Gambit42 gave me the following constructive criticism on the Dragonsfoot boards. I thought I’d post a reply here (and there) because some of his ideas were things that I’ve considered, had in earlier versions of the rules, or make for interesting thought-experiments. I’ve edited it for brevity and answered bits line-by-line:

Hey Chris, I gave a look over your new document in order to provide the requested feedback. Such follows in no particular order:

Regarding the name, “Hex” evokes a witch theme/feel, I know you might be trying to utilize the other meaning of hex, which is that of a map grid, but I think theres a good chance uninitiated folks will see it and assume it has a high degree of witchery as a theme, which is not then present in the ruleset. I have been pondering upon potential alternatives, here are some options if you greatly wish to keep it as “H&H” starting with Heroes.

I kinda agree with this. I like Hex due to its dual meaning but it does have a strong “witch/warlock” connotation. I’m a sucker for alliterative titles, à la Dungeons & Dragons and have considered others. Maybe Mages & Monsters (which is also a bit cheeky) or Wizards & Wyverns might be better.

Thoughts?

Regarding the HP, the simplest (and in my opinion correct) solution is to just give them a d6. Also you said fighter-types get a d10 but I hope Barbarian will be getting its classical d12.

Done. Magic-user now have a d6 Hit Die type and it won’t break the game in any way.

Btw, as an aside, regarding the term “magic-user”, can I just say I have always hated this as a class name, clerics are also magic users, as are druids, heck even rangers and paladins are magic users, “Magic-User” should have gone the way of “Fighting Man” when it went the way of the dodo. I would ask/hope that you do away with such and go with whichever is your favorite between Mage and Wizard (personally I prefer Mage, I particularly like how it sounds in multiclass combinations, Fighter/Mage just flows and sounds so good, but Wizard is fine).

True. Mage is also a throwback to AD&D 2nd edition, so it’s probably something I’ll change very soon. I really can’t think of a good reason not to change it other than nostalgia (which isn’t a great reason). Wizards would be high-level mages.

Barbarians: I would like to see a 10 foot speed boost added (its a small thing, but I’ve always felt it an important part of the barbarian experience), and also, perhaps rage gives resistance to all P/S/B attacks? (Would make sense for a character type known for resisting magic)

Leaving it as is, as having magic weapons bypass their Damage Resistance gives them a good reason to distrust magic (as is often the case in fiction)! I’ll leave this as is for now.

As for the first part, I didn’t want characters taking a 2-level dip into barbarian to get all sorts of goodies. Almost all classes are front-loaded (by design) so that players have an incentive to stick with those classes for a while but I didn’t want to overdo it. The Movement Rate boost does have roots in AD&D, 3rd edition, and pulp fantasy, so I’m fine with adding it.

Fast Movement: At 2^nd level, a barbarian’s Movement Rate increases by 5’ per round, so long as he is no more than moderately encumbered. At barbarian levels 6 and 10, his Movement Rate increases by an additional 5’ per round.

Bards: After using an action to initial Bardsong let Bards maintain such on subsequent rounds for free (unless interrupted).

The concept of bards are semi-druidic warrior-poets is one that I’ve always found appealing and a slight change to the text would allow them to fight while maintaining Bardic Music. The new text would be:

Bardic Music: Bards can use their songs or poetics to produce magical effects. Each of the three Bardic Music abilities detailed below requires concentration upon the musical performance or recitation as if the bard were concentrating upon a spell (see page 76) and requires that the bard’s words or music be heard (the area of a Silence 15’ Radius spell negates all Bardic Music effects). 

While concentrating on Bardic Music, the bard make take other actions each round but may not cast spells with verbal components or engage in conversation, as the Bardic Music ability requires the bard to recite or sing for its duration. Each use of the Bardic Music feature lasts for up to 10 rounds (1 minute), provided that the bard maintains concentration upon this spell-like ability.

This makes sense and isn’t too unbalancing. Bards could use a little extra love anyway.

Clerics: Clerics kit as a whole is quite solid, what stands out to me when I look upon it most is the vast degrees of usefulness of the various domains, there are ones like Light, Time, War, Darkness, Luck, which clearly stand out as more useful than many of their brethren, and then there’s Life which is in a league of its own in terms of the usefulness it provides, I would be curious to know of all the folks who have ever played a cleric in your system, the % who played a life cleric vs the % who played anything else. I don’t really see a simple tweak here, it works, but without much parity, and would take a full redesign to make every domain appealing.

Hmm. I think, overall, that each domain has its place to shine. As a lover of skill-monkey characters, I love getting extra skills. Also, many of the domains that he didn’t list also get additional spells.

