Single saving throws

It's been a while now that my D&D-style games have used a single saving throw.

Original D&D's saving throws, with their more concrete categories like spells, death ray, and petrification, always seemed a bit limited to me, and since the 2000s (with 3rd and later 4th edition) the idea of having a save for reflex, another for willpower, and another for physical resistance made more sense. 5th edition, with its ability-based saves, seems even more direct, removing the need for the reflex/will/fortitude "middlemen."

But even that distinction eventually became somewhat pointless to me.

First, let's discuss the method behind saving throws against dangers such as like petrification, spells, etc. Contrary to what many claim, they don't actually distinguish well between classes. Thieves, for example, are NOT particularly good against breath weapons, but they are against spells, and dwarves, with their short legs, once they reach high level, end up dodging dragon fire better than they resist spells.

Also, paladins have better saves dues to divine favor, and dwarves/halflings because they are small/hardy. So you can barely tell what the saving throws really are within the game-world.

Without actually looking at the tables, you cannot explain the rhyme or reason for saving throws. Even if you can, it is a rationalization rather than a reason.

Even in Basic and AD&D, saving throws were eventually affected by ability scores, adding yet another layer of complexity (first by Wisdom, than by Dex etc.). The idea of using a dexterity check as a saving throw also shows up very early in the game's history.

Optional rule in the Rules Cyclopedia

But let's say the original saving throws actually did something closer to what the classes suggest: maybe fighters more resistant to petrification, thieves dodging breath weapons, and wizards avoiding enemy spells.

The first problem would be edge cases like fireballs, which are spells AND supposedly can be dodged (and probably avoided by armor too).

The second is that this simply doesn't match the fiction found in Appendix N. Conan resists spells not by "blocking magic," but by being tough. Likewise, a dragon's breath can be dodged by a thief, but it can also be blocked, at least partially, by armor or a shield, or avoided with a spell. Remember: in Chainmail / OD&D, it's powerful fighters, not intelligent characters, who are able to detect invisible people (which could ALSO be a saving throw IMO).

In short, dangers don't correspond, in any precise way, to how characters actually avoid them, neither in fiction nor in reality.

On top of that, the differences between saving throws within the same class are minor, and can be summarized, as pointed out long ago on Delta's blog, as a bonus ranging from +0 to +4 applicable across all classes (which is roughly equivalent to a DC in contemporary D&D). So the tables are an unnecessary complication.

Of course, saving throws organized by danger category also fail to explain edge cases like avoiding falling into a pit, crossing a river with a strong current, or dodge a falling rock (which maybe should be handled as a trap instead, an altogether different mechanic). I'd also have to consider how PCs would deal with the lasers, radiations and psychic powers of my current setting.

A single saving throw also helps resolve several difficulties in one roll. For example: can you spot the trap before reaching it? And if you do reach it, can you avoid falling in? Or if you're bitten by a snake — can you see it coming, dodge during the attack, resist the venom in your own bloodstream through natural antibodies, or even mystically alter your breathing, power through it, and so on.

While I don't remember the exact 3e or 4e rules on the matter, I like that in 5e they at least tried to give the Fighters better saves altogether with the Indomitable feature.

My last attempt at having more than one save was diving then into Mental and Physical, but even that was not necessary. Does armor help or hinder your physical defense against dangers that can be dodged? Most D&D editions do not seem to take this into account. Do we even need a physical defense other than AC?

Well, maybe for poison. But even then, unless you use "save or die" poisons you don't need Constitution to affect it. Just save "save or lose 3d6 HP" and your Constitution and level are already taken into account to see if you'll survive or not. What about a form of radiation there bypasses HP? Well, is there any reason to think bulky fighters would resist radiation any better than mages?

Maybe we need a mental save for Charm etc.? Not a great idea either. In which setting or game would it make sense to a mage or other creature to easily mind-control a T-Rex of limited intelligence?

So, basically now I got every PC to have a single saving throw number. They are not always the same: fighters get a +3 bonus, thieves +2, wizard +1 (and yeas that means they are frailer against fireballs). Monsters work similarly to fighters, most of the time (so we barely need the 5e thing where monsters can resist 3 times, or the AD&D thing where monsters have a chance of ignoring spells - which might be an issue for another post).

It is been working very well so far, and that's probably what I'm going with from now on.

My question: do you see any advantage in having several saves?

One (single magic item) to rule them all

I've been thinking for a while now about the excessive multiplication of magic items in D&D. 

Whether through random tables or official modules, players quickly become overloaded with items. And this ends up stripping away all the special character these items should have. Many times I've asked myself (and others) if this aligns with the literary works that inspired D&D (Appendix N etc). 

Sometimes Moorcock's works are cited, since Elric has several magic items and so does Corum. there are examples on Tolkien too. But I think there's a distinction to be made there:

It seems like most of these stories have just one magic item that clearly stands out above the rest: Stormbringer, in Elric's case, Excalibur, in King Arthur's case, or the Holy Grail, in other Arthurian stories, or The One Ring, in Tolkien's case, the decks of cards in the Amber series, and so on.

And D&D-based literature seems to follow the same line, from The Crystal Shard, which gets its own book, to Dragonlance, which lends its name to an entire series.

Of course, even when there's just one protagonist item per campaign or setting, there are several other items as well. In Tolkien's case, for example, we have Andúril, the (quite powerful) Palantíri, and even Sting and mithril armor. Stormbringer itself has its twin sister sword, which gets less attention in the book.

However, what definitely does not happen in most of the literature mentioned is the constant accumulation of magic items by a single character, or quickly swapping those items for better ones. Every magic item carries a story, which is why simply discarding it seems to diminish its value and importance.

In addition, such legendary items should play a central role, not something you find in a random dungeon or that is easily traded. Think of the Arkenstone in The Hobbit, which has monetary value but also a sentimental/historical values that may cause or resolve a war, and ends up feeling more relevant than The One Ring at least for this book.

So why do D&D PCs get so many (disposable) items?

One of the reasons this happens is that, in older versions of D&D, magic items worked as a way of making PCs not only more powerful but also more unique. Often, equipment was what differentiated one character from another, in the absence of feats or even talents that could be chosen with new levels. Two tenth-level fighters, for example, would differ greatly from one another depending on the items they carried.

Now that modern D&D has feats and new class talents as you level-up (well, even BECMI and AD&D eventually got their skills, proficiencies, etc.), the magic item treadmill feels unnecessary.

