That is a fascinating table, Aldarron. The significance of the pattern "2, 2-3, 3-4, 4" still eludes me, but I suppose it explains why we see such things on the combat OD&D table.
What is most interesting to me is that it is a roll over system with fighting ability ending for fighters and monsters at the same point. That fits perfectly with my own conversion of the Fantasy Combat Table, which uses "ten" points [i.e. 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 50].
Trying to remember which of your CHAINMAIL tables you are refering too. Can you link?
It is also interesting to see that HD 1 Monsters have less combat ability than level 1 fighters, who advance steadily in ability at 5% per level.
Why did Gygax not simply adapt this system on a 1:1 basis, I wonder? It would surely have made sense to go with:
Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hit Dice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AC 2
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
AC 3
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
AC 4
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
AC 5
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
AC 6
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
AC 7
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
AC 8
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
AC 9
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Seems like he always tended towards making things less symmetrical and more eccentric. Perhaps a desire to spread out fighting ability over levels, but that does not really explain things either. Oh well, I suppose that personality trait is part and parcel of what made the D&D game so successful, a lack of perfect intuitive sense.
I think Gygax is deliberately collapsing the tables, and I suppose it was to allow for differences at higher levels of play. Interesting things happen when you convert the d20 tables to percentiles. From my notes:
"a separate “to hit” chance is given for each level. In the printed work (3Lbbs - hereafter PW), several levels are conflated (1-3, 3-6 etc.). The percentile chances do not precisely match when converted to d20. PW level 1-3 matches Arneson Manuscript (hereafter AM) LVL 3, but PW 4-6, then matches AM LVL 4, PW 7-9 matches AM level 7. This pattern would seem to be deliberate but it is hard to tell. If so, presumably the more granular percentile table in the AM came first and the PW levels were copied from it and collapsed. A more granular combat table presented by Gary Gygax, in Liaisons Dangereuses #73, August 16, 1976, is a much closer match except that he still combines LVL 1-2 (matches AM2) and levels 7-8 for unknown reasons (matches level 7 AM) making level 9 mismatched between the two.
TABLE 15: MONSTER ATTACK - "CHOPS" BY MONSTER
The Hit Dice range is almost the same up to 4 except that 1+1 in the PW is simply given as 2 in the AM. At 4 the AM is again more granular going up by whole numbers until a column marked 9+ whereas the PW combines dice as 3-4, 4-6 etc. The percentiles however do not match the PW d20. The PW charts give monsters a 10% chance better to hit up to 4 HD and thereafter, because the columns are less granular, the chance for monsters to hit actually becomes 5% worse at level 9. Thus the relationship between the numbers of the Monster Attacks table between the PW and the AM table is less clear than the “Player Attacks” table, but it may be best explained by the PW table being reworked with collapsed HD columns and new numbers to hit numbers to account for more granularity with monsters above 9 HD."
I would have expected to see it earlier in the table, but definitely a possibility. If it were, then the equivalence would look something like:
2 = 2 2-3 = 2+ or 3 3-4 = 3+ or 4 4 = 4+
Not very intuitive, but not impossible either. Since the table says "up to 1" we can assume 1+ = 2, if extant. The OD&D table would be:
2-3 = 2 or 3 3-4 = 3+ or 4 4-6 = 4+, 5 or 6 6-8 = 6+, 7 or 8 9-10 = 9 or 10 11- = 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16
That makes a certain kind of sense, since we do have creatures with 3+, 4+ and 6+ hit dice in Monsters & Treasures, but also creatures of 2+, 5+, 7+, and 8-12+ if we count giants. It definitely covers the necessary range until you hit 8+ (2+ counts as 3, 5+ counts as 6, 7+ counts as 8).
Even if in early drafts creatures with more than 4 hit dice had pluses we might construe them as simply being one higher on the table (though this makes it harder to imagine 4 as meaning 4+).
Trying to remember which of your CHAINMAIL tables you are referring too. Can you link?
Hmmn, now I shall have to investigate my memories! Okay, let me see... ah, right, now I recall, my initial idea of a 10 point spread failed because I missed the jump from 8 to 9 in the Monster Matrix, so they actually had an eleven point spread. Actually, that makes more sense, since in the Arneson chart above the spreads are 9 and 10, but in OD&D they are 10 and 11. Ammended values below:
Here is the Fantasy Combat table using the idea of "Hero +1" etcetera as a modifier:
Level
Dragon
Elemental
Treant
Giant
Hero
Lycanthrope
Roc
Super Hero
Troll/Ogre
Wight/Ghoul
Wizard
Wraith
Swordsman
13
11
13
12
8
9
11
11
10
7
12
12
Hero
12
10
12
11
7
8
10
10
9
6
11
11
Swashbuckler
11
9
11
10
6
7
9
9
8
5
10
10
Myrimidon
11
9
11
10
6
7
9
9
8
5
10
10
Champion
11
9
12
10
6
7
9
9
6
5
10
9
Super Hero
10
8
11
9
5
6
8
8
5
4
9
8
Lord
9
7
10
8
4
5
7
7
4
3
8
7
Lord 10th Level
9
7
10
8
4
5
7
7
4
3
8
7
One incongruity is that a "Super Hero −1" has less chance of slaying a Treant than a "Hero +1". Otherwise, though, the numbers work out quite nicely (probably Treant slaying did not come up much either).
