|
Post by aldarron on Feb 8, 2020 6:51:00 GMT -6
FWIW Craig VanGrasstek in "Game of DUNGEON" also used "hits to kill", but it might be derived from vol. III: Nice find. It seems extremely unlikely VanGrasstek ever saw a copy of the 3lbb's when he wrote his rules or even knew the game existed. His was basically a Word of Mouth (telephone game) version of D&D stemming initially from a demo game of the newly published D&D rules that Arneson ran at the Unniversity of Minnesota in which Bluepetal participated.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 8, 2020 10:44:31 GMT -6
Another reference for everyone to look at and ponder over- Siege of Bodenburg.
You'll find mention of "hits" and "dice" throughout. But what's kinda interesting is the section on "Computing Hits" under Archer Fire. Here "HD" is actually used as the abbreviation for "Hit Divisor" and is a function of determining kills or wounds (damage).
*here again, like most early wargames, hits (hp's) are a fixed number.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 8, 2020 10:47:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 8, 2020 15:06:38 GMT -6
These are the majority of JG publications that refer to hit points prior to First Fantasy Campaign (some others, like the Ready Ref sheets don't have a need for the term). I had to look at this. Actually the Ready Ref Sheets use both terms- hit points and HTK. You can find mention of both, interchangeably, on p.13 & 20 for example. It seems to me that when they use "hit points" it's a variable range or modifiable number and when they use "HTK" it's a fixed number.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 8, 2020 16:13:52 GMT -6
To reiterate: The op explains that, at Dave Arneson's table, the phrase "Hit Dice" referred to the dice thrown by an attacker to figure the amount of damage dealt if their attack had succeeded (what we now call "rolling for damage"). Not to be confused with the modern term "hit dice", which are the dice used to roll up the starting hit points for npc monsters; nor to be confused with the dice thrown in wargames to tally the number of casualties inflicted on enemy units (one per man). The op continues, pointing out that, originally, fighters received additional "Hit Dice" to roll for more "damage" against future victims, as a reward for levelling. Coincidentally, all hit points were called HTK's (hits to kill), at these games, and they were static (not rolled with "hit dice"). So far, the material source for this information has been Arneson's campaign notes published in 1977, and specifically a table of dragon stats created by Richard Snider (another Blackmoor referee). Whatever the semantic issues between the terms (hits, points, dice, etc.), I think the mechanical difference between what waysofearth posted and what's in the D&D rules is interesting. Even if this version of "Hit Dice" turns out not to be relevant to the development of Dungeons and Dragons, I'd definitely still try it out at my table. Apologies if I caused a kerfuffle with the vagueness of my post here odd74.proboards.com/post/224979/thread. I didn't intend it as a statement about terminology (hit dice, hits to kill), but rather an observation of the conceptual/mechanical difference in the use of "hit dice". Acknowledged, I could have been more careful; allow me to rephrase: Today's well understood use of "Hit Dice" for determining hit points is different from Arneson's original game, which I understand featured: 1) A fixed number of hits a figure could sustain before dying (with various labels including: "hits", "points", and--later?--"Hits to Kill"). 2) A number of dice you rolled for damage (with various labels including: "hit dice" or "damage dice" or just "damage"). These points are detailed on Dan's blog, for example here: boggswood.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-creation-and-evolution-of-hit-points.htmland here: boggswood.blogspot.com/2014/10/did-hd-equal-level-in-early-blackmoor.htmlThe damage a Blackmoor fighter figure could deal was proportional to his (let's call it:) "tier", from: flunky (1 die) to hero (4 dice) to superhero (8 dice); see Greg Svennson here: odd74.proboards.com/post/43225/thread. Finer increments of damage dice "progression" could evidently be achieved between these milestones because, for example, Inspector General Snider and Baron Jenkins had 6 dice, and various characters had different "adds" to their hit dice. I vaguely recall (or think I recall?) discussion to the effect that men-at-arms had 2 HD; an interim step between flunkies and heroes, but alas I can't find a useful reference for that right now Anyways, regardless of the nuances around early character progression--(a pivotal feature of RPGs!)--the main difference that my OP intended to illuminate is that D&D progression in terms of "Hit Dice" primarily affects player hit points rather than damage output. Hope that helps?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 8, 2020 16:20:46 GMT -6
First time I've read that post, but yeah, it makes good sense to me. I haven't read "Forbidden Lore" so no comment on that one.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 8, 2020 16:31:53 GMT -6
No worries, waysoftheearth , I have the same interest in the "damage dice" concept as you did. Like I said, it's news to me (even if it's a 10+ year old conversation for everyone else). I would't be pushing back against it at all if it wasn't such a compelling idea
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 9, 2020 9:32:57 GMT -6