But having only "meaningful magic items" is not an easy thing to apply at the table, precisely because D&D players are so used to, and expect, receiving more and more magic items. 

Another problem is that D&D wizards essentially have no clear ceiling on their power. A D&D wizard with enough XP has more power than a Palantír (or a dragon, making dragonlances somewhat pointless), so many magic items may become worthless as wizards level up.

Maybe one way would be to separate legendary items from more disposable ones more clearly. Something I've been using in my (science-fantasy) campaign is making some of the supposedly "magic" items mass-produced. You could do something similar by saying that a +1 sword is just better quality and can be safely traded for a +2 sword without any regard for its story or "magic".

Since I don't like writing a post about a problem without at least trying to offer a solution, here are a few attempts:

Multiplication. A magic sword that doubles or even triples its damage, for example. If a regular sword deals 1d8+1 damage, the magic sword deals 2d8+2. But if the character, for whatever reason (strength, proficiency, etc.), deals 1d8+5 with a common sword, the magic sword deals 2d8+10. That way, it's ALWAYS meaningful, but it's far more dangerous in skilled hands.

Absolutes. Items that simply bypass the rules in an absolute way: this item is completely immune to magic, or it's basically indestructible like "the One Ring", or it simply negates any possibility of resurrection, or ignores armor completely. D&D itself already has a few items like this, they just need to be part of the setting's history instead of thrown into a lsit of artifacts.

Items that grow with the character. The longer the character keeps the item, the more they learn from it and bond with it. Something I've suggested before, but which would also work with sentient items like Stormbringer, or mysterious items like the Claw of the Conciliator, whose effects, even by the end of the book of the same name, aren't 100% clear (which is also the case with The One Ring and Stormbringer).

It is time to ditch the "good GM"

The myth of the "good GM is required to play" is an old tale in our hobby. I thought the myth had been laid to rest, but it is often raised from the dead with talks of "elite GMs" that know all the rules by heart, or "great GMs" that are skilled voice actors or that have amazing improv skills.

It is time to ditch this idea. In fact, it’s long overdue.

The "good DM" was often used as an excuse for “difficult” games: “this confusing game is great, it just requires a good GM to function.” Or, more neutrally, as a warning: “this game is good BUT it requires a good GM to run.” For me, it should be used as outright criticism: “this game is not easy to use, and it requires a GM that is above average to make it work.”

There is no objective way to measure or evaluate the quality of GMs, and no serious research exists AFAICT. People who usually talk about “good GMs” are often just talking about themselves in a display of arrogance and bravado.

Until we have objective evaluation, we can imagine that GMs divide into good, bad, and average, with the majority (around 68%) sitting in the middle of a normal curve. If you’ve read the DMG or know basic statistics, you understand this.

Imagine rolling 3d6 for your GM skill as a "prime requisite": requiring a result above “average,” say 13–14, would exclude most people unnecessarily from the “class” of GM.

A good RPG should be good for most players and GMs, except when you’re deliberately making niche content.

In short: most GMs are mid, great GMs are rare, and that’s fine. A game that is only viable or fun for the highly skilled is doomed to fail; even chess, poker, or football can be fun for beginners.

Great creativity, memory, improv skills, mastery of 200 pages of rules, and vast literary knowledge are wonderful things to have, but they shouldn’t be required to run a good game.

In fact, we all remember the time (often as kids or teens) when we barely understood the rules, had never read any RPG theory, and still managed to have memorable adventures. RPGs should be fun for the averages and even below-average, not only the self-professed “elites.”

In addition, RPGs should help me run a game, not force me to fight the system in order to make it work.

That’s why I try to create good tables and tools, so you (or, frankly, I) don’t need to be an awesome GM to make something great with them. I don’t want to put all the burden of creation on your shoulders if you’re using my games; in fact, I want to save you as much work as I can.

[Here is one example. My goal with the setting is not to require you to read Edgar Rice Burroughs, Clark Ashton Smith, Lovecraft, or Roadside Picnic in order to enjoy it, even if I would recommend you do. The idea is that you can get the same feel I enjoy simply by rolling the tables as written, without needing to construct it all yourself].

One of the happiest feelings I have after creating random tables is rolling, combining and realizing the combinations instantly generate cool ideas I hadn't considered. In other words, not because I thought of something cool, but because I found something I hadn’t thought.

Likewise, when I’m running (or writing) a module, I want things to be simple and clearly spelled out. I don’t want to be unexpectedly forced to train my creativity or improv skills. My focus should be on running the game and responding to the players’ choices—not wrestling with the text.

In conclusion: 

By all means, read all the rules, memorize (or even tinker with) the most important ones; dive into Appendix N books if you want (you know I do); learn how statistics work; try improv; make voices; crack jokes; write your own adventures, and tweak or complete existing ones. 

These are all useful, fun skills, and they will make you a better GM and a better player. But they are absolutely not required to play RPGs.

Hiatus, Thoughts and Plans

This is a rant. You've been warned. ;)

Some of you might have noticed I'm writing a lot less these days. A few things have changed in my life, mostly for the better. I finished a long campaign — I definitely have to make a post about that. But I'm rethinking the usefulness of some of the stuff I do, and I think a bit less about RPGs these days (probably because I'm not playing as much either).

Many of the things I write are things I'd like to use myself, or have used. But I still want everything I write to be useful to someone else (or I wouldn't publish it).

I've been through a brief period of AI disillusionment, feeling that now AI can write faster, longer, and sometimes better than me. Well, from what I've seen, it is not quite there yet, but it might be in 2-3 years. So I was asking myself what is the point of taking the effort if AI will do it better in a couple of years.

And I'm still not 100% sure. But I'm seeing something. AI works with an ocean of trash. It can make a quick or detailed review of The Diamond Throne but it will not tell you it is terrible or why it is terrible (if you liked this book, I hope you don't mind my example).

AI is great at writing the easier, most obvious, most popular answer to your question. But it is not really trained to be contrarian, inquisitive, politically incorrect, etc. It can give you what you want but it is not really good at giving you what you didn't know you wanted.

So I guess I still have something to offer. It is a bit niche, but I've always been a bit niche (well, except for some 5e campaigns back in 2016 when everyone liked it).

BTW, the anti-AI sentiment has not been very helpful either. I got some flak for mentioning AI in my latest book, and I barely used it — it was more experimentation, dice-rolling and some brainstorming. But now that I know how to use it, I feel that NOT using it at all would be masochistic luddism at best. The time it saves when it corrects my typing errors is worth it by itself.

