Combat: bring the escalation die to the OSR

In the Combat rules of 13th Age there is a little neat paragraph called "Escalation Die".
The rule goes more or less like this:
- It starts at 0
- In round 2, put a d6 on the table showing 1
- Every round, increase its value, up to the maximum of 6

The value of the escalation die is added to the characters' to-hit roll, so as the fight advances, characters are more likely to hit.
Some monsters (bad monsters) might use this die as well, other monsters could reduce its value, and some powers might have a bonus related to the escalation die, or some other feats might be linked to it (i.e. certain attacks that can be performed when the Escalation Die is at 3 or more, etc...).

I loved this Escalation Die rule, when I first read quickly through the book. And even though I never played 13th Age (and it's probably too crunchy for my taste), I guess most players love this rule.
In 13th Age it does a few things:
- It gives characters the chance to build momentum round after round, making them more likely to hit their opponents
- It paces somehow the usage of certain feats or skills, which might be tied to the Escalation Die (even if you can use your special attack from the start, you're encouraged by the rules to wait a few rounds, so you can use the Escalation Die bonus and improve your chances)
- Some monsters use it too, which makes them tougher and nastier!

This is nice and good, but...
1- Round 1 equal Esc.Die 0, Round 2 equal Esc.Die 1... wouldn't it be easier to start at 1?
2- Only some monsters use it, why not all of them?
3- Some monsters reduce its value... ok, nice rule, but then there is a counter-effect against it? You make a nice new rule and then make exceptions to go back to default? (ignore nice new rule as a feature?)
4- It has no effect on damage


Now, I realize that this analysis is influenced by what I expect from my OSR games... In the spirit of 13th Age even the things which sound wrong to me, are probably good.
But if I were to use the inspiration of the Escalation Die, and bring it to the OSR, I would say:
1- Make it simple, round 1, equal Escalation Die 1, round 2 equal Esc.Die 2, etc...
2- Everyone uses it, players and GM, characters and monsters
3- No mitigation, no reducing the score, perhaps just reset to 1 after getting up to 6
4- It affects to-hit or damage (decide before rolling), or perhaps even both!

In fact, I see the Escalation Die as a way to make combat deadlier and faster.
Especially faster... By increasing the chance to hit and/or the damage, it should make things faster.


Actually, I guess the rule could be changed, and the value of the Escalation Die could be increased not only every round, but every time someone rolls to hit and misses.
(Yes, I hate it when it happens, see Combat: fight and die faster - where you'll find links about auto-hit, about always inflicting damage also on a miss, or the single roll-to-hit which includes the character's and the monster's attack, diminishing the chances of a miss.)

This is indeed what I did in the Black Dogs issue number 3, I took the escalation die and made something similar - but easier - for any OSR game:
- Put a d6 on the table, showing 1
- Every time someone misses an attack, increase the die value of one point
- When you reach 6, characters gets a certain bonus

In the Black Dogs (which uses a "zones" concept dividing the battlefield in Front, Body and Rear) there are different bonuses.
For a standard OSR game, I would say then the d6 gets to 6, every character and monster gets a d6. The d6 can be used at any time: roll it with the d20 for a bonus to-hit, or with the damage die of your weapon for an increased damage.

So the final house-rule, for generic OSR games, could be:
- Put a d6 on the table, showing 1
- Increase the die value of one point, when: A) Every round, or B) every time someone misses an attack (deadlier!)
- Reset to 1 when you get to 6 and have to increase it again

What to do with the number on the d6? You choose:
A) When you get to 6, everyone gets a d6 to roll together with their nex to-hit or damage roll
B) Everyone decides (on their turn) if to add the d6 number to their to-hit or damage roll (nasty, because things escalate fast!)

Let me know what you think and if you ever used an escalation die in an OSR game.

Combat: initiative in your inventory

When looking at alternatives and suggestions about initiative in OSR combat, I found an interesting article which suggested treating initiative as a "real" object - something to carry around, something that can even be stolen, or used as a threat ("I have the initiative, you better back down..."). In the same article, Patrick also suggested using questions as a tool for initiative - the more questions you ask, the more you know but at the price of potentially delayed action.
The article was called Physical Initiative and Query Initiative by Patrick Stuart.
You know how good is Patrick, and that post is good.

So I thought, why not to mix the two things, and simplify them into a single rule, using inventory as a tool for initiative?
This system assumes inventory in slots (like in LotFP) but counts pounds anymore, nowadays?
NOTE: this rule was not tested. It's just an idea...

The basic rule could be something like:
1- By default enemies have initiative 1 if slow, 4 if normal (humans/humanoids) and 8 if fast (animals and many monsters, own ground, advantage of surprise). Adjust a point or two as you see fit

2- Each character has an initiative score equal to the number of empty slots in their inventory. Zero empty slots is initiative 0 and each slot used above that (over encumbered) counts as going negative

3- Keep a piece of paper with the characters' initiative written on it, so you'll know which enemies act before, which in between characters, which after... Use this info also to tune the beginning of the encounter

4- At the beginning of the encounter, give information to players as their characters could perceive them
5- Each question asked, counts as using an empty slot, reducing initiative. If you want to act fast, you should declare it before others ask their questions
6- When an action is declared and performed (by characters or by enemies), the outcome of the action translates into "free" information


Some notes/examples:

