Measuring Hexcrawl Movement

In wilderness adventures on a hex map, some DMs like to track the precise location of the party in each hex. Not only is that more trouble than it's worth, but it renders the hex grid itself a bit redundant. Why not get rid of it entirely and track movement with a ruler and a specified scale for the map? Tracking precise locations in a hex violates my cardinal rule of not mixing scales. If you need to know the location of the party more precisely than +/- 3 miles or so, you should be using hexes that are less than 6 miles across.

When all you care about is what hex the party is in, it is a simple matter to track their movement per day. You just need to know the party's base mileage per day, the size of each hex in miles, and what sort of terrain is in it.

To get the party's base mileage per day, divide the slowest member's exploration movement by 5. If the slowest person in the party moves 60' per turn, the party has 12 miles of movement per day.

To enter a hex, the party has to spend mileage. The cost of a hex depends on its terrain. For six-mile hexes, here are the costs:

• Clear, grassland, or along a trail: 6 miles
• Forest, hills, desert, broken: 9 miles
• Mountains, jungle, swamp: 12 miles
• Road: 4 miles

A party must have the mileage to spend in order to enter a hex, and their mileage resets each day. You might make an exception if a party moves only 6 miles per day, so that they can enter 9-mile or 12-mile terrain by dedicating 2 days of travel to the task.

For hexes of other sizes, the costs are:

• Clear, grassland, or along a trail: hex size
• Forest, hills, desert, broken: hex size x 3/2
• Mountains, jungle, swamp: hex size x 2
• Road: hex size x 2/3

An alternative method does without counting miles and just counts hexes. When you know how many miles the party can travel in a day, you can easily find out how many hexes they can travel per day. Every hex then costs 1 hex to enter, modified as follows:

• Clear, grassland, trail: every hex costs 1 hex
• Forest, hills, desert, or broken: every other hex costs 2 hexes
• Mountains, jungle, swamp: every hex costs 2 hexes
• Road: every third hex is free.

The nice thing about the alternative system is that you don't have to recalculate movement costs for different map scales. Instead, you recalculate the number of hexes per day based on the map scale and the party movement rate.

Gnomes - B/X Monster Tactics

According to their monster description, gnomes are human-like beings related to dwarves, but smaller, with "long noses and full beards." While the description doesn't explicitly categorize them as "demi-humans," their kinship with dwarves indicates they are.

The description also says that gnomes live in burrows in lowlands, but the only standard wilderness encounter table that includes them is barren/mountain/hills. So, gnome burrows must be located in valleys.

There's an example gnome lair in the Expert Rulebook. If the example is typical, a single gnome burrow will house many gnomes, and it will be well hidden, easy to miss, with several ways for the gnomes to get in and out in case of trouble. The gnomes described there are known for crafts that combine wood and metal, and they hunt game in the area for food. There is no mention of farming. Either the gnomes are strict carnivores, or their vegetables come from foraging and trade.

As listed, gnomes might be Lawful or Neutral. The Lawful ones are more likely to trade with other groups and to help them against Chaotic forces. Neutral gnomes will fight goblins and kobolds, but they will otherwise keep to themselves and shun outsiders most of the time. The one exception is when there are gold and gems in the bargain. Then they'll get involved, possibly even aiding Chaotic characters if the promise of gold and gems is credible and they don't have to work with goblins or kobolds.

Gnomes are also listed with Treasure Type C, the same as goblins. Even though gnomes are supposed to love gold and gems, their standard treasure includes no gold, and it includes only a few gems and only rarely. In addition to loving gold and gems, gnomes are in a perpetual state of lacking them.

At low levels, gnomes are nearly as tough as dwarves, and they are tougher than halflings. They have a full hit die, and their AC of 5 indicates that their standard armor is chain mail without a shield. They carry crossbows, which they will prefer to use, as well as hammers in case they find themselves in melee. They are not very fast; their metal armor gives them movement of 60' per turn (20' per round).

Crossbows are two-handed weapons that always lose initiative. Fortunately for them, their crossbows have 80' of short range, and they have 90' of infravision, rather than the usual 60'. Their mediocre speed is the same as kobolds' and unmounted goblins', their most common opponents in combat. So, they can effectively skirmish against those enemies, as long as the enemy starts more than 25' away.

Gnomes rely on traps and camouflage to hide their lairs. In combat, they keep their distance from enemies, pelting them with quarrels until the enemies have either fled, surrendered, or died.

In addition to the standard, 1-HD gnomes, there are leaders with 2 HD, chiefs with 4 HD, and elite bodyguards with 3 HD. Those tougher gnomes will still prefer to fight with crossbows, but they're much more comfortable in melee than their 1-HD counterparts. A common gnome strategy is to have skirmishers draw enemies into a choke point so that the tougher gnomes can emerge from hiding and take them out in melee.

Gnomes are not necessarily Lawful, and those who are Neutral can definitely serve as villains or enemies for PCs of any alignment.

Sleep, hold person, and charm person can affect gnomes, but their excellent saving throws give them good chances against the latter two. But gnomes are smart enough to know what a threat sleep poses. If they are fighting a group that includes elves or anyone who appears to be a magic-user, those characters are preferred targets for the gnomes' crossbows. If you assign sleep an area of effect (I don't), then gnomes will try to stay spread out. If gnomes are expecting sleep spells, they'll attack in waves, so that the spell can't take them all out at once, and they'll wake up their sleeping comrades when they get a chance.

Gnomes' morale is 8 (10 in the presence of their chief). They'll pass two morale checks a bit more than half the time. But gnomes also value their own lives. They won't start, or stay in, fights they are unlikely to win. Like a good adventuring party, gnomes will try to set the terms of any fight they get into, and they will try to give themselves the advantage.

What Gnomes Love

Gnomes love gold and gems. It is not a utilitarian love of wealth as something useful for buying other things. Gold and gems are ends in themselves for gnomes. They are what gnomes want more than anything else, and they are what gnomes live to acquire.