OTOH, I will NOT use AI art in my books. Not because of some moral high ground, but because I think it looks UGLY. The thing is, I'm a WRITER and not an ARTIST. So I feel that I can revise anything that AI gives me to ensure I'm not giving you AI slop. If I were an artist, I could maybe work with an AI somehow, but I'm not, so I prefer working with real artists that have real TASTE, even if I have to use stock art.

Which by itself is probably a contrarian view, as it is pro-AI and anti-AI at the same time.

Anyway, here are some future plans.

I'm going to continue working on Prismatic Planet and posting here. I might make the whole book available for free before I publish it. These posts do not get many views but that's probably the seed of my next campaign, and what I want to write.

I might write about a few books I've read: Norwegian Wood (weak and overhyped), The Stranger (not great), Amber (good but not great), etc. I was a bit discouraged for not having many nice things to say about them, but again, the contrarian view might be useful.

BTW, I have another blog called Inspiring Ideas. I haven't been using it but since I've been reading lots of self-help and self-improvement stuff, maybe it becomes more active this year.

Also, Knight of the Seven Kingdoms is some of the best fantasy TV ever, and I have to write about that — at very least to discuss the realistic medieval battles.

So, that's what I've got for now. As I mentioned, I write for myself first, and this has been my attempt to convince myself to continue writing. It brought me lots of joy over the years.

And, as always, I'm immensely grateful for everyone reading this.

Reconsidering random encounters (again)

I'm reconsidering D&D random encounters... again.

OSE (B/X) says this about the chances of random encounters:

Clear, grasslands: 1-in-6.

Barren lands, hills, mountains, woods: 2-in-6.

Desert, jungle, swamp: 3-in-6.

The idea that mountains and deserts should have lots of encounters feels both unrealistic and unnecessary. 

Forests probably deserve more frequent encounters, but honestly, we could just equalize encounter rates across all terrains without much loss. You’d still end up with more fights in mountains and forests anyway, simply because travel is slower there. 

Again, from OSE:

Some types of terrain modify the speed at which characters can travel:

Broken lands, desert, forest, hills: 33% slower.

Jungle, mountains, swamp: 50% slower.

Maintained roads: 50% faster.

Plains might have fewer beasts, sure—but they tend to have more humans, so the total number of encounters could stay about the same.

Here is one alternative: 2-in-6 chances for every terrain. If you are in terrain that could fall under two categories (forested mountains, a river in a swamp, a settlement in the desert), a 1 means you roll on the first table, a 2 means you roll on the second table.

What else?

Do we really need different tables for each terrain? It makes some sense, but when I started reading the AD&D tables, I noticed something odd. In alphabetical order, there are no giant ants, badgers, beetles, or beavers listed for mountain terrain. That’s not very precise either. In B/X, there are no undead in forests and no insects in mountains. Is there a reason? This probably deserves some revision.

Rivers are trickier. If you’re in a boat, you’re likely to miss or ignore most fish, and even common alligators or snakes. Most rolls end up feeling wasted. So maybe rivers need their own table too—unless you’re swimming, which isn’t all that common in my experience.

Then there are city encounters, which clearly deserve their own separate treatment - the reasoning is completely different (distance, surprise, reaction, numbers found, etc.). Same goes for the sea. 

In the end, we’re left with intricate encounter tables that don’t always mean much.

Well, anyway, I've been looking for the perfect random encounters and I haven't been able to find them. I fixed some things I disliked in Basic Wilderness Encounters, if you want to check it out. I've also made a small app to quickly check for encounters and weather. But I guess I'll keep looking for ways to improve these procedures.

B/X random encounter/travel generator

So I've made a small dice roller / random encounter/ travel generator for B/X, OSE and other "Basic" games.

Here you go.

This is a tool I wanted to have for my own games; I realized it takes too long to roll during the game. Now I can do most of the work with a click (or a few clicks; see below).

I've tried several solutions, including rolling 1000 (!) encounters for my games, many of which I used with great success - they are in the Basic Wilderness Encounters book.

But I also wanted an automated tool for weather (I often forget to roll/describe it) and encounter checks. The weather checks are just descriptive unless they roll terrible weather. I created them inspired by the reaction table.

This isn't as complete as Basic Wilderness Encounters (which also includes NPC names, number and type of monsters appearing, etc.). It is more agnostic, however; you can combine it with your favorite random encounter table, table of random names, etc.

Here are some fine tools for OSE. I've seen some other tools out there in the format of apps and spreadsheets, but I prefer having one link, that I can "roll" with one click.

And it is very transparent, you can ignore any roll you want, add Charisma to the reaction check, let PCs roll for surprise, etc.

I might fix some stuff if I had similar tools formatted for perchance. I especially wish I had a generator that also gave me the number appearing immediately; the rest is often not as important, because the PCs can sometimes choose to ignore the encounter, for example.

I hope this tool helps you experiment running B/X or OSE encounters as originally written, taking distance, surprise, reaction, etc., into account.

This has LOTS of room for improvement, but it takes work. Anyone can edit it (give me credit if you find it appropriate), and I hope there are other generators out there which we can use, add, remix, etc. 

Please let me know! I'd love to have a good perchance generator for B/X or AD&D encounters that I can incorporate to this one!

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-painful-procedure-of-random.html

Should you PAY your GM?

Let's start with the conclusion: GM-for-pay is okay.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with paying someone to run a game for you, or charging people for a game you're running.

I say that with some certainty but little experience: I always GM for free. 

I GM for my friends, on my schedule, using the system and adventures of my choice (always with some player input). I buy the books I want, and everyone in my group helps me as needed. 

On the other hand, a GM-for-pay typically runs games for strangers, often using the most popular system (like D&D 5e) and well-known settings. A group of friends can often negotiate a situation in which they can all play together with a stranger DM.

I think GM-for-pay makes sense for several reasons. 

Preparing a module like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd takes considerable effort. There is an important distinction here: I think learning settings and modules takes work. It can be fun, but the real fun as a GM, at least for me, is running the game with the players.

[And I found running ToA way more fun that just generating a dungeon randomly or whatever. It was worth the effort. But there was an effort].

Once a GM learns the material, they can run it countless times. While it remains exciting for new players every time, the GM might lose some of the fun because there is no sense of discovery that comes with experiencing it for the first time.