1- Some examples of enemies with their initiative scores:
(one) 1: a status slowly animating, a large monster, monsters with very long limbs or long weapons which take an effort to swing, blobs, deformed creatures, most magical attacks which require a little formula or gesture to be cast...
(four) 4: this is the norm; a regular human or humanoid, a guard, a bandit, a soldier

(eight) 8: most animals, wilderness creatures and monsters. Try to picture them; if they have slender bodies, tendonds and muscles of predators, they have initiative 8. If they look like they might jump at you in an split second, before you could even raise your hands, initiative 8. If it looks like you won't even have the time to draw your sword, initiative 8.
Assign initiative 8 also to slower enemies when they have the advantage of being on their own ground, when they know the place better than the characters, when they are ready to engage, and if they are already at 8, raise it up to 10.
Same goes for enemies with the advantage of surprise (including raising initiative up to 10 if they are fast and have the advantage of surprise). Up to 12 for fast, and own ground, and surprise? I'd say yes.

2- The less you carry, the faster you are. If you are three slots over your quota, you are at initiative -3 (minus three).

3- Keep a piece of paper with the characters' initiative written on it, so you'll know which enemies act before, which in between characters, which after... Use this info also to tune the beginning of the encounter.

If they encounter a fast creature, the creature's attack might strike them before they can react (i.e. the creature has initiative 10 and the fastest character has initiative 7 - seven empty slots).

If they encounter something slower, you may say that they see an attack coming, with a little info. The more they ask questions (see the point below) before they declare their actions, the more there is a chance for the attack to land before they can make their own action or attack to stop it.

4- If the characters have enough time to size up their opponents, they might not need to ask questions. If they encounter a group of bandits in the wilderness, and have the time to spot them, they might already know a lot. How many are there, how tough they look, how are they armed.
But if the enemy has the advantage of surprise or they're just behind a corner and the two groups clash, you can give limited information. For example you could say things like "You stumble on a group of armed men behind the corner; there's a handful of them and you hear weapons and armors clanking", or even "Something nasty, fast and greenish slashes at your legs from the shadows behind you... you hear a slugghish noise and perceive a terrible smell".
The more the enemy has the advantage of surprise, the less information you give.

5- The less you think, the faster you are. Ask the players who wants to act right away, before knowing anything more than what you said at the beginning of the encounter. Those can act with their initiative with no penalties.
If players start to ask questions, each answer brings their initiative score down by one, as if they had a full slot in their inventory. Note that everyone listens to the answers, so everyone's score goes down.
If someone wants to avoid loosing any more points of initiative, they should declare their action.

6- When an enemy gets to act (high initiative score) or a player declares an action (usually an attack or counterattack), resolve it. The information which comes out of it, is for free. In other words, this is something that happens in combat, and those who act later will be able to see the outcome of this action as a sort of additional information.
A classic example could be: a monster with initiative 8, a character with 6, another with 5, another monster (same type but bigger, and slower) with initiative 3. The monster with initiative 8 attacks, and deals 2d8 damage bringing one character to almost 0 HP; it's fast, bloody, messy. The other character has a chance to act and you tell them.
It's their decision now; they may ask additional questions, but they can safely assume that the other monster is slower but even stronger... do they use their action to engage it? Or to run away? Do they ask questions looking for a vulnerable spot, at the risk of suffering the second monster's attack before they can do their own action?


An additional idea is to use the inventory slots to "carry" elements like those below. Each of those "things" will take away empty slots, thus making you to act after but in exchange for some different type of advantage:
- "quick draw" to ready your weapons fast
- "quick swap" to be able to swap weapons fast

Combat: fight and die faster

One of the best products (in my opinion) of the OSR scene, is Into The Odd by Chris McDowall.
Of course, get a pdf or better yet a printed copy, if you don't have one.
Char-gen is a blast, the setting and the Arcana are fascinating, but we're here to talk about combat.

In Into The Odd every attack is a hit. There is no miss.
You attack, you roll your damage; then subtract armor (which may also reduce the damage to zero) and then subtract from HP (or Strength - when you're out of HP or for certain attacks that target Strength directly).
Now, let that sink in for a moment: every attack is a hit.
This makes combat much faster and deadly. You don't enter combat unless you're ready to take damage, because almost for sure you will (and every round, from anyone targeting you). That's bloody (and it also makes Initiative very, very important, and the damage reduction factor of your armor a vital feature of it...).

From a narrative point of view, of course, you should not ignore the chance of a "miss", but a miss is basically time wasted at the table. In other words, you could think of a hit-every-round as a series of attacks (successful and not successful) which in the end deal a certain (variable) amount of damage.

If you manage to take a step back from the "simulation" of the to-hit roll, and accept that damage roll minus armor is the only randomizing factor, the auto-hit may become a powerful feature of a fast paced, thrilling game.

In the link below, Chris proposes a series of little modifications for D&D 5e but I guess these house-rules could be applied also to any OSR system.
(Of course, this is interesting if you're not just playing Into The Odd, but would like to import its auto-hit feature to your OSR game)

D&D Combat Supercharger
by Chris McDowall
[...] Roll to hit as normal:
- Natural 1 is a Miss, no damage.
- Miss becomes a Glance: Cause the minimum damage for the attack [...]
- Hit: Cause the maximum damage for the attack
- Critical Hit (usually a natural 20) causes a Glance followed by a Hit. 

[...]

Resting Changes

- To account for the higher amount of damage flying around, you do not roll your Hit Dice when taking Short Rests, instead taking the maximum possible roll on that die. 