Anyway, if we then understand that a fighting-man otherwise gets as many attacks as he has levels with the understanding that if he makes only 1 or 2 then he gets a +1 bonus to hit on one attack.
Under this interpretation it is imagined that the fighting-man can choose to fight as though at a lower level than his current one.
It is also interesting to note this sort of thing when "level ranges" are considered for AD&D adventures, such as 4-7 for the A1-4 series, which makes them "hero tier", if you see what I am saying. Not many modules work like that, but some do.
Here is the fantasy table taking into account heroic ability:
Level
Swordsman
Hero
Swashbuckler
Myrimidon
Champion
Super Hero
Lord
Lord 10th Level
Swordsman
7
8
9
9
10
11
12
12
Hero
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
11
Swashbuckler
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
Myrimidon
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
Champion
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
Super Hero
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
Lord
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
8
Lord 10th Level
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
8
It is possible that a "+3" after the hit dice number of the Troll indicated it was to be treated as a Troll three steps better than that on the fantasy table, both in defence and offence. An Ogre, after all, is only 4+1, and reference is made in Chainmail to "true" Trolls being more powerful than ogres. Of course, 6+3 is actually four steps higher than 4+1, not three, but you could tentatively build a fantasy table based on hit dice if you were so inclined. Trolls and Ogres normally need an "8" to drive back a hero, whilst the hero needs a "9" to drive back an ogre.
The way the fantasy table is set up actually explains a lot about why monsters have a different attack matrix from classed characters in AD&D, and may also help explain from where they derive their armour class scores.
Notice man versus monster is an 11 point spread (3 to 13), but man versus man is a 10 point spread (3 to 12).
Thinking a bit more on this, I decided to map to hit scores for the alternative combat table onto "fighting ability" (an often overlooked part of AD&D, basically a number equivalent to fighter level on the 5% increment scale).
Alternative Combat System
Hit Dice
Fighting Ability
1
1
1+1
2
2-3
3
3-4
5
4-6
6
6-8
7
9-10
9
11+
11
Fighter Level
Fighting Ability
1-3
1
4-6
3
7-9
6
10-12
8
13-15
10
Notice how 2, 5, and 7 are absent from the fighter progression? Interesting, I would say, but the range is clearly very similar. Let us see how that maps onto the Fantasy Combat Table by hit dice:
Fantasy Combat Table
Monster
Hit Dice
Hero
Super Hero
Fighting Ability
Armour Class
Ghoul
2
9
12
3
6
Wight
3
9
12
3
5
Ogre
4+1
8
11
6
5
Troll
6+3
8
11
7
4
Wraith
4
8
10
5
3
Lycanthrope
4-6
7
10
6
5, 4, 3, 2
Giant
8-12+2
6
9
7, 9, 11
4
Roc
6
5
8
6
4
Dragon
5-12
5
8
6, 7, 9, 11
2
Treant
8
4
7
7
2
Elemental
8, 12, 16
4
7
7, 11, 11
2
Notably, all the monsters have a 3 point difference to hit heroes and super heroes (meaning two places for heroes +1, and super heroes −1), except the Wraith:
Monster
Hero −1
Hero
Hero +1
Super Hero −1
Super Hero
Super Hero +1
Ghoul
8
9
10
11
12
13
Wight
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ogre
7
8
9
10
11
12
Troll
7
8
9
10
11
12
Wraith
7
8
9
9
10
11
Lycanthrope
6
7
8
9
10
11
Giant
5
6
7
8
9
10
Roc
4
5
6
7
8
9
Dragon
4
5
6
7
8
9
Treant
3
4
5
6
7
8
Elemental
3
4
5
6
7
8
It is also obvious that Giants, Ogres, and Trolls are the odd monsters out here. Their hit dice and fighting capability in the alternative system is much higher than the Fantasy Combat Table would suggest. It is also interesting to note that they are the only monsters on this list to have a "+" notation after their hit dice.
And here we see that both in the Fantasy Tables and the OD&D Matrix there is a 10 point spread for men, and an 11 point spread for monsters. Fighter level 16+ eventually sends it into a 13 point spread, of course, but that is way off the scale, though technically if you added veterans, warriors and normal men into the fantasy table for man versus man you would end up with a 13 point spread.