It is the particular, inherent beauty of gold and gems that gnomes admire. Gnomes are accomplished miners, digging for gold and gems to possess and admire, and for other minerals and metals to use in their crafts. Gnomes are especially fond of mechanisms, and you can safely assume that they are the most accomplished machine smiths in the world. Thus gnomes at their best can represent a refined aesthetic sense combined with practical skill in building useful devices. Gnomish products, then would not only work well, but elegantly.

The gnomish love of mechanism should be reflected in the traps they use for hunting and for protecting their lairs. If you do have kobolds occupying a deathtrap lair a la Tucker's Kobolds, it's a fair bet the kobolds captured the lair from gnomes, traps and all.

Encountering Gnomes

Lairs of 5-40 gnomes can be found in dungeons. They are likely either war camps or mining operations. Either way, the lair will probably be protected by alarms, guards and traps. They will exploit their better-than-normal infravision (90') to monitor approaches and give them ample warning of approaching enemies. Once alerted, the gnomes will need to quickly assess the situation and decide whether to activate their escape plan. That plan will always begin with salvaging as much of their treasure as they can before evacuating, preferably by secret or hidden routes where their attackers can't follow.

For every 20 gnomes in the lair, there's a 2-HD leader. Whether there is such a leader or not, the gnome lair has a 4-HD chief with 1-6 3-HD bodyguards. The chief and bodyguards will typically remain in the lair, keeping close eye on the group's treasure. 2-HD leaders, when present, will organize patrols and manage gnomes working inside and out of the main lair.

In the dungeon, gnomes wander in groups of 1-8. These groups may be patrols, scouts, or miners if the gnomes have an active mining operation.

In the wilderness, gnomes wander in groups of 5-40. They may include one or two elite, 2-HD leader-types. These groups could be traders, on their way to or from dwarf or neanderthal settlements, where they exchange their metalworks for other resources. Though gnomes are apt to mine and cut gems, they are much less likely to do so for profit, as they love the stone too much to trade them. If they do sell them, it will always be for gold, their second love.

A wilderness gnome lair will consist of burrows in a valley, near mineral resources, and its population will be from 25-200 gnomes. There will be a chief with bodyguards, as well as 2-HD leaders responsible for groups of about 20 gnomes each. Gnomes need food and water, and they are likely to supplement the little farming they do with hunting and imported food. Their hunting could put them into conflict with nearby dwarves and neanderthals, but those conflicts are apt to settled fairly easily through trade and cooperation on hunts and in war against goblins and ogres.

Lawful gnomes might be suspicious and cautious, but will not usually respond to PCs with hostility unless the PCs seem to be after their treasure. They might help PCs who are working against kobolds or goblins or advancing some other Lawful project, but only after they are satisfied the PCs can be trusted.

Neutral gnomes will be even less trusting, and they may be antagonistic to an adventuring party, especially if they're working for someone Chaotic. Even when they aren't working for Chaos, they might decide that a vulnerable party loaded down with gold and gems is an irresistible target. Gnomes who operate as bandits, both in the dungeon and in the wilderness, should occasionally occur.

When gnome reactions are determined randomly, here are some suggestions:

• Immediate Attack. If Lawful, the gnomes think the PCs are after their treasure, and so they attack to protect it right away. Neutral gnomes may instead think the PCs have treasure they can steal. Either way, if it's clear the gnomes are outclassed, they will instead begin looking for reinforcements or some other way to gain the advantage for a later attack.
• Hostile, Possible Attack. Lawful gnomes assume the worst, but they issue a warning before trying to attack them. Neutral gnomes want the party's treasure, but they are willing to let the party hand it over without a fight.
• Uncertain, Monster Confused. The PCs are out of place in the dungeon, not what the gnomes were expecting. The gnomes need to figure out whether the PCs are a threat, whether they have gold or gems, and how the gnomes can get them.
• No Attack, Monster Leaves or Considers Offers. The gnomes either think the party is not a threat or has nothing to offer them. Wandering gnomes will warn the lair of the PCs presence when they leave. Gnomes in their lair won't leave, but they open parlay with the PCs without assuming they are a threat.
• Enthusiastic Friendship. The gnomes treat the PCs as potential allies who can help them acquire more gold and gem.

Gnome Treasure

Gnomes have Treasure Type C in their lairs, which is a little weird. They love gold and gems, but Treasure Type C has no gold and a 25% of chance for a mere 1-4 gems. In fact, there's a 37.8% chance of Treasure Type C yielding no treasure at all!

Where have the gnomes' gold and gems gone? One possibility is that the group has fallen on hard times and had to trade them for food and other necessities—much to their displeasure. Another is that their treasure has been mostly stolen by kobolds and goblins. In a military outpost, the small amount of treasure can be explained by the fact that intelligent creatures are unlikely to bring their most valuable loot into a war zone.

For any particular gnome lair, the DM is always free to decide that they have troves of gold and gems, much like dwarves with their Treasure Type G. But you can also decide that the typical group of gnomes is no richer than the typical group of goblins (who also have Type C), and that they are therefore very much in need of gold and gems, and willing to make sacrifices (maybe literally!) others would not consider in order to get them.

7 Easy Mechanics for B/X

In B/X D&D, PCs often try things that aren’t covered in the rules. If they come from later editions, they might expect there to be a pre-existing rule that says exactly what dice to roll and exactly what their chances are. There isn’t. Instead, the DM has to make something up on the spot. Here are some options for DMs, and some guidelines how to use them.

Mechanic #1: It Just Works

I can’t count the times I’ve had players say, “I want to do X, what do I roll?” when there are absolutely no stakes at all. But when all the characters have to lose is time, it’s a good idea just to let their plan work. The loss of time itself drains resources and imposes the risk of wandering monsters. That’s enough.

 

Mechanic #2: Flip a Coin (or something like it)

This is a recommended method from the Basic Rule Book (p. B60). You can just decide on odds of success and roll dice to see if the character succeeds.

