hope my feedback was of interest, if nothing more.
Thanks Derv, it's all interesting stuff to hear
The "theory" is that combat should be approximately the same duration using variable weapon damage either by damage die size, or by attack adjustments. That's the long term maths of it, anyway. But it sounds like you are reporting that combat was shorter using variable damage die size than it was using the alternate attack adjustments.
There are a number of reasons this might be so. One reason might be weapon selection; some weapons might (mathematically) be advantaged in one method compared to the other -- you could compare the HPPR figures I provided in the OP to determine whether this was a factor. Another reason might be that the observed differences were due entirely to randomness -- in a sample of just three combats this might be plausible.
It might also be possible that the variable damage die size method is more deadly than the variable attack adjustment method against 1 HD monsters (such as Orcs, for example) because the probability of a one hit kill is greater. I'd have to look more closely at the figures to confirm or deny that one.
Another possibility is that the above "theory" is actually invalid, and another is that there is an underlying mathematical error in the attack adjustments I suggested.
Without knowing much more, I would initially suspect that the difference in combat duration you observed might be due to a combination of the first two possibilities (differing weapon performance, and randomness).
In any case, I'm planning to give it a test run myself some time soon, so I'll add my observations to the heap, and possibly adjust the numbers accordingly. (All this effort is in preparation for a game which I'm planning by the way).
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #16 on Jul 11, 2012, 9:19pm »
I believe that weapon selection and randomness did play a factor. I still was surprised that there was only one occurrence where the attack modifiers were the difference between a successful hit. FYI- halfling: leather armor, sh. bow, sh. sword; cleric: chain & shield, flail; dwarf: chainmail, battle axe; fighter: plate & shield, sword.
I look forward to hearing your play reports. I'm sure the results will be more extensive then my short scenario. It will be interesting what a longer game reveals.
I believe that weapon selection and randomness did play a factor. I still was surprised that there was only one occurrence where the attack modifiers were the difference between a successful hit. FYI- halfling: leather armor, sh. bow, sh. sword; cleric: chain & shield, flail; dwarf: chainmail, battle axe; fighter: plate & shield, sword.
I was thinking about this some more...
Assuming that each of the mentioned weapons (short sword, flail, battle axe, sword) attacked equally often, and that enemy with/without shields occurred equally frequently, then the average attack adjustments for these weapons would have been +0, +1, +2, +2. This is +5 across 4 weapons, or an average of +5/4 on every attack roll.
Statistically speaking, that should have produced 6.25% more hits because +5 pips * 5% (each pip on a d20 is worth 5%) = 25%, divided by 4 = 6.25%.
You would therefore expect to observe only 1 extra hit if that 1 attack accounted for 6.25% of all attacks observed. Therefore, because 16 * 6.25% = 100%, we would expect to observe 1 extra hit from each 16 attacks.
Assuming all four players could attack each round, 16 attacks would occur in 4 melee rounds. But, if you actually played more than 16 attacks and only observed 1 additional hit, then your players were unlucky not to roll more hits.
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #18 on Jul 15, 2012, 11:50am »
I'm not too invested in variable weapons discussions but I've been having a reccuring thought that might be of interest: it seems to me that part of the attraction to variable weapon damage in a weapon vs. Armor scheme isn't just the idea that not all weapons are created equal, but also that all weapons are not created equal against all armors.
So a mace might be more effective against chain and plate, but less effective against leather, for example. Under that scheme you would need three or four different modifiers for each weapon (leather, chain, plate, and maybe unarmed).
Re: Variable Weapon Damage for OD&D « Reply #19 on Jul 15, 2012, 12:24pm »
Ugh! I knew I shouldn't have thrown those papers out. That's okay, I rummaged through the trash and retrieved them. I probably should have given you all this info to begin with. I just didn't want to be presumptuous in thinking my brief scenario would interest you. Anyway, maybe this will help? BTW- the average mods were +0,+1,+1,+2, if I read your table correctly.
