|
|
Post by peterlind on Jun 3, 2016 17:57:49 GMT -6
I have been reading with interest a new OSR release based on the Holmes book which has the Strength-based “to hit” bonus going up to +5 -- a variant to say the least. Some might say that this is excessive, however, I suggest that it can make character’s stand out more in terms of their attributes and combat skills rather than their magic items. . . Also, when I recently was going through Keep on the Borderlands, I noticed that an Orc leader had a +2 to damage ability based on its “strength and skill.”
So this leads me to an idea that Attribute bonuses could also be used to scale with level, assuming that characters have also completed any training that might be required. Think of an Attribute score as setting a base and maximum Attribute bonus. The base Attribute bonus is what the character gets at 1st level. This value, incidentally could be “0”, since Men & Magic has this as starting point for most of the Attributes. From that point, the character can improve the Attribute bonus based on gaining experience levels, perhaps at the rate of +1 per 4 levels attained, and/or completing special training, until the maximum is reached. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 3, 2016 20:22:59 GMT -6
Well, they sorta already get an increasing bonus to hit as they go up levels already, right?  As for damage bonuses, even in B/X it led almost immediately to stay-creep (at least when we played it...), which I'm not fond of. As for the orc leader, I never expect monsters to follow the same rules as characters, which is why it bugs the Hecuba out of me in more recent editions that they do... |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jun 4, 2016 7:55:51 GMT -6
If you start with Holmes and switch later to AD&D, you get the increase in ability score bonuses at 4th level. That seems pretty close to what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 4, 2016 7:57:18 GMT -6
Kesher wrote:
Agreed, by design they don't follow the same rules. This kind of notation is present in OD&D and AD&D, it's nothing more than a shorthand, a vestige of the wargame. Higher skill among monsters was not acquired rather it was implied as the game dictated or required. Now an rpg, the platform for players changed. "Strength and skill" are magnified or made granular to support the heroic and especially player-centered aspect of the new game. A figure, once defined by fixed abilities, is understood through the graduated or serial framework of experience points; abilities are acquired rather than implied. It's a new convention reserved for players, while the monsters remain, in this respect, within the static boundaries of the wargame.
The elegance of the early editions is revealed by how much is assumed in the distribution of probability. In the wargame this is observed by the MTM table,in the rpg level is the primary "attribute" rather than weapon type,nonetheless, subsumed as part of the distribution. The more mechanics applied, the more evident it becomes the framework in place is a poor design, much like having to patch a leaky roof, or alternatively, that the original design is not entirely comprehended.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jun 4, 2016 16:02:16 GMT -6
Well, they sorta already get an increasing bonus to hit as they go up levels already, right? As for damage bonuses, even in B/X it led almost immediately to stay-creep (at least when we played it...), which I'm not fond of. As for the orc leader, I never expect monsters to follow the same rules as characters, which is why it bugs the Hecuba out of me in more recent editions that they do... You are correct that the ACS tables measure a character's fighting capability. The fighting capability progression is assumed. However, a Strength bonus may also apply, depending on which version of 0E/1E D&D that you are using. M&M/Holmes have no Strength bonus; Greyhawk introduced a Strength bonus; AD&D has a Strength bonus; B/X has a Strength bonus. As you know, the actual Strength bonus varies depending on which version of D&D you are using. So what I was suggesting is another approach. Rather than seeking the "best" form of this rule among the disparate versions available, essentially use them all. Of course, what I am suggesting here is simply a method of house ruling. As always, to each their own. This idea of course, is intended to apply to any of the Attributes, not just Strength. So the underlying idea is that an Attribute is a measure of a character's natural talent and capability. However, how good a character may be at using his Strength, Dexterity, etc. may also depend to a certain degree on training. In Greyhawk, only Fighter's get a parry or dodge bonus based on Dexterity. So the idea here is that your character needs some form of special training (i.e. be of the Fighter class) to qualify for the parry/dodge bonus. I am thus suggesting here that with an increased amount of training (and thus experience), a character can become better at leveraging his Strength to make more accurate/penetrating blows, to strike with more force, and so forth. With this in mind, I like the idea of characters starting with a low level of capability (i.e. humble beginning) so that they have something (more) to strive for. IMO, the lack of Attribute bonuses in Men & Magic will make character's more reliant on their decision-making in play (i.e. encourage smart play). So I don't mind having characters starting with a ceiling of +1 on Attribute bonuses. However, as characters become more immersed in the campaign setting, they may learn that they can engage in special physical or mental training to not necessarily improve their Attribute scores, but to improve how well they are able to make use of what they have. In this regard, any improvement in this regard is equivalent to actually meriting a special ability in play, against which there is no official rule. There really is no right way or wrong way when it comes to implementation of the rules in the context of an ongoing campaign. So, here, perhaps and for example, is a mix of the best of Men & Magic and B/X in essence. A character starts with Attribute bonuses based on what is in Men & Magic. However, as the game plays out over time, the Attribute bonuses themselves can increase without the Attribute scores themselves actually increasing. A character with 18 Dexterity in this suggested system starts only with the capability of having a -3 or -4 AC bonus, but merely starts out with a bonus of -0 or -1, depending on how you as a GM would like to rule it. Then, as the game progresses, based on what the PC does in the campaign, the AC bonus would be gradually increased, 1 by 1 over time, until the maximum is reached. Another possible approach is to give a character the full DEX bonus to AC after a certain level is reached, and if some other condition is met in the campaign. . . |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 5, 2016 6:21:37 GMT -6