 

This method works best for things that pretty much anyone, no matter their class or level, would have similar chances of succeeding at. It’s also best for situations that won’t come up a lot. The more you start trying to take into account various particularities of the situation and the person who is trying to accomplish something, the more you might need to look to other mechanics.

 

Mechanic #3: Ability Check 

This mechanic, also described on B60, is similar in many ways to a skill check. In the roll-under style, a player rolls d20 (or 3d6) and compares the result to an ability score related to the task. They succeed if the result is less than or equal to the ability score. The target number might be modified as much as +/- 3 for difficulty. In the roll-over version, the target number is 21 – the relevant ability score, and it’s still a d20 roll.

 

This mechanic is best for cases when one of the abilities is clearly relevant to what the character is doing, but adventuring experience is not relevant. Characters with different abilities will have different success chances, but their class and level don’t influence their chances.

 

Mechanic #4: Reaction-like Rolls

This mechanic is similar to the ability check mechanic. The player rolls 2d6, with a modifier based on one of their ability scores. The modifiers might range from -3 to +3 or, in line with the way Charisma affects reaction rolls, -2 to +2.

 

You can extrapolate from the table for reaction rolls that there are 5 different results of a check like this. A generic version of the table might look like:

 

2: Failure, loss of resources.

3-5:  Probable failure, loss of resources.

6-8: Neutral, but resources can be expended for further attempts.

9-11: Probably success, expenditure of resources can guarantee success.

12: Complete success.

 

This mechanic is best when it’s fairly clear what the five outcomes mean, character abilities matter, and class and level don’t matter.

 

Mechanic #5: Saving Throws

You can pick a saving throw that seems related to the task and have the player roll a saving throw of that type. If it’s especially easy or hard, you can apply a bonus or penalty to the roll.

 

This is, in some ways, the opposite of an ability check. It’s for tasks that any character of any class might be able to attempt and succeed at, but for which class and level are relevant to their chances of success.

 

I confess I don’t like this very popular mechanic very much. The differences in classes’ saving throws are not very systematic, and the saving throw categories are not organic at all. There are various rules of thumb people use for deciding which saving throw to apply, but I think the underlying question of why saving throws are being used at all is too-often ignored.

 

Mechanic #6: Attack Rolls

A lot of what people want to do is, ultimately, a matter of grabbing, striking, throwing, or aiming. For grabbing and striking, you can just set an AC and resolve it with a melee attack roll. For throwing or aiming, you can set an AC and resolve it with a missile attack roll. These rolls incorporate Strength or Dexterity, as well as class and level. It’s fine to use them.

 

This kind of mechanic is best for the tasks that are attack-like, in that they involve trying to affect a specific target, and either Strength or Dexterity is clearly relevant. The hard part is figuring out what AC to assign. But if you just keep in mind that a normal human hits AC 9 half the time, that’s a good starting place. 

 

Mechanic #7: Opposed Rolls

This is really several different ways to handle cases when one character or monster is trying to do something and another character or monster is trying to stop them. When class, level, and toughness should matter, you can have each side roll their Hit Dice; high total wins. When those things don’t matter, you can have both sides make one of the other kinds of checks and let the “best success” win. For example, you could have opposed ability checks where the winner is whoever rolls highest without going over their ability score.

 

For that to work, though, both sides have to have ability scores, and monsters usually don’t.

 

The “opposed rolls” approach is best for things that are not attack-like, but where it’s fairly clear what each side should be rolling. In other cases, you might just pick one side or the other to be the side who has to roll and fall back on a different method.

 

A Final Note

Players cannot assume that everything they try will be resolved with a specific type of mechanic. This is good. It means they have to make decisions based on the world and the situation they are in, rather than based on the pre-determined bonuses on their character sheet.

 

But as the DM, it is your job to make sure the players are as clear about their odds of success as their characters would be. When they want to do something and it might fail, you must tell them as much as their character knows about their chances of success. That’s not just pointing out the consequences of failure, but actually giving them a sense of the odds. And don’t be vague about it. Don’t say, “It’ll be hard.” Say, “You’ll have a 1-in-6 chance of success.” Then there won’t be misunderstandings, and players can do better to manage their risks, make meaningful decisions, and have a fun game.

Kobolds - B/X Monster Tactics

Kobold Basics

Kobolds are very, very weak individually. Their ½ hit die means that they’ll usually go down in just one hit, and it also gives them the worst possible attack rolls. They have the worst possible saving throws too, saving as normal humans. They attack with weapons, but their damage is pitiful: either 1-4 or by weapon with a -1 penalty. Their speed is 60’ (20’), so they are as slow as PCs in metal armor. They are susceptible to charm person, hold person, and sleep.

 

Kobolds have only three things going for them statistically. First, their AC is equivalent to leather armor. This could be because they wear leather armor or due to their scaly skin. That’s still not great, but we can file it under “at least they aren’t AC 9!”

Second, they have 90' infravision, without the daylight penalties goblins have.

 

Third, they have high numbers appearing, coming in groups of 4-16 in dungeons outside their lairs. Their large numbers mitigate their individual weakness somewhat.

Though they are individually weaker than goblins, dungeon encounters with kobolds can be more dangerous than dungeon encounters with goblins. In the dungeon, kobolds move in groups twice as large as goblin groups. That gives them twice as many attacks, and it also toughens them in some surprising ways. An average goblin has 3.5 hit points, but a pair of average kobolds have 5 between them. A single goblin with 5 hp can still be killed in one hit, but it takes two hits to kill two kobolds, even if they each have but 1 hp.

The combination of their numbers and 1/2 HD also make kobolds surprisingly resilient against sleep spells, compared to goblins. An average goblin encounter group includes five goblins, and a sleep spell will disable them all about 90% of the time. An average kobold encounter group included ten kobolds, and a sleep spell will disable them all only about 44% of the time. This is because 1/2-HD creatures count as 1-HD creatures for the sleep spell. That's not to say you shouldn't go ahead and cast sleep against a kobold group, though. The average casting will eliminate 9 of them, and the tenth one is very likely to surrender or run away, as kobold morale is only 6.

