Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 23:23:48 GMT -6
With a tip of the hat to Akrasia for his contributions to Knockspell #1...
It makes more sense to restrict clerics of Odin to spears than it does to restrict them to maces and such. Elric, Gandalf (yes, I know he’s not human), and Mike Mignola’s Rasputin all wielded a sword. Even the Grey Mouser knew a spell or two. Swords are associated with ritual magic, and there are examples in both high fantasy and sword-and-sorcery literature. As a result, lots of gamers (and potential gamers) want to play a character who casts spells and wields a sword (or a spear, or an axe, or whatever).
My take on the Riddle of Steel is that a fighter’s advantages in combat should come from superior skill at arms in general, and not from the use of skills, proficiencies, specialization, feats, or the type of gear they're allowed to use.
I also feel that, for the sake of verisimilitude, the maximum and minimum possible damage that can be dealt by a character with a given strength score using a nonmagical weapon should not be determined by class.
For aesthetic reasons, I’d like a simple system that uses 6-sided dice to resolve combat damage.
What follows is a house rule covering magic use, weapon use, armor use, and combat damage by class.
Magic-users cannot cast spells while wearing armor (and, if they’re wearing armor on an adventure, the referee should consider substantial XP penalties). Exceptions may be made for ritual magic (depending on the campaign), but Vancian magic precludes the use of armor. Spellbooks and material components are required.
Clerics are restricted to armor and weapons that are suitable given their religions. It is understood that, without making any firm promises, clerics who tend to rely more on arms and armor will generally be granted weaker spells and divine powers. [aside]I’m implicitly making room within the cleric class for the paladin and ranger archetypes.[/aside] Clerics do not select spells to prepare before entering the field/dungeon as magic-users do, but instead may pray for spells on an “as needed” basis.
“To hit” rolls are resolved using OD&D rules, the S&W core rules, or whatever you prefer.
When damage is determined, fighters roll 2d6 and keep the higher roll, magic-Users roll 2d6 and keep the lower roll, and clerics roll 3d6 and keep the roll in the middle. (Fighters would deal an extra point of damage on a successful hit with a two-handed weapon, but clerics and magic-users would gain no benefit from using such weapons.)
I’ve done the math, and these are the probabilities of the possible outcomes. (108 is the lowest common denominator.)
Fighters
Pr[1] = 3/108
Pr[2] = 9/108
Pr[3] = 15/108
Pr[4] = 21/108
Pr[5] = 27/108
Pr[6] = 33/108
Clerics
Pr[1] = 8/108
Pr[2] = 20/108
Pr[3] = 26/108
Pr[4] = 26/108
Pr[5] = 20/108
Pr[6] = 8/108
Magic-Users
Pr[1] = 33/108
Pr[2] = 27/108
Pr[3] = 21/108
Pr[4] = 15/108
Pr[5] = 9/108
Pr[6] = 3/108
What to make of this?
For starters, the average damage for a fighter is 4+(17/36), or approximately 4.4722. This is, on average, about what you’d get by rolling 1d8, so the number of hits it would take a fighter to slay a foe with 1 million HP would be the about the same as it would be if he rolled 1d8 for damage. Although results of 7 and 8 aren’t possible, fighters have a 5 in 9 chance of getting a 5 or a 6. This makes them more likely to deal lethal damage to 1 HD foes on the first hit. Their chances of killing a ½ HD foe on the first hit improves as well, since the chances of getting a 2 or less decrease from ¼ to 1/9.
The average damage for a cleric is exactly 3.5, which is the same average amount that you get if damage is determined by rolling 1d6. However, results of 3 and 4 are much more common, results of 2 and 5 are slightly more common, and results of 1 and 6 are much more rare. It’s hard to say if this is a boon or a curse for clerics. Since the average amount of damage is the same, it won’t make much of a difference if the cleric faces a behemoth with 100 HD. However, clerics will be much more likely to deal a lethal strike to something with 3 HP, and much less likely to deal a lethal strike to something with 6 HP. (It’s debatable, but I believe that this represents a very slight decrease in their combat effectiveness against the sort of monsters low-level characters are likely to encounter.)
The average damage for a magic-user is 2+(19/36), or approximately 2.5278. This is, on average, about what you’d get by rolling 1d4. Getting a 3 or less happens exactly 75% of the time. Results of 5 or 6 are possible, but unlikely. Using this system, a magic-user with a sword (or a dagger) has about as much ability in melee as they would if they were restricted to using a dagger that deals d4 damage per hit.
So in a nutshell, fighters are better vs. weak foes and no worse vs. strong foes, the effect on clerics’ combat effectiveness is ambiguous (but fairly minor), the effect on the combat effectiveness of magic-users is very minor (but they can use swords, not that it will do them any good!), all damage rolls are resolved using only six-sided dice, there is only a minimal increase in complexity, maximum possible damage doesn’t depend on class (although average damage and the distribution of results does), and all one-handed weapons are treated the same (so there is little to be gained by choosing one type of weapon over another).
