Donjons & Drakes: Fantasy Heartbreaker Intro

 I have been working on my own Fantasy Heartbreaker, currently named Donjons & Drakes, for some time.  Many of my early musings are in this blog.  Starting to play again has spurred me to get the game to a playable state.  I'm not quite exactly where I want it to be (especially with higher level stronghold management), but it is certainly playable.  The game is heavily based on The Original Fantasy RPG from the 1970s, but I have pulled in ideas from other editions and other games throughout where they make sense.  Especially now that 5E is in a Creative Commons license, there is a lot of flexibility to borrow material.

I intend a series of posts about core mechanics and rules.  This is an excerpt from the front material that lays out what its all about.

Premise

In this game, characters begin as eager adventurers eager to find their way in the world.  After some introductory adventures where experience is gained, they find themselves deep in the depths of a fantastic dungeon.  Success brings riches, magic and power.  Failure brings ignominy or even death.  Eventually, successful characters have the opportunity to establish strongholds, raise armies and vie for control of the known Realms.  Will your character bring an age of weal, be a harbinger of woe, or maintain the balance?  How will the journey change them?  Adventure on to find out…

Scope

The game you hold before you is based on the Original Fantasy Role Playing Game (OFRPG) and its earliest basic versions.  However, this version is unique for it adds emphasis in several areas.

• Incorporation of elements from the Original Fantasy Miniatures Wargame.  The Original Fantasy Miniatures Wargame was used in a number of places for inspiration to round out the capabilities of player characters and monsters alike.
• Modern, streamlined mechanics.  Universal saving throws, an ascending armor class system leveraging the base attack bonus, and other such mechanics have been incorporated to greatly reduce the need to constantly reference tables in play.  Mechanics have been designed such that only D20 and D6 dice are generally needed.  The emphasis is on relatively fast play.
• Historical accuracy.  Where possible, the game draws from historical sources.  For example, prices have been adjusted to a silver standard, where one silver coin is a groat and three silver pieces equal a historical medieval shilling.  This allows easy conversion of new items from real world sources into the game.  Another example has been to further develop the details of domain management for high level characters, looking to historical examples as a guide.  Units of weight and measure are another example, where historical real world measures such as weight in “stones” provide a simpler and more flavorful method than the OFRPG.
• Heroic mythos.  The alignment system has been modified to include elements of heroic mythology, borrowing from astrology, tarot, and other arcana.  These elements add a bit of depth to heroic character development, allowing the players to draw inspiration from a rich tapestry of mythic inspiration.

The author has been able to benefit from modern statistical analysis tools to analyze the OFRPG and other games, as well as years of personal experience with various editions of role playing games games, to develop this set of rules.  It it is a never-ending labor, but one that has finally resulted in a codified set of playable table rules with a unique spin on a familiar genre.  I hope that you enjoy these rules.

They're called "Reserve Feats"

An interesting post over at Grognardia. James takes a brief segue into mechanics-land (something he doesn't do too often). I hadn't thought about 3.5 lately, but one of the later innovations that I actually really liked was Reserve Feats. If I played an AD&D or OD&D game with Vancian casting this is one thing I definitely think I would keep in.

A few ways you could handle it:

• Each and every spell has a rider effect that kicks in if still memorized, either baneful or boonful. The downside to this is that you must individually balance each spell. It also gets to be a lot to keep track of at higher levels.
• As above, but cap the number of active effects. This has fewer but still significant issues.
• Introduce "reserve feats" a la 3.5. Basically, in 3.5, you could take feats that said things like, "Throw a mini-fireball, affects one creature, deals 1d6 damage per spell level of the highest Fire spell you have memorized." You could come up with a list of 7+/-2 Reserve Feats then let players select them. I would either allow a number of feats equal to MU Weapon Profs (so 1 at level 1, then another at level 7), or perhaps a number based on INT score + extra ones with weapon profs (to create growth with level). I'd also consider allowing players to "retrain" their Reserve feat every level up.

The advantage to this system is that it beefs up low level casters without unduly affecting higher level ones, is easy to run, and creates great "specialty" caster flavor. For example, you could actually make the schools of magic significant; someone with the Divination reserve feat would sure want to have a Divination spell memorized every day!

WOUNDS: Variable Weapon Damage

This is a mini-research project to see how quickly monsters die, at relatively low levels when damage output is pretty stable.

AD&D:
Low damage weapon: Dagger (2.5)
Mid damage weapon: Longsword (4.5/6.5)
High damage weapon: 2H Sword (5.5/10.5)

TIER 0 MONSTER: Goblin (1-1 HD - 3.5 HP)
- Survives 1.4 hits against the dagger
- Survives 0.77 hits against the longsword
- Survives 0.64 hits against the zweihander

TIER 1 MONSTER: Hobgoblin (1+1 HD - 5.5 HP)
- Survives 2.2 hits against the dagger
- Survives 1.22 hits against the longsword
- Survives 1 hits against the zweihander

TIER 2 MONSTER: Ogre (4 HD - 18 HP)
- Survives 7.2 / 9 hits against the dagger
- Survives 4 /2.77 hits against the longsword
- Survives 3.27 / 1.7 hits against the zweihander

S&W WB:
Low damage weapon: Dagger (2.5)
Mid damage weapon: Longsword (3.5)
High damage weapon: Halberd (4.5)

TIER 0 MONSTER: Goblin (1-1 HD - 2.5 HP)
- Survives 1 hits against the dagger
- Survives 0.71 hits against the longsword
- Survives 0.55 hits against the zweihander

TIER 1 MONSTER: Hobgoblin (1+1 HD - 4.5 HP)
- Survives 1.8 hits against the dagger
- Survives 1.29 hits against the longsword
- Survives 1 hits against the zweihander

TIER 2 MONSTER: Ogre (4+1 HD - 15 HP)
- Survives 6 hits against the dagger
- Survives 4.29 hits against the longsword
- Survives 3.33 hits against the zweihander


CONCLUSIONS

Before you take into account the massive damage escalation from special damage vs. large critters, two handed weapons end up killing monsters almost twice as fast as low-damage light weapons. One handed weapons fill in towards the middle.

A monster of a tier lower than you can be reliably one-shotted by your weakest weapon. A monster of a tier equal to you can be reliably one-shotted by your strongest weapon. And a monster of the tier higher than you won't be one shotted at all.

That's about all I want to do right now, as I'm a bit loopy on mefloquin + sleeping pills. :)

WOUNDS V: Durability Categories

I whipped up this chart to explain some thoughts I had about wound mechanics when I was jogging today. This chart represents the relationship between what in D&D we term as "AC" and "HP."

AC: Broadly interpreted, this is the chance to be struck. If you have a high or strong AC, you are not likely to be struck. If you have a low or weak AC, it is very likely that incoming attacks will connect.
HP: This is your durability or how many hits you can take. This either could be an absolute number in a traditional D&D sense or a percentage chance to lose a wound level.