- A Long Rest restores all Hit Dice. 

- Other types of Healing function as normal. 

[...]

Preparing your Notes

Write attacks with their Glance Damage followed by their Hit Damage, so instead of 1d12+3 you’d write 4/15. [...]

http://www.bastionland.com/2018/10/d-combat-supercharger.html


The next link proposes something quite similar, scaled explicitly for OSR games. All attacks auto-hit but armor is not counted for damage reduction, but reduces the die size of the attack (with all weapons/attacks dealing the same amount of damage by default).
It's an interesting read because it contains a nice presentation and explanation about the auto-hit as a feature, regardless of how it works specifically in this set of house-rules.

Radically Faster Combat: Auto-Hits
by JB
Ever get tired of misses in combat?
I mean, it’s bad enough when a player FINALLY gets that solid 19 or 20 needed, but rolls a 1 or 2 for damage. What about the out-right “whiffs?” Especially low-level characters against medium to good armor class foes, the swing-and-miss, swing-and-miss can be quite tedious.
Does combat need to be drawn out and tiresome? [...]
Combat: The System. In its most basic form, combat consists of checking initiative, rolling to hit, rolling to damage, and depleting hit points…until one party dies or morale breaks. And yet it still takes a looooong, long time.
[...]
So why do we need to roll to hit at all? Why not just roll damage for every attack?
[we’ll get to armor and armor class in a moment]
If I roll a 1 for my damage roll, it means I got a glancing blow (bear) or simply forced my opponent to duck (hero). If I roll a 3 I get a solid laceration (bear) or a deep scratch (hero). If I roll a 6, I score a telling blow against my opponent, a deep thrust to the grizzly or a knock-down blow to the hero…possibly setting up a kill shot with my next attack.
When you remove to hit rolls from combat you remove a HELLUVA’ LOT of frustration. Players don’t miss. They get highs and lows based on good and bad damage rolls (both for and against ‘em). DMs get to describe combat based on damage rolled, rather than based on some weird interpretation of “to hit” roll plus damage roll. Combats go faster as monsters are whittled down every single round.
[...]
OKAY, FINE…WHAT ABOUT ARMOR?
Here’s the “what” about armor: You know all those little attack matrices you have in the various Old School D&D rule books (OD&D, B/X, AD&D, BECMI)? Well, you’re still going to have them. However, instead of showing your “chance to hit,” they show the type of dice you roll for damage. [...]
http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2010/05/radically-faster-combat-auto-hits.html

You can also get the PDF with all the damage die by armor, here.


Stepping away from the blogs for a second, this is a Gplus post (saved here because Gplus is shutting down and the link will be dead soon).
This is quite interesting because it introduces the concept of consequences and supports the GM in adding flavor to combat. These consequences are not mandatory - the player can always choose to avoid them by inflicting the minimum of 1 damage on a miss.
(Note that this is on a miss, not on a hit - when you hit you deal damage with no consequences)

Another idea for speeding up combat in B/X D&D

by Eric Nieudan

When you miss, choose:
- do 1 damage
- do full damage and accept a consequence

Consequences are at the referee's discretion depending on the situation (they don't have to tell you before you choose). Examples:
- You're knocked prone
- You're pushed back from the doorway you're defending 
- A monster slips past you to attack the magic-user
- You drop or break your weapon
- Your shield is splintered
- An item at your belt is destroyed
- You are thrown clear off and separated from your companions
- Your armour is badly dented (penalty to AC until it's fixed)
- Something (blood or your helmet) gets in the way and you can't see properly. Penalties to attack may apply.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricNieudan/posts/8HaTWVbTKJB

As another idea to speed up combat, taken from the Crying Blades and the Crying Hack (my contributions to the OSR) is a single roll to-hit for characters and monsters together.
The math is fairly simple:
- Characters roll to hit vs the monster's AC as usual (roll equal or higher to hit the monster), applying also the usual to-hit modifiers as by your game. No need to change any monster's stat
- An unarmored character has AC 0 instead of 10/12 (depending on your game)
- The same roll (unmodified, as it landed on the table) is used for the monster: the monster wants to have the roll low. The monster hits with a roll equal or lower than 10+its HD (so an HD 1 goblin hits the character with 11 or less, which is the same % to hit as rolling over AC 10 with +1 for the HD...)
- An armored character is protected by its armor for any roll which is lower or equal than the armor... so an AC 15 (which is basic AC 10 +5) is instead AC 5 (the goblin does not hit if the roll is 5 or less, but still hits between 6 to 11)

This is an example from the Crying Hack:

It speeds up combat in one to one situations, which are fairly common.
Statistically is a bit messy perhaps when a monster has multiple attacks - although often more than one character would be fighting against it, so the monster would "spend" its attacks first of all in response to each character attacking it...
The main point, though, is that it keeps the odds balanced as in the original game, but every round is resolved often with one or even both combatants hitting, and there are very few rounds with both missing!

What I liked better, though, is the concept of the Escalation Die in 13th Age, so next time we might be talking about that.