I will beef up domains and try to differentiate them a bit more. That update will be in another post… as it would be a wall of text.

Druids: Add the ability to turn into Tiny sized creatures as well at 8th level alongside Large ones, allowing one to turn into a mouse or tiny snake and the like. Also, make Woodland Stride apply to any forms of thorns and growth, both mundane and magical, as it currently stands it is such a niche ability that will rarely if ever come into play, but changing it to apply, neat strategies like the druid casting entangle and then positioning himself within at certain spot become available, and that turns it into a fun ability.

The “rule of cool” must always prevail and I see no reason why not to allow that. I will also clarify the types of animals that druids can Wild Shape into. I also fixed an error in A Thousand Faces.

Woodland Stride: At 3^rd level druids gain the ability to move through natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similarly difficult terrain at their normal Movement Rate and without suffering damage or other impairment.  When doing so, the druid leaves no trail in the natural surroundings and cannot be tracked through non-magical means (as the Pass without Trace spell). Thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that are enchanted or magically manipulated to impede motion still affect the druid.

At 7^th level, Woodland Stride allows the druid to move, unimpeded, through both mundane and magical thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similarly difficult terrain, such as areas under the effect of Entangle, Spike Growth, Spike Stones, or Wall of Thorns spells.

Wild Shape: At 4^th level the druid gains the ability to change into a Small- or Medium- sized mundane bear (Monstrous Manual, page 20), cat (MM, 42-44), dog (MM, 90), horse (MM, 204) mammal (MM, 247-250), or wolf (MM, 360) once per day as a free action. The druid must have seen a creature in order to take its form.

This form may be kept for 1 hour per druid level attained, or until the druid changes back to his natural form. The druid can revert to his normal form by using a free action on his turn, which ends that use of Wild Shape. The druid automatically reverts if he falls unconscious or dies. This ability operates like the Polymorph spell (see page 146) except that each time the druid assumes an animal’s form the druid regains 2d8+4 Hit Points. The druid may not cast spells while in animal form.

At 8^th level, druids gain the ability to take the shape of a Large or Tiny mundane animals of the types listed above when using the Wild Shape ability. Tiny animals are typically those with ¼ Hit Dice, such as mice. 

The druid may also take the form of a mundane bat (MM, 17-18) bird (MM, 30), crocodile (MM, 56), crustacean (MM, 57), dolphin (MM, 92), elephant (MM, 132), fish (MM, 140), frog (MM, 142), lizard (MM, 234), octopus (MM, 276), rat (MM, 301), snake (MM, 321), or toad (MM, 341) as well. 

Upon reaching 9^th, 14^th, and 19^th level in this class druids gain an additional use of this ability each day. 

A Thousand Faces: At 12^th level the druid is able to alter his appearance at will as per the Change Self spell, except that the druid may only change his appearance and not that of his possessions.

Furthermore, the use of this ability is not a magical effect, so it cannot be detected through the use of True Seeing or the like, and actually changes the facial features and body of the druid.

Fighter: Looks great, love that you added Fighting Styles, they were one of my favorite additions 2E conceived (along with Character Kits and Specialty Priests). Question, did you intend for every Fighter who uses a 2-Handed weapon to default to Skirmisher? The only thing I might possibly add to the Fighter is a 4th attack at level 20.

I didn’t want any of the Fighting Styles to give direct bonuses to attack or damage rolls. Most Fighting Styles offset penalties or give fighters neat little (non-bonus) abilities to use. That said, I’ll add a Great-Weapon Fighting style (see below). It’s not very powerful but does something that no other Fighting Style does (grants a direct damage bonus).

For now I’ll leave the attack # cap at 3. Extra Attacks is a solid ability (better than AD&D or 3rd edition) and, at higher levels, fighter-types should have decent items and other class abilities to fall back on.

Fighting Style: At 2nd level, you adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options:

• Archery: You reduce all range penalties made with projectile weapons by 2 (see page 44) and may make ranged attacks in close combat without penalty (see page 67).
• Defense: You may use your shield to defend an ally within 5’. As a free action, you may add your shield’s Armor Class bonus to that ally’s Armor class, rather than your own, until your next turn.
• Dueling: When wielding a finesse weapon (see pages 46 and 49), you may add your Dexterity modifier, rather than Strength modifier, to damage rolls.
• Great-Weapon: When wielding a Medium- or Large- sized melee weapon with two hands, the fighter deals an additional point of damage with each attack.
• Skirmisher: You get a +2 bonus to Armor Class when drawing Opportunity Attacks (see page 66). This bonus increases by 1 at fighter levels 8, 14, and 20.
• Two-Weapon Fighting: When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you offset two-weapon fighting penalties (see page 66) by 2.