By varying those two factors, you can control the overall durability of a character. Note that both factors are relative to the opposition.

Barbarian		HIGH HP	Tank
LOW AC				HIGH AC
Squishy			Eggshell
		LOW HP

The TANK has high AC and high HP. He is unlikely to be struck and even if he is struck he can take many blows. This is good for personal survivability, but it can be bad because enemies tend to ignore tanks unless they have a very good reason not to. In too many 1E games, the fighter who is supposed to protect the others is just ignored because he is too hard to kill. Mid level fighters are Tanks because they tend to have excellent defenses and HP pools.

The BARBARIAN has poor AC and many HP. He is easy to hit but can eat a lot of punishment. High level fighters can become Barbarians because the monster's chances of hitting increase faster than the fighter's defenses do. Monsters with multiple attacks are particularly effective against barbarians (claw/claw/bite, for example).

The EGGSHELL has strong AC like a tank but no HP to back it up. Hence, once something penetrates the shell, things get messy really quick. Eggshells can lead to swingy combats. Low level OD&D fighters are Eggshells because they are tough to hit in the first place but can still be one-shotted. Highly buffed clerics can also be eggshells; their defenses are supernaturally high but they still have limited HP.

The SQUISHY is in a bad place. Squishies have weak AC and poor HP. They are likely to die quickly if attacked. Magic Users are traditionally Squishy.

So, interestingly, OD&D fighters go through a life cycle of almost all the types. They begin their careers as Eggshells. They then transition into Tanks in the "sweet spot" mid-game. Finally, towards the end, they become barbarians because their defenses don't scale adequetely with level.


PASSING JUDGEMENT

Are some of the types better than others from a design standpoint? I think so. I think the Eggshell is a poor design for a PC. Eggshells lead to swingy combats where the character quickly goes from "just fine" to "bleeding out." Usually, only bigger monsters have a chance to penetrate the eggshell's defenses, but bigger monsters also tend to do more damage which is likely to one-shot the eggshell. The Squishy is in a bad place too, but at least the Squishy knows that he/she is not melee capable and steers clear of danger whenver possible.

Others must agree with me. For example, Gary gave his players extra HD in OD&D games at low levels to get past the Eggshell phase quickly. I think its a common house rule to give characters their level 2 HD at first level or to give them a HP kicker of some sorts. This was implicit in 4E's design philosophy and Hackmaster features it as well.

WOUNDS IV: An OD&D Analysis (Based on S&W WB)

I'm going to do a bit of basic research in this post to examine how wounds stack up in S&W (focus on the WHITE BOX) edition. The question is, "How many hits can an average character take as a function of level?"

As you may be aware, I believe that there are implictily several "tiers of play." For sake of this exercise, I'll break them up into these categories:
Low levels: 1-4 HD
Medium levels: 5-8 HD
High levels: 9-12 HD
Very High levels: 13+ HD

First we need to define our "average" characters.

The FIGHTER is in plate mail and bearing a shield (AC 17) with +1 HP/HD.
The CLERIC is in chain mail with a shield (AC 15).
The MAGIC USER is nekked except for minor spells (AC 11).

At low levels, all arms and armor are normally mundane and spells are rare. By medium levels, we can expect +1 gear to have shown up. By high levels, +2 gear at a minimum is standard. At very high levels, +3 gear is out and about. Magic-users normally don't benefit from magic arms & armor, but let us assume that their defenses likewise improve at higher levels as well due to availability of spells and such.

Additionally, at higher levels, protective magics are highly likely to be increasingly available, even if it is just a simple Protection from Evil spell. Thus, at mid levels, we'll assess another +1 bonus and at high levels an additional +2 bonus.

So, that gives us this little chart:
LOW LEVELS: +1 (+1 armor OR +1 spells)
MID LEVELS: +2 (+1 armor/+1 spells)
HIGH LEVELS: +3 (+2 armor/+1 spells)
VERY HIGH LEVELS: +4 (+3 armor/+1 spells)

We can now define the AC and HP of an average character of pretty much any level.

FIGHTING MEN
LOW LEVELS (say, level 2): AC 18, HP 9
MID LEVELS (level 6): AC 19, HP 26
HIGH LEVELS (level 10): AC 20, HP 45
VERY HIGH LEVELS (level 14): AC 21, HP 63

For clerics, just subtract -2 from the AC figures and -1/level. So:

CLERICS
LOW LEVELS (say, level 2): AC 16, HP 7
MID LEVELS (level 6): AC 17, HP 20
HIGH LEVELS (level 10): AC 18, HP 35
VERY HIGH LEVELS (level 14): AC 19, HP 49




Now for "average" monsters.

Monsters get +1 to hit for every HD.

They tend to deal 1d6 damage base.

Monsters at mid-to-high levels deal 2d6 damage (Djinn, 7 HD; Efreeti, 10 HD; Elementals, 8/12/16 HD; Giants, 8-12 HD; Giant Slugs, 12 HD; Treants, ~7 HD).

High and Very High level monsters can deal 3d6 damage (Balrog's aura, 9 HD; Earth & Water Elementals, 8/12/16 HD; Cloud Giants, 13 HD; Storm Giants, 16 HD; Rocs, 12 HD; Treants, ~10 HD)

Very, very few monsters deal 4d6 damage.

So here are our threats.
LOW LEVEL: +2 to hit for 1d6 damage
MEDIUM LEVEL: +6 to hit for 1d6+2 damagee (like an ogre)
HIGH LEVEL: +10 to hit for 2d6 damage
VERY HIGH LEVEL: +14 to hit for 3d6 damage

Now we can construct a table showing the number of rounds each character will last vs. a given threat.

FIGHTING MAN: AVERAGE DAMAGE SUSTAINED PER ROUND AND AVERAGE ROUNDS OF SURVIVAL

		CHARACTER
		LOW	MID	HIGH	V. HIGH
MONSTER	LOW	0.875 (10.3)	0.7 (37.14)	0.525 (85.7)	0.35 (180)
	MID	2.475 (3.6)	2.2 (11.8)	1.925 (23.38)	1.65 (38.2)
	HIGH	4.55 (1.98)	4.2 (6.2)	3.85 (11.7)	3.5 (18)
	V. HIGH	7.35 (1.22)	6.825 (3.8)	6.3 (7.14)	5.775 (10.9)

A "level appropriate" encounter is in blue. An easy encounter is in green. And a hard one is in red.

You could construct one for clerics and MUs, but all it would show is the number of rounds of survival decreasing. It'd be a big drop for both, because clerics have only around 2/3 as many HP and about -10% to HP; MUs have significantly worse AC and many fewer HP.

Interestingly, the "baseline" is for a fighting man to be able to take 10 attacks. Also interesting is that at low levels, combat is very swingy. The fighting man can take 10 attacks because he is very unlikely to be hit, but once he is hit, he's likely to die in one or two blows. At higher levels, the fighting man relies on his HPs, not his AC.

This is because the accuracy of monsters increases faster than character defenses (monsters get +1/HD, players get +1/4 HD), but player HP scales up faster than monster damage.