Kobolds are described "small, evil, dog-like men" with "scaly rust-brown skin and no hair." The nature of their "evil" is not well-defined, but we know they hate gnomes, attacking them on sight, and that they steal gnomes' precious gold. Neanderthals hate them, and dwarves speak their language.

In my Blacknight campaign, kobolds are manifestations of hatred for gnomes, and they are inversions of much that is distinctive about gnomes. Gnomes love metalwork and machinery. Kobolds love breaking things. Gnomes mine and hoard gold and gems, delighting in possessing them. Kobolds sabotage mining operations, and they don't even bother to keep the treasure they steal. For kobolds, the point isn't to possess others' treasures. It is to deprive others of them. Instead of hoarding what they steal, kobolds will destroy their loot or hide it somewhere. The point of the hiding, though, isn't to keep the treasure safe from thieves. It is to ensure that whatever they have stolen becomes lost. If someone finds it, all the better; the kobolds can steal it from its new owners too!

Kobolds speak their own language, and they have the usual 20% chance of speaking Common. It makes sense also to give them a 20% chance each of speaking Gnomish and Dwarvish. They might speak goblin, but they can easily communicate with goblins in Chaotic, so that isn't very necessary.

Despite depending on large numbers, kobolds' Chaotic nature means they still prioritize themselves over the group. Their chiefs, and their chiefs' bodyguards, are much tougher than normal kobolds, and that is the only thing that keeps them in charge. Kobolds work in groups, not out of loyalty, but as a necessary means of survival. Kobolds are happy to sell each other out for their own benefit.

Scales, Eggs, and Metabolism

In B/X, kobolds are described as having "scaly skin," but they are also described as dog-like. There is no mention of their being related to dragons or lizard men or troglodytes or anything reptilian. Indeed, they are described as dog-like men, so they are much more likely related to humans and demi-humans than to any other monsters.

In the 1e Monster Manual, kobolds are much more explicitly reptilian. If your kobolds are reptilian, you need to decide whether they are cold-blooded or not. There are some nice possibilities if your kobolds are cold-blooded. First, their cold-bloodedness might make them harder to spot with infravision, and that is a great advantage for subterranean ambushers who are enemies of gnomes (who also have 90' infravision). It would also explain why kobolds are so slow and deal such pitiful damage. Cold-blooded creatures living underground may not be able to get their muscles warm enough to move fast or strike hard.

In my Blacknight campaign, though, kobolds are warm-blooded, and they don't hatch from eggs. They look like hairless humans with chihuahuah heads and eczema. Like the other Chaotic human-like monsters, they need food, water, and sleep, but they don't reproduce biologically. Some are gnomes who become hopelessly corrupted. Some are made by Chaotic magicians or cultists. And some simply happen or appear in areas where there are gnomes or where there are those who hate them.

Encountering Kobolds

Kobold Reactions

Kobolds know they need large numerical advantages to win a fight. They prefer an advantage of at least 4 to 1. If they don't have such an advantage, they will try to avoid fights or escape and return in larger numbers.

If the PCs have any gnomes with them, kobold reactions will be immediately hostile. If numbers are on their side, the kobolds will attack. Otherwise, they will begin work gathering the necessary numbers and setting up an ambush to attack the group later.

If there aren't any gnomes in the group, kobold reactions are normal. Here are some suggestion for reaction roll results:

• Immediate attack. The kobolds take immediate hostile action, but they won't charge a superior force in a more defensible position. They will instead move to set up an ambush (possibly gathering reinforcements first). They may even let enemies pass by them, intending to ambush them when the enemies come back from where they are going.
• Hostile, possible attack. The kobolds make threats and try to get concessions from the PCs. They might issue a warning, and they might preemptively send one or more of their number to alert reinforcements. One possibility is for the kobolds to sound an alarm and warn the PCs that reinforcements are on the way to attack unless the PCs do as they are told.
• Uncertain. The kobolds don't know how much of a threat the PCs are, but they want to find out. When they have a clearer idea whether the party is worth attacking, they will decide whether to attack or to establish a working relationship.
• No attack, leaves or considers offers. The kobolds are afraid of the PCs. They will most likely leave, unless the PCs offer them a good reason to stay. When they leave, they will fall back to join additional kobolds and preparing to defend if attacked.
• Enthusiastic friendship. The kobolds are certain they are outclassed, and so they try to make the best of the situation, even bribing the PCs or offering their services in exchange for safety.

Kobolds in the Dungeon

Kobolds wander in groups of 4-16 on the first level of a dungeon. They might also be found on the second or third level, but only in much greater numbers.

These groups of wandering kobolds are most likely looking for trouble. They may be waiting to ambush enemies, looking for a place to set up an ambush, looking for food, or on a raiding expedition.

A dungeon lair includes 6-60 kobolds. It should be well-hidden, with access to food and water, as well as multiple, hidden ways in and out known only to the kobolds.

Especially in the dungeons, kobolds should always have escape plans. Even in the presence of their chief, the odds are almost even that they will fail a morale check. Their lairs have negligible treasure, so they have little to protect other than their own lives. On the hunt, their strategy is to ambush and overwhelm with numbers, and to leave as quickly as possible. In their lair, their strategy is to get away. When they flee, kobolds are apt to split up and go in several directions, hoping that their pursuers go after others rather than them. 

Apart from hiding their lairs, kobolds will frequently change their ambush locations, not returning to a previously-used site for some time. This makes it harder to catch them; you usually can't just go to the site of a recent ambush and hope to find kobolds waiting there to strike again.

Kobolds in the Wilderness

Kobolds wander the wilderness in groups of 6-60, and their lairs consist of 30-300. As in dungeons, their lairs will be hidden, and they will have escape routes. Wandering groups are engaged in much the same activities as those who wander in dungeons—typically either setting up ambushes or conducting raids against vulnerable targets for the purpose of destroying whatever their targets love.

