Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,217 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Thread Started on Jul 29, 2012, 2:33am »
One of OD&D's design quirks is the manner in which hand-to-hand combat damage scales up. In short, it doesn't scale gracefully. This might explain why subsequent attempts to "patch" the damage mechanics were made in Greyhawk, AD&D, UA, and so on...
In any case, while OD&D's damage system is elegant in the early game, it winds up being awkward by the end game.
Let's Look at OD&D Damage
Damage is based firstly on hits, the probability of these being determined by the attack matrices (complicated enough in themselves!). Then there is the possibility of multiple attacks per round, and then that actual damage per hit can include variable damage dice and variable damage adjustments.
That's a lot to grasp for a new player! And it's hardly surprising that subtle complexities arise from the interaction of these three mechanisms.
What It Produces
Let's look at the results. I've calculated the average damage per round (DPR) for all OD&D monsters and also for fighters level 1 to 12. Hit probability was the average of all possible target ACs (2 to 9) according to the appropriate attacks matrices, and damage was 1-6 points per hit except where M&T specified otherwise.
(Even with only 1-6 possible points of damage per hit, DPR also depends on the probability of scoring a hit, which is where the attack matrices come into it).
By comparing average DPR to the average HP for each monster, we can deduce the average number of rounds required for any monster to slay an equivalent opponent (with equal HD and an average AC of 5.5, in fact).
These are the results:
TABLE 1
A fight between two Kobolds will last an average of 1 round. A fight between two hobgoblins will last an average of 3 rounds. Two gnolls will fight, on average, for 4 rounds, and so on. All the way up to the 15 HD purple worm which will take, on average, 17 rounds to slay an equivalent opponent.
So, as monsters increase in HD it takes them longer to slay their equvilent opponents. This effect would actually be exacerbated by the fact that higher HD monsters tend toward better ACs.
TABLE 2
A similar effect is observed for fighters. Two 1st level fighters would fight for an average of 3 rounds. Two 2nd level fighters would fight for an average of 5 rounds, while two 9th level fighters would fight for an average of 16 rounds to get a result. (Note that fighters require longer to get a result than do monsters of equivalent HD due to their poorer attack matrix).
It is apparent that hand-to-hand combat between evenly matched opponents gets safer with increasing experience or HD. This takes the edge off combat and results in longer and longer melees.
I've read that this was a design goal. If that is so, then it was achieved rather roughly. Against equivalent opposition, the 4th level fighter is not tangibly better than the 3rd level fighter, while a 6th level fighter will outstay a 7th level fighter. Similarly, a 9th level fighter outlasts a 10th, 11th or 12th level fighter on even terms.
Moreover, it was done inconsistently. It "works" as designed for monsters that deal only 1-6 points of damage, but some monsters are specifically stated to cause more damage. These are charted below:
TABLE 3
We see here that regardless of increasing hit dice, these monsters require a steady 4 to 7 combat rounds to defeat an evenly matched foe (air elementals are the exception -- and these were excluded from the chart).
Despite this going against the supposed design goal, it seems a much better model to me. Why should two evenly matched Lords take six times as long to resolve a contest as do two evenly matched Veterans? Why should two evenly matched trolls take four times as long to resolve a contest as two evenly matched goblins?
Moreover, what referee wants to bog his game down with a contest of arms that runs into 20+ rounds of combat? In my mind combat should be fast and furious, at every level. Evenly matched contests should be evenly matched and take approximately the same time, across the board.
If you're thinking "What is this guy on about? That's how it's meant to be!" then you need read no further.
If, on the other hand, you're thinking "Yeah, that's always bothered me too..." then read on!
Why Isn't It Working?
While the attack matrices allow for increased hit frequency with increasing HD or experience level, it is evident that growth in DPR does not keep up with growth in HP.
Increasing hit frequency is then combined with variable damage dice, and also with multiple attacks per round to exaggerate its effect of DPR. That's good, but...