OD&D Magic: Verbs & Nouns Analysis

Here's a list of the OD&D magical "verbs" based on the S&W Companion "Spell" supplement (an excellent resource).

Abjuration (Abjur.): Abjurations are protective spells.
They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical
or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the
subject of the spell to another plane of existence.
Conjuration (Conj.): Conjurations bring manifestations of
objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you.
Conjurations can also transport creatures from another
plane of existence, heal, transport creatures or objects
over great distances or create objects or effects on the
spot.
Divination (Div.): Divination spells enable you to learn
secrets, to predict the future, and to find hidden things.
Enchantment (Ench.):Enchantment spells affect the
minds of others, influencing or controlling their
behaviour.
Evocation (Evoc.):Evocation spells manipulate energy or
tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end.
In effect, they create something out of nothing.
Illusion (Illus.): Illusion spells deceive the senses or
minds of others. They cause people to see things that are
not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom
noises, or remember things that never happened.
Necromancy (Necro.): Necromancy spells manipulate
the power of death, unlife, and the life force.
Transmutation (Trans.): Transmutation spells change the
properties of some creature, thing, or condition.
Universal: The misc grabbag.

And here are the Mentzer edition spheres, or as I would envision them, nouns:

Death, Energy, Nature, Spirit, Time, Universal

On the face of it, this is decent. 9 verbs and 6 nouns meets the rule of 7+/-2. However, I think there is considerably redundancy here.

• Death is effectively a noun and a verb.
• Evocation and Energy have a lot of overlap. Looking at the spells that are classed as evocations, a lot of them are direct damage oriented and all are tied to classical elements.
• I'm not sure about the overlap between Conjuration and Evocation. Evocation seems to be a code word for "direct damage." Conjuration has always been troublesome, almost a grab bag for spells ranging from mobility enhancing (Mount and Teleport) to AoE (Stinking Cloud) to summoning. I sometimes feel like evocation was seperated just because they had to find SOMETHING that wouldn't be lumped into the Conjuration container.
  
• There's some overlap with Abjuration and Transmutation. Specifically, Abjurations often seem like a subset of transmutations.
  
• Illusion treated as a verb is a bit troublesome. I'm not sure why Illusions and Enchantments couldn't be combined.
• I don't care for the noun list at all. Spirit and Time seem to be nearly random (How is Quest related to Time?). I like my seven noun list much better, although there is some overlap in the categories.

WHAT I'D LIKE

Ideally for verbs, I'd like 3 core verbs that relate to one another in a Rock-Paper-Scissors style. For example: Abjuration beats --> Conjuration beats --> Divination, which beats --> Abjuration. Then 1-3 extra verbs can "float" around the circle, either inferior to everything or separate but equal.

I think Illusion & Enchantment (shall we call it "Beguiling?") is a good candidate for the former, that is, a "school" that is inferior to the Big 3. A castle built of shadows is revealed by divination, easily dissipated with conjured fire, and easily sealed off by a real arcane ward. But, to the non-magical, Beguiling is pretty darn effective. Its also quite effective at influencing behavior if the victim doesn't realize its a fake. Making it inferior at a straight up contest keeps it in a low-profile, tricksy sort of usage, which is exactly where I want it. Or, Beguiling could be an option if you don't want it to be a specialization; i.e., anyone can cast an illusion instead of a real spell.

I'm not sure what to do about Transmutation. It could get lumped into one of the other schools, or it could be its own thing. For example, transmutaiton could be folded in with Abjuration in some regards; "Infuse with Element" might bestow certain traits of the element in question. I think it might be a good candidate for "seperate but equal" treatment, being its own side school that does not play in the Big 3 RPS triangle. This also makes it easy for classes focused on transmutations (like shapeshiftey druids, perhaps) to excel at it without being awesome at everything else too.

So, that gives us 5 schools (verbs): Conjuration, Divination, and Abjuration; Transmutation, and Beguiling

And 7 elements (nouns): Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Entropy (Chaos), Quintessence (Law), and Nature (Neutral)

For a total of 35 possible combination. Now, we can stop right here if we want to. I can think of several quite playable ways to handle this within the existing Vancian framework.

You could tweak existing spell descriptions. So instead of "Protection from Evil" you get "Protection from Element." Instead of Light, you get "Conjure Element I," with the ability to call up a minor manifestation of any of the seven elements for a period of time. Instead of Detect Evil, you get Detect Element. In fact, my first level spell list could look much like this:

Detect Element (Divination): Detect the presence or absence and strength of the chosen element within range.

Protection from Element (Abjuration): Monsters of a nature similar to the chosen element are -1 to hit and the caster gains a +1 bonus on saves vs. attacks of the same.

Manifest Element (Conjuration): Call up a minor reflection of the element. This could be direct damage (no more than 1d6 in a small area or 2d6 against a single target) or utility oriented (such as conjuring a divine light).

Infuse Item with Element (Transmutation): Infuses a small item with the chosen element. For example, infusing food with Entropy would make it spoil, but infusing rotten food with Quintessence could restore it to its original state. Infusing food with Nature could cause fruits and vegetables to sprout into saplings.

That covers just about all the bases except for Sleep and Charm Person, which are both clearly beguiling, and Cure Light Wounds, which I think can be done without so long as some other healing system is in place. Limit Clerics to the Quintessence or Entropy keywords (maybe Fire if you want them to bring purifying goodness on the heathen). Pretty easy.

You could also do things less revolutionary, like the 3.5 Reserve Feats. However, this would require expanding the spell list to ensure that there's, say, a Fire spell at every spell level. Which certainly is doable, but would be a project.

Sub-systems in OD&D

I had a thought today during my run.

OD&D has about 4 subsystems.
- D20, roll high. Used for melee and missile combat and saving throws. Important to all characters to some degree, except perhaps for mid-and-high level MUs and high level clerics.
- 2d6, roll high. Used for Turn Undead and for reaction/morale checks. Of most importance to Clerics, but also important for fighters with entourages.
- Vancian Magic. Binary fire & forget consumables. The earliest forms of magic didn't even have saving throws, so this is at heart a non-chance mechanic.
- D6. Used for misc checks (dare I say, "skill checks?") like Secret Doors, Opening Doors, etc.

Progression through the game

One interesting thing about this set up is that it requires low level players to really only know two sub-systems.
Fighting Men: Needs to understand the D20 very well, and maybe 2d6 for morale.
Magic-Users: Needs to understand the D20 somewhat and a little bit about Vancian magic (only has one spell per day, remember?)
Clerics: Needs to understand the D20 pretty well and the 2d6 for Turn Undead (level 1 clerics didn't get a spell in the Old Days)
Dwarves: Needs to understand the D20 like a Fighter as well as the single D6 for "skill" checks.
Elves: The most complex of the classes; needs to have a handle on D20, Vance, and the D6.

