3LLB-only monster attacks/combat.

[machfront]

Alright. Time to come clean.
For years I've avoided it.

For a long time I've not even had to worry about it.
Because, honestly, with the mini-mini campaigns and one-shots I've done with either S&W: WhiteBox or the 3LBBs only it's simply not come up.

So... for those of you who actually do/have seriously run a 3LBB only game... what do you do for monsters who, in other editions of D&D typically have multiple attacks?

I've seen this discussion touched on, and usually it just comes down to a bunch of speculation over what was intended according to the ambiguous letter of the rules.
I'd sure like to know how most folks handle it, and/or how most folks handled it back then and blah, blah, blah...
The reason I'm concerned is that it sure seems like a small party can easily overwhelm an OD&D creature that in, say B/X, would have 3 or 4 attacks (even acknowledging the lower amount of bonuses, hp and so on for PCs).

[geoffrey]

I simply give each monster 1 attack per round, with damage being 1d6 (unless otherwise stated in M&T).

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Oct 10, 2012 6:45:48 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I simply give each monster 1 attack per round, with damage being 1d6 (unless otherwise stated in M&T).

Ditto here. In fact, I rarely ever gave monsters multiple attacks outside of Chainmail. In B/X and 1e, it was always 1 for 1 back in the day...

[Aplus]

If you really do just use 1 attack for d6, you might want to pay closer attention to the "number appearing". Even dragons are 1-4. I never really found the 1 attack for d6 particularly satisfying, so my tendency would be to use the Labyrinth Lord monster section printed out as a booklet (which has the added benefit of very easy-to-use wandering monster tables), or perhaps the two-page monster compendium from the ready ref sheets.

And even if you are using just the LBBs as your source material, that doesn't mean you can't change whatever you like. Maybe monsters just get one attack, but they deal an amount of damage equal to their remaining hit points, as an example.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Ditto here. In fact, I rarely ever gave monsters multiple attacks outside of Chainmail. In B/X and 1e, it was always 1 for 1 back in the day...

Indeed, not satisfying, Nowadays, I DO use multiple attack types and the monsters tend to be more "butt-kicking." :-)

[talysman]

For me:

(1) Almost everything does 1d6 damage per 4 HD.
(2) Monsters like the hydra and the chimera, which have multiple heads (or some other excuse for attacking multiple *opponents* simultaneously) get 1 attack per head.
(3) Monsters with multiple limbs or which do multiple "attacks" per opponent don't get extra attack rolls, just a bonus to hit (+1 per extra limb.)

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2012 6:45:48 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I simply give each monster 1 attack per round, with damage being 1d6 (unless otherwise stated in M&T).

Me too. If it was good enough for Gary and Dave it's good enough for me.

[waysoftheearth]

Not "strictly" by the book, admittedly, but
I wrote a couple of essays on how damage scales a while back:

A Play on Monster Damage

Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales


If you are using the Alternative Combat System "strictly" by the book, then all monsters already get 1 attack per HD they have versus normal men (M&T p5) and any other creature of equivalent strength (FAQ).

This is often read as meaning any creature that does not have at least X many HD, where X is commonly thought to be "1+1", making 1st level fighting men not subject to multiple attacks.

However, there is a reasonable case that X might be as high as "2+1", given that 2 HD cavemen are listed as Men (U&WA p18, M&T p7), or at least "1+2", given that 1+1 HD berserkers and dervishes are listed as Men (U&WA p18, M&T p6), as are 1+1 HD mermen (U&WA p18, M&T p7).

[machfront]

Hm. I fear I've no meaningful response other than to say:
Well, it seems I'm sweating over nothing and that most folks just 'let it ride' and that it apparently all works out.

It's going to be more odd doling out attacks to PCs when there's only one attack (from a monster that in other iterations may have three or four and could thus hit three or four PCs).

"Ssssoooo....in all it's screching and flailing about the gargoyle hits.....only Bob's magic-user becausehe'sareallyannoyingcharacteranyway. NEXT!"

