|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 9:59:36 GMT -6
I posted this on DF, before I discovered this forum, but I wanted to share it here in case anyone finds it useful. I really like that all weapons in the 3llbs do the same same amount of damage. This makes weapon choice purely personal flavor, and this is a feature, not a bug. It makes all-d6 hit dice elegant in design. However, many players like to wield two-handers, two weapons, or shields. BTB, giving up a shield makes you 5% more likely to be hit. That's not fun. It's not a lot, but OCD players will notice it. So, what if you could make all the above situations equivalent, mathematically *(see below)? Good news, you can. The key is looking at DPR (damage per round). I ran some numbers, in case anyone is interested. These averages assume a 1st Level Fighting-Man. Let's look at the basics first: Average Damage per hit1d6 = 3.5 1d6 (Reroll 1's) = 4.0 1d6+1 = 4.5 Best of 2d6 = 4.47 Average Bonus Chance to Hit a Given AC1d20 = +0% 1d20+1 = +5% 1d20+2 = +10% Now, we can determine what the expected damage per round (DPR) would be (assuming a Level 1 Fighting-Man and AC's of 9 through 2, 3LBB-style). Average Damage Per Round (DPR)Damage/To-Hit:1d6/1d20 = 1.31 1d6/1d20+1 = 1.49 1d6 (reroll 1's)/1d20 = 1.50 1d6/1d20+2 = 1.66 Best of 2d6/1d20 = 1.68 1d6+1/1d20 = 1.69 Some relevant observations: A +1 to-hit is the same DPR as rerolling 1's on a single damage die. +1 damage, +2 to-hit, and roll 2d6 take highest are all virtually the same DPR. Also, note that a +/-1 to-hit and +1/-1 AC are mathematically equal on average (although a given AC vs. a given chance to-hit will skew towards the extremes). What's the point? Well, here are some house rules that might prove useful, all being equal in terms of DPR, just choose based on personal preference: Two-handers reroll 1's for damage and two-weapon fighting earn a +1 to-hit. This makes all three main loadouts mathematically equal *(see below) (sword and board, dual wield, and two-handed). An empty hand provides no mechanical benefit aside from carrying torches, potions, magic items, scrolls, grabbing, punching, etc. and nor should it, IMO. Ranged weapons don't need any bonuses because fighting at range is its own benefit. I would allow crossbows to reroll 1's on damage rolls if they are preloaded or all movement that round is spent (re)loading (i.e., no movement that round earns rerolling 1's for crossbow damage which is a nice balance and gives some differentiation between bows and crossbows). Thrown weapons don't need any adjustments because the weapon is lost and/or needs to be picked up again to use which is it's own penalty.Enjoy! EDIT: *Please see waysoftheearth 's extremely detailed (extremely awesome!) analysis further down this thread. My house rules get you VERY close to equivalency but see what happens when you incorporate some more common rules as waysoftheearth shows below. Not as straightforward as I originally surmised!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2017 10:26:29 GMT -6
Rapier and dagger fighting is not two weapon fighting, per se. The dagger is the "shield," it is used to parry. Similar to the way that bucklers and shields are also weapons.
The whole thing is an abstraction.
I have considered allowing a dagger to count like a shield for rapier and dagger style folks, like thieves.
So a thief in leather that fought like the Grey Mouser would be AC6. Something like that.
Come to think of it, same with two-handers. The length and girth of the weapon is also shield-like. So, again, armor class reduction. So an FM in plate with a two handed could still be AC 2. But not Fafhrd. He is also in leather. So, like the Grey Mouser, he would have AC6.