At higher levels, the Magic-User (and to a lesser degree, the Cleric) don't care about the D20 to hit roll at all. They have so many spells at their disposal that they have switched over almost entirely to Vance and their odds of hitting have fallen off so dramatically that it isn't even really worthwhile rolling a D20. This is cool because it creates a qualitative change through the game experience. Magic is earned. And with the right to wield magic comes the chance to use a new mechanical sub-system.

You see the same thing with other old school materials. Druids get shape-change at mid-levels. Assassins get thief skills at level 3. Paladins and Rangers get Skills at low levels and Vancian magic at high levels.

This progression makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing with my hack in giving each "class" its own clearly differentiated mechanic right from the get go. Perhaps its better to start everyone on a core mechanic and reserve use of the more complicated or involved mechanics (like Vancian spells) for the mid to higher levels. That is (A) easier for new players by providing a learning curve and (B) creates a reward and feeling of progression as levels are gained and qualitative changes occur.

Hack: An Overview of the Classes

These are the classes I am thinking of for my hack. You'll see some familiar ideas here. Note that in my system, you are required to have a minimum of a 9 (+0) modifier and a 13 (+1 modifier) in order to have a playable character in a standard campaign. Increase those numbers to 13 (+1) and 16 (+2) respectively for a high-powered epic.

		MECHANICAL SUBSYSTEM
		CON-1d20	INT-Spell Matrix	WIS-2d6
STYLE	STR-Tank	Warriors	Eldritch Knights	Paladins
	DEX-Mobility	Swashbucklers	Wizards	Monks
	CHA-Leader	Skalds	Beguilers	Priests

You'll notice that each class has a pattern.
STR based subtype: The most melee capable. Expected to be able to give and recieve punishment up close and personal, they guard weaker party members. Has the capability to wear heavier armor and carry a wide variety of weapons without being encumbered. In order to contribute to the game world, STR-types are often builders. They tend to establish strongholds. Additionally, they tend to be drawn to memorable and unique magic arms and armor.
DEX based subtype: The most mobile. Often highly tactical and reliant on positioning to be most effective. These mobile traveling types contribute to the game world by knowing -- whether it be through a Swashbuckler's contacts, an arcanist's research/divinations, or a Monk's time in the library, these characters are likely to know something useful.
CHA based subtype: The most team-oriented. Contributes through others, whether those others be men-at-arms, familiars/conjured creatures, or teammates. Contributes to the game world by fleshing out NPC followers.


THE FIGHTING MAN (Req't: 9 CON)
The fighting man is a stout warrior who excels in combat with weapons. CON directly effects durability, so all fighting men are capable of taking significant punishment. They tend to be effective all day long and have fewer resources to manage than other types. All fighting men fall into one of three sub-classes. They must meet both ability score requirements.

The primary mechanic used by Fighting Men is the D20 linear to-hit roll (or, in simple games, a D6 linear roll). That is, a Fighting Man usually rolls a D20, applies modifiers, and hopes for a high result.

Warriors (Req't: 13 STR)
Warriors are strong, stout combatants who favor the "German" school of Swordsmanship. That is, they hit hard while keeping it simple and offensively focused.

Swashbucklers (Req't: 13 DEX)
Swashbucklers are nimble, dashing, and quick. They favor the "Italian" school of Swordsmanship, putting an emphasis on the defense and mobility.

Skalds (Req't: 13 CHA)
Skalds are leaders of men. They are acceptable fighters in their own right, but their true strength lies in organizing and inspiring others to achieve great things.

THE MAGIC-USER (Req't: 9 INT)
The magic-user is a cunning strategist who employs a variety of magic to achieve his or her goals. INT directly effects magical Power Words known, so Magic-Users all tend to have a wide variety of spells at their finger tips. One of the challenges of being a magic-user is facing limited resources; magic-users have only so many spells per adventure and must ration their use carefully. Like fighting-men, magic-users all fall into one of three sub-classes and must meet both ability requirements.

The Magic-User's core mechanic is the Spell Matrix. The magic-user "weaves" a spell using a D6 dice pool based system. This is the most complicated mechanic in my ODnD variant but allows for more flexibility and creativity.

The Eldritch Knight (Req't: 13 STR)
Eldritch Knights choose to blend arcane and physical might into a unique and potent fighting style. Lacking some of the straightforward capability of Warriors, Eldritch Knights are nonetheless capable on the front lines. They tend to employ magical attacks with pin-prick accuracy instead of using brute force like a Warrior might or blind faith like a Paladin.

The Wizard (Req't: 13 DEX)
Wizards are traditional arcanists who use a variety of magic to achieve their ends. While they are usually physically frail, wizards make up for it with their versatility and effectiveness in arcane combat.

The Beguiler (Req't: 13 CHA)
Beguilers model witches, sorcerers, illusionists, and other such twisters of minds and reality. Often accompanied by a familiar, conjured servant, or brainwashed flunky, Beguilers work best by manipulating others.

THE CLERIC (Req't: 9 WIS)
Clerics are devoted to their faith; channelers of the divine and keepers of the holy of holies. Wisdom is helpful when dealing with fateful situations, making clerics handy in a pinch. Clerics are particularly effective against certain types of enemy. They are versatile and have more resources to manage than a fighting man, but fewer than a magic-user.

Clerics often use a 2d6 core mechanic similar to the old-school Turn Undead rules.

The Paladin (Req't: 13 STR)
Justiciars on a quest to destroy their patron's foes, Paladins are heavily armed and and armored.

The Monk (Req't: 13 DEX)
Monks are ascetics who seek to perfect themselves physically and mentally. They tend to favor agility over brute force.

The Priest (Req't: 13 CHA)
Priests are holy men who focus on protecting and restoring their flock. They call upon angelic messengers for aid and often gather crusaders to help them confront challenges.

A note on balanced groups

A "balanced" group should ideally have one of each sub-class type and one of each class. The "stereotypical" group consisting of a Warrior, Wizard, and Priest will be highly effective and versatile. A group consisting of a Skald, an Eldritch Knight, and a Monk would likewise be highly versatile.

However, so long as you have a good mix of classes and/or sub-classes, things should be ok, especially if the group can play to their strengths. That is, you could have a Warrior, a Paladin, and an Eldritch Knight (all three melee-capable adventurers, capable of dealing with hand to hand combat quite effectively); or a Warrior, Swashbuckler, and Skald (three durable adventurers capable of persevering through particularly long adventures); or some similar combination.

Indeed, this makes for interesting campaign possibilities; the DM might only allow Fighting-Men (a Company), or only Magic-Users (a Cabal), or only Clerics (a Crusade), and the game should still be viable.

Who Gets Left Out?

Rangers are not explicitly mentioned. However, I think they can be modeled well enough as paladins/crusaders (if you want to focus on their efficacy against a chosen foe) or warriors/swashbucklers.

Thieves are not really mentioned either. However, Swashbucklers more than fill the void. Assassins are left out but they are warriors or swashbucklers as well.