At 10th level, the fighter chooses another fighting style.

Mage (I’m manifesting my hopes here): Looks solid, no notes other than the aforementioned d6 hit points.

Done.

Monk: Admittedly monk has never been my jam, it always felt out of place, but this seems to be one that indeed captures its AD&D essence with some 3E/5E stylings sprinkled in.

Agreed. Re-doing the monk was difficult because only one of my players ever played one (briefly). I’d love to see how the class works in actual play.

Paladin: I’m glad you added a Smite ability, what would you think of simplifying it to the classic +2 to damage vs undead and fiends, with +1 at 6/11/16 mechanic? I like the simplicity of this, where its gives paladin a little something to assist but doesn’t reward them for going full agro (something I have never been fond of in its 5E incarnation, which rewards and encourages spamming resources for fuel, for modern style Paladins I would say Pathfinder 1E had the finest implementation of the modern class). Otherwise Paladin is pretty much perfect.

Paladins had the ability that he notes in in an earlier version of the rules but I ditched it due to class imbalance. My concern when updating the class was that the paladin would overshadow other fighter-types by having that on top of their other, current abilities. Those abilities (Detect Evil, Lay on Hands, Immunity to Disease, Divine Grace, Turn Undead, Paladin’s Mount, Extra Attacks, and Paladin Spells) already put them on equal footing with rangers and fighters (if not making them flat-out better).

The version currently in the rules allows them to expend from their Lay on Hands “healing pool” in order to deal extra damage to those creatures… and I think that’s a fair trade off. I will specify that Smite Evil attacks count as being made with a magical weapon, for the purposes of overcoming Damage Resistance. I will also raise the Hit Point pool for Lay on Hands to 5 points per paladin level. That will improve that ability and the Smite Evil ability.

Lay on Hands: A paladin’s blessed touch can heal wounds. Paladins have a pool of healing power that replenishes each day. With that pool, paladins can restore a total number of Hit Points equal to their paladin level times 5.

As an action, a paladin can touch a creature and draw power from the pool to restore a number of Hit Points to that creature, up to the maximum amount remaining in your pool.

Starting at 3^rd level, a paladin can expend 5 Hit Points from their pool of healing to cure the target of a disease that is affecting it. A paladin can cure multiple diseases with a single use of Lay on Hands, expending Hit Points separately for each one.

This feature has no effect on undead and constructs.

Smite Evil: Paladins may expend the healing power of their Lay on Hands ability to damage undead creatures and natives of the Lower Planes (Acheron, The Nine Hells, Gehenna, Hades, Tarterus, the Abyss, and Pandemonium).

When striking such a creature in melee combat, the paladin may choose to expend any number of Hit Points remaining in their pool of healing power. Each expended point deals an additional Hit Point of damage to the struck creature. Smite Evil bypasses any Damage Reduction to non-magical weapons that an undead creature or native of the Lower Planes has.

Ranger: Ahh the ranger, a beloved classic that has had its fair share of woes and poor design over the years. I would argue in official D&D the ranger has never been more properly designed than its 1E incarnation. I noticed the change you made to Favored Enemies, honestly, let them have the full list of classic “giant class” enemies right off the bat, you can keep the part about adding new ones if you wish, (maybe he fights lots of beholders in the campaign and would add beholders to his list), but yeah, let them shine.

So there is actually another thing I wish to discuss regarding the Ranger and the Paladin, and that is that they lack access to what would otherwise be iconic abilities for them to have, this being the Archery fighting style for the ranger and its ability to be able to fight in close-quarters combat unheeded, and then for Paladins is the Defense fighting style (perhaps a rename to Protection might be good?) to be able to shield someone else, both of these just seem so apropos of their respective class it is a shame those capabilities would be in the ruleset yet not available to them.

Rangers do have the iconic ranger ability to strike at foes from the cover of woodlands and quickly fall back. The Foe Hunter ability “reduces foes’ Armor Class bonuses due to cover and concealment by 2.” The Strider ability allows rangers to move at their normal Movement Rate when making Stealth checks to move silently or making Survival checks to track. Together, this makes rangers excellent at sniping at their foes from cover.

Their ability to start with 5 types of creatures is pretty flexible and allows for customization over the course of the campaign. I’ll tweak it slightly to allow more creatures at first (but still with a cap of 10 creature types).