Design notes:
- Auto-hit attacks as a way to speed up combat
- Would require tuning armor to provide damage reduction, or damage die reduction
- As an alternative, always inflict some damage (min. damage on a miss, max. damage on a hit)
- Consider leaving some choices to the players: on a miss inflict a little damage, or roll normal damage but suffer a consequence
- Single roll combat: use the same roll for the character and the monster
- See also the Escalation Die in 13th Age

Everyone is a Thief (a different approach to skills)

Well, let's consider this: everyone is a thief.
Or better yet, every character is an adventurer, a tomb robber; they are out for silver and gold and nothing will stop them. So why not make everyone a thief?
If we accept that a lot in the OSR is about adventure and discovery - about playing low-levels characters, about exploring the space provided by your modules from the prospective of adventurers, who are basically tomb robbers or similar... well, then yes, every one of them is a thief.

We saw in the previous posts about skills (one and two) that a skill system could be beneficial... Without it, it's hard to have consistency and to judge your chances, as a player, and a lot is left to the GM's fiat.
But if we introduce a skills system, we need to solve a few problems:
1. How to avoid making characters other than the thief unable to attempt certain tasks?
2. How to avoid skills replacing role-playing?

My answer to the above (and it's only one of the many possible answers) - at least in the context of this article - is the following:
1. Make everyone a thief
2(a). Make a meaningful skills list

To the above, I would add:
2(b). Have solid principles: as the GM you should be open to say "yes", and description, imagination, and planning, skilled and creative (role)play, and GM judgement, prevail of the need to roll.


Make everyone a thief
This house-rule would be simple. Take your thief skills list and every character is of one of the other available classes (i.e. a fighter, a magic-user, or a cleric) but is also a level one thief (with the thief skills).
When leveling up, every character has its own progression as by its class (fighter as fighter, etc.) but also increases the skills as a thief of the same level.
It's not multi-classing; everyone is a thief of a level equal to its own level, with the related skills.

Pro: no "you cannot do that - it's a thief's thing" any more. No better progression in skills for a single class (the thief). No unbalanced probabilities with mixed thief's skills and roll-under-attribute or other skill's rules. No more getting stuck in front of a door, of a wall to climb, of a trap to disarm. Actually, anyone is has the potential to resolve those situations - and everyone is a potential victim of those situations!

Con: there is no more a "pure" version of the thief (or specialist). But in any case those who play the thief very often are frustrated that they are not also playing an assassin, in some way, or some top-class adventurer... I bet those playing the thief would be the most eager to be able to multi-class (as a fighter, I guess, and close second as a magic-user to have even more tricks at their disposal).


Make a meaningful skills list
But what are the correct skills for this list? If you use a standard game such as S&W or LotFP, you can start with their respective original lists. But most likely, you want to tune that list.
What your new list should present, though, is not the list of skills for a thief or specialist in the traditional sense. What the list should provide, is a list of skills for an adventurer.

A good list, in fact, has a clear focus on the most important actions of the game - keeping in mind both a certain consistency (i.e. if you disarm traps well, you probably can pick a lock or pickpocket someone decently enough, while disarming traps has no connection to climbing or swimming) and perhaps also the frequency/importance of the skills (i.e. picking locks will always be favored vs. language skills unless your game focus heavily on negotiation... therefore you may want to give language points more easily at level-up...).
Your list will determine not just the chances of success, but also will inspire your players to do certain actions (or avoid those with low chances or those not listed, for fear of failure or uncertain odds).
So, making this list, should be like painting the portrait of an adventurer - with what it does better and what worse.

Most important, though, is to make sure that your skills list does not replace role-playing. Having a skill for "medicine" for example could make sense, especially if you want to minimize or replace the cleric's healing spells. "Medicine" makes sense because you cannot role-play the action of trying to heal another character (you may still improvise a good plan for example if you lack resources, but that's not the same as the consistent use of a "medicine" skill).
On the contrary, a skill like "negotiation" or "persuasion" is very risky because it takes away a crucial part of role-playing.


The original skills lists
The skills' lists below are taken from BXE, S&W Core, LL and LotFP for reference, and sorted so that the same (or similar) skills are on the same line.

BXE	S&W Core	LL	LotFP
Climb Sheer Surfaces	Climbing Walls or Cliffs	Climb Walls	Climb
Hide in Shadows	Hiding in Shadows	Hide in Shadows	Stealth
Move Silently	Move Silently	Move Silently	Stealth
Backstab	Backstab	x	Sneak Attack
Pick Locks	Opening Locks	Pick Locks	Tinker
Find or Remove Traps	x	Find and Remove Traps	Search/Tinker
Pick Pockets	Delicate Tasks	Pick Pockets	Sleight of Hand
Hear Noise	Hearing Sounds	Hear Noise	x
x	Read Normal Languages	Read Languages	Languages
Scroll Use	Read Magical Writings	read and cast from scrolls	x
x	x	x	Architecture
x	x	x	Bushcraf

Possible Issues in LotFP
So, what are the possible issues that may arise from applying this house-rule to your game?
The main problem that I can see is only for LotFP (or other games where players decide where to assign the skill points):
- it becomes "Everyone is an assassin" for fighters
- the party (as a whole) becomes overpowered

With players free to assign points as they wish, level by level, it's likely that fighters with go first of all for Sneak Attack and Stealth to combine the benefits of backstabbing with the to-hit bonus of the fighter.
And in general, a group of smart players would differentiate the points-investments (for example, one player maximizing points the investment in Search and Tinker, another in Climb and Swim, another in Languages, etc.). This way, the group would be composed practically by very specialized characters, each one of them getting quite fast to 5 or 6 skill points in the chosen skill(s).
A "normal" Specialist (intended as the chosen class when not everyone is a thief) would probably have to differentiate more the points investment to be able to cover more areas. With "everyone is a thief", on the other hand, you effectively have as many Specialists as characters, thus more points available every level-up.
This is slightly mitigated by the fact that for example Magic-Users take longer to level-up, and that some characters with high specialization would die (this is LotFP, in the end), forcing the players to re-do the points investment.