Druids are not explicitly mentioned, but I think a Neutral-aligned cleric with special interest in the Natural/Animal sphere would do just fine in that niche.

OD&D Hack - Choosing a System

One of my running projects is a D&D "hack," or set of house rules. I have extensively house-ruled AD&D in the past, but they no longer suit my new purpose of a playable, rules-lite testbed for ideas that I intend to fully implement (someday) in SEPTIMUS.

The question is -- what system to use as a baseline to work from? It should be simple, as its easier to add to something that is barebones than to carve away large chunks of something more complex. It should be inexpensive, so as to allow easy proliferation at the (virtual) table. Next, it should have a relatively streamlined mechanic. Finally, I need to like it, as I'll be spending some time with it.

I could use the original D&D rules from a favorite edition. However, with WOTC's pulling of all PDF sales, this is problematic for profileration. Additionally, the rules themselves were highly experimental in many ways, and anything but polished or finished. AD&D has a certain Gygaxian clockwork perfection to it, but even that is tenous, arbitrary at times, and difficult to play with. So, for a host of reasons, I do not think that original TSR publications are terribly appropriate.

I've also looked at a bunch of indie games. The problem with indie games is that they are generally tightly focused and have signature mechanics that do not always lend themselves well to adaptation. Additionally, many of them charge some money, which is also a limit to proliferation. So I'll pass on adopting an indie game for now, although I have seen many that are promising.

My project over the last few days to catalog "retro-clones" has allowed me to review each of the offerings out there and to read extensive reviews of all. Allow me to briefly touch on the options I considered:

• Labyrinth Lord (LL) is a a very close reproduction of B/X D&D. It is quite thorough and includes rules for many topics. Unfortuanetly, this is something I want to avoid -- if I want to add something on, I'll add it myself. That is the idea of the project! Also, there's something about the presentation of LL that I don't care for. I think it would look great in a printed form, but in PDF format it just doesn't read well to me.
• Basic Fantasy RPG (BFRPG) is another B/X D&D clone; it sacrifices faithfulness for some cleaned up mechanics. I prefer it to LL for this reason, but again, it is too "complete" for my tastes. Additionally, I think I want to steer clear of the decoupling of race and class for now, at least the way that BFRPG has done it.
• MicroLite74. This was tempting, but it strays too far in some important ways for me.
• OSRIC. This is an AD&D clone. Too complex for my purposes -- rejected for the same reason I rejected AD&D's original text.

After considering these and several other systems, I've decided on using SWORDS & WIZARDRY WHITE BOX as my baseline set of rules. First, they are as simple as you can get. Like, 3 LBB simple. If you skip the monsters & treasure section, they weigh in at about 30 pages. This makes it easy to add on as I see fit. Second, I really like the presentation and layout. They look clean on the computer screen and are nicely laid out. I also really like the "house rule" containers that the author has sprinkled liberally throughout. There's just a good vibe that I really like out of WB.

So, what does WB have rules for? What needs to stay, what goes, and what will be needed?

CHAPTER 1: GETTING STARTED
- Ability Scores
- Universal Attribute Bonus (rework)
- Starting Cash (possibly rework entire economy)

CHAPTER 2: CLASSES
- Fighters
- Clerics
- Magic-Users
- Dwarves
- Elves
- Halflings
This covers the basics. There is plenty of room for switching things around here, possibly with the introduction of sub-classes. I also intend to introduce strongholds/ways for players to get involved with creating the game world.

I may or may not introduce a narrative system that helps in telling heroic fantasy stories.

CHAPTER 3: ITEMS & EQUIPMENT
- I may rework the economy altogether. I'll definitely be scrapping the ENC system.
- Magic items will need to be explicitly readdressed, too

CHAPTER 4: PLAYING THE GAME
- Time: May rework to introduce my concept of Customary Flavor for scales
- Movement Rate: May rework to introduce my concept of Customary Flavor for scales
- Hiring Assistants: I definitely plan on fleshing this out further for balance/economy of action purposes.
- Combat: The system presented here is bare bones and passable enough. I don't want to do anything too wonky, as this is a hack, not a new game in itself. So this may not need too much changing around.

CHAPTER 5: SPELLS
- I am not sure how far I want to go in implementing a new spell system. I think it would be a big change and a lot of work. So, I may just apply several halfway patches to address my biggest concerns with Vancian magic and to test drive some concepts.

MONSTERS & TREASURE
- Not too worried about these, honestly. I intend on introducing tiers of play and a "monster creation kit" that will allow baseline stats for monsters to be easily generated on the fly, a system that's coordinated with the armor and HP system as well. This is a major "back-end" change but shouldn't be too hard -- its just math!

ODnD Hack: Combat Styles

As has been mentioned, SEPTIMUS is my long range very nebulous homebrew system. Of more concrete interest however is creating an OD&D hack of my own. So, from time to time I will present sub-systems that can be plugged into pretty much any version of OD&D or its retro-grognardian clones. Here is one for combat styles.

Always-On Benefits: This is a benefit that you derive all the time.
Encounter Benefits: You may use one benefit per encounter. After resting for a turn, you can use this benefit again. Additionally, if they are being used, you may spend a FATE point to use a benefit again this encounter. At the DM's discretion, fighting men may gain an additional "per encounter" usage of a fighting style at level 4 ("HERO") and/or 8 ("SUPER HERO").

These are intended to be used with a relatively simple weapons system like that presented in the LBB.

ONE HANDED WEAPON ALONE - Usable by anyone
Wielding a one-handed weapon alone is the preferred style of the duelist. Most prefer to opt for something that puts that second hand to work, but there are times when the flexibility of using just a trusty long sword or mace is helpful. It also helps one to exploit an opening given by an opponent.
Always On: Your off-hand is available for other items such as a lantern, potion, climbing, or treasure.
Encounter: If you miss with an Opportunity Attack or attack against a fleeing combatant, you may immediately reroll the attack and deal maximum damage if you hit.

TWO HANDED WEAPON - Usable by anyone, weapons selection permitting (mages likely limited to staves)
Polearms and other large weapons are popular for a reason -- they work.
Always On: Gain either Reach or +2 damage (or use a D10 for damage dice instead of D6). Reach allows first strike vs. foes without Reach (regardless of the initiative roll) and may allow the weapon to be used from the second rank.
Encounter: Instead of rolling damage, consider the damage from this blow to be maximized.

ONE HANDED WEAPON + SHIELD - Usable by fighting men and clerics
The sword and shield is a classic staple of both reality and the literature, and any warrior is safe to select a shield.
Always On: Gain +15% bonus to your AC and to saving throws when parrying. If using a large shield, share this benefit with an adjacenet ally.
Encounter: Reduce the damage done to you by an attack to zero.

DUAL WIELDING - Usable by fighting men
Multiple blades flashing is the hallmark of many dexterous fighters who favor an accurate offense over defense.
Always On: If you hit, roll damage twice and take the best roll.
Encounter: If you miss with an attack, you may immediately reroll the attack.

