Talking Blue Book D&D: Ability Scores

I haven't talked for a while about Blue Book D&D, my name for a fusion of Holmes Basic D&D with Cook/Marsh Expert. But lately it's been on my mind, and I've thought more about cleaning it up and solidifying it for my own future games.

Specifically I've been thinking a lot lately about tweaks to ability scores. Holmes is minimal with bonuses, copying OD&D's Dexterity and Constitution bonuses, but increasing the Constitution bonuses to hit points at 17 and 18. Moldvay, meanwhile, sets out with the standardized thresholds: 13-15 for +1, 16-17 for +2, and 18 for +3, with corresponding penalties on the low side.

But Moldvay's attribute curve is misleading. One +1 is not the same as another, if the first bonus is on 1d6 and the second bonus is on 1d20. +1 to 1d6 is 16.67%, while +1 to 1d20 is only 5%. This has a distorting effect, particularly with Strength where damage bonuses go as high as +25% (for daggers and such that deal 1d4 damage).

OD&D has a schema hidden within it. Constitution gives -1 hit point per die (d6) at 6, and +1 at 15. These are the same distance, 3 units, from the median range of 9-12. Dexterity gives -1 to hit with missile weapons (d20) at 8, and +1 at 13. Again, these are equidistant from the median range. This is an interesting rule of thumb, and I think it's a good one for Blue Book.

So, Wisdom can give a bonus to save versus spells, just as in Moldvay, but it only gives +1 at 13 and -1 at 8. This gives Wisdom some role mechanically that it lacks in Holmes.

Strength is a thornier matter. If we have it give bonuses to hit and damage, the logical places are for a bonus to-hit at 13, a bonus to damage at 15, and penalties at 8 and 6, respectively. The difference is that 13 Constitution doesn't already grant a bonus, and 8 Constitution gives no penalty, so it seems fairer to move the second bonus 1 unit further away: +1 damage at 16 Strength, and -1 at 5.

This happens to dovetail nicely with Supplement I: Greyhawk, up to 16 anyway. But Greyhawk goes nuts and gives +2/+2 at 17 and +2/+3 at 18 - with a chance that the 18 Strength fighter's bonuses can go even higher. I don't like that so much. I'd rather follow a slower pattern, and give +2 to hit at 17, and +2 to damage at 18. That's idiosyncratic, but I think it works better for me.

My rationale behind this is the observation that Holmes fighters are way underpowered compared to Moldvay fighters, due mainly to strength, but I don't care for either the Moldvay or Greyhawk strength charts. Mine is simpler, and fits right in the sweet spot for me.

One of my least favorite additions is Greyhawk's modification of Armor Class by Dexterity score. It actually was supposed to represent an active parry, and only apply versus one opponent per round. But this addition wound up changing the definition of Dexterity; it stopped being a measure of hand-eye coordination and nimbleness of fingers, and became a measure of general agility. That doesn't really make sense, though; the two aspects are not firmly linked, and it's not a coincidence that Caltech's Warlock rules added Agility as a separate ability score. D&D never followed suit. But I'm not for using Dex to modify AC.

(This is one of the reasons I like Blue Book conceptually; it's easier to add than to subtract, and since Blue Book assumes Holmes, I can get rid of Dexterity bonus to armor class just by not adding it in the first place.)

Which leaves Charisma. Holmes says that Charisma is supposed to modify the reaction roll. OK, great! But how? He doesn't say. Moldvay actually breaks from his standard here and gives an OD&D-like +1 for 13-17 and +2 for 18, with corresponding -2 for 3 and -1 for 4-8. This is the one place where Moldvay ability scores actually go along well with the dice roll type, since +2 on 2d6 is a very significant boost.

Now, that's a lot of thought to give a few ability score bonuses. But I really think it's worth figuring it all out. As I've run a good bit of older D&D, I feel like Blue Book D&D is really very close to what my sweet spot is for the game rules, and it's really a question of tuning all the elements so the game works just like I want it to.

Blue Book and B/X: Magic-User Spells

I want to start to examine Blue Book D&D and see where it differs from B/X D&D with the Moldvay set. I'll start with Magic-User spells, since they have some meaty differences.

Holmes has several more spells. At first level, Dancing Lights and Enlargement are added to the list. At second level, we gain Audible Glamer, Darkness (a reverse Light), Magic Mouth, Pyrotechnics, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Strength. Also, Tenser's Floating Disc uses Tenser's name in Holmes where it doesn't in Moldvay.

Charm Person is much more powerful in Holmes, because the ranges wind up being longer for most Intelligence scores. Light in Holmes lacks specific rules about being cast at a creature's eyes, leaving this as a ruling for the referee to make. Magic Missile is superficially worse because it needs a roll to hit. But Holmes only wrote "Higher level magic-users fire more than one missile," and it's never expanded on in the Cook/Marsh Expert set, so the spell could allow more missiles than in Greyhawk and Moldvay. So a house rule that would make the spell more useful would be one missile for every three levels beyond first, getting your second missile at 4th level - and making it a pretty useful spell at higher levels.

Protection from Evil has the same function in Holmes and Moldvay, but in Holmes it's a better spell because it doesn't explicitly break if the caster attacks a monster. Read Magic lasts two turns instead of one turn. Sleep works differently in Moldvay than Holmes. In Holmes, if creatures are up to 1+1 HD, then 2d8 creatures are put to sleep; if they are up to 2+1 HD, it's 2d6 creatures; if they are up to 3+1 HD, 1d6 creatures, and for 4+1 HD, only one creature is put to sleep. In Moldvay there are 2d8 hit dice worth of creatures unless the creature is 4+1 HD, in which case it is only one. The probabilities work out fairly similar and Moldvay's way is simpler, but Holmes's has the OD&D pedigree.