...... This idea of course, is intended to apply to any of the Attributes, not just Strength. So the underlying idea is that an Attribute is a measure of a character's natural talent and capability. However, how good a character may be at using his Strength, Dexterity, etc. may also depend to a certain degree on training. In Greyhawk, only Fighter's get a parry or dodge bonus based on Dexterity. So the idea here is that your character needs some form of special training (i.e. be of the Fighter class) to qualify for the parry/dodge bonus. I am thus suggesting here that with an increased amount of training (and thus experience), a character can become better at leveraging his Strength to make more accurate/penetrating blows, to strike with more force, and so forth. With this in mind, I like the idea of characters starting with a low level of capability (i.e. humble beginning) so that they have something (more) to strive for. IMO, the lack of Attribute bonuses in Men & Magic will make character's more reliant on their decision-making in play (i.e. encourage smart play). I totally agree with the above quote, but... .....So I don't mind having characters starting with a ceiling of +1 on Attribute bonuses. However, as characters become more immersed in the campaign setting, they may learn that they can engage in special physical or mental training to not necessarily improve their Attribute scores, but to improve how well they are able to make use of what they have. In this regard, any improvement in this regard is equivalent to actually meriting a special ability in play, against which there is no official rule. There really is no right way or wrong way when it comes to implementation of the rules in the context of an ongoing campaign. So, here, perhaps and for example, is a mix of the best of Men & Magic and B/X in essence. A character starts with Attribute bonuses based on what is in Men & Magic. However, as the game plays out over time, the Attribute bonuses themselves can increase without the Attribute scores themselves actually increasing. A character with 18 Dexterity in this suggested system starts only with the capability of having a -3 or -4 AC bonus, but merely starts out with a bonus of -0 or -1, depending on how you as a GM would like to rule it. Then, as the game progresses, based on what the PC does in the campaign, the AC bonus would be gradually increased, 1 by 1 over time, until the maximum is reached. Another possible approach is to give a character the full DEX bonus to AC after a certain level is reached, and if some other condition is met in the campaign. . . The rest is just crazy talk  That's redesigning the attribute scores to be something very different from their intended function in OD&D. Attribute scores have fixed bonus ranges that increase as the stat increases. Take a look at this thread link for an excellent analysis of strength bonuses. Now I've no complaints if you want to tweak the attrubute bones ranges a bit. So for example, one of Gygax's OD&D houserules was to grant a +2 to damage to fighters (only) having a Strength score of 15. Once set, however, those figures should be immutable. Otherwise something like a potion of giant strength is screwed up, and could actually cause a decrease in the bonus granted by the ability score. What you can do in OD&D without issue, and what was actually done by some of the original players of D&D, was to allow increases in the ability score itself. You could tie that to character level if you like, and there is no reason you couldn't allow these increses to exceed the normal 3-18 range. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 5, 2016 8:19:39 GMT -6
I kind of like 5E's method of having some sort of attribute bonus every 4 levels or so. As the characters grow in power, it kind of makes sense that their attributes would grow as well. On the other hand, these sorts of rules do tend to lead to power bloat so I'd say that if one allows for attributes to grow perhaps one might also limit magical item plusses the way 5E does.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jun 5, 2016 13:36:48 GMT -6
If you start with Holmes and switch later to AD&D, you get the increase in ability score bonuses at 4th level. That seems pretty close to what you're talking about. Agreed. This would be the cleanest way to implement it: Have expanded Attribute bonuses come in at 4th level. I do not think that I would follow AD&D strictly, though. For example, I still have a problem with the Strength bonus to hit with melee weapons not being in line with the Dexterity bonus to hit with missile weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jun 5, 2016 13:57:17 GMT -6