Favored Enemies: At 1st level, a ranger may select six types of creatures as their favored enemies. Examples of favored enemies include bugbears, fire giants, frost giants, ghouls, gnolls, goblins, hill giants, hobgoblins, lizardmen, kobolds, ogres, orcs, sahuagin, and trolls.

When fighting these foes, rangers deal an additional 2 points of damage with both melee and ranged weapons. At ranger levels 6, 11, and 16 this bonus increases by 1.

Rangers make all Survival checks to track Favored Enemies with a +2 bonus. This bonus increases by 1 point at levels ranger levels 8 and 15.

At ranger levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 the character may choose another favored enemy. The chosen enemies should reflect those that the character has repeatedly faced in battle.

Paladins, as stated above, are really good as is. A paladin (or ranger) could always dip into two levels of fighter to gain access to a Fighting Style that they wanted. It would delay their other abilities but would be a fair enough trade-off.

Thief/Assassin: So, these two classes are very similar of course, they essentially fulfill the same role in a party, when I examine these side by side it seems to me that the Assassin is just strictly superior to the thief, as Killing Strike is a much more potent ability than Sneak Attack. A potential solution would be to just improve sneak attack, given that it is such a hard ability to land, and will likely only land once per combat (unlike Backstab, which will be landed often through flanking), giving it some oomph here shouldn’t be an issue, my initial idea in that regard is for Sneak Attack to double ALL damage a thief does for that single attack, so weapon damage, strength damage, magic damage, backstab damage, etc are all compiled and then the number is doubled.

Killing Strike only works at close range and against surprised targets with no concealment. That’s relatively tough to pull off AND, allows the target to make a Saving Throw to negate it. At the same time, it is a VERY powerful ability. I could also revamp the ability, taking a page from Pathfinder:

Killing Strike: If an assassin studies a target for 3 rounds, without being detected, he may attempt a Killing Strike against that surprised foe (see pages 62 and 68 for more information on Surprise). An assassin may take no other action while targeting a foe for a Killing Strike. Once the assassin has completed the 3 rounds of study, he must make the Killing Strike within the next 3 rounds or begin the process again.

If the assassin successful hits with his Killing Strike, the target must make a Constitution Saving Throw. The DC of this Saving Throw is equal to 10 plus the ½ of the assassin’s level (minimum of 1) + the assassin’s Intelligence modifier.

If the victim fails its Saving Throw, its Hit Points are reduced to 0 and it is dying. If the victim makes its Saving Throw the attack deals normal damage, including the bonus damage for the assassin’s Backstab ability.

An assassin can only use Killing Strikes on living creatures that have a discernible anatomy. They may only make Killing Strikes in melee or when making a ranged weapon attack at close range. An assassin may not attempt a Killing Strike against an opponent with a concealment bonus to its Armor Class.

I’m of a mind to ditch the assassin class and just fold that character concept into the thief class. A thief with proficiency in the Disguise and Poison skills would, effectively, be an assassin. Ditching the assassin class is a bit of a big deal, so what are your thoughts on this? Should I do that or change the Killing Strike ability? Are the changes to that ability sufficient?

Backstab and Sneak Attacks worked really well in my last campaign with the changes made in the current version. Sneak Attacks are, as he noted, hard to land. I’ll up the Backstab damage multiplier to x4.

Sneak Attack: A thief normally avoids face-to-face combat if possible, preferring to use stealth or guile to catch opponents unaware or off-guard. If a thief successfully strikes a surprised opponent (see pages 62 and 68), their first attack deals 4 times the usual Backstab damage (8 points of damage at levels 1-5, 12 points of damage at levels 6-10, 16 points at level 11-15, and 20 points at levels 16-20.).

The Sneak Attack ability faces the same weapon, range, and concealment restrictions as the Backstab ability.

As for discussing races, one area I have always felt AD&D was lacking in is racial abilities. From a mechanical design perspective dwarves, gnomes, and halflings are all extremely similar to one another, humans and half-elves are ho-hum boring, and half-orcs are OP. The mechanical design of races is something I feel D&D was lackluster in in almost every incarnation, 1E, 2E, 3E, (redacted), and honestly 5E is probably the only time I have ever truly liked it, they did make each one feel unique and with useful abilities. Btw I like the change to ancestries, that is likely for the best. So what would your thoughts be on reexamining ancestries from a mechanical design perspective?

Gnome have some overlap with both halflings and dwarves and, honestly, I’m fine with that. It works, flavor-wise, in my campaigns and, if someone wanted a more distinct gnome, they can now choose to play a forest gnome.

The only change that I’d likely make is capping Half-Orcs at an 18 Strength rather than 19.

Please let me know what you all think? Don’t be shy!