These are the majority of JG publications that refer to hit points prior to First Fantasy Campaign (some others, like the Ready Ref sheets don't have a need for the term). I had to look at this. Actually the Ready Ref Sheets use both terms- hit points and HTK. You can find mention of both, interchangeably, on p.13 & 20 for example. It seems to me that when they use "hit points" it's a variable range or modifiable number and when they use "HTK" it's a fixed number. Yes, I see what you are talking about - there are a few mentions of "hit points" and "hits to kill" in descriptive text and one "HTK" on page 20 for a stat block for Startling Statues. But my aside was not important to the point I was making. It was stated above that Arneson used "HTK" when restocking the Blackmoor dungeons in 1976. But how is it really known that he used the term "HTK" when doing this? He may have used "HP", and then Judges Guild when preparing FFC edited it to "HTK" to be consistent with the previous JG publications. I don't see how we can know which, unless there is some kind of independent source confirming this (like Arneson's draft notes). I see this as emblematic of a larger issue where what is written in FFC is sometimes taken as the final word on what Arneson wrote in various periods between 1971-1976 without acknowledgement that things may have been changed from he originally wrote, either by himself at a later time or by JG when preparing the book. It's the same kind of caveat noted by captainjapan above regarding the "Manpower" list and its use of HD. How do we know that all of the material in that list is exactly what Arneson wrote down in 1971 (including the use of the term "HD"), versus being revised by himself at a later date (for example after D&D came out), versus being edited by Judges Guild when preparing FFC?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 9, 2020 13:05:16 GMT -6
Hmm, I guess I didn't understand Dan or Simon to be saying the term HTK was exclusively being used by Arneson. The point, as I understand, is that the concept was not tied to HD because hit dice were a damage determining stat. HTK (or hit points) were a static number (based on level or point costs).
I believe the Blackmoor bunch probably used the terms hits and damage interchangeably. They would be an outcome of a dice roll. So, specifically this would be expressed as points (or even pips)-
GM: "Roll your hit dice." GM: "How many points of damage did you score when rolling your hit dice?"
Player: "I scored 4 points of damage" or "I scored 4 hits."
GM: "The Ogre had 12 HTK. You scored 4 hit points of damage. It will now take 8 hits to kill the Ogre."
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 9, 2020 14:00:45 GMT -6
I thought it might be helpful to quote Greg Svenson, in full, from a thread on Rafe's Wayfarer's Inn boards (2007):
I see this post quoted a lot on the blogs. Although Greg Svenson admits to being kept in the dark on some aspects of play, it looks to me as though he has made a clear distinction between the terms for dealing damage and for taking damage.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 9, 2020 15:15:17 GMT -6
it looks to me as though he has made a clear distinction between the terms for dealing damage and for taking damage. I'm interested in understanding you POV here. Please explain the distinction you are seeing.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 10, 2020 8:11:44 GMT -6
FWIW in vol. II among "very harmful effects" of touching the artifacts is "Take 10 Hit Dice of Damage".
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 10, 2020 8:24:48 GMT -6
It's the same kind of caveat noted by captainjapan above regarding the "Manpower" list and its use of HD. How do we know that all of the material in that list is exactly what Arneson wrote down in 1971 (including the use of the term "HD"), versus being revised by himself at a later date (for example after D&D came out), versus being edited by Judges Guild when preparing FFC? If you are considering the content of the FFC in general, then whether we do or don't know can have a number of reasons, that are, again, context dependent and often have to do with basic principals of textual criticism. In the particular case cited, the answer is threefold - the general and strong trend throughout the FFC (and Arneson's writings generally for that mater) not to exhibit any concern to alter text for the sake of compatibility with published D&D, the dateable content of the list itself, and the basic principal of editing which is that the reason for altering things is to improve clarity, not to turn them into nonsense. The HD ratings in the manpower list are nonsensical in D&D terms.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 10, 2020 9:54:44 GMT -6
It's the same kind of caveat noted by captainjapan above regarding the "Manpower" list and its use of HD. How do we know that all of the material in that list is exactly what Arneson wrote down in 1971 (including the use of the term "HD"), versus being revised by himself at a later date (for example after D&D came out), versus being edited by Judges Guild when preparing FFC? If you are considering the content of the FFC in general, then whether we do or don't know can have a number of reasons, that are, again, context dependent and often have to do with basic principals of textual criticism. In the particular case cited, the answer is threefold - the general and strong trend throughout the FFC (and Arneson's writings generally for that mater) not to exhibit any concern to alter text for the sake of compatibility with published D&D, the dateable content of the list itself, and the basic principal of editing which is that the reason for altering things is to improve clarity, not to turn them into nonsense. The HD ratings in the manpower list are nonsensical in D&D terms. The HD of Baron Fant is 8+2, exactly the same as the Dice for a Super Hero level. I can imagine other possible reasons why it could have ended up being written that way. Arneson could have originally written "Baron Fant, Super Hero, 28 Men" in 1971 and then later after D&D came out changed it himself to "Baron Fant, HD 8+2, 28 Men". HD 4+1 might be his short hand for a Hero (HD 4) with some kind of bonus of 1 point (it's possible that Arneson may have customized parts of the "Dice for Accumulative Hits" from Men & Magic). I'm not convinced by this list alone (which may have been altered at any date up to 1977) that its use of "HD" is referring to "damage dice".