Now, Cry “Havoc!”, and let slip the comments and criticism!
It makes more sense to restrict clerics of Odin to spears than it does to restrict them to maces and such. Elric, Gandalf (yes, I know he’s not human), and Mike Mignola’s Rasputin all wielded a sword. Even the Grey Mouser knew a spell or two. Swords are associated with ritual magic, and there are examples in both high fantasy and sword-and-sorcery literature. As a result, lots of gamers (and potential gamers) want to play a character who casts spells and wields a sword (or a spear, or an axe, or whatever).
My take on the Riddle of Steel is that a fighter’s advantages in combat should come from superior skill at arms in general, and not from the use of skills, proficiencies, specialization, feats, or the type of gear they're allowed to use.
I also feel that, for the sake of verisimilitude, the maximum and minimum possible damage that can be dealt by a character with a given strength score using a nonmagical weapon should not be determined by class.
For aesthetic reasons, I’d like a simple system that uses 6-sided dice to resolve combat damage.
What follows is a house rule covering magic use, weapon use, armor use, and combat damage by class.
Magic-users cannot cast spells while wearing armor (and, if they’re wearing armor on an adventure, the referee should consider substantial XP penalties). Exceptions may be made for ritual magic (depending on the campaign), but Vancian magic precludes the use of armor. Spellbooks and material components are required.
Clerics are restricted to armor and weapons that are suitable given their religions. It is understood that, without making any firm promises, clerics who tend to rely more on arms and armor will generally be granted weaker spells and divine powers. [aside]I’m implicitly making room within the cleric class for the paladin and ranger archetypes.[/aside] Clerics do not select spells to prepare before entering the field/dungeon as magic-users do, but instead may pray for spells on an “as needed” basis.
“To hit” rolls are resolved using OD&D rules, the S&W core rules, or whatever you prefer.
When damage is determined, fighters roll 2d6 and keep the higher roll, magic-Users roll 2d6 and keep the lower roll, and clerics roll 3d6 and keep the roll in the middle. (Fighters would deal an extra point of damage on a successful hit with a two-handed weapon, but clerics and magic-users would gain no benefit from using such weapons.)
I’ve done the math, and these are the probabilities of the possible outcomes. (108 is the lowest common denominator.)
Fighters
Pr[1] = 3/108
Pr[2] = 9/108
Pr[3] = 15/108
Pr[4] = 21/108
Pr[5] = 27/108
Pr[6] = 33/108
Clerics
Pr[1] = 8/108
Pr[2] = 20/108
Pr[3] = 26/108
Pr[4] = 26/108
Pr[5] = 20/108
Pr[6] = 8/108
Magic-Users
Pr[1] = 33/108
Pr[2] = 27/108
Pr[3] = 21/108
Pr[4] = 15/108
Pr[5] = 9/108
Pr[6] = 3/108
What to make of this?
For starters, the average damage for a fighter is 4+(17/36), or approximately 4.4722. This is, on average, about what you’d get by rolling 1d8, so the number of hits it would take a fighter to slay a foe with 1 million HP would be the about the same as it would be if he rolled 1d8 for damage. Although results of 7 and 8 aren’t possible, fighters have a 5 in 9 chance of getting a 5 or a 6. This makes them more likely to deal lethal damage to 1 HD foes on the first hit. Their chances of killing a ½ HD foe on the first hit improves as well, since the chances of getting a 2 or less decrease from ¼ to 1/9.
The average damage for a cleric is exactly 3.5, which is the same average amount that you get if damage is determined by rolling 1d6. However, results of 3 and 4 are much more common, results of 2 and 5 are slightly more common, and results of 1 and 6 are much more rare. It’s hard to say if this is a boon or a curse for clerics. Since the average amount of damage is the same, it won’t make much of a difference if the cleric faces a behemoth with 100 HD. However, clerics will be much more likely to deal a lethal strike to something with 3 HP, and much less likely to deal a lethal strike to something with 6 HP. (It’s debatable, but I believe that this represents a very slight decrease in their combat effectiveness against the sort of monsters low-level characters are likely to encounter.)
The average damage for a magic-user is 2+(19/36), or approximately 2.5278. This is, on average, about what you’d get by rolling 1d4. Getting a 3 or less happens exactly 75% of the time. Results of 5 or 6 are possible, but unlikely. Using this system, a magic-user with a sword (or a dagger) has about as much ability in melee as they would if they were restricted to using a dagger that deals d4 damage per hit.
So in a nutshell, fighters are better vs. weak foes and no worse vs. strong foes, the effect on clerics’ combat effectiveness is ambiguous (but fairly minor), the effect on the combat effectiveness of magic-users is very minor (but they can use swords, not that it will do them any good!), all damage rolls are resolved using only six-sided dice, there is only a minimal increase in complexity, maximum possible damage doesn’t depend on class (although average damage and the distribution of results does), and all one-handed weapons are treated the same (so there is little to be gained by choosing one type of weapon over another).
Now, Cry “Havoc!”, and let slip the comments and criticism!
