My current HD and Variable Weapon Damage rules

[Zulgyan]

Hit Dice
Fighting-men - 1d8
Clerics & Thieves - 1d6
Monsters - 1d6
Magic-Users - 1d4

Explanation:
Even though I have defended the original system in the past, Greyhawk-style variable HD dice is great for "on the fly" hit point determination without consulting tables. It also goes well with the "whole game fits in my brain" philosophy I am striving for in OD&D nowadays.

But I depart from Greyhawk in two ways. First, I boost Thief HD from 1d4 to 1d6, in order to make them better combatants and closer to "Gray Mouser" types, which I prefer. Second, Monster HD is kept to 1d6 as in plain LBB because of a method you may find useful. I also like 1d8 HD being exclusive to fighters, thus making them the kings of melee, which is cool to me.

So in this way, Clerics & Thieves and Monsters (which include non-classed men, as per LBB), display average combat resilience, wizards poor combat resilience, and Fighters the most superior one.

A third benefit of these choices, is that power-levels are kept closer to LBB standarts.

Weapon Damage:
Small = d4 = dagger, slingstone, etc.
Medium = d6 = sword, bow, mace, axe, flail, spear etc.
Large = two-handed sword, halberd, other polearm, etc.

Explanation:
Simple, easy to remeber ("the whole game is in my head" principle). More variety that vanilla "everything deals 1d6". Having the most typical weapons deal 1d6 keeps the game closer to the LBB power scale. I don't use different dice for large opponents. I don't like that rule anyway, because players cheer "hooray! more damage from my sword" when they face giants, and it should not be that way.

I like multiple attacks and variable damage for monsters. In most cases, monsters with multiple attacks are kinda of "boss" monsters, which is cool. But in cases where multiple attacks of a monster deal only 1-2s or 1-3s, I roll them into less attacks of 1-6s, for better speed of play.

I really think Hit Dice and damage rules go hand in hand and must be treated together.

Opinions? How do you do it?

[Zulgyan]

Thinking again, I might keep Thief HD in 1d4, because of their rapid level progression.

[tkdco2]

You can always use cleric XP for thieves if you bump up their HD to d6. That may do the trick.

[waysoftheearth]

It seems to me that the suggested method hurts the fighting-man compared to the other classes... at first glance it looks like he's getting a good deal, but in fact he gets the short straw

Consider that by the book a F-M with 250k XP is 9th level with 9+3 dice, while a cleric with 250k XP is (presumably) 10th level with 7+2 dice. That's about 35 to 27 hp, so the F-M has about 130% as many hp as the cleric. If a constitution bonus exists it's +1 per die, so the F-M adds 9 hp while the cleric adds only 7 hp. So the F-M still has about 130% as many hp as the cleric, which is (I think) about what we'd expect.

By the suggested method the 9th level FM now has 9d8 dice, while the 10th level cleric now has 10d6 dice. That's about 41 to 35 hp, or 117% as many hp. So the cleric has gained on the F-M in terms of hp. If a constitution bonus exists per die (or per level; it's the same thing now), the fighter adds 9 hp while the cleric adds 10 hp! The cleric benefits more from a high con that does the F-M (and thieves will do even better)! Even if the cleric is capped at 9 HD the cleric still gains ground on the fighter--besides which a 9 HD cap would hurt high level fighters the most (e.g., your 14th level fighter would now be 9 HD instead of 12 HD)

It's also worth noting that spells such as sleep, charm monster, cloudkill, death spell, and other effects including air-elemental and djinn whirlwinds, rings and potions of human control, etc., also affect figures according to their number of HD. By the book the F-M has the advantage of more HD against all these things, but this advantage is turned into a disadvantage when the other classes gain more dice sooner due to their lower XP requirements.


Just some cud to chew...

[Zenopus]

FWIW, the variable die system in Greyhawk specifically limits Fighters to 9HD and Clerics to 8HD (pg 10) - probably for this reason. A Cleric gets 1/2 HP per level thereafter, so a 10th level cleric would get a bonus 1 hp. So it's 9d8 vs 8d6+1, or an average of 41 vs 29 hp, or an average of 141% more for the Fighter.