I just don't like giving bonuses to anything except for magic.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 10:46:29 GMT -6
tetramorph , I like this. You could essentially remove the shield bonus and incorporate it into the 3 main armor types: leather, chain, and plate. So: Armor | AC (New) -------------------- None | 9 Leather | 6 Chain | 4 Plate | 2 No thieves? Get rid of leather. Chain? Not really necessary. So this can be simplified to class AC: Class | AC ---------- M-U | 9 Cl | 2 F-M | 2 If the cleric or f-m wants to sneak around they can just drop their AC to 9 like a m-u. This also allows conan-types where AC is based on speed, skill, and ferocity. If the type of armor is still desired then just use the standard table. But, the reason for this thread, was to give players multiple ways to throw dice without impacting game balance.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 10:53:06 GMT -6
Tease: I will be using a similar simplified class-based system for my D.W.A.R.F. houserules which I will post in the workshop when I finalize them. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 5, 2017 13:31:04 GMT -6
I also really dig simplification.
But I keep the shield mechanic so that it is clear that AC increases when dropped or split.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 13:42:20 GMT -6
I also really dig simplification. But I keep the shield mechanic so that it is clear that AC increases when dropped or split. So many ways to skin a ca.. uh.. use a shield!! Good stuff tetramorph .
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jul 5, 2017 23:52:18 GMT -6
My weapons are pretty much straight out of Greyhawk. But I would also be pleased to play all-1d6.
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Jul 6, 2017 5:04:45 GMT -6
Thanks sixdemonbag . It’s nice to see the math laid out here. Me too. Not only personal flavor, also utility, as most weapons have distinct other uses. The across-the-board d6 damage really emphasizes such considerations. For two-handed weapons, I’ve come around to 2d6 take highest over a damage bonus, because even though the DPR might be about the same, I like the spread that still allows for a 1 and caps normal damage at 6. And I think 2d6k1 is preferable to +2 to hit because I like to keep modifiers to a minimum—in practice I found that introducing new modifiers are one of the easiest things for me to forget about. The fantasy flavor of dual wielding is really attractive, but the real world research shows no attack benefit. For me, that was enough to stop using/trying to hone a dual wielding rule. But I can see letting a mid-level thief or fighter use a dagger in place of a shield, as tetramorph talks about. I guess I would file that under the “ruling not rules” category and wait to see if/how a player brings it up. Heh, that could also make for interesting new magic item possibilities, a Dagger of Defense or Rapier of Missile Deflection.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2017 15:36:40 GMT -6
Average Bonus Chance to Hit a Given AC1d20 = +0% 1d20+1 = +5% 1d20+2 = +10% A 1-3 level fighter has THAC2 17, and therefore a 20% chance to hit AC2. With a +1 bonus the same fighter now has a 25% chance to hit AC2. I.e., a +1 adjustment gives him a (25/20 = 1.25) 25% advantage. Assuming all ACs are encountered equally frequently, a +1 to hit adjustment gives a 1-3 level fighter an average 13.33% advantage. To figure a "global" +1 advantage across all of Attack Matrix I, we'd need to state a working assumption about how frequently each column on the matrix is used... without figuring it the odds, I suspect it might be nearer to 10% than to 5%.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 6, 2017 16:34:19 GMT -6
Average Bonus Chance to Hit a Given AC1d20 = +0% 1d20+1 = +5% 1d20+2 = +10% A 1-3 level fighter has THAC2 17, and therefore a 20% chance to hit AC2. With a +1 bonus the same fighter now has a 25% chance to hit AC2. I.e., a +1 adjustment gives him a (25/20 = 1.25) 25% advantage. Assuming all ACs are encountered equally frequently, a +1 to hit adjustment gives a 1-3 level fighter an average 13.33% advantage. To figure a "global" +1 advantage across all of Attack Matrix I, we'd need to state a working assumption about how frequently each column on the matrix is used... without figuring it the odds, I suspect it might be nearer to 10% than to 5%. Absolutely correct Ways. That's why I stated that the above assumes average AC, in other words, 5.5. I also noted that the extremes are skewed (high and low ACs). This is purely based on averages, not how often each AC occurs in the game. That would be beyond this scope. But, you make a great point in reminding everyone that if all you encounter is a certain AC, then you these numbers might not hold up. Really, the point was