other round" stuff from Holmes, just in case you're considering that, too.)

Oh no, all I'm using is what's currently in the document

Critical Hits and Misses
For critical hits, I allow maximum damage on a natural 20, with no need to roll for damage. I think this models "the best hit possible" without unbalancing anything. Plus, it's not any extra die rolls.

For natural 1s, I ask for an ability check or saving throw appropriate to the situation; failure means something bad happened. I usually just rule on that (e.g. drop your weapon, shoot your friend, fall down, et cetera).

That's more intuitive than what I wrote up, but I've haven't had an excuse to use my Armory charts for. . . uh. . . a really long time. And if there was ever a system to use them with , it's OD&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

That said, the percentage option sounds good, too, though it fails to take character ability into account (the other reason I went with the d20 roll under mechanic).

I like the % option best. The DM can always include an evaluation of the PC's ability when he determines the success chance. Ability scores in OD&D aren't as important as in other versions, anyway (e.g. compare the effects of ability modifiers for OD&D vs. B/X or AD&D).

That's more intuitive than what I wrote up, but I've haven't had an excuse to use my Armory charts for. . . uh. . . a really long time. And if there was ever a system to use them with , it's OD&D.

Hah! Yep, no doubt about that.

Hope you have fun with it, and may your PCs encounter many witches and amazons.

 

[RFisher]

A critical hit in oD&D is when you make a successful "to hit" roll & follow it up with a maximum result on your damage dice. (^_^)

Well, yes, but OD&D (or, really, D&D of any stripe save for 3x) isn't about mechanical balance or internal conssitency. I specifically chose this method because it seemed to best represent the spirit of the game.

EGG once posted (c. 2002, 2003?) in the Classic D&D forum at DF that when running oD&D he used 3d6 v. ability score for "skills".

Take a look at Gygax oD&D 2005 & the thread it links to on DF if you haven't.

That said, the percentage option sounds good, too, though it fails to take character ability into account (the other reason I went with the d20 roll under mechanic).

The whole point of the % option, IMHO, is for the DM to take into account class, level, abilities scores, situation, &c., &c. in a way that any "objective" system can't.

 

[jdrakeh]

The whole point of the % option, IMHO, is for the DM to take into account class, level, abilities scores, situation, &c., &c. in a way that any "objective" system can't.

True, but in many ways, this makes the inclusion of attribute ratings largely (though not entirely) pointless. After all, why do we need to know how strong or fast a character is if those things have no mechanical bearing on action outcomes during actual play? This is the other reason that I went with a roll-under mechanic (and, I assume, the reason that Mr. Gygax did the same).

Such a resolution method makes attribute ratings mechanically relevant in the context of representing actual degrees of aptitude. The d20 simply allows for a larger margin of failure than the 3d6 method -- an actual bell curve doesn't matter much here, as degrees of succes are not implicitly determined, only simple pass/fail results.