Other games (with a % skills progression table) do not suffer from this problem. Everyone is a thief but with the same chances at performing the same task at the same level.
So if you want to bypass this potential issue, you could adopt in LotFP a % table for the skills, forcing players to a classic slow progression.
I don't like this a lot, though, because I think that specializing and differentiating skills is part of what makes each character unique, and I would rather risk to have characters a bit more powerful than what they would usually be if they were just one class, and not class+thief.

Saving Throw Effort

While re-reading the various posts and considering the various ideas about Saving Throws, I also had a thought... Saving Throws, with their original categories, are often the ultimate barrier between a character and their death, especially at low levels. Several house-rules aim to maintain a low chance of success as in the OD&D and tune instead the mechanics (see my intro of this post). Other house-rules, though, have an impact (wanted or not) on those low chances.
Be it because they are changed to a roll-under on the ability score or because they are given better odds, these house-rules make Saving Throws more likely to succeed (especially at low levels).
But what about achieving a similar result (better chances) without drastically changing the game?
If every character is given for instance a 3 in 6 chance for all Saving Throws at level one, this changes the game.
What if instead there was a price to pay for a better chance?

Saving Throw Effort
Whenever you face a threat which triggers a Saving Throw, you may spend points to improve your chances of success, before rolling the dice.
For a d20 Saving Throw, spend 1 HP for a +1 to your roll.
For a d6 Saving Throw, spend 3 HP for a +1 to your roll.

As an alternative, you may sacrifice an item for a +1 (if approved by the GM) or a shield or armor, with a +1 for each AC point it grants, but only if this is applicable to vs. the given threat.

If the threat is magical, you may sacrifice a memorized spell (spend it as if it was used) for a +1 bonus for each level of the spell.

With Saves vs. Death (and Poison), vs. Wands (and Device), vs. Paralysis (and Stone), for example, you may sacrifice a shield if there is a physical threat, otherwise against poison or similar you must use HP.
With Saves vs. Breath (and Area Effects) it is much more likely that you could sacrifice AC points for a bonus to your Saving Throw (or HP as stated above).
With Saves vs. Spells (Magic and Curses) it is possible to sacrifice a memorized spell (or HP as stated above).

This would give low level characters a better chance to survive, but only a very limited amount of times per adventure or session. The point would be that lost HP would be recovered probably not before the end of the session or when back to civilization, broken equipment or protections could become a problem later on, and lack of spells similarly so.
There is therefore a trade-off, a significant decision to be made by the characters.
It preserves players' agency, makes the characters a little bit more resistant, but without being overpowered.

If you'd like to push this further, you might introduce a XP mechanism. Remember that in this case you probably want to factor in the current character level, and put a limit to it. Reasonably, the limit is that you should not spend XP to go below your current level (in other words, you are more vulnerable when you just leveled up, and on the other hand you may loose a chance to level up by spending XP but with the advantage of increasing your chances of surviving a given threat).
The rule could be something like: spend 100 x your Level in XP for +1 bonus on a Saving Throw.

d6 Saving Throws for LotFP

I love the simplicity of the Skills in LotFP which are presented graphically with a d6 with black and white pips. When improving your skill, you color one pip more and the roll is quite simple: roll with a d6 equal or under the score presented by the d6 drawn on your sheet.
Using something similar for Saving Throws is something that I was considering for a while, so here it is. This thing is long and boring, though, so here is the final rule.

Roll Saving Throws with a d6, as Skills. Roll equal or under for a successful Save.
Add one point to a Save score of your choice at level-up, up to level 13 (17 for Clerics). The highest score cannot be more than 2 points above the lowest.
The starting scores would be:

	Paralyze	Poison	Breath	Device	Magic	Up to level
Cleric	2	3	2	3	2	up to 17
Fighter	2	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Magic-User	3	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Specialist	2	2	2	2	2	up to 13

For a cooler, stronger Specialist you may allow a progression up to level 17 (as the Cleric) or at least grant one or two points more at level 1 (player's choice).


Read more just if you're interested in the process of getting to the above rule.
Let's start by looking for the basic save chances compared with the d6 probabilities, and the d20 probabilities of regular Saving Throws.

d6 probabilities (roll equal or under):

pips	prob.
1	16.7%
2	33.3%
3	50.0%
4	66.7%
5	83.3%
6	100.0%

d20 probabilities (roll equal or higher) with specific attention to scores close to the d6 probabilities (note that in some cases the d6 probability is close enough to two different d20 scores):

save	prob.	as d6
1	100.0%	as 6 pips
2	95.0%
3	90.0%
4	85.0%	as 5 pips
5	80.0%	as 5 pips
6	75.0%
7	70.0%
8	65.0%	as 4 pips
9	60.0%
10	55.0%
11	50.0%	as 3 pips
12	45.0%
13	40.0%
14	35.0%	as 2 pips
15	30.0%	as 2 pips
16	25.0%
17	20.0%
18	15.0%	as 1 pip
19	10.0%
20	5.0%

It is clear, comparing the two tables, that the d20 allows for more granularity in the percentage of success. With the d20 each increment counts as making 5% more likely your success in a Saving Throw, while with the d6 chances step up over 16,7% (somewhere between 3 and 4 points on a d20 scale).
This means that of course also the improvements at level-up should increase proportionally slower. Consider also that in the progression tables provided by LotFP, the Saving Throw scores increase not every level, but every four or so... and increments are not by one point only, but two, three, sometimes four points each time (thus favoring the implementation of the d6).