Even when wandering, kobolds in the wilderness might be carrying Treasure Type J. If they are, it's just the worthless leftovers of whatever their most recent raids have brought them. They are likely not to be carrying actual copper and silver coins, but rather foodstuffs or trade goods of similar value and encumbrance.

In the standard encounter tables, kobolds appear only in the Barren/Hills/Mountains terrain, where they account a little more than 2% of all encounters. Gnomes occur in that terrain as well, and it is likely that any kobolds encountered are at war with them.

Ambushes

Their description says that kobolds often set ambushes, but the B/X rules aren't explicit about how ambushes should work. There are a few schools of thought on this, and I'm just going to describe my favorite.

Unlike bugbears, kobolds don't get a bonus to their chance of surprising enemies. But their 90' infravision will make them hard to sneak up on underground or at night. So, kobolds will set up their ambushes with 90' sight lines, in the dark. Even with only a 2-in-6, the kobolds chance of surprising their targets, their targets have little chance to suprise the kobolds.

Check for surprise as soon as the either the kobolds decide to spring their ambush or the PCs are in a place where they might be able to see the kobolds. When the kobolds spring the ambush will depend on whether they have missile weapons or not.

If the kobold ambushers have missile weapons, they will attack as soon as enemies come within medium range. Otherwise, they will position themselves around corners so that they might be able to surprise enemies who have unwittingly moved to a position 25' away from the waiting monsters.

Kobold Combat

Kobolds are too small for longbows. Their ideal ranged weapon would be the crossbow, whose 80' short range suits the kobolds' 90' infravision and mere 20' of movement. Against melee enemies 80' away, with a speed of 40', the kobolds could get several shots in before the enemies are close enough to attack.

However, I don't give kobolds crossbows. Crossbows are gnomish weapons, and so my kobolds hate them.  For ranged attacks, then, my kobolds have to rely on short bows, slings, spears, or javelins. That means they have to wait let enemies come a little closer before springing their ambushes.

In melee, kobolds will most often use spears, dealing 1d6-1 points of damage when they hit. They despise a toe-to-toe, one-on-one fight, though. They know they need to gang up on targets to have any hope of surviving, much less of actually defeating an enemy. So, they will try to fight only in terrain that allows them gang up on their enemies. They want to draw their enemies through choke points and mob them. For example, kobolds don't want to fight someone standing in a doorway. They want the person to come through the door to a position where at least four kobolds can attack them.

Kobolds will retreat or surrender when their morale breaks. Their first choice is to retreat, with several kobolds going in several different directions if possible. But if their enemies are faster or if they have taken a lot of losses, the kobolds would rather surrender than die. Having surrendered, the kobolds will cooperate with their captors in hopes of being released, and they will certainly run away at the first opportunity.

What about Traps?

As I've said before, kobolds are best used as nuisance monsters, not primary enemies. Their purpose is to enhance the challenge of something else. The "something else" might be another monster population or whatever other challenges are present in the dungeon or wilderness of the adventure. That could be traps, but that's a cliché. Try to make your kobolds more interesting than that.

It isn't easy to do, but you should think about how you can use kobolds to create interesting choices for your players to make. As they pursue their primary goal, the characters should find that there are kobolds demanding their attention and resources. They should get a sense that they have two options.

One is to try to locate and eliminate the source of the problem—the kobold lair. That requires commitment of time and resources, however, which should complicate their accomplishment of their ultimate goal. The players should be able to see how going down the sidetrack of dealing with the kobolds will increase the difficulty of what they are trying to accomplish in their adventure.

Their other option is to ignore the kobold threat, dealing with the kobolds as they encounter them, and staying focused on their final objective. It should be clear to them that this will also make it harder to accomplish their goal. The kobold encounters cost them some hit points and spells, at least, which they might prefer to have available when they reach their objective.

It's up to the players to decide what the best use of their resources will be. Is it more efficient to just eliminate the kobold lair once and for all, or to soak up a few encounters with kobolds in pursuit of their ultimate goal? This is how a nuisance monster can make a game interesting, whether its lair is a deathtrap dungeon or not.

Encumbrance and Inventory Limits

I have a little bit of an obsession with encumbrance systems. It's a pretty common aspect of the D&D to house rule and hack, and a lot of people are dissatisfied with it no matter what.

This is just a quick post to point out one reason people are dissatisfied with every encumbrance system everywhere. Everyone knows some sort of system is needed, but no one is clear enough on why it's needed to be happy that what they have does it what needs doing.

Before you even start to think about encumbrance in your games, though, you need to think about the differences among three sorts of rules.

Inventory limits are rules that say you can only have a certain amount stuff in your character's inventory.

Encumbrance rules impose consequences on characters based on how much stuff they are carrying at any given time.

Carrying capacity rules concern how much weight or bulk a character can pick up and move around with.

These are not the same things! A game doesn't have to have all of them. Most versions of D&D have a set of rules that do all three jobs at once. But games such as the wonderful roguelike, Brogue, get by with just inventory limits, and they don't just work, they work really, really well.

If you have carrying capacity rules, they probably indirectly determine inventory limits. You can't have more in your inventory than you can lift or carry. I've played in many games, especially 5e games, where that's the only limitation on you inventory. The rules say what the maximum weight you can carry is, and your inventory is limited only by that weight, containers be damned.

But carrying capacity and inventory rules serve slightly different functions. Carrying capacity is an aid to verisimilitude. It's just too silly not to have some limits on how much a character can lift, especially when all characters have a Strength score sitting there to tell you exactly that.

Inventory limits are constrained by verisimilitude, but that's not their main point. Their main point is to create interesting decisions—times when you would like to be able to carry both A and B, but you only have room in your inventory for one of them. You must weigh the pros and cons and decide which you will carry.

That's why Brogue works so well with no more than just the rule that you can only carry 20 things at once. You want to carry more than that. At a certain point, you must decide what to drop to make room for new items you really want. You start to think about where to cache supplies you can't carry but want access to. Those are all interesting decisions, but there is no nod to verisimilitude here. A maul and a potion and a ring are each 1 "thing," and each takes up the same amount of inventory.