[blackbarn]

Seems funny to worry over it. I use one attack at 1d6, the only exception being those which are stated to have something different (Hydras, Ogres, etc.) or the multiple HD = multiple attacks vs 1HD or less rule. If you'd like more attacks per round, add more monsters!

[Deleted]

It really isn't a problem.

First level PCs are FRAGILE! Fragile, fragile, fragile.

In my recent NYC game, we played ... oh, probably eight times or so over six months. The thief made it to 5th level, and in the very last adventure, several other PCs made it to second level. So, that's part of it... if you play by the book, you're low level a LONG time.

And I had cases where a single ghoul would tear the party up pretty good. The players usually went down with 9 or 12 members including NPCs, and it wasn't rare for two or three characters to die in a single combat. Really, if a ghoul or gargoyle gets surprise and they get all those attacks, you have really good odds of a TPK.

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2012 12:13:34 GMT -6 blackbarn said:

Seems funny to worry over it. I use one attack at 1d6, the only exception being those which are stated to have something different (Hydras, Ogres, etc.) or the multiple HD = multiple attacks vs 1HD or less rule. If you'd like more attacks per round, add more monsters!

I have seen references over the last few years to the "Nova" approach to adventuring... that is, 'blow your wad' in the first encounter. That seems odd to me.

If you're down there for several hours of serious dungeon exploration, it becomes a game of attrition; you're slowly being ground down, and can you stay down long enough to amass enough treasure to make the trip worthwhile, and will you have enough strength to get back? Monsters only having one attack makes sense in this sort of environment.

[Finarvyn]

My assumption has always been that monsters fight people the same way that people fight monsters. A character gets multiple attacks against 1HD monsters, a single attack against big nasties. In the same way, I asssume that multi-HD monsters get multiple attacks against basic men but single attacks against characters of 1+1 HD or better.

I'm pretty sure that's why elves and dwarves got 1+1 HD, so that a typical elf or dwarf is better than a typical human against big nasties.

[blackbarn]

To be perfectly honest, we have kind of been forgetting the more HD = more attacks thing in our game. The PC fighting-men are just getting to levels where it is possible, and I have only used a few 2HD monsters so far. I'm guilty of forgetting it, too.

Nobody blows their wad in the first encounter in our game, but our sessions do tend to be made up of shorter expeditions. Sometimes they will go into the dungeon and back a few times during a game session. I expect as they go deeper (the PCs just started exploring level 2) they will be down there longer and not worry as much about running back to the top.

And I have been checking for wandering monsters, so the more time they spend going back and forth to the surface the more likely they are going to run into things. That's just going to get worse with deeper levels.

Gronan, were you saying that monsters should always have one attack per round no matter what, or that more HD give them more attacks against weak foes? I'd love to know how that was handled in the original campaigns.

[Deleted]

I guess it is different for me. BitD when I (we) started playing we knew next to nothing about how Gygax et al played the game. So if for a particular monster for example two claws and a bite made sense they got 3 attacks per melee round. I have always played it that way and never thought anything of it. So a lion and a troll both get 3 attacks per melee round.

A dragon gets two claws and a bite and a tail swipe. If using the breath weapon, then no other attack that melee round.


See later revision after I had spent more time trying to remember exactly what we did. (More details)

[cooper]

A hero can only survive 4 hits. That means a dragon may kill him in 4 rounds of melee. This is really no different that 1st editions where a 4th level fighter has the equal of 8 hits (d10 hp + con bonus) and a creature gets 3 attacks per round d8/d8/2d6 or something.

The 0d&d fighter lasts just as long as the ad&d fighter, except with later editions everything is cruchier.

[Deleted]

Except for hydras monsters never got multiple attacks.

[talysman]

Nov 4, 2012 16:36:16 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Except for hydras monsters never got multiple attacks.

That's interesting, because I would have guessed the chimera would get multiple attacks, too.

[Deleted]

...truthfully, I don't ever remember fighting a chimera. I remember talking our way out of an encounter with one.