[Red Baron]

Thieves are already excellent combatants. Consider that they acquire 3HD before a paladin or ranger acquire 2. They even have a higher hp total than a fighting-man several times with a d4 hd. A d6 IMO makes them overpowered.

[tkdco2]

Another thing you can do, which other people have done, is switch the xp tables for fighting men and clerics. That may help the former, although you'd be penalizing the cleric a bit. Maybe allow the cleric a special weapon associated with their deity (ex. a spear for Odin, a bow for Apollo).

If thieves are overpowered with d6, let them advance the same rate as fighters and limit their weapon choices to one-handed weapons.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 25, 2015 10:05:54 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

FWIW, the variable die system in Greyhawk specifically limits Fighters to 9HD and Clerics to 8HD (pg 10) - probably for this reason. A Cleric gets 1/2 HP per level thereafter, so a 10th level cleric would get a bonus 1 hp. So it's 9d8 vs 8d6+1, or an average of 41 vs 29 hp, or an average of 141% more for the Fighter.

Putting class-specific caps on numbers of HD can manage the difference in hp around name level, sure, but still worthwhile noting that by the 3LBBs fighters have a "soft cap" of 9 HD (after which they gain HD a lot more slowly), while the other classes have a "soft cap" of 7 HD. GH's hard caps appear to shift this balance.

IMHO GH's hard caps on the number of HD ultimately impact the F-M the most because--by the 3LBBs--the F-M would expect to continue to gain more HD (beyond the soft cap) than the other classes, but under GH he loses this advantage.

At levels prior to the HD cap (where most play will actually happen) Greyhawk-style HD still turns the F-M's advantage around: by the 3LBB the F-M has the advantage of more HD, but by GH the F-M has the disadvantage of fewer HD because of his slower advancement.

A possible "fix" to these concerns (if they are indeed concerns at all!) might be to have all classes require the same amount of XP per level, but that would be a whole different thing

Feb 25, 2015 10:18:15 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Thieves are already excellent combatants. Consider that they acquire 3HD before a paladin or ranger acquire 2. They even have a higher hp total than a fighting-man several times with a d4 hd. A d6 IMO makes them overpowered.

I think I remember figuring out that when the thief uses the cleric's attack matrix he has better hit probability than the F-M because he gains levels so much sooner. If, on the otherhand, the thief were to use the M-U's attack matrix then he would be positioned much nearer to the cleric in terms of hit probability. (I'll try to find my old chart that shows this...)

I think the main counter-balance to these is the thief's terrible AC

[Red Baron]

Feb 25, 2015 15:55:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Which also allows him to run away from almost any monster in the game.

[Scott Anderson]

There is nothing wrong with an AC 7 thief hitting better than an AC 2 fighting man.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 25, 2015 16:36:57 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

There is nothing wrong with an AC 7 thief hitting better than an AC 2 fighting man.

What about the AC 7 thief who hits better than the AC 7 fighting man?

[machfront]

Hm. I've long used cleric hit die (d6 in B/X and the cleric's progression or something near in S&W:WhiteBox) for thief hit points. This only strengthens my position on the matter.
Also I just looked at a handful of average hit points at such-and-such an XP total and it really isn't a big deal with the thief (using d6 instead of d4) is usually a bit behind or virtually the same as a fighter. *shrug* Good. But, besides that, the fighter has a higher possible 'ceiling' anyhow...and weapons, and armor, and three out of five saves better...

But I suppose we're diverging far from Zulgyan's OP.
I've been recently struggling to smooth out using Holmes in the near future and can't decide to pare it back or move ahead a bit into Greyhawk or B/X territory. Like Zulgyan I prefer the lower, flatter power curve of the 3LBBs and part of me likewise wants to use d6 for monster HD and I dig the idea of simply taking some attack routines some of the time and distilling them into a simple, single d6 damage attack.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 25, 2015 15:55:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I think I remember figuring out that when the thief uses the cleric's attack matrix he has better hit probability than the F-M because he gains levels so much sooner. If, on the otherhand, the thief were to use the M-U's attack matrix then he would be positioned much nearer to the cleric in terms of hit probability. (I'll try to find my old chart that shows this...)

Turns out I didn't remember it clearly.

My figures were based on the EGG's article "THE THIEF!" from TGPGPN #9, and actually show that EGG's "original" thief is just marginally behind the fighter in terms of attack matrix until gaining equality at top levels, but is way ahead of the cleric.