Carrying capacity rules are only needed if the characters bump against the limits from time to time, so that they have to make decisions. Inventory limits are only needed if characters are picking things up and putting them down frequently enough that decisions about what to pick up or put down can be interesting. In a game where characters aren't running into anything too heavy for them to lift, and they aren't finding treasures that will take up limited inventory space, there's no need for carrying capacity or inventory limit rules.

Then what does encumbrance do? There are two versions.

One version of encumbrance rules is to add a dimension to the sorts of decisions inventory limits impose. Rather than just saying you can only carry so many things, the rules give you consequences for carrying more stuff, even before you reach your limit. This should lead to decisions about whether to take the penalties or drop something and, if the latter, what to drop. In a good set of rules, the penalties might increase as one carries more and more, but they shouldn't be immediately crippling. There should be some temptation to soak up the penalties for the sake of carrying what you want.

That first version of encumbrance rules is much less interesting if characters aren't often picking things up and putting them down. If characters' gear is fairly static, and they aren't hauling around a lot of heavy treasure, there's not much point to a detailed set of penalties for carrying more and more. They won't come into play.

The second version of encumbrance rules is aimed mostly at simulating the idea that some equipment, especially armor, makes you move slower. So, it simply assigns movement rates based on armor and leaves it at that. This version is independent carrying capacity or inventory limits. It can exist without either.

So, before you can decide if the inventory management rules of your game are doing their job, you need to think about what job you want them to do and what sorts of rules can do that job. Don't expect inventory limits to give you a satisfying simulation of how strength affects carrying capacity. Don't expect rules for lifting and carrying to make inventory decisions more interesting. And whatever rules you wind up going for, don't use a detailed and fiddly system to track something that almost never changes!

The promised article on kobold tactics is coming soon. Stay tuned.

Reflections on Kobolds

It's time to round out our tour of the Neanderthals' enemies with the famous, infamous, kobolds. This isn't the main monster tactics post for them, though. Instead, I want to reflect for a minute about what kobolds are and what they have been in the game.

Some History

Perhaps more than any other monsters, including dragons, kobolds have had an eventful history in D&D and its relatives.

In Chainmail, kobolds are all but indistinguishable from goblins. OD&D differentiates them by making kobolds weaker, and AD&D 1e continues the differentiation by depicting them as reptilian and mentioning that they hatch from eggs.

The 1981 Basic Rulebook has an illustration that might be reptilian, but it describes kobolds as "dog-like," with rust-brown skin and no hair. Apart from mentioning that they attack gnomes on sight, this is the earliest source for actual kobold tactics I can find. It says they prefer to attack from ambush.

In 1987, a letter in Dragon introduced "Tucker's Kobolds" to the world, and along came the idea that kobolds fill their lairs with ridiculously deadly traps. That becomes official with second edition. In third edition, kobolds stop speaking their own language and start speaking Draconic. From there, it's a short hop to the current iteration of kobolds as trap-building dragon-lovers who may even be related to dragons in some way. Which is a far cry from the old description of kobolds as basically the same thing for gnomes that goblins are for dwarves.

So, What Are Kobolds?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that "just like goblins, but weaker," is a boring monster. But I'm also bored of "these ones make traps!", and the whole connection between kobolds and dragons seems forced to me. Once you see it, it's hard to unsee: 3e made everything with scales speak Draconic to cut down the number of languages in the game. Kobolds have scales but they're also boring. So we can make them an iota more interesting by really leaning in to having them speak Draconic. Let's make kobolds love dragons! Because, you know, we don't want to have too many languages in the game.

But if we confine our attention to (non-advanced) D&D of 1981 and earlier, kobolds are really a blank slate. Why should your kobolds, in your D&D game, be the same as what they became in 2nd through 5th editions? What if we try something else?

For inspiration, I strongly recommend the Wikipedia page on kobolds. It's chock full of neat possibilities that are decidedly not what you get in any edition of D&D.

One thing that stands out to me from that page is the idea of kobolds as "mine spirits." I also want to incorporate them into my treatment of Chaotic humanoids as embodiments of terrible things. Just like goblins are dwarf-hatred, kobolds are living, breathing incarnations of hate for gnomes. But it's bigger than just that. Kobolds are also connected to greed and the kind of contempt and hatred it can engender.

Yeah, Yeah, but What Are Kobolds?

Kobolds happen when people hate gnomes. They especially happen when gnomes hate and resent other gnomes as threats to their wealth. They emerge from the mines where the gnomes get their treasures, making war on them. That doesn't explain everything about kobolds, such as their paltry treasure. But I want to set that aside for now and think about what kobolds are as part of the game. What's the point of them?

Kobolds are individually weak antagonists. An average sleep spell will neutralize nine of them, and their only hope against a well-prepared first-level party is to have surprise and numbers on their side. 

Their treasure is an insult. A typical dungeon lair will have 33 kobolds, plus a 2 HD chief and 3 bodyguards with 1 + 1 HD each. That's 200 XP worth of monsters. They'll be carrying 14 cp each, for a total of 518 cp, or 5 XP of treasure carried. Their lair treasure, if there is any at all, is 3000 cp and 200 sp. So that's another 50 XP worth of treasure. But 68% of the time, they won't have any lair treasure at all. So call the horde's average XP value 16. That's 200 XP of monsters with 21 XP of treasure on average — in a game that should be giving out about three times as much XP for treasure as for monsters!

Giant rats have better treasure than kobolds.

So, call it 221 XP per 37-kobold lair, or 6 XP per kobold, including treasure. A party of four first level characters would have to 833 kobolds for their thief to reach second level.

Obviously, kobolds aren't there for PCs to fight and loot. It's a waste of the players' time. But if that's so, what are they for?

I think kobolds have two main functions.