[blackbarn]

Nov 4, 2012 16:36:16 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Except for hydras monsters never got multiple attacks.

Thanks. Keeping that in mind will certainly make my life easier.

[ravenheart87]

And centaurs: once as man, once as medium horse.

[kenmeister]

Not that I've run 3 LBB OD&D, but I was thinking that what I'd do is this:

6 HD monster attacks opponents of all 1 HD or less: 6 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 6-36
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 1+1 to 2 HD: 3 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 3-18
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 2+1 to 3 HD: 2 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 2-12
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 3+1 or more: 1 attack for 1-6

This can be broken up too, so the 6 HD monster can take one 1-6 attack against a 3 HD opponent, an attack against a 2 HD opponent, and a third attack against a 1 HD opponent. But if the 1 HD opponent wasn't there, the monster wouldn't be able to make any more attacks.

In other words, 2 attacks or more to opponents of half your hit dice or less.

[Stormcrow]

Here's how it's supposed to work:

A point of two for wimpy stuff.
1 die for relatively normal strength.
1 die + for really strong.
2 dice for holy crap!
3 dice for RUN! RUN! RUN!!

[oldkat]

1 attack, unless specifically stated otherwise.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2012 13:09:03 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I guess it is different for me. BitD when I (we) started playing we knew next to nothing about how Gygax et al played the game. So if for a particular monster for example two claws and a bite made sense they got 3 attacks per melee round. I have always played it that way and never thought anything of it. So a lion and a troll both get 3 attacks per melee round.

A dragon gets two claws and a bite and a tail swipe. If using the breath weapon, then no other attack that melee round.

In response to a question in the OD&D subforum over at DF and based on quite a bit more time thinking about how we did it bitd, I have enhanced my previous answer.


First it refers you to Chainmail, with the exception of anything different in the following creature descriptions. Then it tells you that a troll would get 6 attacks (based on it being a 6 hit die +3) and that a +3 would be to added to one die roll when attacking normal men i.e. not a PC or NPC with a level of 1 or more (butcher, baker, candlestick maker, farmer etc). Then combat is detailed in Vol III, where it refers you to Chainmail or the alternate system (the one we always used) in Vol I.

Then you look at the monster descriptions, using the troll as an example it tells you on page 8, Vol II that they are equal in strength to an ogre and only use talons and fangs (i.e. they do not use weapons) and only one die of damage per hit. Based on this, the talons and fangs comment, bitd my group always gave a troll 3 attacks (claw/talon, claw/talon and bite/fangs) and similar monsters (although not stated in the text) that do not use weapons we gave the same, 3 attacks (claw, claw and bite) per melee round. But not everyone will play it this way.

Another example is on page 10 of Vol II where it notes that all of a hydras heads usually can attack simultaneously. A chimera on the next page is given as each head has an attack, we always played all three heads attacked every melee round and it also got two claws attacks as we played it, we felt that was a ref decision since a chimera was a 9 hit die monster and as such was one of the most powerful monsters so we played it that way. Dragons we allowed the following attacks, two claws, bit or breath, wing buffet and/or tail swipe. Since a dragon was a 5 up to 12 hit die monster, so for hit die 5-7 no wing buffet or tail swipe, hit die 8-9 either a wing buffet or tail swipe and hit die 10-12 wing buffet and tail swipe. Again that is not in the text, it was a ref decision, made because this was one of the most powerful monsters so we played it that way. Again, please note, if the Dragon used the breath weapon it did not get any other attacks the same melee round. Also please note that if the dragon is casting a spell, then they do not get any other attacks the same melee round.