1) Increased hit frequency is, to some extent, countered by that fact that higher HD monsters typically have better ACs. This results in an "arms race" whereby a better attack chart is countered by better AC, which is countered by an even better attack chart, which is countered by even better AC, and so on. This is why a fighter ends up requiring a roll of 5 or more on a d20 to hit AC 2, and why enemy therefore require negative ACs to challenge that fighter (of course none are given until GH).
Furthermore, the attack matrices do not scale gracefully beyond requiring a roll of 1 to hit. This imposes a "benefit ceiling" which falls around level 15 for fighters, and around 11 HD for monsters. While level 15 is high enough for most PCs, 11 HD monsters are not uncommon even in mid-level game (player levels 5 to 8, say).
2) Multiple attacks per round versus "normals" are allowed by the 3LBBs and this has a dramatic effect on DPR (not shown in the charts, above) combing more attacks with higher likelihood of a hit. However (excepting a few special cases) multiple attacks are not generally used. The power to "fix" the broken damage scale is largely set aside.
Having observed this, GH introduced multiple attacks for many more monsters, and AD&D made the fighter's multiple attacks per round applicable against all enemy with UA. However, the system of multiple attacks for monsters (and by implication, PCs fighting with two weapons) emphasises the need to identify specific attacks. No longer does a single attack roll represent general performance over a full round of melee, instead it represents a claw attack, or a bite attack, or a sting attack, each of which are uniquely identifiable in the melee. The result is that combat becomes less abstract, and also more challenging to manage. Instead of simply knowing that successful hits cause 1-6 points of damage, the referee now needs to know how much damage this particular attack does. Is this attack poisonous? Can this bite attack swallow whole? And so on.
3) Variable number of damage dice per attack, with possible adjustments, are applied to a distinguished subset of monsters in OD&D. In my mind these are the OD&D monsters for which damage "works best". EGG appears to have thought along similar lines, for in GH he extended the system, introducing variable damage dice for all monsters, and also for all man-type weaponry too. This mechanism was wildly popular, and has been a mainstay of D&D for generations since. However, connoisseurs of the beautiful simplicity of the 1d6 damage roll may lament the shift to the myriad combinations of other die rolls required by later iterations of the rules.
What Can We Do About It?
Ahhh, so now we get to the crux of it
As a rules tinkering junkie, the identification of any perceived flaw or weakness in the rules is an irresistible invitation to "fix it" with a house rule. This particular case is no different, so read on, if you dare, for my (completely theoretical, untested) fix...
My goals for this "fix" are:
1. Damage per round scales proportionately with number of HD so that evenly matched opponents are equally threatening to one another throughout the entire scope of the game.
2. Retain the beautiful simplicity of one hit, one six-sided damage die.
3. Retain the abstract nature of combat.
Here's how I propose it can be achieved:
* Replace both attack matrices with the first column only of Attack Matrix I (which is identical to the first column of Attack Matrix II). These "to hit AC X" figures then never change.
* Every hit will cause 1-6 hit points of damage. Yay!
* Damage per round progression is achieved, for monsters and PCs alike, by increasing number of attacks per round, as follows:
TABLE 4
That is it!
The Hit Dice and Number of Attacks columns are all you need to look at. The remainder are informational only.
The first figure in the Number of Attacks column is the number of 20-sided dice to roll for attacks. If there is a second figure (such as +1, +2, etc.) it is the attack adjustment to add to all of these attacks.
I.e., 3+1 attacks per round indicates that three attacks are rolled with a +1 adjustment "to hit" on all three rolls.
This method is arguably simpler that the existing system, and it scales upward gracefully to 30 HD sea monsters and beyond.
You can see from the table 4 (above) that DPR rises as number of HD advances (and thus as fighter level advances), as grows only marginally behind the growth in average hit points. Therefore, the average duration of a combat between any two evenly matched opponents increases only very slowly (as given in the average HP/DPR column).