First, they are nuisance monsters. They are the quintessential wandering monster. One of their best uses is to pose a strategic question to the players: Do we ignore the kobolds harassing us and focus our resources on our main goal, or do we divert some resources from our main objective to eliminating the kobold threat? The point isn't that the kobolds are a real threat to the party. The point is that they can be a consistent, minor resource drain until they're eliminated, but eliminating them requires diverting resources (including time) away from the main task.

Kobolds are like the bandits in Slay the Spire. Bandits ask the player: your money or your life? You can keep them from doing much damage to you, but they may well get away with some of your money. Or you can keep them from taking your money, but they'll probably deal you a bunch of damage. You often can't protect both your money and your life, so you have to choose. 

As nuisance monsters, kobolds can slowly bleed off party resources, until the party spends expends resources to get rid of them. The trick for the players is to figure out whether to tolerate the slow bleeding. Will it cost them more than just getting rid of the kobolds altogether? Maybe. As a dungeon designer, it's your job to make that an interesting question for the players.

The point of nuisance monsters like this isn't to be a threat. It's to change the resource calculation players have to make.

Second, kobolds can be used to challenge player expectations about the challenge curve of an adventure. 

Always remember that this is a resource management game. One good adventure structure involves PCs trying to make it to their objective with enough resources left to actually accomplish it. But that structure actually has at least THREE different shapes.

• Shape 1 - Even Challenge. Every challenge is of about equal intrinsic difficulty. The final challenge, to accomplish the objective, is intrinsically just as tough as the first challenge, but it is harder because the PCs have expended resources to get to it. Although the rule books recommend against it, this is very easy to do with the encounter-building tools provided from 3rd edition onward.
• Shape 2 - Increasing Challenge. The challenges get intrinsically tougher as the PCs get close to the objective. Maybe each level of the dungeon has tougher monsters than the previous level, and the objective is on the bottom level. Or maybe there are a bunch of easy challenges to warm the players up before a big, tough, climactic challenge.
• Shape 3 - Decreasing Challenge. The challenges become intrinsically easier as the PCs get close their objective. The final objective may not be very difficult in itself at all, but getting to it could be deadly.

What DM Tucker knew is that Shape 3 can be very tough and challenging too. You can start with a challenges that put the PCs in great peril and pose, even more urgently than Shape 1 and Shape 2, the question of whether resources are better spent to overcome this challenge now or conserved for later. You can stack up a bunch of really hard challenges to see if the PCs can get through them with enough resources to deal with a bunch of mere kobolds. Or whatever. And if most adventures follow Shape 1 or Shape 2, then players will probably find this terrifying.

So, from an adventure-design perspective, kobolds are seasoning for an adventure. They are either annoyances that waste party time and resources as they try to accomplish their main goal, or they can help challenge player expectations about the shape of an adventure's challenge curve.

Kobolds are a good example, but there's nothing really special about them. Other weak monsters can be, and should be, put to the same uses. Bats, giant centipedes, goblins, kobolds, normal humans, rats, and sprites are all Basic Rulebook monsters with under 1 HD and not much threat. Any of them can fill the niche of nuisance monster of easy-ending to a Shape 3 adventure.

Next: Kobold Tactics

Raising the Dead

If you're going to have a D&D campaign in which PC death is possible, you need a way to raise characters from the dead.

There are some exceptions. It's much less important in an open table game, with many players and more or less ad hoc adventuring groups. It's also less important if the characters aren't going to go beyond about 4th level or so. And PCs don't need to be able to come back from every kind of death. But the DM should take care setting up situations in which unrecoverable death is possible. They are campaign-ending situations — unless you have a way for the campaign to keep going despite the PC's death. For most of us, that means finding a way for the PC's player to keep playing, despite the PC's death. And that's why you need a way to raise characters from the dead.

Characters from about 4th level and up need ways to be raised from the dead. In B/X, they'll have to rely on NPC clerics until a PC cleric reaches 7th level. In 5e, PCs can't cast raise dead until 9th level. Either way, the span of levels that PCs need access to raise dead but can't cast it themselves is fairly big. If you don't provide those characters with a way to be raised from the dead, you should follow the lead of some other games and just stipulate that PCs can't die.

Most campaigns have a fairly limited and stable set of players. But players need characters. So, when a PC dies, the player has a problem. They can't play without a character, and you can't (ordinarily) play dead characters. Raise dead and outlawing PC death both solve that problem.

Some DMs deal with character death in other ways, but they aren't good for the game. Here are some popular ones.

• Roll up a new 1st-level character to join the party. This is fine at low levels, but it has lots of problems when the other characters are more than about 3rd or 4th level. Basically, the challenges appropriate for the other characters are not appropriate for the 1st-level character. If the other players have stables with other, low-level characters, the new PC can adventure with them, but now the high-level campaign is on hold until the new character reaches a high enough level, and then there's still the question of how to explain the new character's appearance in the party.
• Roll up a new character at a higher level. Popular options are to give the new character XP equal to or a bit less than the lowest-level character in the party, or to base their starting XP on the XP of the character who died. But if you are going to allow a new character of that level, why allow the old character to die at all? Why not just dock them XP and carry on? It would avoid the narrative problems of incorporating a new high-level character (who, presumably, has some history) into the party. And if you're willing to handwave those narrative problems, why aren't you willing to handwave the narrative problems of simply deciding that Petey Paladin didn't die after all? Why not just say he lost consciousness and a level or two?
• Promote a retainer/henchman to PC status. If there is a retainer whose level is high enough, this could be a workable approach. But there does need to be one, and it needs to make sense that they would be promoted and be willing to continue adventuring rather than, say, retiring after their old boss got killed. If there isn't an appropriate retainer, it won't work. But if raise dead is available, then not only is it not necessary to promote a retainer to PCs status, but retainers have a reason to help their boss get raised—no boss, no pay.