And, in a way, I feel bad that some of this effort is wasted: all the unexplored rooms, all the things that could have gone differently, etc. Running the same thing multiple times is interesting, It is just not as fun as doing something new. And, since you can't usually run the same module to the same people twice, you have the additional effort of finding new people if you want to do that.

There are also practical matters, such as buying setting books, paying for subscription apps, etc. These responsibilities usually fall on the shoulders of the GM. At the very least, it is fair to expect the players to contribute.

In short, given the effort involved, it’s completely fair for someone to charge for GM services if there's demand.

I see this as a win-win. More players can experience various systems, settings, and adventures without needing to invest heavily in preparation. You could do the same without touching money: a group interested in trying multiple systems could take turns GMing for each other. Being able to do it for money just makes the process easier in some circumstances. It also allows people who really like to GM to be able to get some money so can dedicate more time to this, do this a lot, and get better at it.

Another aspect that is probably overlooked is the idea of "Player systems" and "GM systems". I ran a  D&D 5e campaign a while ago. It was fun, but I'm unlikely to do that again; I find 5e to be too much work for the GM. OSR games are much more fun for me to run.

When you look at GMs-for-pay, D&D 5e is the most common system offered. Of course, "official D&D" is always very popular, but I think the fact OSR games are easier to run also explains why paid GMs are less common (and the whole idea is less popular in OSR circles).

I have never actually paid a GM. But I started playing RPGs in a game store. It was free, but they encouraged me to buy a book; so it was not completely without interest on their part. And it was awesome.

Then I wanted to learn more and more systems. I went to conventions and signed up for tables without considering what the GMs got out of it. Later, I invited strangers to learn RPGs with me. It was fun, but not as fun as learning when I was a novice (and probably not as fun as playing with my friends). And it took time and effort.

I also played several games where the GM was testing his own system or setting. I didn't pay for that, but the GM obviously had an "ulterior motive". Some of these games were awesome, and some even became awesome books eventually.

[I have done the same thing as an author; in fact, nowadays most of the things I publish are specifically made because I want to play then. I play-test stuff with my friends].

In short... one day, I might pay to play a game. I think having the option is good, but it is not necessary. If you have time to spare (maybe a clear schedule or enough time to search for a perfect game in several places), and maybe some social skill, you can play free games endlessly. You can make new friends and rotate the GM role if you want. 

When I was younger I had more time and less money, so the thought of paying for a game would never occur, but maybe I'd have played even more if I knew that existed (at a fair price!).

Paying for a game does not make it better or worse. It is like any other business. 

I have friends who are great professional cooks; they enjoy making food, and cooking to their friends for free, but they also sell food, and it is equally tasty. I enjoy food even more when cooked by someone I like, but not every meal has to be like that.

I think a similar reasoning will apply to most fun activities: boxing, running, playing the guitar, chess, and so on. Sure, you can do it for free, and you can do it for fun; but there is still a place for professionals, experts, teachers, and tutors.

---

P.S.1: On a final note, some people say GM-for-pay is intrinsically good because commerce is intrinsically good, as both the buyer and the seller can hope to be satisfied by the end of a transaction they freely agreed to. While I do see the merit in this argument, one could make a counter-argument talking about cigarettes, alcohol or whatever, which would be beside the point IMO.

P.S.2: There is also the "Critical Role experience" aspect I hadn't considered. Maybe some GMs-for-pay can "put on a show" of sorts, maybe some are even amateur actors. I don't do "voices" in my games often, maybe I'd pay to try that once? Not sure, for me this is not the best part of RPGs, but it can be fun too.

D&D 2024 monster stats

Here is an example of monster stats in 2024 D&D:

This is... not bad.

Of course, we could reduce it by half while keeping the information we need 90% of the time. How often do you need to know this monster's Charisma score?

But it has a few advantages over the D&D 2014 stat block: it abbreviates AC, HP and CR, it includes saves right next to abilities, and it removes the armor type since it rarely does anything.

It adds Initiative to monsters, which I don't get. 

Here, it is "+5 (15)". I'm assuming that 15 means that:

- You can use that instead of rolling.

- They found it useful to save you the trouble of simply checking Dex modifier.

- They found it useful to save you the trouble of simply adding 10.

- They made a mistake (it was supposed to be 13, due to Dex) and I'm spending more time thinking about this stuff than they did.

But it wouldn't be D&D without some errors and redundancies, right?

It also has a few weird things. 

For example, it mentions "Gear Daggers (10)". This is somewhat useful, but it almost creates more questions than it answer:

Are these ordinary daggers or whatever "umbral daggers" are? Does this creature (that has claws) has any unarmed attacked when it runs out of throwing daggers? Assuming it does, can it attack twice when unarmed?

(There is also an apparently baffling concept: this is a dagger that cannot kill you according to its description, but only poison and paralyze you. I'm assuming vampire's prefer warm blood...)

Some creatures that have attacks with swords and bows ALSO have these listed as gear, which looks redundant.

And the "Vampiric Connection" part is a bit baffling, since it seems to be a power particular to the MASTER and not the creature.

Now, about he ability scores... They LOOK fine, but I'm wonder if this wouldn't be more useful:

It LOOKS horrible in comparison, but at least it emphasizes what needs emphasizing: the fact that THIS monsters, contrary to most, has saves that are different form modifiers. And I'd guess that is the reason why they botched the "initiative" bit, BTW.

Similarly, it wouldn't be hard to rewrite the attacks to something simpler:

Umbral Dagger (x2), +5. Melee (5 ft) or Ranged (20/60 ft). 

Damage 5+7 (1d4+3 piercing +3d4 necrotic). If reduced to 0 HP by this attack, the target becomes Stable but has the Poisoned condition for 1 hour. While it has the Poisoned condition, the target has the Paralyzed condition.

Anyway, the whole thing feels a bit cumbersome but has a few advantages over AD&D, since it lacks the several "none" and "nil" lines found there.

I do miss some of that 2e information (morale, terrain, etc.) but maybe "number appearing" should be included in the random encounter tables instead (does 2024 have those?).

Apparently the MM indicates that D&D 2024 is what we expected: a small improvement over 2014 in some areas, a bit worse in a few, and still maintaining a vague compatibility and lots of redundancies and inconsistencies.

Magic Item inflation in AD&D

Modern D&D is sometimes accused of turning PCs' into "superheroes". 

I have been accused of similar transgressions for daring to add feats to my OSR games.

