Sorry, could you clarify which direction the party was heading? Confused by "the second set of stairs." You've pretty much explored the entire upper part of the dungeon so far (there was a building in the courtyard you never checked out, but it's no big deal, you can catch that on your way out I think). You've also explored the whole underground portion, except two branching tunnels, one on the northeast end and one on the southern end (where you first entered). Wanted to mention those tunnels because I'm worried I accidentally glossed over them in my description.
Actually, you've explored this section of the dungeon so thoroughly I might as well show you the map (with some stuff edited out, naturally):
The two "spiral tunnels" lead in unexplored directions for you.
Also, I might have to take a bit of a slowdown while I try to figure out exactly what happens when you find Frame (which you're getting close to). I also want to try to finish up the Bestiary, the spell lists, and take one last pass at the Pact Tables (largely to edit out spells I no longer want in the game, and to try to add a few I decided I needed to have, as well as reduce redundant results over all).
I've also been thinking about a couple of large mechanical changes to the game. Let me know what you think:
Traits Become "Specialties" and "Relationships": I'm concerned that Traits aren't fair game to crib. I haven't looked into the specific legalities of this, and I'm not sure if Kevin Crawford invented them, but they seem like his "thing," used in both Scarlet Heroes and Godbound. I love his stuff and everything, but so far all the rules I'm borrowing are Labyrinth Lord/SRD/generic OSR stuff. In short, stuff I feel good about "stealing." Bottom line is I'm not sure it's legal to use traits as-is in my own product, and even if it were, I'm not sure it would impress anybody or that I would feel right about it.
There's also sort of a problem in that, right now, Traits in Devils and Dragoons are both very loose (like traditional Kevin Crawford Traits in that way), to be applied to any roll they could conceivably benefit, but also very specific, like Horseback Archer that eliminates specific penalties, or various background things that give you discrete healing or item-making actions. I'm thinking it might be better to split the Traits concept into two separate categories: Specialties and Relationships.
Specialties are specific, focused, and powerful. They grant your character brand new abilities or add +3 to checks. It's usually pretty obvious when a specialty is relevant: it's either "always on," or do some discrete thing, like Lockpicking or Surgery or Daemonology. Some of what are currently classed "innate qualities" under the Trait system will be snuck in here as well, like Iron Liver or Fleet of Foot and stuff. Most things that add to damage will be specialties, too, adding a +3 bonus. Everyone will get a single specialty at level 1, and thieves will get to choose from a suite of (powerful) bonus specialties as their primary class perk. Everyone will get a few additional specialties as they level up, with thieves getting more.
Relationships only offer a +1 bonus, but are flexible and can apply to a wide range of situations, skill checks, and even saving throws. Whereas specialties are discrete and pretty self-evident in what they apply to, relationships are things there can be some spirited debate about, with players "suggesting" that a relationship might factor into a particular roll, though of course the GM gets final say. There will also be some hard and fast rules to relationship, such as never adding to attack rolls, damage rolls, Morale rolls, or the like. They can stack with specialties, though, adding up to +4 to skill checks or saving throws, which I've decided I'm comfortable with. With an 18 in attribute, you can be adding +7 to skill checks, which means difficult tasks (threshold 9) are rote for you, but note heroic (11) or impossible (13) ones, which feels about right. And, also, this will rarely happen, and when it does, the character probably invested pretty seriously in it, so it's fine. Let them pick the damn uber-hard lock, GM.
Relationships will be loosey-goosey, largely up to player and GM to define together. They will be given freely in comparison to specialties, possibly even as frequently as "once per level", with 2 given at level 1. There will be a large list of sample ones, however, which will include both some stealth world-building examples (Golish Royal Mail, Aventinian Mounted Rangers, Aventinian Royal Lancers, a Borys penal military unit [which players presumably escaped from], Krastavn Gilded Hussars, the Golish Reiter Remnant, and a few others), as well as some functional stuff like Lone Wolf, Former Hermit, or Escaped Prisoner, both for players who are "like that", or have a background like that, and for situations where players really
haven't formed new or noteworthy relationships (because they've been stuck in a remote dungeon, primarily).
This leads to the second big change I'm considering:
Axing Dragoon and Occultist. I think making my own classes was probably too ambitious. Also, when I pitch this game to people in casual conversation, it's usually as: "It's like 2nd Edition D&D, but you can only be a fighter or thief, and anyone can gain magic through Faustian bargains with demons." It's a good elevator pitch, but isn't true with dragoon and occultist hanging around.
Fighters would stay more or less as-is, but gain the dragoon's ability to spend a point of Valor to reroll attack, damage and pierce. Skilled Horseman would probably become a specialty, maybe reduced to its damage bonus from horseback and adding to saving throws versus being unhorsed. That feels right. Horse Archer would be another specialty, completely removing the penalties for shooting from horseback for any weapon. Fighters would also still get a "favored weapon, favored situation" way of eliminating an attack penalty, of which shooting any weapon from horseback is a valid option.
Thieves, as mentioned, would get a sweet bonus specialty at level 1, of which is an Antiquarian-like/Occultist-like Trait would be an option, as would Adventuring Thief, letting you do all typical Labyrinth Lord thief-y things. Other options I'm thinking are Assassin, giving you bonuses to dagger attacks, damage rolls with inhibiting poisons, and sneaking/hiding stuff. Probably also something like Cunning Warlock, offering you the ability to summon daemons right out of the gate like an Antiquarian, but offering slightly different bonuses to skill checks in the daemonology wheelhouse. Maybe a couple other options, too.
I
don't think thieves will get a chance to increase their caster level out of the gate like occultists did, and that's in retrospect kind of a shame. But I think there's already enough ways to increase one's caster level that we can afford to lose the "by class" route, it's less central than I originally planned on. And a grand +2 bonus was always kind of weak reason to be an occultist, maybe, although caster level is gold early on so it was kind of always intended to be a front-loaded thing.