Continual Light is the same as Light in both versions, with the same addition in Moldvay. Holmes is less philosophical about evil for Detect Evil, presumably because that edition actually has an evil alignment - although it still is detecting "evil thought or evil intent," not alignment as such. Interestingly Moldvay adds traps to poison as not being evil. There aren't a lot of restrictions on ESP in Holmes about concentrating a full turn or getting thoughts jumbled up, but otherwise the spells work the same, so it's simpler for Holmes.

Invisibility in Holmes is again better - you can cast a spell without breaking it, so long as you don't "strike a blow." Clearly the referee has some leeway on this, but by default it's not as restrictive. In Holmes, Levitate can be cast on another character, while in Moldvay it can't. Motion in Holmes is also 60' per turn up, where in Moldvay it's only 20' up or down. Mirror Image is one of the few spells that got better in Moldvay, where it specifies that an attack on the caster always hits an image instead. Holmes has no such stipulation, just that each image disappears if hit.

Holmes's Phantasmal Forces is the magnificent spell from OD&D, which does real damage if it is believed, and has none of the saving throw jibber-jabber, although a living creature touching it will dispel it. Web works about the same in both Holmes and Moldvay but covers twice the area (10'x10'x20' instead of 10'x10'x10') - not coincidentally that should be two dungeon blocks on a 10' map instead of one.

From a spellcaster's perspective, Holmes (which frequently follows the LBBs although often adding bits and pieces to them) offers mostly stronger spells than Moldvay. In Moldvay there is more of a tendency to spell out exact consequences, which in my opinion really takes spells like Phantasmal Force(s) down in overall power. Between the scroll rules, the spell descriptions and the spell learning rules, Holmes makes magic-users a bit more powerful.

The thing I really enjoy about Holmes versus Moldvay is that Holmes was more reserved in his spell descriptions. This leaves a lot more room for player and referee creativity and interpretation. The wide-open nature of Phantasmal Forces versus its relatively tame Moldvay version is probably the most dramatic example, but Invisibility which I see as one of the most powerful M-U spells for a dungeon exploration game is also much more wide open.

Blue Book D&D

I've long had a love for Holmes basic D&D that is second only to my love of original D&D for inspiration. At the table, Holmes is simpler and cleaner in many ways, but it requires some expansion past 3rd level. The easiest way to do this is what I call "Blue Book" D&D - Holmes Basic plus the Cook/Marsh Expert rulebook.

This is discussed in the Expert book, but that takes the boring and prosaic route of overruling everything from Holmes with a quick Moldvay-like hack. I want to talk about another way to do it that doesn't take either 100%.

First: I prefer the Holmes attribute charts. They de-emphasize high attributes that most players with 3d6 stats won't have. However, I'd make three adjustments toward Moldvay. For Strength, 8 or less gives -1 to damage and 13 or more gives +1. For Wisdom, same thing for saving throws versus magic. And for Dexterity, no AC adjustment but apply the ranged modifier to initiative, which I'll get to. Intelligence, Constitution and Charisma work exactly as in Holmes. This gives each stat a use without making 18s the be-all and end-all.

Second: Keep the Holmes division of race and class, but allow players to be the Elf class from the Expert book. All the benefits of race-as-class without the drawbacks.

Third: I'd junk the Holmes 5-point alignment system. It's kludgy and I vastly prefer the 3-point alignment system, which Holmes even drops into when talking about "Lawful Werebears." But it has its defenders, who I would never begrudge their preference.

Fourth: All the scroll and spell learning rules in Holmes are drastically better than in Moldvay. For the rest of magical research, follow the rules on X51. These changes will make low-level magic-users much more useful.

Fifth: In combat, my current thought is individual 1d6 initiative with a Dexterity modifier equal to the ranged attack modifier. This saves the referee from having to roll Dexterity for every single monster, and is a synthesis of Holmes Dexterity-based initiative with B/X's 1d6 system. Variable weapon damage should be considered. While it's easier to roll a d6 for everything, players enjoy rolling their funky dice and monsters usually have damage listed anyway. Finally, parry from Holmes and morale and defensive movement from Expert round everything out. Most morale scores can be eyeballed by using a value from 6-10 depending on how "reliable" the referee thinks the monster should be.

Sixth: Follow Holmes in using only "Remove Trap" as a thief skill. "Find Trap" takes a whole lot of fun play straight out of the game, and the damn thing is a pathetic roll at low levels. Parties have a much better chance to find traps by actively searching a room than by the thief giving them a 10% chance.

Seventh: Elsewhere, let Holmes trump Expert, which fills in the blanks. If anything is missing, I would recommend going to the Ready Ref Sheets, which really complement Expert's wilderness rules quite well when you have to design an interesting locale on the fly.

Eighth: Print out this sheet from the Zenopus Archives, one for the referee and one per player. It's a great reference and will save a lot of page turning.

What I really love about Blue Book D&D is that the differences between the two books provoke choices, and in resolving those differences you wind up fine-tuning your own D&D. Whether you like or dislike race as class, or Dexterity-based initiative, or variable weapon damage, or Strength bonuses - it's all there, and you can pick the tools you like and leave the others behind. A whole range of classic D&D styles can be created just by interpreting how these two books go together.

Of course, from here I think there are a lot of interesting house rules to be made. But that's one way to start with Blue Book D&D.