"Hero, not Superhero", from Matt Finch's primer, is a popular motto. 

Of course, you cannot take it at face value - "superhero" PCs were in Chainmail, even BEFORE D&D (they are roughly equivalent to 8th-level fighters).

Likewise, a 8th-level magic-user can fly, cast fireballs, turn himself and other into frogs, etc. Clerics can raise the dead by this point!

Finch says PCs become Batman, but not Superman (he must be referring to fighters - not even Superman can turn people into frogs or raise the dead. Also, Batman is a superhero. But I digress).

Maybe Iron Man might be a better example.

AD&D PCs, even fighters, become spectacularly powerful due to their equipment.

The problem starts on level one. As @ericbabe noticed, in "Lord of Darkness", a classic AD&D module:

For defeating 12 skeletons and a 5-hp crazy woman the first level party earns:

- a ring of invisibility

- a ring of feather falling

- two maces +1

- 800 gp

I noticed a similar (but less extreme) pattern when running classics module in my own campaign. 

[And OSR adventures seem to follow this trend too - I've noticed in in BFRPG, DCC and LotFP modules].

It is difficult to have a precise measure of a high-level PC's power, since so much depends on which modules you run and how well the players do.

The DMG has some guidelines on creating high-level PCs in Appendix P. The rules are generous, albeit not as generous as the example above. For example, a 2nd level PC has only 20% chance of having a +1 magic weapon, plus 30% chance of magic chain armor.

I would guess reality is much more plentiful for surviving PCs, not only using published modules but also using the random item tables from the same book (the 1e DMG). Gygax himself recommend GMs to limit the number of magic items found, IIRC.

There is an easier way to analyse high-level AD&D PCs, however: using the pre-generated characters from classic modules. There is a great compilation in Dragonsfoot.

Let's look at some examples:

The A series has level 4-6 PCs with +1 or +2 weapons and armor, plus some potions and scrolls. Looks reasonable to me.

In the D series, we have PCs from varied levels (around 7-10). Now each PC has several magic items, usually AT LEAST +2 weapon and +2 armor, and we start to see negative ACs.

In the G series, PCs are around level 10-12. There is a level 14 fighter ("Frush") with 104 HP and -5 AC, and a level 12 cleric with -1 AC. The Level 9 Dwarf Fighter has AC 0, a Dwarven Hammer +3, Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Striding and Springing, among other things.

[There are also a few intelligent swords int here. They allow fighters to cast magic spells.]

These PCs would win against an army of OGRES, and I mean that quite literally: even Frush by himself can easily defeat one hundred of them if only ten can attack at once. 

Now, I have never seem -5 AC in any of my games. That is because, despite using feats, I am not as generous with magic items.

How about other editions?

I think B/X might be slightly better less generous in this regard. You can play with this cool generator to see for yourself. I wont say this is ideal because I think B/X fighters are too weak and you shouldn't nerf them.

I am not sure about others; I remember 4e giving away lots of magic items but in hindsight maybe it is not that different from other editions. 

Old-school players sometimes complain about "HP inflation" which is kinda true, but nobody talks about magic item inflation.

5e has tried to limit magic items in important ways.

This is from Xanathar's (5e):

A party gains one hundred magic items during level 1-20, but most of these are consumables.

While this sounds similar to Appendix P, I think it is likely that some AD&D PCs might get even more using random treasure, and definitely a lot more if they get a few magic items for every dozen skeletons they face (OTOH, if they also get 800 gp, they'll level up quickly...).

One important aspect of 5e is attunement. Some powerful items require a certain "bond" with the user, and you cannot have more than three of those. These include bracers of defense and rings of protection, for example.

On the other hand, 5e PCs have a lot more features than AD&D PCs. There is a some balance there; some of the PCs' powers are intrinsic, other are form items, while in AD&D most special powers come form items (at least for fighters).

I must say I'm not a fan of having that many magic items.

Characters like Conan, Fafhrd or John Carter (Appendix N) are heroic (or even superheroic?) because of their own prowess, not because they carry many magic items.

[One noticeable exception is Moorcock's characters, who do get several].

That's why I prefer feats. And they can be very simple: just give a PC "+1 to swords" instead of a "sword +1", or "+3 block" instead of a "shield +3". Like magic items, feats can be distributed randomly if you want.

In short, even old-school PCs can become superheroes with amazing power. They also have their "builds" and "powers" that they create with magic items. Whether you want these powers to be intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, is up to the DM, who will decide what is best for his style.

Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.

Synergy (momentum, skills, challenges) + Conan 2d20 ramblings

I wrote a dark fantasy RPG a decade ago (Days of the Damned), but I have not published it, mostly because I thought I could do better (and I think I did - the games I published are significantly more polished). 

Still, it had some fun ideas - many inspired by other RPGs - that I should consider using in my games (I might even give it a re-write and publish it one day).

One important aspect of DotD was synergy. It boils down to "if you succeed, add half your margin of success to the next roll (as long as the next roll is related)".

This bears some resemblance to 3e's "skill synergy" and, AFAICT, to (Modiphius 2d20) Conan's "momentum".

My method has some obvious use in combat - add half your margin to damage, which seems to work even better than this - but has many other uses as well.

For example, a thief could add synergy from sneaking to attacking, while a ranger could get a bonus to initiative or perception because he rolled so well in his nature check. A jousting tournament begins with a horse-riding check, which adds to your attack, etc.

Want to study a foe before attacking him? Same solution. Maybe fast-talk someone so they can lower their guard, or distract him to pick his pocket? Same.

Anyway, this is just a small idea that I remembered today because I read something about Modiphius' Conan and it sounds like they did something cool with a (vaguely) similar idea.

I considered getting their PDFs - I'm a sucker for S&S games, as you might have noticed - but then I remembered there is no longer a legal way to get the PDFs as "their license expired".

(I should have bought it at the time... sighs).

The thing is, Robert E. Howard died in 1936, and most his work (apparently, everything he published while living) SHOULD be in the public domain.... however, depending when where you live, they are NOT.

This is probably why you might have a hard time finding awesome Glenát comics (just google "Glenat Conan").

I think ANYONE should be able to publish a Conan game, but that's just wishful thinking.

This is not Modiphius' fault, of course. I'm sure they have their reasons - and better lawyers than I. 

AFAICT, everyone could publish Conan stuff in the US by 2028... And even then someone might claim  "trademark" to avoid this (although IMHO a common name shouldn't be subject to that either).