just to remind everyone that that +1 (+5%) on a d20 and +1 (+16.67%) on a d6 don't mean much when it comes actual damage rates. A very common house rule is giving two-handed weapons +1 damage, and I wanted to show that a +1 to damage is almost always better than a +1 to hit and that rerolling 1s on a d6 would be almost the same as a +1 to hit, again, on average. A player might never choose to use a shield if these common house rules are in effect. I wanted to give some alternatives. But you are completely right that saying my assumption on an average AC might not be 100% accurate at the table and will change over the course of a campaign. Maybe I can take a look at the monster list and calculate the average AC from that list. Although, that still doesn't tell us the frequency. Maybe using the wandering monster frequency from U&WA might give us some reasonable expectation. This would be a nice a little project, in fact. Thanks waysoftheearth for bringing up this important detail. EDIT: Like you mentioned, column frequency would need to be factored in as well. This is all using the first column, since it's usually only at PC creation when anyone cares about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 6, 2017 16:35:43 GMT -6
Also, this is really only for those players and refs that like this sort of thing. I don't use any house rules for damage. All mundane weapons do 1d6 damage. Only magic items receive any bonus. I'm hardcore like that!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2017 4:10:12 GMT -6
Worthwhile noting also that carrying a shield yields more than just 5% protection. I.e., specifically vs THAC2 attackers: Plate 25% likely to be hit vs plate and shield 20% likely to be hit --> plate+shield is 1/5th (20%) less likely to be hit. Mail 35% likely to be hit vs mail and shield 30% likely to be hit --> mail+shield is 1/7th (14.3%) less likely to be hit. Leather 45% likely to be hit vs leather and shield 40% likely to be hit --> leather+shield is 1/9th (11.1%) less likely to be hit. Unarmored 55% likely to be hit vs shield only 50% likely to be hit --> shield is 1/11th (9.1%) less likely to be hit. Average advantage = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%. That's almost 3 in 20 over all. If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them 17.15% less likely to be hit. That's 1 in 6 territory
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 7, 2017 9:06:18 GMT -6
Worthwhile noting also that carrying a shield yields more than just 5% protection. Average advantage = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%. That's almost 3 in 20 over all. If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them 17.15% less likely to be hit. That's 1 in 6 territory Thanks for laying that out. That's really neat to see. I certainly have never looked at it that way, by percent ratios. I learned something!! Decreasing your chance to be hit by only 5% is much better than what is obvious. Good stuff WotE. However, I should note, that despite the hidden benefits (especially at the best ACs), giving up your shield for a possible +1 damage is still better every single time, across every armor type. Consider these DPRs: Plate and +1 damage vs Plate and shield = 0.90 vs 0.875 (3% edge) Chain and +1 damage vs Chain and shield = 1.35 vs 1.225 (10% edge) Leather and +1 damage vs Leather and shield = 1.80 vs 1.575 (14% edge) None and +1 damage vs None and shield = 2.25 vs 1.925 (17% edge) So, like for like, when playing in a game with these common house rules, foregoing the shield for a +1 damage, roll 2 keep highest, or +2 to hit (or more!) will always be the better choice (if one cares about such things, which I personally don't but many do.) Change those bonuses to either a +1 to hit or reroll 1s and then you have evened things out, on average. Rerolling 1s will actually be a little worse at the best ACs and a little better at the worst ACs, averaging out to almost even with a shield. A +1 to hit is even across the board, of course.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 7, 2017 16:56:15 GMT -6
giving up your shield for a possible +1 damage is still better every single time, across every armor type. It's an interesting proposition sixdemonbag. To be more finicky (what me?) about the above assertion, I think it would be more accurate to state: +1 damage is better in terms of maximising DPR. The underlying assumption is that maximising DPR is always the optimal player choice. More realistically, I think it's reasonably obvious that prolonging player survival is critical to success, and therefore that some kind of "lifetime damage output" metric would be a better indicator of player success (and hence be a better guide as to optimal player choice) than the DPR metric. Waaaay back I wrote a combat simulator to compare the "survivorship" of 1st level fighters equipped with different armor types vs different monster types. I might be able to dig up and modify that code to track DPR and LDO (Lifetime Damage Output) for thousands of 1st level fighters participating in series of simulated one on one battles, and then compare the (simulated) effect of the above proposed player options in terms of DPR and LDO. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 7, 2017 17:26:00 GMT -6