Special Cases:
Archery counts as DUAL WIELDING because it can use "volley fire."
Crossbows count as TWO HANDED WEAPONS because they deal grievous wounds when they actually hit.
Slings count as ONE HANDED WEAPONS, except the reroll may be used against a LARGE target because even Goliath can be humbled by a simple sling.
Hurled weapons vary: Darts are like dual-wielding due to their high rate of fire. Javelins can easily be used with a shield. Pilums (two handed javelins) are like two handed weapons.

IS IT BALANCED?

Originally, shields give effectively a -5% chance to be hit. Over the course of a 10 round fight, that's about one fewer hits every fight (assuming a fighting man type is taking two attacks per round). So, allowing a shield user to just outright negate one hit per encounter is legit. It also makes the parry manuever viable and lets them shield a friend, potentially.

Dual wielding basically grants +1 damage all the time, makes your damage more reliable, and decreases the chance to miss significantly one time per encounter. This balances nicely against two handed weapons, which also boost offense but in a "swingier" manner; the average damage is higher (+2 vs. +1) but it is less reliable. Two handed weapons are more likely to kill someone outright, but dual wielding is more reliable. A reach weapon does less damage than either but has signifiant advantages of first strike, which might kill a foe outright before they even get a chance to attack you, as well as the potential to be used from the second rank.

One handed weapons are available to anyone, which is a plus. You also get some versatility. The Encounter power is slightly more potent than the dual wielding one, but more situational as well. It nicely reflects the danger of letting down your guard around a duelist, and it makes the opportunity attacks of wizards actually matter (at least once per fight).

Blast from the Past: OD&D Fighting Men & Swords

I just reread my little three books and found a few interesting tidbits about fighting men. Their advantages were thus:

- Best HD
- Good XP progression
- Unlimited level advancement
- Second best land development (clerics were best) at high levels
- Ability to use swords.

Originally, all weapons did the same damage. The advantage of swords was that they were the best magical weapon by far. In OD&D, magic blades were ALWAYS unique. Straight +1 or +2 weapons were rare. It was more common to find a +1 vs all, +2 vs. something specific. Additionally, every magic sword had some degree of intelligence (and alignment). This had two effects. First, it made INT important for the fighter. Because the PC's "ego" score was based on STR & INT, if you wanted to be able to use a powerful sword, you needed to have decent intellect. Second, it made it unlikely that a player would accumulate a "stable" of magic weapons. Intelligent weapons tend to dislike rivals so lesser blades would be discarded in favor of a single stronger weapon.

Magic swords also always came with some sort of supernatural power (almost like a magic spell in a can). Magic blades allowed a fighter to keep up with a magic-user at higher levels. Because his blade could detect secret doors, the fighter could put the demihumans in their place. If it had some more potent magical power (as might be common at higher levels), he could stay current with the magic-user, even in exploration-based or problem-solving adventures.

I think its telling that pole arms generated a stable of special abilities in later versions of the game. In order to be a decent choice compared to uber-swords, the polearm needed to have some sort of advantage (double damage vs. charges, for example).

Armor & Defenses

Here's an interesting thought:

Should more durable characters (A) get hit less or (B) be able to get hit more or (C) both?

For example, in AD&D, a fighter has good AC (plate mail + shield) compared to a wizard. The fighter also has many more HP. In comparison, in 4E, many characters can attain similar defenses, but the tankish types have more HP and healing surges, which allows them to take more of a beating.

If the more durable characters get hit less, then it makes their HP "more valuable." A HP on a plate-clad fighter is less likely to be lost than a HP on a squishy mage or thief. This makes fighter types a top priority for receiving healing magic in many games with strategic players. One downside of this scheme is that it might be boring for the tank if he never takes damage. Also, it can lead to swingier combat, where the tank goes from hale to hurting in a few lucky rolls.

If the more durable characters can get hit more often, then their HP are about as valuable as anyone else's. It also allows others to "off-tank" for a few rounds if needed, because their defenses are adequete.

If you use both, then the durable characters are potentially really, really much tougher than their counterparts.

Right now I've decided to opt largely for option B, with a touch of C. That is, everyone can attain similar ACs for the most part (although dedicated plate-mail users will still have an edge). That AC will be around 4 on a D6 (AC ~14 on D20), so they'll get hit about 50% of the time. More durable characters will just have to have more HP to make up for their similar ACs.

So with that in mind, here's my current revised rules for OD&D.

Armor: Characters may select between no armor, cloth, leather armor, chain mail, or plate mail.

As a note, these figures use ENC in stones, AC on a D6 (also rough hacks for D20), and cost on a notional scale from 1-7 that is still just a figment of my mind.

PLATE MAIL
ENC 3 STONE
AC 5 (on D6) or AC 17 (on D20)
COST 5 coin (upkeep 1 if fail ARMAMENTS check)
PROPERTIES: Individuals in plate mail always lose initiative rolls and take a -1 penalty to speed. Grants CA to bludgeoning.
N.B.: "Upkeep 1" indicates that after each quest (approx 3 milestones), the wearer must either expend 1 coin or have their armor degrade to AC 4. The wearer may make an ARMAMENTS skill check to avoid having to pay this cost, representing doing the MX themselves.

CHAIN MAIL
ENC 2 STONE
AC 4 (on D6) or AC 14 (on D20)
COST 3 coin
PROPERTIES: Individuals in chain take a -1 penalty to speed.

LEATHER ARMOR
ENC 1 STONE
AC 3 (on D6) or AC 12 (on D20)
COST 1 coin
PROPERTIES: +1/6 chance to surprise others. AC 5 vs. Opportunity Attacks from movement.
AGILITY BONUS: Characters may apply their Agility modifier to their AC (D20); if using D6 based to-hit rolls, a +2 agility modifier allows you to add +1 to your AC, and a +5 agility mod allows you to add +2 to your AC.

CLOTH ARMOR
ENC 1 STONE
AC 3 (on D6) or AC 10 (on D20)
COST 1 coin
PROPERTIES: May be worn under heavier armor; if this is done, such armors no longer suffer vulnerability to bludgeoning weapons. If worn alone, it removes vulnerability to slashing weapons suffered when not wearing any armor. There is no other effect.
AGILITY BONUS: Characters may apply their Agility modifier to their AC (D20); if using D6 based to-hit rolls, a +2 agility modifier allows you to add +1 to your AC, and a +5 agility mod allows you to add +2 to your AC.

NO ARMOR
ENC 0 STONE
AC 3 (on D6) or AC 10 (on D20)
COST 0 coin
PROPERTIES: +1/6 chance to surprise others. AC 4 vs. Opportunity Attacks from movement. Grants CA to slashing weapons.
AGILITY BONUS: Characters may apply their Agility modifier to their AC (D20); if using D6 based to-hit rolls, a +2 agility modifier allows you to add +1 to your AC, and a +5 agility mod allows you to add +2 to your AC.

Blast from the Past: Hit Point Rolling

This is another commentary on an OD&D mechanic I think was particularly salient: HP rolling.