It just sucks that we lose access to lots of works written (or that could have been written) with inspiration by Howard, Lovecraft, or Burroughs because some company somewhere is trying to enforce copyright laws that are even more draconian than the minimum "50 years after the author's death".

Maybe Modiphius can publish all their material again under a different name ("Sword of the Barbarian", I dunno) so I can one day read it. 

Or maybe I should check their John Carter book... let me know if it is any good!

BTW, if you ever want to read one of my books and cannot find or afford it, I encourage you to ask me for a discount, and I wouldn't mind if you get my books in other ways you can... That's all I'll say on the matter for now.

* By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog

12 odd things about B/X wilderness encounters

While I was writing Basic Wilderness Encounters (now a silver bestseller!), I noticed lots of strange things in the B/X encounter tables I hadn't noticed before.

The B/X tables are inspired directly by OD&D tables. Notice that the OSE tables are identical.

In my book, I addressed/fixed some things to give the tables a more coherent feel, and I quite like the results.

Anyway, here is the list. Let me know if you have other items to add!

---

1. A dragon encounter is about 100 times more likely than finding a group of halflings. They are more common than wolves and hawks. Dragons are encountered in all environments regardless of color; i.e., a green dragon encounter is not more likely in forests despite the fact they live in forests.

2. Adventurer groups are incredibly diverse, considering how difficult is to find dwarves and other "demi-humans" in the tables. Any adventurer in a group of experts in 36% likely to be a "demi-human".

3. Expert adventurers, up to level 10-12, still adventure in the wilderness (despite many people thinking you should start "domain play" sat level 9 and stop adventuring.)

4. There are parties of high-level clerics, MUs, and fighters, but no thief parties (thieves only appear in more mixed parties, or as groups of "bandits" that apparently have no thief skills/talents). This might be because there were no thieves (as class) in the original D&D.

5. Mountains are extremely dangerous - at least 50% chance of encounter per day, and 25% of encounters are with dragon-like creatures (mostly dragons but also hydras, etc.), not to mention the possibility of a 36-HD giant Roc.

6. Swamps are dangerous too... Troglodytes are horrific; 2 HD, 5d8 appearing, camouflaged and always murderous. Desert and "barren" encounters are just as dangerous and almost as frequent (2-in-6, like forests), which I find odd, as desert fauna should be scarcer.

7. Swarms of common insects only appear swamps, but killer bees are everywhere.

8. The "unusual" table contains basilisks, which are more common than bears or ordinary hawks - or Halflings, etc.

9. In fact, there are NO ordinary bears in the tables, only cave bears and werebears.

10. Pirates (Chaotic, Morale 7) and Buccaneers (N, ML6) are nearly identical. They are also the largest groups; fleets can have more than 200 people in it.

11. You can find sharks in lakes and rivers, and even whales aren't uncommon. I replaced some with big alligators (of similar HD), that were sorely lacking.

12. Giant scorpions dwell in deserts according to the monster description. But they can't be found in the desert table. Only in swamps, jungles, forest, plains and settled lands.

Anyway, check Basic Wilderness Encounters if you want some reflections about these tables and 1000 entries to simplify you job as a DM. It is half the usual price if you get it in one of our bundles!

Simplifying encounter procedures

In a recent post, I mentioned that I find the procedure for random encounters too lengthy - it can require half a dozen rolls or more to go from "is there an encounter?" to "you see 20 surprised, hostile bandits".

There are some simple ways to shorten this procedure significantly - mostly by reducing encounter checks to ONE per encounter (instead of two to six) and folding distance, surprise and initiative into a single roll.

Random encounter check

The chances of random encounters vary according to terrain: usually, 1-in-6 for in grasslands (clear, plains), 2-in-6 in barren lands, hills, deserts, woods, oceans and rivers, and 3-in-6 in mountains, jungles, and swamps. This means you have an average of one encounter per six, three or two days of travels, respectively.

If you want to avoid rolling six times to get an encounter in the grasslands, for example, you can invert the rationale: roll 1d12 to see how many days the PCs will travel before the next encounter (a one means an encounter in the first day of travel, etc.). Use 1d6 for forests and hills, 1d4 for jungles, and so on.

Adjust the numbers to taste – for example, if you want to make encounters more often count 8-hour periods instead of days. Alternatively, if you think deserts should be a little less crowded, use 1d10 or 1d12 instead of 1d6.

(As suggest to me by someone else in social media, also here).

Encounter tables

I think B/X encounter tables are bonkers, but to save some time, you could reduce the process of "1d8 table and 1d12 sub-table" to a single d100 roll. It makes little difference, but you could use the opportunity to "fix" the tables to your liking - giving forests more green dragons and fewer red dragons, for example.

Number appearing

Not much to say or fix here (excepted as noted under surprise and initiative, below), but let me know if you have any ideas!

I've toyed with a couple of ideas, but I ended up simplifying things: 1/3 of NA in "civilized" regions and 1/2 in the "borderlands".

Surprise and initiative

These rolls are connected. You usually only for initiative if you are not surprised. I find this redundant; you can just roll 1d6 for each side to decide both surprise and initiative (with one caveat: if only one side is surprised, it cannot take action in the first round).

If you want to make surprise/initiative more detailed, you could assign a bonus (+1 to +3) to the smaller side, if there is a significant difference. A group of five PCs is very likely to hear 40 brigands approaching – or maybe even a big creature (such as a hydra) in a forest. Alternatively, you can describe someone surprised by a dragon or army as temporarily paralyzed by fear!

One important thing to remember is that rolling for initiative does not mean starting a combat. The side that gains initiative has a good opportunity of running away or making a sign of good will before the other side can act.
 
Distance

Encounter distance in the wilderness is 4d6 × 10 yards (or 1d4 × 10 yards if either side is surprised). This post suggests that the surprise/initiative roll could replace this -  a very elegant solution! 

For example, you could add the rolls from both sides and multiply it by 10 yards in dungeon, or multiply the three numbers in wilderness.

I might use 20-40 yards in open plains, deserts, etc., IF there is nowhere to hide. 

Reaction

To be honest, I simply do not want to simplify the reaction roll. On the contrary, I like the social mini-game it can create. 

One thing to consider is maybe only rolling in the creature's initiative, so that PCs do not know how they'll act beforehand (and the PC's actions may affect the roll). Another idea is giving chaotic monsters a reaction penalty, and lawful ones a bonus.

A book of encounters?