[kenmeister]

Dec 4, 2012 5:48:01 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Not that I've run 3 LBB OD&D, but I was thinking that what I'd do is this:

6 HD monster attacks opponents of all 1 HD or less: 6 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 6-36
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 1+1 to 2 HD: 3 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 3-18
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 2+1 to 3 HD: 2 attacks for 1-6 each, or 1 attack doing 2-12
6 HD monster attacks opponents from 3+1 or more: 1 attack for 1-6

This can be broken up too, so the 6 HD monster can take one 1-6 attack against a 3 HD opponent, an attack against a 2 HD opponent, and a third attack against a 1 HD opponent. But if the 1 HD opponent wasn't there, the monster wouldn't be able to make any more attacks.

In other words, 2 attacks or more to opponents of half your hit dice or less.

I just perfected this for my upcoming Palace of the Vampire Queen game.

Multiple Attacks
The original OD&D game has this rule which we are using and expanding upon:

Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll.

I'm treating a "man-type" as any creature up to one hit die, and for every hit die beyond that, a creature counts as that many man-types. For instance, if our 6+3 HD troll goes up against an ogre (4+1 HD) and 2 orcs (1 HD each) , it could attack each of them in the same round, since the ogre counts as 4 men, and each of the orcs as one. The bonus to hit, if any, goes to the highest creature attacked, so the attack against the ogre would be at +3 to hit, but not the attacks on the orcs. Fractions are not used, so if the troll was only up against the ogre, it would just get the one attack at +3 to hit. A creature never gets less than one attack, but if the attack is made against an opponent that counts as "more men" then the attacker, any bonuses to hit are lost. So let's say our ogre attacks the troll; he gets one attack, but not at +1. However, if the ogre attacks the orcs, it gets to make 4 attacks on them, with one of those attacks at +1 to hit.

So that's for creatures, but how many man-types do our characters count for? Men & Magic gives us that with the Fighting Capability column on the class charts. Heroes count as 4 men, Super-Heroes 8, and I've designated Wizards to count as either 5 men against non-magical foes or 9 against magical foes. A magical foe is one which has some kind of magical defense (needs magic to hit, can't be seen, etc.) or arcane magical offensive capability (casts magic-user spells, innate spell-like ability mimicking such spells, but not just a special attack like a gaze or breath weapon). Chainmail also gives lesser Wizard ratings for the levels leading up to name level. Here's what the man equivalencies by class come out to, using M&M as closely as I could:

Level	Fighting-Man	Magic-User	Cleric
1	1 Man +1	1 Man	1 Man
2	2 Men +1	1 Man +1	1 Man +1
3	3 Men	2 Men	2 Men
4	4 Men	2 Men +1 OR 3 Men against magical foes	3 Men
5	5 Men	3 Men OR 4 Men against magical foes	3 Men +1
6	6 Men	3 Men +1 OR 5 Men against magical foes	3 Men +1
7	7 Men	3 Men +1 OR 6 Men against magical foes	4 Men
8	8 Men	4 Men OR 7 Men against magical foes	5 Men
9	9 Men	5 Men OR 8 Men against magical foes	6 Men
10	9 Men	5 Men OR 9 Men against magical foes	7 Men
11	10 Men	5 Men OR 9 Men against magical foes	7 Men

When you see "1 Man +1" it means that such a character fighting an orc gets a +1 to hit, but the same character fighting a 2 HD gnoll would not get the bonus to hit since the foe is above his equivalency rating.

[kenmeister]

waysoftheearth PM'd me, without realizing I'd posted in this thread as well to generate such discussion.

Dec 3, 2013 23:45:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dec 2, 2013 9:53:28 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

The original OD&D game has this rule which we are using and expanding upon:

I'm treating a "man-type" as any creature up to one hit die

There are two important things here:
1) Who is subject to multiple attacks, and
2) How many multiple attacks there are.

The answers to these are:
1) "normal men", and
2) One attack per HD as a normal man.


Regarding 1:
There is some contention over who is a "normal man" (and is therefore subject to multiple attacks), but the majority thinking is that it includes men and man-types of up to 1+1 HD. Others (including me) believe "normal" includes 2 HD gnolls, cavemen, and horses, as well PCs short of "hero" or "wizard" fighting capability.