My first experience with rolling hit points was in a dorm room freshman year of college. We had just hit level two in our AD&D game and I held the D6 for my half-elvish thief (who was still pretending to be a monk, I believe -- I don't think anyone else realized monks used D4s, luckily!) with trepidation. "This is the most important roll of the night!" I remarked.

Even that early in my gaming career, I knew that AD&D's style of adding HP upon level up had some issues. Namely, that a poor HP roll could be crippling for a character's entire career. Its quite possible for a fighter with 16 CON to hit level 4 and have 30 HP (average), 48 HP (max) or 12 HP (minimum).

Interestingly, in OD&D, when you gain a level instead of adding the new HD to the total, you roll all of your hit dice over again. You either use the new roll, or your old total, whichever is higher.

This leads to a gradual equalization between the fortunate and the unlucky. Namely, all you need to do is survive another level and you'll get another shot at a decent HP roll. You're not saddled with that "1" for HP gained forever. This ensures more predictability for characters at mid and higher levels, as you can ensure that they will hold more closely to the expected averages instead of being really low or really high.

The Next Step

I like the idea of using this sort of "growth" mechanic for other stats. For example, let's say you rated a skill from 1 to 7. At level up time, if you put a "skill point" into that skill, instead of just adding +1, you roll a die. If the die is equal to or higher than your current ranking, you add a point. Otherwise, its wasted. This allows you to randomly generate starting skill levels if you like, as you know that the poor will close the gap with the lucky in a few levels. It could also be used for improving ability scores (roll LEVEL + 1d6, or +2d6 if its your Prime Requisite -- use it as your ability score if its better than your current one).

I've already discussed using a mechanic like this for storytelling purposes (see "Survival Isn't Everything). Finally, I think this sort of mechanic might also work for wealth acquisition. If you find a stash of loot in the dungeon, everyone rolls 1d6 and you have the potential to increase on the "Wealth Scale."


ADDENDUM:

I think this may not work for stats that can be spent down (like Wealth or even Alignment). Because players will know that they are getting diminishing returns and will spend so as to always be around a score of 2 or 3, tops. Now, this may be what you want (encouraging freewheeling adventurer lifestyle with lots of flagrantly unnecessary expenses) but it might also lead to wonky behavior.

Customization Choices I'm Kicking Around

Right now for Septimus Lite, I'm kicking around the following levels of customization:

STRATEGIC: These are character choices that don't really change, except perhaps for "retraining" at level-up time. They are fixed from adventure to adventure for the most part.
- Ability Scores. Determine derived characteristics for the most part, and thus your Operational Choices.
- Prime Ability: Body (Fighting Man), Agility/Mind (Expert/Magician), Heart (Leader).
- Primary Focus: Move, Know, Deceive, Influence, Endure. Your selection of primary focus in conjunction with prime ability basically determines your "Class."
- Race: MAY predetermine your Prime Ability and/or Focus (i.e., all Elves "Know," or all Dwarves "Endure"). Also gives you a few custom "shticks" to spend Fate points on.

OPERATIONAL: These choices can change during the course of an adventure from encounter to encounter.
- Focus. You can shift your second focus between encounters.
- Armor (None, Light, Medium, Heavy). This is mainly a choice for high-body score characters who have ENC to burn. They can choose between superior protection & superior mobility. Equipment for problem solving also falls under here.
- Power Words. This is mainly a choice for high-mind characters. Words of Power form the basis of my hypothetical spell system. Selecting different power words gives you different options for the day.
- Followers/Oaths. This is a choice for high-heart characters. They either hire retainers who can serve different functions, or collect oaths (the bookkeeping-lite option).

TACTICAL: These stances can change within the course of an encounter.
- Fighting Style (1H, 2H, Sword & Board, TWF). Prime Body characters have the most choices here, but basically its a tradeoff between higher damage (and then a choice between reliable, special effect, or variable) and superior defenses.
- Spellcasting. Prime Mind characters will need to combine their Arts with their Power Words to create spell effects. This gives them plenty of round-to-round choice.
- Use of Fate Points. Prime Heart characters get more potent uses of Fate points so they need to choose when and how to use this consumable resource.

The Soul of D&D

In as few words as possible:

Absolute authority of the DM, rules lawyers given the boot

Rule books seldom used by a competant DM

Action and adventure in play

Swords & sorcery, not comic book superhero genre material

Group co-operation paramount for success

Freedom to extemporize and innovate for all participants

Reliance on architypical models for characters

Fellowship of those participating

Cheers,
Gary

http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3626

Rolling Damage: 1d6, 1d6+1, 1d6-1, and 2d6 retain the highest

I was thinking about OD&D style damage, and was wondering how the differences between various rolling techniques work out. Specifically, I'm wondering about these:

STRAIGHT DAMAGE: 1d6

HIGH DAMAGE: 1d6+1, 2d6 retain the highest, 1d8

LOW DAMAGE: 1d6-1, 2d6 retain the lowest, 1d4

This post will work out the odds for each case.

STRAIGHT DAMAGE: 1d6
Avg 3.5/Max 6/Min 1
All results are equally likely (17%)

HIGH DAMAGE: 1d6+1
Avg 4.5/Max 7/Min 2
All results are equally likely (17%)

HIGH DAMAGE: 1d8
Avg 4.5/Max 8/Min 1
All results are equally likely (12%). Higher variability than 1d6+1.

HIGH DAMAGE: 2d6 retain the highest; double sixes counts as a 7
Avg 4.5/Max 6/Min 1
1 (3%), 2 (8.33%), 3 (15%), 4 (20%), 5 (25%), 6 (28%), 7 (2.78%)
The distribution is skewed towards higher numbers, i.e., it is the least variable and most "reliable." With 1d6+1, there's a 50% chance that you'll get 4 or fewer points of damage. But with this method, the chance of getting <5 style="font-weight: bold;">ANALYSIS: There are really, fundamentally, only four different "offensive stances" one can assume based on weapons: 2H, 1H + Shield, Dual Wielding, and 1H + Open hand. Using our different damage mechanisms can give each of these a different flavor.

• Two handed weapon: 1d6+1 or 1d6+2. Variable damage.
  
• Dual-wielding two weapons: Roll 2d6, retain the highest. A little less average damage than a two-hander but more reliable. Also, people will "get" rolling 2d6 and taking the highest (it "makes sense"). This is a classic fantasy style for rogues and their ilk, plus, its badass for a fighter to rage away with a sword and flaming torch.
  