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 10, 2020 11:54:30 GMT -6
derv , I'd like to say up front that I understand hitting and causing damage to be distinct, even as it applies to Chainmail. I don't look at the one-hit-kill result from Chainmail and say that I have dealt 1 point of damage or all points of damage or anything like that. Damage, in Chainmail, is something you do to buildings or catapults or other material structures, not to people. The only exceptions I see are giants and ogres which require an "accumulation of hits" to defeat. With that out of the way, here is the same Svenson post which I have [annotated] and reorganized to try and make my point a little better: "Because you died when you were hit in Chainmail [here Svenson is refering to the Fantasy Combat Table], we were using damage dice, hit dice and armor classes [unless he's being redundant Svenson is using the terms "damage dice" and "hit dice" to describe two different throws of dice] within about a month of our starting to play Blackmoor (winter of 1970-71). I think that the the only time we used pure Chainmail after the first few weeks was when we were doing mass battles [normal Chainmail combat where Svenson would, originally, have required 4 simultaneous kills to take down][very respectable]. Even then we adjusted it to use the damage dice [no mention of the new "hit dice", because, and this is pure speculation on my part, Svenson considers the primary Chainmail attack throw to be the "hit dice"]["damage dice" are a second throw that effectively multiplies the one-hit-kill of a hit die to 4d6 kills for the Great Svenny] and hit points for each PC [which may explain why it took "several hundred orcs and pikemen to lay Svenny low" in Lake Gloomy the next year], so it was not really pure Chainmail anymore. I don't remember when the level advancement became one level per new hit dice [Svenson and the other original Blackmoor players are being rewarded with more hit dice same as in published D&D] and we were never really sure how far along we were in getting to the next level, Dave kept track of our experience and let us know when we moved up. It seems to me that the transition from our home game with Dave's rules to play testing the OD&D rules was a pretty minor transition. Hardly noticeable... [Svenson wants to keep his character's hit points, his to-hit rolls, and his damage the same in D&D as they were before D&D. He can have two of the three, because unless Arneson house rules something, Svenny will have to start rolling 1d6 for damage, same as everyone else]"
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 10, 2020 16:58:28 GMT -6
Since neither of Chainmails Combat Tables take the level (or equivalent manpower) of a character into consideration there are only a few options for accomplishing this effect when rolling to hit.
1. modify the dice roll + or - (this is how different levels of wizards are handled on the FCT, but it can cause situations of auto hits or impossible to hit; essentially all do the same number of hits/damage) 2. roll multiple times equal to manpower. (only practical vs. normal men on M2M table; nonsensical on the FCT) 3. modify a successful hit by a multiplier based on manpower (a hero does 4x hits/damage) 4. roll dice for damage based on manpower (a hero rolls 4 dice of damage on each successful hit).
FFC: "Trolls and Ogres: These creatures are worth 18 points (or hits) with variation. Elves get double value Hits while Hero-types and Magic Weapons get Hits times six."
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 10, 2020 17:26:31 GMT -6
I thought it might be helpful to quote Greg Svenson, in full, from a thread on Rafe's Wayfarer's Inn boards (2007)... That's super helpful, especially the part about PCs starting at flunky level, which had recently been a point of debate for me. I'm still unclear on where people started or progressed as magic-users. Was that even a thing?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 10, 2020 17:54:16 GMT -6
The FFC makes mention of Hero Flunkies and Superhero Flunkies as well.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 11, 2020 5:03:43 GMT -6
Pretty sure in that context "flunky" refers to "hired help".