Below are the tables with the proposed d6 scores (roll equal or under), for the four human classes.
The column with (d6) are with the new scores. When in doubt, I tried to favor a little the lower levels, and less the higher levels (thus increasing a bit survivability at the start, and keeping the game dangerous at higher levels).
Also note that when the score reaches 6, the success is not granted. LotFP, for skills, requires that with a score of 6 you roll 2d6 and fail if both come up with a result of 6. In the tables, it is presented as 6*.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)
5	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
9	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)
13	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (90%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)
17	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	2 (95%)	6* (94,7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)

Fighter
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
0*	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	18 (15%)	1 (16.7%)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)
4	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
7	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
10	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)
13	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
0* NPCs only

Magic-user
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
6	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
11	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
16	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)
19	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (85%)	5 (83.7%)

Specialist
Level	Paralyze	Paralyze(d6)	Poison	Poison(d6)	Breath	Breath(d6)	Device	Device(d6)	Magic	Magic(d6)
1	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	16 (25%)	2 (33.3%)	15 (30%)	2 (33.3%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)
5	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	14 (35%)	2 (33.3%)	13 (40%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)
9	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	12 (45%)	3 (50%)	11 (50%)	3 (50%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)
13	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	10 (55%)	3 (50%)	9 (60%)	4 (66.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)
17	5 (80%)	5 (83.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)	8 (65%)	4 (66.7%)	7 (70%)	4 (66.7%)	6 (75%)	5 (83.7%)

For better use, here are the tables only with the d6 scores.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
9	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
13	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)
17	5 (83.7%)	6* (94,7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)

Fighter
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
0*	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
4	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
7	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)
10	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)
13	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)
0* NPCs only

Magic-user
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
6	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
11	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
16	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)
19	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)

Specialist
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
9	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)
13	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)
17	5 (83.7%)	5 (83.7%)	4 (66.7%)	4 (66.7%)	5 (83.7%)

I am not a big fan of this sort of tables, so the next step would be to determine a starting line for each class, with Save scores at level 1, and assign a number of points to add every level (not every few levels like LotFP). This way, the player gets a little freedom in which score to increase, and gain a little more chances of surviving every level.
A Cleric for example starts with 2-3-2-3-2 and with 4 levels (1 to 5) gains 3 points, 1-1-0-0-1.

Cleric
Level	Paralyze(d6)	Poison(d6)	Breath(d6)	Device(d6)	Magic(d6)
1	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	2 (33.3%)
5	3 (50%)	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

To favor lower levels, we could grant one point per level. To keep the balance, we could also rule that the highest Save score cannot be more than 2 points higher than the lowest. This would ensure a progression across all Saves.
If we compare what we have at the start and what we would have at the highest level presented by the original tables, we would get:
- Up to level 17, one point too much for the Cleric (I could live with that)
- Up to level 13, ok for the Fighter
- Up to level 19, too many points for the Magic-User. Either we accept this power-up, or we stop the MU at level 13 as the Fighter, which I prefer (not exact math, but having the same level helps you to memorize the rule. This makes the progression in Saves faster, though, but again I am ok with this)
- Up to level 17, three points too much for the Specialist. The temptation is to stop it at level 13 as Fighter and Magic-User, but I also like the idea of a Specialist who can survive better (as a Cleric) at higher levels


So the final rule would be this.
Roll Saving Throws with a d6, as Skills. Roll equal or under for a successful Save.
Add one point to a Save score of your choice at level-up, up to level 13 (17 for Clerics). The highest score cannot be more than 2 points above the lowest.
The starting scores would be:

	Paralyze	Poison	Breath	Device	Magic	Up to level
Cleric	2	3	2	3	2	up to 17
Fighter	2	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Magic-User	3	3	2	3	2	up to 13
Specialist	2	2	2	2	2	up to 13

For a cooler, stronger Specialist you may allow a progression up to level 17 (as the Cleric) or at least grant one or two points more at level 1 (player's choice).
I like this.


I was not the only one of course to come up with something similar, so here are a few links which I collected after I made my own rule:
- In Alternate Saving Throw by DeathKnight4044 there is a draft of a system connected to the level of the characters and of the opponent
- In Some Thoughts on Saving Throws by KYLYNSMALL there is a system similar to mine
- In Saving Throws as d6 Skills by Red Flanagan there is another system similar to mine, with a nicer layout and presentation and with slightly lower Save scores at low levels
- In A suggested alternate saving throw system to go along with LotFP by CaptainAhash Saving Throws are rolled with 2d6 (presenting the chances for success if both or either die are equal or lower than the save level
- In Skills revisited: Dice pools and the LotFP playtest rules by Dan Domme there is a short review of the new Saving Throws system presented by James Raggi in his playtest document for new rules for LotFP.