The GH thief's XP requirement was increased so that he falls behind the fighter, rather than catching up, at top levels (a sensible adjustment IMHO!). The GH thief is still ahead of the cleric, however (which may or may not bother anyone).

[Scott Anderson]

Feb 25, 2015 17:53:38 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 25, 2015 16:36:57 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

There is nothing wrong with an AC 7 thief hitting better than an AC 2 fighting man.

What about the AC 7 thief who hits better than the AC 7 fighting man?

Well I guess that Fighting Man should have been a Thief! 

[scottenkainen]

What I'm doing right now, on this board, is

HD, levels 1-2:
d6 = cleric
d8 = fighter
d4 = magic-user, thief
all weapons do 1d6 dmg

and then

HD, levels 3+:
d8 = cleric
d10 = fighter
d4 = magic-user
d6 = thief
most weapons do 1d6 dmg, but heavy weapons and bows do 1d8 dmg

[machfront]

What I'd really like to do is:

Fighter - d10
Thief - d6
Cleric - d2
Magic-user - d1

...but I won't.

[Finarvyn]

I remember seeing somewhere (maybe on Perilous Dreamer's OD&D campaigns board) the idea of using the HD progression from Men & Magic, only putting it together with HD based on race.

So if the MU HD progression goes 1, 1+1, 2, 2+1, for example, a Halfling MU might be all d4's (1d4, 1d4+1, 2d4, 2d4+1...) while a human might be d8's (1d8, 1d8+1, 2d8, 2d8+1...).

Not quite what has been suggested so far, but kind of a neat twist on an old theme.

[Deleted]

I've been tinkering around with variable damage for a Holmes campaign I am preparing.  I don't like modifiers, so using various dice is better for me than a +1, +2, -1, etc. In another thread about using d6 for combat, there were some arguing that weapon effectiveness is largely an extension of fighting capability and I would also add strength.  So I came up with the following:

 Damage die based on strength:

18 = 1d12
16-17 = 1d10
13-15 = 1d8
9-12 = 1d6
8 or less = 1d4

I also considered that a strong fighter using a dagger isn't going to produce a greater amount of damage than the same fighter with a sword.  2H-weapons I would imagine would generally do more damage in stronger hands than in weaker, but a dagger isn't going to produce a commiserate amount of damage. So following that, each weapon has a max amount of damage it can inflict:

Dagger 1d6 max.
Spear 1d6 max & go first
mace, Warhammer, hand axe 1d6 max
sword, battle axe, morning-star 1d8 max
flail, maul 1d10 max - 2H, go last
2H-sword, halberd 1d12 max & go last is

I like the above scheme because a strength 8 character can still wield a 2H-sword, but only do 1d4 damage with it because he can not wield it effectively whereas an 18 strength fighter would roll 1d12.  [But that same 18 strength fighter would max out at a1d6 damage with a dagger because a dagger simply doesn't produce damage beyond that range.] Edited for clarity. 

This has probably been done, and while a bit convoluted, I like it. Also, its neat because looking at monster damage in Holmes, a case could perhaps be made for correlation between the above strength based damage die and monster damage. 

Feedback would be appreciated as I haven't actually used it yet.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2016 16:33:42 GMT -6 christopher said:

This has probably been done, and while a bit convoluted, I like it. Also, its neat because looking at monster damage in Holmes, a case could perhaps be made for correlation between the above strength based damage die and monster damage. 

I do something similar although my Str bonus chart is much simpler. But, in effect, strength increases the size of the damage dice by one or two steps. I do the same for hit dice, a high Con increases the size of a character's hit dice as well. Save average as a +1 just more variable.

For magical weapons, instead of a single number for both +to hit and +damage, I give each magic weapon a to hit bonus (that could be +0) and a damage value. So you might find a +2 sword that does d8 damage, or a +1 sword that does d10 damage, or even a +0 sword that does d12 damage. In effect, it provides a greater variety of possible magical weapon types without a clear delineation where a +2 sword is always better than a +1 sword.

These two rules combined means that a player's damage rolls are always straight die values.

One other point. If you want to simplify the game, I'd suggest just using one XP table for all the classes. This also makes balancing the classes a bit easier.