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 11, 2020 9:13:36 GMT -6
I thought it might be helpful to quote Greg Svenson, in full, from a thread on Rafe's Wayfarer's Inn boards (2007)... That's super helpful, especially the part about PCs starting at flunky level, which had recently been a point of debate for me. I'm still unclear on where people started or progressed as magic-users. Was that even a thing? "Study and practice were the most important factors involved. A MU [Magic-user] did not progress unless he used Spells, either in the Dungeon or in practice (there was no difference) sessions.... So to progress to a new level one first learned the spells, and then got to use that spell. There was no automatic progression, rather it was a slow step by step, spell by spell progression. [FFC:74]" There's no doubt in my mind that Pete Gaylord was made a wizard purely by decree. Back then, there were no class requirements anymore than there were classes. The blackmoor wizard blinked into existence the moment Gaylord said he wanted to be a wizard. Spells may have, initially, been found as a form of treasure (spell balls?). I don't think throwing spell balls was the exclusive domain of the wizard. Brewing of new spell balls was the wizard's bag. Advancing from a Level I Wizard to a Level II Wizard was mostly arbitrary, but Arneson did require that their be a chance for failure to brew the spells.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 11, 2020 20:04:45 GMT -6
Pretty sure in that context "flunky" refers to "hired help". I agree that the section is talking about "hired help" (kind of an odd and unnecessary term to call such), but it seems clear to me that there were intermediary "levels" that quickly developed. It takes no stretch of the imagination to fill in the gaps between Flunky and Hero, Hero and Superhero. In the list mentioned earlier, Blackmoor's More Infamous Characters, we have characters like Baron Fant with 8+2 HD and Captain Krey with 4+1 HD. We also have Earl of Vestfold with 9+1 HD and Baron Jenkins with 6+2 HD. "How to Become a Bad Guy (Basic Procedure)" says "To progress to the next level (which in Blackmoor meant getting 50% more Hit Dice per level, although our combat did not really use Hit Dice)." I underlined the last part because it kind of emphasizes the difficulty of this discussion- what is meant by Hit Dice. Here Arneson is using it to mean something other than how the term came to be understood and pointing out the fact.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2020 6:31:41 GMT -6
To carry this further and to emphasize CJ and Zens opinion on the FFC, I'm not sure he is actually talking about HD here. He may be talking specifically about hit points.
HD: 2 >>> 4 >>> 6 >>> 8
hp: 4 >>> 6 >>> 9 >>> 14 >>> 21
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 12, 2020 6:37:54 GMT -6
Another reference for everyone to look at and ponder over- Siege of Bodenburg. You'll find mention of "hits" and "dice" throughout. But what's kinda interesting is the section on "Computing Hits" under Archer Fire. Here "HD" is actually used as the abbreviation for "Hit Divisor" and is a function of determining kills or wounds (damage). *here again, like most early wargames, hits (hp's) are a fixed number. I just read this. For anyone else who is interested, Hit Divisor (HD), in Siege of Bodenberg, represents the value that different forms of cover (open terrain/hills and woods/ into a breached castle) provide to men in the target sector of the board. In Siege of Bodenberg, archers don't roll their chance to-hit. Cover just reduces the number of the points (hits) of damage to that sector. Figures can take 1-3 hit points. Archers cannot single out any particular target. Their damage is spread evenly amongst everyone occupying that sector. The mechanic for hand-to-hand fighting is completely different; a CRT they call "the Morale Table" Hit Divisors (cover) obviously doesn't apply here. I wish I could find my way to a convention to play this.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Feb 12, 2020 6:47:49 GMT -6
imagine that dragon in its lair deep in the dungeon, with only a single 10' x 10' x 10' corridor leading into its chamber. Now imagine the following party (all with average hp) entering the room: 14th-level fighting-man (43 hp) 14-level magic-user (32 hp) 14th-level cleric (31 hp) 4th/8th-level elf (How to figure? But not more than 32 hp) 6th-level dwarf (21 hp) 4th-level hobbit (14 hp) The dragon breaths on them. 5 out of 6 of them don't even need to bother rolling saving throws. They're dead even if they roll 20s. Only the 14th-level fighting-man would have a chance (80%, to be exact) to survive. And assuming he made his saving throw, our 14th-level Lord will be going toe-to-toe with a beast that has 66 hp while he has a measly 10 hp left. I'd bet on the dragon. ;D That's quite true Geoffrey, but also rather unlikley. If a group of players ever actually employed those tactics then they deserve what they get. Let's