Whoa! 😳 That would be an amazing project waysoftheearth . You are going above and beyond and I love it!! I certainly don't want to cause you any extra work. This topic has surprisingly gone into a very interesting direction. I didn't realize the complexities and possibilities in analyzing these things. If you need any help or assistance crunching numbers please let me know. What I thought was fairly simple is clearly more complex. I enjoy reading your old data analyses and I'd be glad to contribute if it would be of any use to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 15:42:40 GMT -6
I don't know the flavor of my weapon, but the ladies I've known certainly seem to like the taste.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 16:24:37 GMT -6
I don't know the flavor of my weapon, but the ladies I've known certainly seem to like the taste. Said Lady: "Is that a longsword in your scabbard, or are you happy to see me?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 18:02:50 GMT -6
Find the hidden catch on my Rod of Lordly Might and it will extend to its full length.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 18:38:46 GMT -6
When all weapons do 1d6 damage, it's not the length of your blade that matters. It's how you wield it.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jul 8, 2017 18:48:52 GMT -6
"That's what." - She
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 21:55:02 GMT -6
When all weapons do 1d6 damage, it's not the length of your blade that matters. It's how you wield it. That's what men with daggers always say.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 22:20:50 GMT -6
When all weapons do 1d6 damage, it's not the length of your blade that matters. It's how you wield it. That's what men with daggers always say. Or, as those with lightsabers would say, "It's a grower not a shower." (Using all my willpower to resist posting Spaceballs gif...must..not..give in..to the..Schwartz) So, instead:
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2017 5:48:36 GMT -6
Waaaay back I wrote a combat simulator to compare the "survivorship" of 1st level fighters equipped with different armor types vs different monster types. I might be able to dig up and modify that code to track DPR and LDO (Lifetime Damage Output) for thousands of 1st level fighters participating in series of simulated one on one battles, and then compare the (simulated) effect of the above proposed player options in terms of DPR and LDO. Hmm... Yeah, so I unearthed my old code and discovered I'd left it in a pretty shabby state. After a bunch of friggin' about I've decided to start over. Give me a few weeks to procrastinate, then a few days to get it going...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jul 15, 2017 10:03:17 GMT -6
Simple rule idea
All weapons do one die of damage. Fighting men add 1 to all damage rolls Wizards subtract 1 (minimum 1 on a hit.) Clerics and Thieves stay at 1d6.
Two-weapon users gain Advantage on attack rolls. Two-handed weapon users gain Advantage on damage rolls.
I don't know how much sense this makes but it seems good because it rewards certain combinations appropriately. It's not crazy effective. And most importantly it doesn't add any additional rolls - rolling with Advantage just means throwing one extra die in the same roll.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 15, 2017 16:14:21 GMT -6
Simple rule idea All weapons do one die of damage. Fighting men add 1 to all damage rolls Wizards subtract 1 (minimum 1 on a hit.) Clerics and Thieves stay at 1d6. Two-weapon users gain Advantage on attack rolls. Two-handed weapon users gain Advantage on damage rolls. I don't know how much sense this makes but it seems good because it rewards certain combinations appropriately. It's not crazy effective. And most importantly it doesn't add any additional rolls - rolling with Advantage just means throwing one extra die in the same roll. I dig it. I will just note that class damage as a concept is a little bit of double dip since they are already differentiated by the attack matrix (and magic weapons). But, if you wanna pump up the fighter and nerf the M-U a tad, this is a nice way to do it. EDIT: I only mention this because in my OP I was trying to give suggestions for keeping class balance BTB. Still good ideas though, Scott Anderson .