I take this as a complement, thanks. For the standpoint of good game design, you are, of course, correct. However, to me, part of the charm of OD&D is that there is a mix of Law and Chaos in the original design. There are some aspects of the game's original design which are neither consistent nor predictable. In the past, I have found the inconsistencies and seeming arbitrariness of the original design frustrating, but am increasingly become able to accept it for what it is. I also would reward merit on the part of the players, what the characters actually accomplish during the campaign. This would encourage immersion and engagement in the campaign setting. I also would like to encourage a bit less magic item dependence, so I don't mind if some of the abilities that would normally have appeared in magical items to take the form of a special ability that has been earned. This is a bit of an aside, but instead of having characters be walking magical item repositories, have them instead engage with their local guild and give most of their items to the guild. In exchange for this, they gain access to a special ability that might replicate the ability normally found in a magic item. In this way, also, you don't have players in constant fear of being captured and then losing all of their hard-earned items, etc. It really is a matter of coming to a decision as to what impact you would have Attributes weigh in on Attack rolls and so forth. In Men & Magic & Holmes, the bonus to hit with a melee weapon is +0, so the amount of Strength for a character is irrelevant to striking an enemy. With Greyhawk & B/X, the Strength score becomes relevant to melee combat, and then with AD&D we have yet another table and another standard. So no single standard was ever really established in OE/1E in my mind, which leads to my current thinking -- there is no standard. |
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Jun 5, 2016 14:00:24 GMT -6
>>Now I've no complaints if you want to tweak the attrubute bones ranges a bit. So for example, one of Gygax's OD&D houserules was to grant a +2 to damage to fighters (only) having a Strength score of 15. Once set, however, those figures should be immutable. Otherwise something like a potion of giant strength is screwed up, and could actually cause a decrease in the bonus granted by the ability score.<<
I am not certain what you mean here. The potion of giant strength in M&T simply provides that a character will inflict two dice of damage. I would have the character throw an additional die of damage matching the weapon being used, and then allow for other applicable bonuses to damage to apply, including the Strength bonus . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 5, 2016 18:19:18 GMT -6
There are some aspects of the game's original design which are neither consistent nor predictable. In the past, I have found the inconsistencies and seeming arbitrariness of the original design frustrating, but am increasingly become able to accept it for what it is. I also would reward merit on the part of the players, what the characters actually accomplish during the campaign. This would encourage immersion and engagement in the campaign setting. I'm with you that the rules aren't predictable. I don't think any good ruleset is predictable, and a certain amount of arbitrariness is unavoidable. However I'm not sure what you mean by "inconsistent". If you mean different dice conventions are used at different times; okay, but if you mean the rules conflict, I don't see it. It really is a matter of coming to a decision as to what impact you would have Attributes weigh in on Attack rolls and so forth. In Men & Magic & Holmes, the bonus to hit with a melee weapon is +0, so the amount of Strength for a character is irrelevant to striking an enemy. With Greyhawk & B/X, the Strength score becomes relevant to melee combat, and then with AD&D we have yet another table and another standard. So no single standard was ever really established in OE/1E in my mind, which leads to my current thinking -- there is no standard. I disagree. Without delving into the vagaries of later rulesets, there are changes in Greyhawk, true, and you can choose to play 3lbb's with or without them, but the bonuses due to abilities in the normal range are always very low, +1 in fact. As I said, there is nothing to keep you from allowing the stats themselves to improve - you could have a fighter with a 20 strength or whatever and scale the bonuses accordingly. That would be consistent with the rules. I am not certain what you mean here. The potion of giant strength in M&T simply provides that a character will inflict two dice of damage. I would have the character throw an additional die of damage matching the weapon being used, and then allow for other applicable bonuses to damage to apply, including the Strength bonus . . . Right, so a d6 averages 3.5 points per die. If your character has a +4 or greater Strength bonus, then at "normal" Strength he is doing at least an average of 7.5 points of damage; at +5 it would be 8.5 points and so on. After drinking the potion he will only be doing 7 points of damage (3.5 + 3.5). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 9:56:57 GMT -6
As for the orc leader, I never expect monsters to follow the same rules as characters, which is why it bugs the Hecuba out of me in more recent editions that they do... It seems that when making monsters and PC follow the same rules, it always defaults to applying the PC rules to the monsters, making them needlessly more complicated. I'd like to see a game turn that around and make the PCs more like monsters. A PC would be a hit die total, an AC, and a list of special bonuses. Get rid of Ability Scores entirely and just give out player determined bonuses at start and as the character levels up. So one character might get "+1 bonus to damage" due to his size and strength whereas another character might get "+1 with missile weapons" due to his training with bows. Each level (or couple of levels) characters could pick from a list of bonuses (to hit, damage, AC, hit dice, spells?) and just apply any sort of rational for the bonus that fits the character. For example, one character might get +1 to hit for his extensive training, another might get +1 to hit due to natural talent, while a third might get +1 to hit through some sort of magical spell or divine favor. Something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 14, 2016 15:05:04 GMT -6
hedgehobbit wrote:
From a different angle, very similar to the point I was making. A corollary would be how fantastic/heroic does one wish the game to be? I think Chainmail MTM is a format that works quite well for Medieval simulation (a game of normal men and their leaders) and the low magic and Cthulesque campaign. Obviously, levels lend to the eventual fantastic/heroic format.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 15, 2016 8:51:03 GMT -6
|
|
That's redesigning the attribute scores to be something very different from their intended function in OD&D. Attribute scores have fixed bonus ranges that increase as the stat increases. Take a look at this thread 