Alternate Saving Throw
by DeathKnight4044
[...] Thanks for all the replies everyone. This is mostly what im leaning towards at the moment:
- Saving throw is recorded along with all other skills at a base of 2 in 6 chance of success.
- A 13+ in a relevant attribute will increase this rank by 1
- At levels 3 and 6 the saving throws skill rank increases by 1. (so a 6th level character has a 4 in 6 saving throw)
- Saving vs an enemy or spell casters magic that is higher level/HD than you lowers your skill rank by 1. Saving vs an enemy or spell casters magic whos lower level/HD than you grants a +1 to your saving throw skill rank.  
- A 6 is always a fail [...]
http://test.lotfp.com/RPG/discussion/post/5696/#p5696


Some Thoughts on Saving Throws
by KYLYNSMALL
My house rule for saving throws integrates alongside this skill system. In the same way that the thief skills were taken from a table of automatic progression and their own distinct mechanic, it takes the saving throws off of preset tables and gives them the same level of player choice as the specialist has in its skills.
As of now, I suggest using the same “classic” saving throw categories (Paralyze, Poison, Breath, Device, and Magic), but simply starting each one at a 1 in 6 chance on a d6 of success. Maybe providing class based starting levels, such as starting fighters with a 2 in 6 chance of Poison and Breath saves, to reflect their greater resilience and reaction time. All classes would get a single “Save Point” per level that they could apply to any of the saving throws, moving from a 1 in 6 to a 2 in 6 chance for example. Specialists, on the other hand, would move from getting 2 Skill Points per level to 3 Skill Points per level. The Specialist can use these points on either skills or saving throws. This gives the opportunity, for example, for a specialist that is extremely resilient and dexterous rather than extremely skilled if most points are applied into saving throw categories. Or even a Specialist that is particularly weak in terms of saving throws but is extra skilled compared to others. [...]
https://coosempiricalgazette.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/some-thoughts-on-saving-throws/


A suggested alternate saving throw system to go along with LotFP
by CaptainAhash
[...] Roll 2 dice to save. If either are equal to or less than your save level, you succeed.
save level 0 (only snake eyes succeeds): 1/36 (2.8%)
save level 1: 11/36 (30.6%)
save level 2: 20/36 (55.6%) [...]
Roll 2 dice to save. Both must be equal to or less than your save level to succeed.
save level 0: automatic fail
save level 1: 1/36 (2.8%)
save level 2: 4/36 (11.1%) [...]
https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/6bza7j/a_suggested_alternate_saving_throw_system_to_go/


Skills revisited: Dice pools and the LotFP playtest rules
by Dan Domme
[...] Just a few days ago, I grabbed a copy of LotFP's Free RPG Day supplement for the year, Eldritch Cock.  It has a whole bunch of spells in it, but also what I think is the first unrestricted release of the LotFP playtest rules, a set of backwards-compatible rules changes for the game.
One of the coolest things, in my opinion, is the update of Saving Throws. They are now based on a d6 dice pool. Number of successes determines the result (2+ = full save, 1 = partial save, 0=fail). The only variable is, are you saving against a magical effect or not? I am a bit biased since I love dice pools inherently, but I think that this is a great improvement, at least on paper. Saving throws have always been a high hurdle to clear for lower-level characters. I want to see exactly how this plays out at the table.
Meanwhile, of all the great things in LotFP, the skill checks were the one thing that I never really liked. you have an n-in-6 chance, a single d6 roll. So (a) you want to roll low, and (b) you could end up with a 6-in-6 chance to do something if you buy enough of a single skill as a Specialist. [...]

http://failedmysave.blogspot.com/2018/06/skills-revisited-dice-pools-and-lotfp.html

Some thoughts on Alignments

Some thoughts on Alignments, somehow as an expansion on the LotFP approach (a re-post from Gplus).
I apologize for the wall of text.

All humans are born Neutral: there is a certain degree of selfishness in a Neutral alignment, there is a natural amount of cowardice and common sense, a willingness to be somehow a part of the current order of things. Neutrality allows also a fair degree of sentiments and love, of empathy and piety even. Loving a partner or a family member is Neutral, and so is hating their guts. Most humans are Neutral, and so is the human society at large.

Law is mostly a philosophical stance: when humans are concerned with more than themselves, they tend to a Lawful alignment. Someone in the hierarchy of the church is reasonably Lawful, as much as someone part of a cult, or of a secret society (assuming they believe in those organizations). Lawful is anyone who strives for some sort of order or purpose larger than themselves, either in a solitary endeavor or as part of a group with a common intent. Someone rebelling against nobility not for their own gain, but for their fellow commoners, is Lawful. And Lawful are probably the officers or nobles that fight to crush the rebellion, and strive to maintain the current order. Low-ranking rebels and common soldiers, on both sides, are probably Neutral, though. Lawful is an alignment for some, not for most humans.
It is clear, then, that Lawful has no Good or Evil connotation: it is the belief in something larger, in a purpose, in some sort of order, that makes the Lawful alignment be so.

Chaos, on the other hand, is the mark of everything non-human on a human soul. Using sorcery is chaotic and living according to the most simple rules of nature is chaotic (especially when the rest of the society does not). Chaotic is by no mean Evil. Chaos instead is in touch with the mystic energy of sorcery that subverts the rational laws, Chaos is a manifestation of a force (nature) larger than the single human life. But where Law brings order and has a purpose (regardless of what it is), Chaos simply is. It is capricious, it is fundamentally alien for humans, although some humans may indeed be touched and marked by it.