Party of 1st level PC raiders w/max HP’s in A Bereft Village: a short adventure.
*the only member with additional mods is Halfling fighter with +1 due to Dexterity. Also when modified attack roll damage is same as variable, there was only one roll for damage. The variable damage was for comparison, but not applied.
Encounter 1 Combat rnd/ Modifiers/ d6 Damage/ Variable Damage 1. H 16+1=17 6 (dead orc) 6 (dead orc) C 8 miss ------ F 18+2=20 6 (dead orc) 4 D 10+1=11 miss ------ Orcs vs. C 11+2=12 miss ------ vs. F 15 miss ------ Vs. D 15 5 5 2. H 14+1=15 1 1 C 19 4 (dead orc) 6 (dead orc) Orc vs. C 11+1=12 miss ------ F 16+2=18 n/a 4 (dead orc) D 15+1=16 5 (dead orc) 5 (dead orc) Orc vs. F 4 n/a miss Orc vs. D 10 miss ------ Encounter 2 1. H 10+1=11 miss ------ C 13 miss ------ F 5+2=7 miss ------ D 5+1=6 miss ------ Ogre vs. H 5+1=6 miss ------ 2. H 11+1=12 miss ------ C 7 miss ------ F 6+2=8 miss ------ D 17+1=18 4 6 Ogre vs. H 12+2=14 4 6 3. Ogre vs. D 7+2=9 miss ------ H 8+1=9 miss ------ C 3 miss ------ F 15+2=17 1 7 D 17+1=18 4 8 (dead ogre) 4. *Ogre vs. C 10+2=12 5 miss H 4+1=5 miss ------ C 11 miss ------ F 18+2=20 3 5 n/a D 14+1=15 4 1 n/a 5. Ogre vs. C 12+2=14 8 (dead C) 5 n/a H 2+1=3 miss ------ C 5 n/a miss F 4+2=6 miss ------ D 3+1=4 miss ------ 6. H 12+1=13 miss ------ C 7 n/a miss *F 12+2=14 1 miss D 15+1=16 5 (dead ogre) 3 n/a Encounter 3 1. H 5+1=6 miss miss C 16 n/a 4 F 18+2=20 5 6 D 12+2=14 miss ------ Wyvern/H 12 5 (dead H) dead H 2. Wyvern/D 3 miss ------ C 8 n/a miss F 17+2=19 4 3 D 4+2=6 miss ------ 3. Wyvern/D 18 6 (dead D) dead D C 16 n/a 8 F 14+2=16 6 2 4. C 14 n/a miss F 17+2=19 4 7 (dead Wyvern) Wyvern/F 16 6 (missed save-dead F) ------
*There actually seems to be two occurrences where the modifiers changed the outcome. I thought there was only one.
Sorry, this teletype didn't quite turn out like I wanted for the chart. Let me know if you encounter any clerical mistakes that would have altered the outcome.
it seems to me that part of the attraction to variable weapon damage in a weapon vs. Armor scheme isn't just the idea that not all weapons are created equal, but also that all weapons are not created equal against all armors.
That's the original concept, yes. But we have seen from experience that a big table of modifiers versus each of 8 armour "types" (plate, chain, leather, none, all with and without shields) is too cumbersome. The net result is that most players ignore it.
My suggested method (above) essentially boils it all down to just two armor "types": with and without shield. For some weapons there is just a single modifier against all targets. Others have a modifier versus shield, and another versus without shield.
It is a lot simpler than the original method described in GH, but retains the two vital elements of the system: 1) some weapons are more effective than others, and 2) even among statistically "equivalent" weaponry, player weapon selection is a meaningful choice (i.e., versus opposition with/without shields -- or shield equivalents).
Additionally, OD&Ders have often asked the question "How can shields be given more oomph?" I believe that this method of with/without shield armour "types" gives shields a reasonable bump without changing their basic mechanic.
![[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://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")