It may appear, at first glance, that the referee will need to roll absurd numbers of d20s for the mega HD monsters. In practice, however, he is routinely required to roll dozens of d20s when dozens of orcs are encountered, so this isn't really any different.
And the outcome of all this is...?
TABLE 5
We see immediately that all equivalent challenges will take an average of 3 to 5 rounds to resolve, with the least HD contests being resolved only somewhat quicker that the most HD contests. A fight between 1 HD protagonists (including 1st level fighters) will take, on average, 3 rounds to resolve. A fighter between 9 HD protagonists (including 9th level fighters) will take, on average, 5 rounds to resolve.
Other Curiosities (Off the top of my head)...
* When multiple attack rolls succeed, they can represent one "big hit" rather than repeated smaller hits if the referee deems it appropriate. E.g., if a Cloud Giant (12 HD) were to scores 3 hits the referee could rule it a single crushing blow worth 3-18 hit points.
* When faced by multiple opponents, a PC or monster can distribute attack rolls among them. Thus, a 16 HD elemental could attack 8 ordinary men in a single round as it crashed and thrashed its through them, or it could focus all of its fury on a single opponent (e.g., the wizard who conjured it), or any combination in between.
* If a monster has multiple attack modes, such as claw and a sting, the primary attack mode strikes on an even-numbered roll, and the secondary attack mode strikes on an odd-numbered attack roll (relevant if one attack type were poisoned and the other not, for example).
* Where monsters have the ability to swallow whole (e.g., purple worms) it is simply a matter of determining how many "hits" a required to make a swallow. E.g., a purple worm has 15 HD, and thus 8 attacks. If any 3 or more rolls are successful against a single man-sized opponent he is swallow whole. Perhaps only 2 or more successful hits are required to swallow a dwarf or halfling whole!
* Multi-headed Hydras have one attack per head which is typically twice as many as indicated by this proposal, but the heads can be slain individually which degrades the threat of the overall beastie.
* When a man-type wields two weapons simultaneously, the same scheme applies as for monsters with multiple attack modes. Even numbered rolls are right-handed hits, odd-numbered rolls are left-handed hits, and a natural 20 could results in two hits (thus 2d6 damage from the one roll).
* Where "pluses" are given to attack rolls, such as those due to enchanted weaponry, attack with surprise, and so on, these are applied once throughout the round. The player chooses which dice to apply these adjustments to *after* they have been rolled.
* Where additional damage or other harmful "effects" are caused (such as poison, fire, paralysis, and so on) these apply only once per round to any opponent struck. Where a player has divided his hits he may choose where to apply the additional damage.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
It is apparent that hand-to-hand combat between evenly matched opponents gets safer with increasing experience or HD. This takes the edge off combat and results in longer and longer melees.
I've read that this was a design goal. If that is so, then it was achieved rather roughly. Against equivalent opposition, the 4th level fighter is not tangibly better than the 3rd level fighter, while a 6th level fighter will outstay a 7th level fighter. Similarly, a 9th level fighter outlasts a 10th, 11th or 12th level fighter on even terms.
Moreover, it was done inconsistently.
...... Why should two evenly matched Lords take six times as long to resolve a contest as do two evenly matched Veterans? Why should two evenly matched trolls take four times as long to resolve a contest as two evenly matched goblins?
Once upon a time I was a pretty good fencer (foil, mostly). In my experience it was always true that matches between unequal opponents finished quickly. I could score three points on a newby in less time than it takes me to type this paragraph, and likewise I've had my er, hat, handed to me in embarrasingly short matches with people who were much better than me.
However, matches between fencers who are equally skilled or nearly so almost always go on and on until someone gets tired and makes a mistake. Parry riposte, parry riposte, etc. until someone misses a critical parry and touche.
The same may be observed of boxing matches; a skilled boxer can often plow through opponents with K.O.'s until they are paired against better opponenets and forced to go the full 15, and its left up to judges to decide who won.