There is an order in Alignments; one must strive with consistency to bring themselves from Neutral to Lawful. Therefore, lack of such commitment resolves in a default declaration of Neutrality. The Referee may insist that a Lawful character change to Neutral, if they fail to prove their commitment with enough effort. Sacrifice (and often self-sacrifice) is required to maintain a Lawful alignment.
But as much as Neutral overrides Lawful for lack of commitment, Chaotic may override both Neutral and Lawful. Technically speaking, the usage of any form of sorcery is Chaotic. A lot of Lawful organizations maintain their lawful orientation and purpose, but any of their members that make use of sorcery are Chaotic (Magic-Users, yes, but I would say this includes Clerics too).

Someone might argue that magic, when blessed by the church for example, in the form of the clerical spells, is not Chaotic.
This is up to the Referee or the group to decide: if the Referee and the group can demonstrate that the higher source of power for clerical spells is god, then Clerics may be Lawful instead of Chaotic. This has a powerful implication: god itself must be Lawful if its magic does not bring the taint of Chaos with it. But if so, why is the world such a mess, why does not Law prevail on every aspect of our lives? What is the limit of the power of god, then? And is Chaos, and its sorcery, an enemy of a Lawful god, or are these simply two different entities, or even two different faces of the same divinity?

If the Referee and the group decide instead that clerical spells receive their power from the same source as sorcery, then Clerics must be Chaotic. Magic-users, of course, are always Chaotic.
(If you use demi-humans, stick to the default: Elves are Chaotic, Dwarfs and Halflings may also be Lawful, or more likely Neutral.)
Fighters and Specialist are usually Neutral and may strive to be Lawful, but how can they obtain the taint of Chaos if they wish to be Chaotic? May a simple curse do it? A mutation?
So, Neutral is the default state for humans; Lawful is an alignment which can be obtained through proper actions and a higher goal, while Chaos is a mark, an alignment brought by the power of sorcery.

Good and Evil perhaps exist, perhaps not. In gaming terms, Good should be treated as Lawful, and Evil as Chaotic. But this association is made by the human mind only. In truth, Good and Evil exist in these terms: they are strictly a consequence of the character’s actions.
Anything that causes harm that cannot be undone, is Evil. The scope of this definition is to be argued by the Referee and the group; is eating meat enough to be defined evil? Or is murder the line not to cross? What about murder with the intent of defending oneself, or even to defend one or more other persons? And where Evil is the harm that cannot be undone, it is therefore an Alignment that may very well be placed upon a character as a consequence of their action, even if the player is unwilling.
Again, there is room for argument here, and for house-rules: once the Evil Alignment is obtained, is there room for atonement and change? Or is this mark for life? Also, may the Evil alignment be associated with another, such as Lawful-Evil (not hard to imagine), Neutral-Evil and Chaotic-Evil? I do believe so. How to treat it in game terms? To me, Evil is predominant and therefore the character should be treated as Chaotic. But if the character for example is Lawful-Evil, they should be able to enjoy the benefit of the Lawful Alignment as well.
Good, on the other hand, has the simplest definition: it fights Evil.
It does not fight Chaotic or Neutral, and if it does, it will cause harm that cannot be undone and therefore become Evil. But as long as it fights Evil, Good may be treated as Lawful Alignment.
It is clear also that without Evil, Good cannot exist. It would simply revert to Lawful or Neutral or Chaotic.

Also, I stated previously that Good should be treated as Lawful, and Evil as Chaotic, and that this association is made by the human mind only. This is true: if the game inserts for example the idea of sin - in religious terms - as what defines Chaos and Evil, and religion as Lawful and Good, another character may argue that Good can be found only in the freedom of Chaos, and that any form of Lawful order is an imposition, and therefore Evil.
I do believe characters should be treated as they believe that they should be treated. You may have a character who claims to be Good fighting another who also claims to be Good; they both are, since they fight Evil in the form of the other. And both would reasonably end up being Evil, for the damage they'll cause.
Also, if a character claims they believe in the Good freedom of Chaos, so they want to be Chaotic-Good, the Referee may test them. If the Referee finds them hesitant, or catches a glimpse of guilt, perhaps the roots of the original sin have found their way into this character's heart, and they should instead just be Neutral, or simply Chaotic if they use sorcery.

The witch about to be burned at the stake is Chaotic because she uses sorcery, most of the crowd is Neutral, even those perverted enough to enjoy such a show. The witch-hunter is probably Lawful, but as soon as he burns the first witch, he becomes Evil, or better yet, Lawful-Evil. The one who betrayed the witch, and did it for a compensation in gold, not for a higher purpose, is simply Evil - this had nothing to do with Lawful.
The party of adventurers walking into the village right now are of different Alignments: there is a Magic-User who is Chaotic, there is a Specialist who is clearly Neutral, there is a Fighter who is Lawful and fights so that no one is burned at the stake, ever. This Fighter is not Good - too many deads behind - but is actually Lawful-Evil, same as the witch-hunter; just following a different path.
There is also a Cleric, level one, first time at the table, who believes to be Good (technically, Lawful-Good). At sunset, the Cleric will probably be Lawful-Evil or dead.
The Cleric might remain Lawful-Good, yes, as long as the corpses on the square, at the end of the day, are only the ones of those who are Evil.

So, this was a personal take on the LotFP alignements system, but if you want to read some more about alignments, you can check this post of mine: Alignments.
https://daimon-games.blogspot.com/2018/11/alignments.html