Regarding 2:
The classic troll would either have 6 attacks as a 1 HD monster (versus normals), or else 1 attack as a 6 HD monster (versus heroes/wizards). This was later contradicted/altered/"broken" when EGG published the superhero example in the FAQ, but it works better -- IMHO -- as originally written in the 3LBBs.

Note also that attacks as a "normal man" cause only 1-6 points of damage, so an 8 HD hill giant would either have 8 attacks as a 1 HD monster (versus normals) with each hit causing 1-6 damage, or else 1 attack as an 8 HD monster (versus heroes/wizards) with a hit causing 2-12 damage.


Regarding "wizard" fighting capability:
A Chainmail-wizard was originally equal to 2 men in normal combat.
But when OD&D came along, the D&D-magic-user's fighting capability was wholesale redefined from Chainmail, so it's not apparent that the -1, -2, etc. adjustments which Chainmail applies to the "lesser" ranked Chainmail-Wizards are applicable to OD&D at all.

If we look at the Chainmail-"wizard" ranking, we can see it is roughly halfway between the "hero" and the "superhero" rankings on the Fantasy Combat Table, so it makes a certain sense to me that the OD&D-"wizard" fighting capability should be lie between hero and superhero status. I.e., approximately equal to hero+2 or 6 men.


Those are just my interpretation of OD&D's multiple attacks rules so feel free to use/abuse/discard/ignore as appropriate. Good luck with your game

[cooper]

The purpose of the alternate combat system was that Thac0 was what increased your damage, it "subsumed the ferocity and strength" of a monster.

Dragons don't do the same damage as orcs in 0d&d. A thac0 of 11 means the average damage each round is higher than that of a creature with a thac0 of 19. d6 damage is not equal across the board.

The purpose is low consistent damage from a dragon (vs. low inconsistent damage from an Orc) still gives players the opportunity to run away or perform some other action. The more damage you pile on in a single round the more lethal combat becomes.

There are great chase rules in the game, it would be a shame not to use them.

[kenmeister]

Dec 5, 2013 0:27:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

The purpose of the alternate combat system was that Thac0 was what increased your damage, it "subsumed the ferocity and strength" of a monster.

Dragons don't do the same damage as orcs in 0d&d. A thac0 of 11 means the average damage each round is higher than that of a creature with a thac0 of 19. d6 damage is not equal across the board.

The purpose is low consistent damage from a dragon (vs. low inconsistent damage from an Orc) still gives players the opportunity to run away or perform some other action. The more damage you pile on in a single round the more lethal combat becomes.

There are great chase rules in the game, it would be a shame not to use them.

I do see what you are saying, but I like my rule so much better. What my rule does is make the party's leveling mean so much more. A 2nd level party becomes about twice as capable as a 1st level party, and monsters that really scared the pants off the party at 1st become much more manageable at 2nd, and so on. In other words, everyone is going to really feel the effects of leveling and I think it's going to play great. Players will feel a real sense of accomplishment when say their 3rd level fighter holds off a bugbear which they remember being a challenge to the whole party back at 1st level.

Regarding "wizard" fighting capability:
A Chainmail-wizard was originally equal to 2 men in normal combat.
But when OD&D came along, the D&D-magic-user's fighting capability was wholesale redefined from Chainmail, so it's not apparent that the -1, -2, etc. adjustments which Chainmail applies to the "lesser" ranked Chainmail-Wizards are applicable to OD&D at all.

If we look at the Chainmail-"wizard" ranking, we can see it is roughly halfway between the "hero" and the "superhero" rankings on the Fantasy Combat Table, so it makes a certain sense to me that the OD&D-"wizard" fighting capability should be lie between hero and superhero status. I.e., approximately equal to hero+2 or 6 men.

When I looked at the fantasy combat table, I noticed how the wizard was exceptionally potent against certain opponents like balrogs and wraiths, so I came up with the wizard means 5 normally, or 9 against those types. Now, I did struggle between 5 and 6 men for quite some time; I think I just wanted clerics to be that much better so I stuck with 5.