So, I'm not onboard with your premise that equal opponents shouldn't have long combats. They should, they do, and The Quiet Man wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if it were otherwise.
I wonder though, if there might be a fix for the "roughness" you are seeing in the progression?
Joined: Aug 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 297 Karma: 18
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #5 on Jul 29, 2012, 2:17pm »
I have not read the above very closely but have you not just altered the time scale without affecting the tedium involved in rolling fistfuls of dice to resolve a high level duel. You could have left things as they are and simply reduced the duration of the fight, "Right then that fight took four minutes."
I agree that high level combat is tedious but in my games combat becomes increasing rare at high levels.
In my experience it was always true that matches between unequal opponents finished quickly. ...
However, matches between fencers who are equally skilled or nearly so almost always go on and on until someone gets tired and makes a mistake.
Yes. This is exactly what the above achieves, at all levels of play. Two 1st level fighters are equally "equally skilled" as are two 9th level fighters.
All I am saying is that an average of 5 rounds (minutes!) of combat is a long duel. In real life I suspect it probably is (from the little I understand of boxing and fencing, both consist of 3 minutes rounds with a 1 minute rest in between). In terms of running a game at the table, 5 rounds of combat is long enough for most players.
Bear in mind also that some combats will be longer and others shorter. Good AC will tend toward longer combats while poor AC will tend toward shorter combat.
When opponents are unevenly matched, contests will be shorter, as you say.
I have not read the above very closely but have you not just altered the time scale without affecting the tedium involved in rolling fistfuls of dice to resolve a high level duel.
Rolling fewer dice was not a stated objective. In my experience, players love rolling more attacks and damage dice, so why take this away from them? It may be a concern if the referee has to roll a lot more dice, but I have yet to try it and see whether or not it is really a problem.
The proposed mechanism does not "just alter the time scale". It specifically reduces the timescale at higher levels only by allowing damage to scale gracefully thru all levels of play.
You could have left things as they are and simply reduced the duration of the fight, "Right then that fight took four minutes."
I don't understand what "hand waving" the amount of elapsed game time really achieves Kent. The principle issue is the amount of real time required to determine the outcome of a high level combat. When it takes too long, the players get bored and distracted.
As I said in my original post, if you are happy with the way it works by the book, then you can happily ignore all of the above.
Joined: Aug 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 297 Karma: 18
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #7 on Jul 29, 2012, 6:40pm »
waysoftheearth said,
"Rolling fewer dice was not a stated objective. In my experience, players love rolling more attacks and damage dice, so why take this away from them?"
... and ...
"The principle issue is the amount of real time required to determine the outcome of a high level combat. When it takes too long, the players get bored and distracted."
You are contradicting yourself. If you are not effectively reducing the number of attacks, the amount of dice rolling and the petty arithmetic involved in hit point adjustments then you are not reducing the 'real time' combat takes for high level chars.
You could have left things as they are and simply reduced the duration of the fight, "Right then that fight took four minutes."
I am not saying this is a good thing, I am saying it is all you are doing in effect.
waysoftheearth said
"The proposed mechanism does not "just alter the time scale". It specifically reduces the timescale at higher levels only by allowing damage to scale gracefully thru all levels of play."
You were aiming for a more or less constant length in rounds for even duels at all HD. You can arbitrarily say that all conflicts take however many rounds you like, looking at your graph say 5, 6 or 7 rounds.
If you want a mechanic that reduces the amount of game time and real time taken you would need to scale damage per attack 'gracefully' relative to HD.
You are contradicting yourself. If you are not effectively reducing the number of attacks, the amount of dice rolling and the petty arithmetic involved in hit point adjustments then you are not reducing the 'real time' combat takes for high level chars.
Kent, without saying so directly, you appear to be asserting that: 20 combat rounds with one attack roll per round takes exactly as long to run in real time as do five combat rounds with four attacks per round.