I'm working on a PDF about B/X encounters, to be released in May! It includes these ideas and much more. 

It reduces encounters to a single d100 roll, each giving a result such as:

24 Berserker 11:00 130/20 No (5) 12 (F) Gromm’s clan is extremely hospitable.

Stay tuned or follow me on social media if you're interested.

Affiliate links - by using this, you're helping to support this blog!

Encounter balance - how I avoid using it

As I have mentioned in the last post, I've been talking about "balanced encounters" on X/Twitter.

I half-jokingly mentioned that if "encounter balance" was real, the monsters would win half the battles [I heard this one from @rbalbi, who credits Carlinhos Malvadeza].

Ended up having a great conversation with balbi, my friend @JensD29 and @optionalrule, which you can check here.

Balbi and Jens had a great back and forth, but I didn't feel X was a good medium for that, so I decided to write this blog post instead of elaborating there.

[Here is Jens' take, BTW; we disagreed].

First, Jens and optionalrule defended that a "balanced encounter" does not mean fair - it is only a way to measure how challenging an encounter is (usually, when compared to the existing party).

They are right. Most people use the expression to indicate how much effort or resources the PCs need to apply to win the fight (not usually to evaluate IF they can win the fight, or the odds of a TPK).

But if "balance" means the PCs always have the upper hand, it should be called "unfair advantage" or "plot immunity".

This is my main problem with "balanced encounters", IMO: it is a misnomer. “Challenge rating”, from 5e D&D, is a better term.

Balanced sounds like it means fair; a 10th-level warrior against a goblin does not sound balanced, but if you call it "very easy"it might make sense,

[While we're at it, a hard encounter should necessarily mean decent changes of defeat. If you do not have the stomach for this, you should call it a "costly" encounter becasue it costs you a spell slot or lots of HP. Anyway.].

"Balance" sounds like two sides are (or should) be similar in power.

Worse, the idea that the monsters the PCs meet should be previously measured against the PC’s capabilities also often carries a lot of (unspoken) assumptions I do not like, such as:

- The world revolves around the PCs. For me, this ruins the feeling of "immersion", or the idea that the setting is a real place and not a playground with clear limits (and height requirements).

- The PCs can solve anything with a fight - since all creatures they encounter is level-appropriate. This may also lead to the belief that every encounter is a fight, which impoverishes the game as it discourages other creative approaches, such as negotiation, planning, sneaking, finding allies or even escaping.

- Every fight is winnable. If the PCs ever see a dragon attacking a city, they know they CAN win. They lose the sense of progress that they would get by encountering a foe that's just too strong for them at first... But that they can defeat later, after they get more XP and magic items.

- The GM picks the fights for the PCs. This is an implication that ties balanced encounters to railroading: why would the GM need to ensure balance if it was up to the PCs to decide if they'll fight a goblin or a dragon next?

Now, I'm not 100% against balanced encounters, as they are useful in a number of ways – for example, writing “for 4-6 characters of levels 5-8” in the cover of an adventure module, or to give you an idea of how many orcs were needed to destroy the kobold city the PCs have just entered.

By the way, I think saying a module is “unbalanced” is fair criticism IF the module indicates the PCs have to fight impossible odds to win (if there are ways AROUND those challenges, the module should disclose that to the GM).

But my games did become a lot better after I stopped worrying about “crafting balanced encounters” for the PCs. Instead, I scatter challenges around, and let the players choose where to go. If they choose violence, well, I have no kobold on this fight - now it is up to the dice.

However, I think that balanced encounters are a (sometimes misguided) solution to a real problem: nobody wants the PCs to be thrown into a fight that they have no chance of winning against their will.

If feels unfair and unfun. It robs the players of choice and even of their own PCs through no fault of their own, and can end a campaign for no good reason.

I think we can avoid this issue without having to worry about how “balanced” the encounters are. 
Here are a few suggestions:

- Information – To avoid entering unwinnable fights, the PCs must have some ways to gain access to information about the capabilities of their foes. There are innumerable ways to do that. 

Some are obvious (they expect giants to be stronger than goblins), some are more indirect (charred reamins of several people are found near the cave entrance), and part of the information is in the players' memories (from previous adventures, experiences and even pop culture - "did you say Tomb of Horrors?"). Foreshadowing is a popular tecnique. 

Consistency is important – if the PCs fought a giant, they know what to expect when they face his biger cousin. Monster stats do not vary that much under most circumstances (which is one of the reasons I disliked 4e minion rules).

The easiest way to balance fights to the PC's capabilities is probably using something similar to dungeon levels (i.e., the deeper you are in the dungeon, the more dangerous the monsters become). In this case, it is up to the players - not the GM - to decide how far they are willing to go ("wilderness levels" is a subject I am tackling soon...) 

- Options – Once the PCs have information, it will become obvious that they have options (conversely, if they have NO way to acquire information, their choices about where to go or which door to open are meaningless).

But the players do not simply pick their encounters - they must know they have options even after they encounter a creature. They can avoid, parlay, escape, etc.

- Freedom and responsibility. Now that the PCs have all the tools (and freedom) to make informed choices, encounter balance becomes their responsibility. It takes this load from the GM's back while empowering the players at the same time. 

Of course, adding unpredictability to this mix can occasionally be lots of fun. Even with the best information, the PCs can fail. 

For example, I was recently playing in another GM's campaign and a critical hit almost caused a TPK in a hard, but otherwise ordinary, encounter (that the PCs were "supposed" to win without heavy losses). 

The GM apologized, but I insisted this is part of the game - and, TBH, it was quite fun. 

But this is another matter, for another post... maybe in 2024!

Happy new year!

The BECMI reaction table

To be honest, I never paid much attention to the BECMI reaction table. 

I'm usually more interested in B/X and I thought that the BECMI table was just a needlessly convoluted version of the B/X table I liked, requiring multiple rolls to achieve the same result.

I was completely wrong, of course.

The part I overlooked is the asterisk. It explains in a succinct manner a  number of questions I had with B/X reactions:

- When do you use Charisma for reaction rolls?

- What happens in an "uncertain" result?

- What happens if the NPC is still uncertain after several rolls/actions?

It doesn't answer all questions of course, nor does it address all the issues I have with encounters, but it is a great starting point - probably much better than B/X.