I think Gygax is deliberately collapsing the tables, and I suppose it was to allow for differences at higher levels of play. Interesting things happen when you convert the d20 tables to percentiles. From my notes:
"a separate “to hit” chance is given for each level. In the printed work (3Lbbs - hereafter PW), several levels are conflated (1-3, 3-6 etc.). The percentile chances do not precisely match when converted to d20. PW level 1-3 matches Arneson Manuscript (hereafter AM) LVL 3, but PW 4-6, then matches AM LVL 4, PW 7-9 matches AM level 7. This pattern would seem to be deliberate but it is hard to tell. If so, presumably the more granular percentile table in the AM came first and the PW levels were copied from it and collapsed. A more granular combat table presented by Gary Gygax, in Liaisons Dangereuses #73, August 16, 1976, is a much closer match except that he still combines LVL 1-2 (matches AM2) and levels 7-8 for unknown reasons (matches level 7 AM) making level 9 mismatched between the two.
TABLE 15: MONSTER ATTACK - "CHOPS" BY MONSTER
The Hit Dice range is almost the same up to 4 except that 1+1 in the PW is simply given as 2 in the AM. At 4 the AM is again more granular going up by whole numbers until a column marked 9+ whereas the PW combines dice as 3-4, 4-6 etc. The percentiles however do not match the PW d20. The PW charts give monsters a 10% chance better to hit up to 4 HD and thereafter, because the columns are less granular, the chance for monsters to hit actually becomes 5% worse at level 9. Thus the relationship between the numbers of the Monster Attacks table between the PW and the AM table is less clear than the “Player Attacks” table, but it may be best explained by the PW table being reworked with collapsed HD columns and new numbers to hit numbers to account for more granularity with monsters above 9 HD."
Interesting. Looks like there was a lot going on when they were using percentiles. Have to think about this some more!
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #137 on Sept 12, 2011, 10:51pm »
Just surfed this longish thread... nifty ideas... I was wondering about the 2d6 roll under 10 thing, and wondered, well, I may have missed it, but if I was running it in this way, I'd roll two different colored dice. One would be adding, one would be subtracting. This generates a range of -5 to +5, so I'd take the result obtained and add 5. Now, this generates the range of 0 to 10, not 1 to 10, but would generate the bell curve without need of re-rolls... have to try this in a roll under AC game I think.
I mentioned before that I have a pdf copy of a D&D manuscript prepared by Dave Arneson in 1973. The manuscript is in private hands, but for the purpose of this discussion I’ll present a photo of the combat tables, which you will note, are done in percentages:
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,554 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
Re: Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System « Reply #140 on Apr 9, 2012, 11:10am »
Because some collectors wish to preserve the rarity of the items in their collection with the belief this increases its collectible value and its dollar value.
Note: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the above, merely stating an answer I have heard folks with rare or unique items give when posed similar questions.
Because some collectors wish to preserve the rarity of the items in their collection with the belief this increases its collectible value and its dollar value.
Note: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the above, merely stating an answer I have heard folks with rare or unique items give when posed similar questions.
That's the usual way of it, but not in this particular case. The particular document of which I have a .pdf is not an original - it is a photocopy made years ago. It was until a decade or so ago, among a stack of RPG material boxed up and moldering in MAR Barkers garage. Barker, didn't know or remember what most of the stuff was and asked the present owner to help him clean out his gargarge one summer day, intending to throw it all away, but gave it to the present owner instead. Long story short, the owner contacted me to help resolve questions of provenience which I have done and will be publishing shortly. In the meanwhile discussions are ongoing about how best to make the mss itself available in a legal and acceptable manner.
...there was no thaco and d20’s in the original blackmoor system (1972-73) – that must have come later, but there are important clues here.
1. The roll must be less than – not equal to - the target number ...
The "roll under" dice mechanic makes some sense in the context that there were mathematicians involved in the origins. In probability theory, the main object of interest is the distribution function, F(x) = Pr(X <= x).
This function satisfies certain properties: (1) it's monotone non-decreasing, (2) continue à droite, limite à gauche (I know how much grognards love french ), (3) it goes to 0 as x goes to negative infinity, and (4) it goes to 1 as x goes to infinity. Any function with these 4 properties is the df of some probability distribution.
Once you know the df, you know everything about the distribution: If its a continuous function, you can compute the pdf as f(x) = F'(x) i.e. the 1st derivative of the df. If its a discrete distribution (as in the case of dice), you can compute the pmf as f(b) = F(b) - lim F(x) as x approaches b from the left. And so forth.
The main point is that F(x) is a "less than" thingy, which naturally gives rise to a "roll under" dice mechanic.
By contrast, actuaries developed their own theory of the same subject in parallel with mathematicians. Instead of choosing the df as their main object of study, they chose the "survival function," S(x) = P(X > x) = 1 - F(x) , the complement of df. Although they study the same thing, they say it differently and use different notation. They want to know when the random variable X is greater than some value x. Hypothetically, if Dave had "several actuaries" playing in his Blackmoor group, they'd be just as capable of working out the percentages, but I'd expect a "roll high" dice mechanic instead!
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Avatars/Avatar100x100.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/SSi3dCn1SZI/AAAAAAAACl4/XuB-bD4_W4Q/s400/carcosa.png "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k192/mayboggs/Tables/ArnesonPlaytestTables.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