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2017 3:33:29 GMT -6
So I'm underway with a new combat simulator that will test the efficacy of various combat options, above. Interestingly, code must always be explicit where the 3LBBs frequently are not. A case in point is: how should the dual-weapon/two-handed-weapon options work with the dropping stuff by surprise rule? The earlier prints say: "There is a 25% chance that any character surprised by a monster will drop some item. If he does, roll for the possibilities remembering that only those items held could be so dropped." (U&WA p12) The blue word is these in later prints, but this seems to be merely a typo. That aside, the first sentence appears to imply that exactly one item could be dropped. But the second sentence appears to imply that several held items could be dropped. Which is it? If only one item can be dropped, which item does a player carrying sword and shield risk dropping? If several items can be dropped, how is the stated 25% chance applied to a player carrying sword and shield? Reducing the risk of being totally disarmed is potentially an advantage of the dual-wielding and two-handed options. Exactly how it works would determine whether this represents a meaningful advantage. Or not. Thoughts? p.s. FWIW: if a player has a 1/8 (12.5%) chance of dropping each of two items, then he has an overall 15/64 (23.44%) chance of dropping at least one item. That's near enough to 25% for me
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Jul 18, 2017 6:30:59 GMT -6
I don't think the text is ambiguous. There’s a 25% chance of dropping an item. If a figure is holding two items (hence presenting "possibilities"), dice (or flip a coin) to see which one is dropped.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2017 7:24:18 GMT -6
Sure, so is it... . Sword and shield/dagger/lantern/etc; 50/50 either item is dropped. . Sword in one hand and nothing in the other; sword is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? . Two-handed sword; is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped?
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Jul 18, 2017 9:15:32 GMT -6
Sure, so is it... . Sword and shield/dagger/lantern/etc; 50/50 either item is dropped. . Sword in one hand and nothing in the other; sword is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? . Two-handed sword; is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? Ways, IMO btb would be • 50% / 50% (i.e., one or the other) • Always • Always I’ll walk back my earlier statement a bit and admit there could be ambiguity if this rule is broken down sentence by sentence, and that ambiguity comes in, I think, because of the “some item” in the first sentence. But reading the two sentences of the rule together as a unit, as they’re meant to be taken, I think provides a clear procedure.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 18, 2017 15:53:13 GMT -6
Sure, so is it... . Sword and shield/dagger/lantern/etc; 50/50 either item is dropped. . Sword in one hand and nothing in the other; sword is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? . Two-handed sword; is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? Ways, IMO btb would be • 50% / 50% (i.e., one or the other) • Always • Always I’ll walk back my earlier statement a bit and admit there could be ambiguity if this rule is broken down sentence by sentence, and that ambiguity comes in, I think, because of the “some item” in the first sentence. But reading the two sentences of the rule together as a unit, as they’re meant to be taken, I think provides a clear procedure. This would be my interpretation if I had to choose. I believe the second sentence is Gygaxian for excluding items in packs, bags, etc. Overall, this is one of those rules that always feels like a Gary houserule. Maybe Gronan remembers if this was actually used BITD. I know it's in the book so it's canon, but I wonder how widespread this rule was in actual play. Anyway, this would make two-handed swords only useful for Chainmail-esque man-to-man initiative rules (higher class weapons and such). ------------ Off-topic: I'm inclined to treat to everything outside of M&M as either optional or merely suggestions for exploration. Vol III especially reads as some "cool stuff you can use." Everything in Vol. II I assume are either examples, or campaign-specific. I could be entirely wrong, however. I guess what I'm saying is that I usually focus on M&M for actual "rules" (I use that term very loosely, but for our purpose here, is necessary). Maybe this is a separate discussion I can bring up on another thread. ------------ Great stuff guys. Looking forward to your sim waysoftheearth ! EDIT: On second thought, maybe we SHOULD assume every rule has a systemic purpose. We can't assume Gary wasn't taking all these things into account when he published the 3llbs. I formally disagree with my own post! Carry on...
|
|