Temple of the Frog combat

Most things have been edited to fit standard D&D, but still there are curious details.



- fixed number for lighting bolt damage
- bonus to chance to break weapons



- Moral in % (OD&D rules for morale are rather unclear, indeed).



- 2 HD skeletons (and among the rare monsters to have stats - maybe precisely because they're unusual. In room 9, skelletons have 4 hit points).



- Fits D&D (including the HP!) - but it's quoted in the text...



- Monster modification, but it could cover a DA rule (true trolls?).



- The reverse: lower trolls, fighting as ogres. Probably the Trolls (as opposed to true trolls) from FFC: Trolls and Ogre: These creatures are worth 18 points (or Hits) with variations. (FFC 1980, p. 62). But 18-20 is within the D&D range as well.



- 38 hit points with 5d6. But one can argue this one is described as "large", so have more hit points.



- I allready quoted this one in the combat thread. Combat scores apparently in % (even if it translate easily in d20), and hp being low (but within possible range) for 2nd level fighters.



- What means double value In D&D terms, maybe double damage, or as in the later quote, double HP - but it seems to be a double fighting capacity from Chainmail as well.



- double value and more, which seems to apply to hp AND strenght (note in Chainmail, strenght is synonym to fighting capacity). As Aldarron allready quoted, bonus on saving throws and defense could be AC and save in D&D terms, but seems to fit DA vision of save as defense in combat.

So, it seems there's some details which could be still be studied as talmudic gems

Simple answer - Nope. Having been through this thing with a fine tooth comb its really clear that its Arneson all the way through. There's none of the polish that comes from an editor "D&Dizing" the text and all the hallmarks of Arnesons FFC and AiF style of notes and terminology. A lot of them - as you can see from the quotes Snorri pulled out, are uncharacteristic or simply wieird in D&D terms. There are more examples and lots of stylistic similarities too. Where stats are provided, (there's lots of places where they aren't too) I'm sure they come from Arneson. TotF was probably the most complete manuscript Kask had to work with and its apparent he pretty much just tacked it into supp II as is.

The stats and comments are not designed to work with the "alternate combat" system, so back to the question: Chainmail with OD&D or something else?

I mean how do folks interpret a quadruple defensive bonus?

Compare to FFC p89, (1977)
"...Mother dragon will fight at DBL value.....Mother will attack at six times normal value" More like this in FFC.

aldarron, I don find it fascinating, I just have nothing to add.

I find it interesting as well. I just need to find some time to dust off my copies of this stuff and read it again. I figure that reading it in context may give me some insights for something clever to respond to your points. :-)

Looking for some clues to the TotF “double strength” terminology, I did a search on strength in Chainmail. Usually it refers to troop strength. My first impression of “double strength” was a reference to the ability score, even though monsters don’t normally have them. After all its what strength normally refers to in D&D. But then it hit me that wargamers are accustomed to talking about troop strength – not how much a soldier can carry but how effective – the combat strength – of a unit. Then I looked in M&T to see if strength is ever used that way for monsters and found loads of references:

Page 8 “OGRES: These large and fearsome monsters range from 7 to 10 feet in height, and due to their size will score 1 die +2 (3-8) points of hits when they hit.
Trolls…. “In strength they are about equal to an Ogre, but as they use only their talons and fangs for weapons, only one die of damage is scored when they hit an opponent.”

Page 18 “There are variations of strength (hit dice) within all four types:
Conjured Elementals 16 Hit Dice
Device* Elementals 12 Hit Dice
Staff Elementals 8 Hit Dice
*Those from medallions, stones, gems, or bracelets.
Regardless of the strength of an Elemental, only one of each type can be brought into existence during any "day".

Page 31: “Giant Strength: Gives the recipient full Giant prowess, including two dice of damage when he scores a hit.”

Page 36: “ Elemental strength is 12 Hit Dice.”

Page 38: “Gauntlets of Ogre Power: These gauntlets give the wearer the ability to strike as an Ogre and generally give his hands and arms the strength of an ogre. They do not necessarily increase hit probability however.
Girdle of Giant Strength: Wearing this device bestows the strength and hit probability (if greater than the wearer's own) of Hill Giant.”

These are all Chainmail monsters too which means that there’s a really good chance that Arneson contributed to the text, since they are ones he had used and further developed in Blackmoor. Anyway strength here is repeatedly used to refer to Hit Dice (damage dice) and I think that double strength in TotF must mean double Hit Dice. Not sure if it also meant double chances to hit. From “Gauntlets of Ogre Power” to “Girdle of Giant Strength” it looks like it could go either way.

Thanks Norse, that's great feedback and makes sense to me. Having a reasonable interpretation for the "double strength" references now makes it look even more like TotF was written as a Chainmail with OD&D module, as Arneson played interpreted it. Thing is, that I have come to think that Arnesons pre D&D was basically a variation of Chainmail based on the fantasy table, and as such was similar in Stats and so it could be played either way.

Hey Matthew, glad to see you join the discussion. I'd argue that its really pretty obvious TotF has not been edited much if at all. Maybe the introduction/backstory saw a bit of editorial clean up but the dungeon key is fairly raw. Kask (on DF) talked about reworking the Assasin material in Supp II to conform to "standard" (meanining Greyhawk) D&D yet ToTF is anything but Greyhawk standard D&D. I think with that and the similarities with Arnesons later work, it indicate that Kask pretty much just left the text alone. You might be interested in the Blackmoor combat thread I started odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=blackmoor&action=display&thread=2740 or this one on Gygax and Arnesons terminology in OD&D www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40440