Experience Points, levels and Combat in Blackmoor

[aldarron]

In other places, folks have asked about classes and experience points in early Blackmoor. Its not under some obvious heading of classes and experience tables, but FFC does actually tell us how experience worked. How you gained experience was based on your characters creature type, your "race" in D&D terms. In the section Titled "How to Become a Bad Guy. (pg 78 of the 1977 edition, p52 0f the 1980) Arneson tells us

"To progress to the next level (which in Blackmoor meant getting 50% more HD per level, although our combat system did not really use HD).
To figure out when you got to a higher level, you took the creature's Hit Dice (whatever it was on that level) and AC and multiplied by 1000 for the points needed to progress to 2nd level. After 2nd level, the creature would simply need 50% more points for each subsequent level: 2000, 3.000, 4500, 6,750, etc."

Although this section is meant to describe how its done for monster PC's, the rule seems to be a general one aplied to all characters.

So a character with 1HD and base Armor Class of 8 would need a whopping 9000 points to get to second level!? This would seem to suggest a reverse Armor Class system originally, (higher is better), where tougher creatures advance slower. Much to think about here.

A last point regards the levels - the oft mentioned flunky, hero, and superhero - three levels aparently right? Why then does Arneson say "A creature could never become more than ten times as powerful as it's 1st level type", in other words, tenth level for a 1HD creature? In the Blackmoor dungeon section, we are told Baron Baron Fant, was a 9th level fighter before becoming a Vampire. Richard Sniders Additions uses terms like Hero Flunky, and Superhero Flunky. We don't know how these levels and names fit the chronology of changes in the rules or from exactly what point in the game they date, but taken together it presents a picutre of increasing sophistication of levels. Probably the initial three were made more granular - as we suggested in the combat charts - so it would take several levels to move from Hero to Superhero.

There's also the comment on not really using HD to puzzle over.

[snorri]

I read again the FFC today, saerching for facts about that issue. What seems me correct:

- allmost all the parts of the books deal with three level system for fighting-men (flunky, hero, superhero), and the other mentions of levels are either in the "convention" level for the Blackmoor castle [which is a problem: the text clearly states it has been made with the later published D&D rules, but there are clues for older layers inside], or in editing notes. All the older drafts don't mention them.

- characters can progress both in fighting and magic level. All mentions of other classes seems to be part of the post-1974 layer (including the system of experience according to the defaults and hobbies). No clear evidences of experiences points outside the passage you quoted.

- Mentions of double, tripe and so about atack value let hink the system of "1 die per men" from Chainmail was used. I wonder if the mentions of the fighting values in OD&D class tables aren't from Dave as well.

[aldarron]

Calculating experience using The “How to Become a Bad Guy” method brings up all sorts of questions. On the face of it, the system doesn’t seem to make sense. The FFC system basically means that the better your defense strength (AC) and the weaker your attack strength (HD), the faster you will advance. I gave the example of a 1 HD, AC 8 creature apparently needing 9000 pts for first level (hero?). That’s not outside the realm of possibility as the experience point examples Arneson gives in the previous “Special Interests” section are both in the 8000’s. The problem lies in the extreme variability. For Example, an AC 2 HD 2 creature would only need 4000 pts. to level up, but a AC 5, HD 5, would need 10,000 pts. Both are considerably more powerful than our 1 HD AC8 fellow but that disparity is in no way reflected in the experience level.
I thought a clue may lie in Arneson’s phrase “HD… and AC”. Does “and” necessarily mean add? In AIF a formula is used to calculate the experience. The modified chance to hit a creature is multiplied by its hit dice. The result is divided either with, or by (depending which is smaller) the original unmodified chance to hit number, and the result divided by 2 (whew!)
Before going further, it’s important to point out that Hit Dice in AIF mean attack dice not Hit point dice, exactly as Arneson seems to have been using the term in FFC. HP is simply called Health and is a permanent % figure generated as one of the characteristics - exactly as Dave says it was done in Blackmoor. The chance to hit is as close as one gets to the AC rating in AIF (armor absorbs damage) so basically experience in AIF involves a mathematical comparison of defense strength and offense strength – exactly the same principle in the “how to be a bad Guy”/FFC method. So, I tried multiplying, dividing, subtracting and otherwise playing with the AC/HD to no avail. Playing with the numbers doesn’t make much difference in terms of the balance problem.
However, instead of looking at the systems’ theoretical extremes, I started just looking at the OD&D monsters for the creatures that could be character classes. For those creatures, the number of dice used per attack plus Armor Class times 1000 almost always yields a figure between 8000-10,000 pts. So except for a very few “more complex creatures” like Dragons (and humans?) who get specialized matrixes, the FFC system works fine after all. It means it will take a lot more xp than in OD&D for most creature types to reach second level, but because of the 50% increase per level mechanic, higher levels actually come faster.
At the beginning of the “How to become a bad Guy” section, Arneson makes the remark that HD should be divided by ½ for monsters who travel in small groups because it indicates they are “Hero” types. Presumably, Arneson is suggesting the normal monster statistics are those of Superhero types- maximum stats in other words. If this means that HD for players adopting a monster race should be halved, it really doesn’t effect much for XP. In most cases its only 1 HD anyway, but some would change and the xp range needed would therefore be more like 6-9000 pts. The point here is that, while some exceptions may be made for exceptional creatures, it’s actually a fairly workable system.
As Nico pointed out, we don’t know to what time period this system dates. It seems to be tied to a multiple level system since Arneson mentions that no creature can become more than 10 times as powerful (HD) as they are at first level. I think however this is an adaptation on his part and the method goes back to the very earliest three level system in Blackmoor. Here is why: In OD&D, Hero level requires 8000, 10,000, and 6000 xp for fighting men, magic users, and clerics respectively. This fits within the range of xp for 2nd level generated by the FFC method. Coincidence? I suspect that, rather than explaining his formula to Gygax, Arneson simply told him “You need 9000 xp to go from flunky to hero”, probably when he first introduced the game to Gygax, and Gygax subsequently came up with his own formula, perhaps tweaking the numbers in the process (1000 less for fighting men, 1000 more for magic users and 2/3 value for clerics).