There's always the possibility of making it very difficult for PCs to die, or declaring, as some games do, that PCs don't die—their failures will always take a different form. But if you don't rule out the possibility of death altogether, you need to plan for PC death and your players need to be able to plan for it too. And don't be a wuss about it. Don't pretend PC death is a real possibility and then start fudging to avoid it when it happens. Be honest with yourself and your players about whether PCs really can die.

But how can you make raise dead available to lower-level PCs?

The Local Temples

Raising the dead should be possible at temples and churches where there are 7th-level (B/X) or 9th-level (5e) clerics. It might be possible at other temples or churches, if the local clergy has access to a scroll with the spell on it. An appropriate donation should be required, and there might be other requirements as well.

Almost no religion will raise the dead of those whose alignments or religion conflict with their own. Fortunately for the churches, the recipient of raise dead is weak and has only 1 hp for a while after being raised. If someone is not already a member of the church, the cleric who raises them from the dead might give them a chance to convert. Those who refuse might be "returned to death," (i.e. re-killed), and that should not be considered an evil or chaotic act on the cleric's part. Rather, it is understood that those who are raised from the dead owe a certain loyalty to the religion that raised them, and refusing to pay means forfeiting the resurrection.

As for monetary costs, the AD&D 1e figure of 1,000 gp plus 500 gp per level of the recipient is reasonable for B/X. As characters gain levels, their wealth grows exponentially, and so raise dead becomes more affordable the more established and powerful a character is.

It is harder to set a price for 5e, because there is no firm relationship between character wealth and level.  As a rough guide, though, you might set the price for levels 1-5 to be 500 gp, 5,000 gp for levels 6-11, 50,000 gp for levels 12-17, and 500,000 gp for levels 18-20.

Raise dead has a time limit. In 5e, the person must be no more than 10 days dead. In B/X it depends on the level of the cleric casting the spell, ranging from a maximum of 4 days (a 7th- or 8th-level caster) to 28 days (a 14th-level caster). In practice, though, these spell casters are unlikely to have the spell prepared and ready to cast as soon as the PCs show up with a body at the temple doors. The party will have to wait at least a day, so that the NPC cleric can prepare the spell.

If a party doesn't have a cleric able to cast raise dead, either from memory or a scroll, there is thus a limit to how far from a temple they should travel. They should never go so far from a temple that they can't get back to it in time to raise their dead colleagues.

Whether your campaign is a sandbox or not, you need to bear that in mind when you are setting it up. Do not arrange things so that the PCs have no choice but to travel beyond their ability to get to a temple for raise dead, unless they have the ability to cast the spell themselves (and a backup in case the cleric is the one who dies!). Otherwise, you haven't really given them access to the spell at all.

Scrolls

Instead of paying a high level cleric to cast raise dead, characters might want to cast it from a scroll or pay a lower-level cleric to cast it from a scroll.

The benefit of this is that the PCs don't have to stay within a few days' travel of the temple. However, it is more expensive as well. The PCs need the scroll.

Clerics should be able to buy scrolls with the spell on it from their churches. They will probably be expected to follow all the church's rules about whom to raise and what donations to collect. In 5e, the scrolls cost 250 to 2,500 gp. That's a wide range, but 2,500 gp is likely unaffordable to anyone below 6th level or so. You might use prices on the lower end of the scale for clerics under 6th level or so, supposing their churches only expect the highest prices from their wealthiest clergy.

In B/X, scrolls of raise dead cost at least 2,500 gp to make, and so 5,000 gp may be a reasonable price. That amount is affordable to most 4th or 5th level PCs—and those are the levels when access to raise dead becomes most important.

Additionally, it's probably a good idea for a scroll of raise dead to be part of the treasure a group recovers sometime while they are around 4th level.

Banning Death

I like for character death to be a real possibility. For most campaigns, though, that means there needs to be a way to recover characters who have died in most cases. But there's an alternative that some games use. You can simply stipulate from the start that PCs don't die, except in truly exceptional cases.

This turns the game into something more like a superhero game. The stakes for characters are not their own lives, but they may be other things they care about, including the lives of other people they care about.

In 5e, there's a fairly straightforward way to ban death. When a character fails three death saving throws, they are unconscious and injured. They roll on the DMG's lingering injury table to find out the exact nature of their injury. Whatever it is, it'll probably keep the PC out of action for a period of game time while they recover from the injury or find someone to heal it. That can be more than enough to make failing three death saves extremely undesirable, even if it doesn't mean losing the character permanently.

In B/X, you can adopt similar mechanics, or something even simpler. A PC reduced to 0 hp or less is incapacitated for a turn, and then they have all the disadvantages of a recipient of raise dead: they have 1 hp, can't do anything but move at half speed, and can't be healed by magic. That state lasts for two weeks, just like raise dead.

It's still bad to get dropped to 0 hp. If your PCs have to pay for upkeep, those two weeks are unproductive downtime that still has to be paid for. It's two weeks during which Team Evil's plans get to advance without the PC being able to do anything to stop them. That can actually be worse than what would have happened if the PC were replaced right away with a new one just a level or two behind.

Make a Plan!

When people allow replacement PCs at higher than 1st level, or they force players to use 1st-level PCs who aren't close to the level of the rest of the group, it's usually because they haven't planned for PC death, and they haven't planned how to make raise dead available to the party. With a little planning, though, you can easily give PCs access to the spell, and you can do so without making the campaign too easy. Coming back from the dead is expensive, and it can require new in-character commitments. Until the PCs can cast the spell themselves, they have to stay near the clerics who will cast the spell for them, or they have to pay for expensive scrolls. When the players know all this, they can also face potentially deadly situations with more confidence. Character death can become an opportunity for new campaign events, rather than a campaign killer.

But if none that makes sense for your campaign, then you need to be honest with yourself about whether you want PC death to be possible at all. What are you going to do when someone's character dies? Are you going to let that end the campaign, or are you going to do things that make no real narrative sense just to keep the player in the game? The best move might well be simply to ban death for PCs—except for a handful of cases in which you want the campaign to have the possibility of ending with, "Some PCs died here, and so the group didn't accomplish the campaign's objective."