• Sword & Shield: 1d6 + Block a hit 1x/encounter + superior total defense option
• One handed weapon + open hand: This one is tough. People used shields and polearms because they were better than keeping a hand open. You can either rigorously enforce rules about drawing equipment and such to make that free hand valuable, or you can give this "stance" a unique bonus of its own to make it a viable choice. I like the idea of giving this style some sort of "Fate" bonus so that swashbucklers with their rapier in one hand can attempt more feats of derring-do. The trick is to keep it from being exploitable -- you don't want the swashbuckler to be able to leap from the chandelier (use his fate point) then whip out a dagger and just start dual-wielding to gain the damage bonus now that he's used his fate wad.
  Perhaps a weapon used one-handed scores more critical hits? This is somewhat historically accurate -- some schools of fighting did promote searching for weak spots in armor as a way to defeat that armor. The trick is to make the math work out so that its perhaps +1 or +2 damage compared to a straight D6 damage roll to keep it comparable with TWF/2HF. You also have to be careful of layering this rule with anything else that makes crits better (like, oh, a battleaxe that has particularly hard crits). If a crit does max damage (basically +2.5 damage) then having a one-handed weapon crit on about every second or third hit would make sense. So, you could expand the crit range to from just 20s to 18-20 on a D20, or any "6" on a D6. This is still slightly less damage than a 2HF or TWF strategy but you do get the versatility of leaving that extra hand open.

ADDENDUM: Why not, instead of more frequent crits, have more effective crits? For example, when you crit using just a 1H weapon, it also imposes some sort of negative status condition, or gives you a free move, etc. That way you don't have the problem with stacking the battle axe on top.

If monster HP are kept in control, then all the options are pretty viable. If monster HP escalate too much, and you're including all sorts of bonus damage sources, then two handed weapons and dual-wielding start to pale because that +1 HP damage has declined from being a 33% boost in damage output to being much less significant.

Quick and Dirty ENC

Ah, Encumbrance. The bane of so many games. So often it is intended to be a strict limiting factor, but in reality, it ends up falling by the wayside due to excessive complication or a lack of ease in the math. Who wants to pull out a calculator at the table? Its just not fun! Here is my quick and dirty ENC system, based on the Stone, with inspiration for the idea owed to Delta's D&D blog (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/04/encumbrance.html).

CARRYING CAPACITY
A character may easily carry a load in Stones equal to 4 +/- STR modifier.
They may carry up to double this amount but will be ENCUMBERED.
They may carry up to treble this amount but will be HEAVILY ENCUMBERED.

ENCUMBERED
If a character is encumbered, they move down one category on all ability score tracks. This becomes their "new normal." If a character is heavily encumbered, they move down two additional steps on each track (for a total of three steps).

EDIT: Originally I had them move down two squares on the body track alone. However, this has the problem of allowing critters with Superior Body to basically ignore ENC. It also means that if you don't make Body checks often (say you're a Wizard) then you can basically ignore ENC too. It prevented ENC from affecting Initiative (which is based on Agility/Mind). I don't like having ENC effect Heart, but I don't want clerics to ignore it, so its an abstraction. This also softens the effects of regular encumbrance a bit, because a -1 penalty isn't so bad.

ENCUMBRANCE OF STANDARD ITEMS

1 stone. This is about 14 pounds, although no harm will be done by rounding to 15. It is the base unit of the system.
Hundredweight. 8 stone. About 100 lbs. Useful for measuring creatures, bulk goods, etc. This is as much as an average man can haul, and it will be encumbering to him.
Quarter. 2 stone. About 28-30 lbs. A backpack full of gear.
1/3 of a stone. Useful for relatively light items around 5 lbs.
1/6 of a stone. Useful for handheld items.
Negligible. Items which are so light as to be negligible except in large quantities.

Protective Items
Leather Armor - 1
Chain Mail - 2
Plate Mail - 3
Light Shield - 1/3 (usable 1x/encounter)
Heavy Shield - 1 (usable 1x/encounter; allows superior parry maneuver)

Weapons
Two Handed Weapon - 1
One Handed Weapon - 1/3
Light Weapon - 1/6

Other Items
In general, one should approximate using the weapon guidelines. A torch is as a one handed weapon (1/3 of a stone). A 10' pole is much like a polearm (thus 1 stone).

Coins are quite simple; for a stone is made up of about 14 POUNDS (gold pieces), and a POUND of 20 shillings (silvers). Thus a character could carry perhaps 280-300 silver coins with one stone of ENC.

TIPS AND TRICKS

It is reasonable to just allocate one stone or perhaps a quarter for numerous small items. For example, you could set aside a quarter for your character's pack: The pack could contain 6 one handed items, 12 light items, or some mixture thereof. I suggest drawing a grid with 6 squares on your character sheet to represent the backpack and just penciling in items as you acquire them.

It might also be useful to set aside a stone for weapons. Most non-fighters will carry perhaps one or two handheld weapons and one or two light weapons at most.

EXAMPLES

Justin the Mighty Warrior has a +2 STR modifier. Thus he can carry 6 stone easily. He opts for plate mail (3 stones) and a large shield (1 stone).

He decides to pick up a stone's worth of weapons: a longsword (1/3), a javelin (1/3), and a horseman's flail (1/3).

That leaves one stone remaining for odds and ends, or perhaps a polearm. As he will not always have a squire handy, he decides that its safer to expend the last stone on a lantern with oil (1/3), two potions of healing (1/6 each), and two days of rations (1/6 each).

Erin the Tricksy Thief is not particularly strong. She can only carry 3 stone. She opts for leather armor (1 stone), a short sword (1/3 stone), and 2 daggers (1/6 each). She also gets a torch (1/3 stone). She could bring along another stone of equipment but decides to leave her pack empty so that she can collect treasure.

Sarah the Priestess is an average character who can easily carry 4 stone. She selects a hauberk of chain mail (2 stone). To wield, she selects a light shield (1/3 stone), a one-handed mace to smite infidels (1/3 stone), and a hammer for throwing at heretics (1/3 stone). She also has one stone of capacity remaining for either odds and ends or a polearm.

IS IT REALISTIC?

First, who cares. Its a game. But realism is good, to a degree.

This system allows an "average" person to carry a hundredweight, maximum. That's 100 lbs. I think the average joe could stagger around with 100 pounds but he would definitely be at 1/2 speed and -2 to all physical checks. More than that and he's going to want a hand.

The strongest person can carry 7 stones easily -- almost a hundredweight. Additionally, their max load is 21 stones. That is 294 lbs. An olympian might be able to lift about 475 lbs. So perhaps I am shortchanging the very strongest, but its not by much, and those olympic records are just for weightlifting, not for actually moving, fighting, exploring, etc. According to my army field manual, a standard load for a soldier where you can expect him to keep moving is as follows:

Fighting Load: 1/3 body weight (48 lbs for a 160 lb man, so 3.5 stone)
Approach March Load: 72 lbs (5.1 stone)
Emergency Approach March Load: "120 lbs can be carried for several days over distances of 20 km or more" (8.5 stone)
Or even: "Loads of up to 150 lbs are feasible, although soldiers could become fatigued or even injured" (10.7 stone)

So by those standards, allowing someone to lug treble normal ENC is quite generous! Although of course, only the most superior or extraordinary specimens will even be able to move under such a burden. Most typical persons will top out from 8-12 stone (STR dependent). Which fits closely enough to our US Army Guidelines.