It could probably be simplified to two rolls instead of three. Or to a single table with pone roll affecting the next, such as the Rules Cyclopedia (which also has a tendency towards hostility that I find appropriate for most monsters):

And as much as I dislike the number of rolls you need to create an encounter, I have to admit this "roll again" part has an interesting risk reward dynamic: 

"The NPC is obviously hostile, so what do we do?"

If we have something to offer, or a charismatic PC who can talk to him (in the same language), maybe negotiating is our best bet. Even if we do, however, there is a chance the NPC will suddenly use this opportunity to attack us!

And, of course, you only need one roll to start the encounter - further rolls depend entirely of the PCs actions. 

So you have cool "social mechanics" or even "roleplaying minigame", which is as interesting as combat - since it can also involve initiative, intimidation, role-playing AND "roll-playing" (or player skill AND character skill), languages, alignment, spells, etc.

And you can use this table regardless of your preferred D&D edition or OSR game.

These "social mechanics" are often and unjustly maligned in OSR circles - "just role-play it!" - but IMO these are great rules from a game that definitely has old school cred (Mentzer red box).

And, of course, this is just a refinement of a rule that was contained in the original D&D. 

Social mechanics are here from the start.

Additional reading:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/11/confused-wolves.html

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-painful-procedure-of-random.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/09/social-skills-role-playing-versus-roll.html

https://www.leonatkinson.com/dd-monster-reaction-charts-compared/

How D&D 5e (XGtE) encounters succeed and fail at the same time

A small addendum to yesterday's post.

I used this table as an example:

This is only one the "swamp" tables in XGtE.  

There are always three: for low, mid and high-level encounters. Overall, I find them easy and decent enough if combined, and that is how they "succeed" - encounters are varied and appropriate for each terrain.

The first one contains, for example, "2d4 lizardfolk".

The table above is for high-level encounters, containing black dragons and yuan-ti instead.

But I noticed there is something missing in that high-level table...

A lizardfolk army!

Or a large group of orcs, a horde of zombies, etc.

Because this was the promise of 5e and bounded accuracy: "Low-level monsters would continue to be usable at higher level, as their attack bonus and AC would allow them to remain meaningful threats to player characters".

But these tables tell a different story: low level PCs fight goblins, high-level PCs fight adult dragons, and that is it.

This is a bad choice for a number of reasons:

- Makes the world feel fake as it revolves around the PCs.

- Robs the PCs of the opportunity to realize how stronger they got (remember when we had a hard time fighting goblins? Now we are fighting armies of them!).

- Feels unnatural and forced for the GM to have to introduce stronger and stronger monsters.

- Makes the PCs think that violence is always an option, as they'll seldom find monsters that are too tough for their current level.

- Robs the players of the opportunity of feeling overwhelmed and yearning for something they cannot get without effort - "we cannot face them now, but one day we'll get revenge against the goblin horde!".

I think it is conceivable to run a battle against an army in 5e, even if it would be much harder than OSR games, because the monsters are much more complex. The DMG even has a few suggestions to do that, which XGtE improves... but apparently doesn't fully use.

Now, I have never played 5e at such high levels - only three campaigns that ended on levels 5 to 10 and a few shorter ones. So please correct me if I'm wrong here.

My PCs did fight about a hundred skeletons once, but only about six at once (they were in a narrow spot). It went reasonably well.

I don't know why 5e gave up on this promise, betting instead in the repetitive process of fighting a dozen zombies at level 5 and a dozen revenants by level 15.

I think a world in which there are ALWAYS black dragons and zombies to be found in the swamps, and the PCs have to deal with them differently as they gain levels, is much more coherent, organic and fun.

Good generic wilderness encounter tables? (B/X vs. AD&D vs. 5e)

I've been analyzing the B/X wilderness encounter tables lately, and while I'll probably stick to that for now, I think since this blog talks about Basic, AD&D and (sometimes) 5e, one small observation is in order:

As often happens, the encounter tables in in B/X are oversimplified and the ones in AD&D are overcomplicated. 

And 5e got us beat again - but it took them a while!

Let me explain. 

The B/X wilderness encounter tables fit a couple of pages. While I love the fact that they are so slim, they produce strange results: dragons do not follow their natural habitats, there are too many dragon and basilisks, every result requires a sub-table, etc. 

There are (about) 96 possible results for each terrain, but many are repeated; dragons about happen 6% to 12% of the time.

AD&D, on the other hand, contains about a dozen pages of tables and sub-tables, using d100. 

You'd think they'd take the opportunity to organize all entries in single d100 table, but no, we have tables and sub-tables with incredible levels of detail; some monster will appear only 0.1% of the time.

It also has famous a sub-table to describe which type of prostitute appears if you ever find one...

[I'll ignore 2e, 3e and 4e for now because I haven't played them as much. From a  brief glance, 2e hasn't included such tables in the three core rulebooks, and 3e is even worse than 5e in forcing that encounters are adapted to the PC's needs. I'm guessing 4e is the same.].

5e did not even HAVE many random encounter tables at first - each table was part of a setting, which is fair enough if you're using a published setting - it only suggested you created your own and provided a small example, with about 20 entries and using 1d12+1d8 for some reason.

The tables included in the settings are often very good, but that's not what I am looking for. [BTW, this is why I haven't been analyzing random encounters in dungeons - I think these MUST be connected to each particular dungeon, and I simply cannot stomach a hill giant randomly appearing in a deep dungeon fro no reason].

Fortunately, Xanathar's Guide to Everything partially fixed that.

It contains simple d100 tables (simpler than AD&D but more complete than B/X) that list not only monsters but also number appearing - plus a few "cosmetic" encounters that don't really belong here (rain, "the sounds of drums", etc.).

Unfortunately, these tables are separated by CR, and are too slim unless combined.

This is a bad thing on principle - the world shouldn't conform to PC's level - and, combined with the existing tables, it is even worse - that means that past level 11 there is no more "rain" encounter but now there are "drums" for some reason (looking at the table above, I assume the yuan-ti like to play drums, but only when the PC's reach level 11).

Fortunately, you can integrate all these tables by adding another roll [e.g., "roll an extra d10, with 1-4: tier 1, 5-7: tier 2, 8-9: tier 3, 0: tier 4" - thank you Evan for commenting here!]

Maybe there is a game out there that uses the best of AD&D, BX and 5e. The tables in BFRPG look decent, but a bit slim. Dragons and rarer and appear in appropriate biomes! Yay!

I guess I could adapt my favorite bits from all these sources, but it is unlikely that no one else has compiled a better table... let me know in the comments!