I think otherwise. It is quicker, it real time, to administer fewer rounds. There are fewer declaration of intent to get from players (the most significant time is taken here), there are fewer initiative rolls to make. There are fewer reaction rolls, knock-on and downstream effects to administer. There are fewer judgement calls for the referee to make. In summary, it is more efficient to resolve attacks in batches than individually.
If you want a mechanic that reduces the amount of game time and real time taken you would need to scale damage per attack 'gracefully' relative to HD.
As explained above, I believe the proposed mechanism does reduce the amount of real time and game time taken to resolve high level combat.
However, I'm eager to see the mathematical details of your alternative proposal all the same, Kent. Having more options is always a good thing for the eager referee.
Kent, without saying so directly, you appear to be asserting that: 20 combat rounds with one attack roll per round takes exactly as long to run in real time as do five combat rounds with four attacks per round.
In a duel between equal HD opponents, yes, in my experience combatants choose an optimal approach in round one and bash away until flight or death.
I think otherwise. It is quicker, it real time, to administer fewer rounds. There are fewer declaration of intent to get from players (the most significant time is taken here), there are fewer initiative rolls to make. There are fewer reaction rolls, knock-on and downstream effects to administer. There are fewer judgement calls for the referee to make. In summary, it is more efficient to resolve attacks in batches than individually.
For combat between groups of mixed HD and abilities this is true. But you set up as a problem to address duels between equally matched HD opponents. While I agree that those type of combats become a slog I don't agree that D&D combat shows any such weakness when combat is diversified among groups with mixed HD and varying abilities.
However, I'm eager to see the mathematical details of your alternative proposal all the same, Kent. Having more options is always a good thing for the eager referee.
You and I are not talking mathematics here. This is just arithmetic. Have you considered for each round, 1 attack at nd6 rather than n attacks at 1d6?
Have you considered for each round, 1 attack at nd6 rather than n attacks at 1d6?
This is pretty much exactly the method described in EPT (although I can't recall whether it is applied to monsters as well as fighters).
Both methods could certainly work.
The "downside" with using exactly one attack roll is that you are much more likely to score an entire miss, and therefore have zero effect for the whole of the round.
Multiple attack rolls, on the other hand, seem more likely to result in a graduated performance, allowing for some hits and some misses in any given round.
If you are looking for the fewest die rolls, then the a single attack roll approach could do it, sure.
The "downside" with using exactly one attack roll is that you are much more likely to score an entire miss, and therefore have zero effect for the whole of the round.
The average affect in the long run is the same and again since the point of the thread is that high HD opponents require many attacks to resolve the combat Im not sure that your point is entirely relevant. It would be relevant for low HD combatants but then they will not be much affected by either method.
Anyway, I can see that you have some kind of technical background and as such should welcome critical comments (without sarcasm) and I also think you know what you are doing so good luck with your adjustments if decide to use them.
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,217 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #12 on Jul 29, 2012, 9:05pm »
I'll calculate the necessary number of six-siders to roll in order to maintain the same (or very similar) average DPR with a single attack roll and see how it looks...
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,217 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #13 on Jul 29, 2012, 9:14pm »
I'm not sure whether you mean to implying that my response seemed sarcastic, or not. It was not intended to be, if that was what you did mean to imply.
![[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]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/18c34eec9b4c96c72f17cdb2fdadba0cfda48c728beaa1a4da9604f3945a00fb4g.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/7a74741434f87635e541f19299d99185b5c912cc1d289053558d8e0b6451474b4g.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/30726a15592c2ad9757840f269735e07963b00316e719ddaa08808049d2f27f04g.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/26a32434535662d7dc36c40336817f86c76acdcaf26a45009da0d285694f75954g.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/8b4fd449778356b88dbb3e8af885af26f82b57548e5a657dc8630207aaa28e9b4g.jpg "[image]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac15/TravisDF/montaigne99.png "[avatar]")