imagine another scenario... The players are aware of the dragon lair before they approach, thanks to its fearsome reputation and the scouting efforts of their "burglar". They also know from local legends that the monster is an ancient red dragon. The Elf uses his ESP spell to determine whether or not it is sleeping before they get anywhere near it. If it is sleeping, it's as good as over. Let us assume it is not. The magic-user casts a Wizard Eye spell to confirm that there are no other nasty surprises in the lair, exactly where the dragon is and what it is doing, and whether there is any worthwhile loot in the hoard. If anything looks suspicious, the party withdraws to re-plan the engagement. If the hoard contains nothing they haven't already got, the cleric simply causes an Earthquake to cave in the lair, destroying the dragon without any risk. However, assuming the party actually want to loot the hoard, they prepare to do battle. The cleric (who already wears a ring of fire resistance) casts Protection from Evil 10ft Radius on everyone as a precaution. The fighter uses his ring of wishes to gain utter invulnerability to fire. The others drink the potions of fire resistance which they had prepared specifically for this encounter. Once this is done they are ready to engage. But they don't march in the front door do they? Oh no. From a safe distance outside the lair, the magic-user uses a Conjure Elemental and send an Earth Elemental in to distract the dragon. The cleric summons an Insect Plague and does likewise. Once that little "introduction" has stirred the dragon (and caused it to expend at least one of its breath attacks), the party attacks proper. They variously Teleport, Dimension Door, Passwall and use Oil of Etherealness to enter the lair so that they immediately surround the monster. With the dragon still engaged against the elemental, their sudden appearance is likely to earn them a surprise round. Even if it doesn't, the dragon can't attack all of them at once since they have it pretty much encircled. In the first round the Dwarf and the fighter attack with their swords of dragon slaying calling out insults to ensure they get the monster's full attention, while the burglar fires arrows of dragon slaying from his short bow. From relatively safe, dark corners, the magic-user fires his Disintegrate spell and the elf fire his Polymorph Other spell (turning the dragon into a newt). The cleric unleashes The Finger of Death. The dragon's odds of surviving all this seem rather long. If the dragon has any fiery breath weapon uses left after dealing with the conjured prelude, and manages to actually use its weapon, then it is most likely to hit either the fighter or the dwarf. In this case, it is 50% likely to waste its attack on the invulnerable fighter, but 50% likely to breath on the brave dwarf instead. With his dwarfishness, fire-resistance and protection from evil, he is pretty likely to save. Whether he saves or not, the damage will be reduced by 1 per die due to his potion of fire resistance. Even if the dwarf is killed, it won't matter overly, seeing that the cleric is on hand with his Raise Dead spell. If it's still on after round one, the PCs will unleash all hell again in the second round. Yes this is taking it to the other extreme. But one thing I've come to appreciate is: One must never underestimate the destruction a party of PCs can cause And then the party members retire in comfort as the players chant “We won D&D, We won D&D!”
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 12, 2020 16:51:54 GMT -6
To carry this further and to emphasize CJ and Zens opinion on the FFC, I'm not sure he is actually talking about HD here. He may be talking specifically about hit points. HD: 2 >>> 4 >>> 6 >>> 8 hp: 4 >>> 6 >>> 9 >>> 14 >>> 21 by Jove, you're right. Among other turns of the phrase, Prof. Barker uses the same sort of ambiguous/loose terminology in the explainer for section 530. Damage Dice, in E.P.T.: Yours is a better example, though
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2020 17:31:21 GMT -6
Another reference for everyone to look at and ponder over- Siege of Bodenburg. You'll find mention of "hits" and "dice" throughout. But what's kinda interesting is the section on "Computing Hits" under Archer Fire. Here "HD" is actually used as the abbreviation for "Hit Divisor" and is a function of determining kills or wounds (damage). *here again, like most early wargames, hits (hp's) are a fixed number. I just read this. For anyone else who is interested, Hit Divisor (HD), in Siege of Bodenberg, represents the value that different forms of cover (open terrain/hills and woods/ into a breached castle) provide to men in the target sector of the board. In Siege of Bodenberg, archers don't roll their chance to-hit. Cover just reduces the number of the points (hits) of damage to that sector. Figures can take 1-3 hit points. Archers cannot single out any particular target. Their damage is spread evenly amongst everyone occupying that sector. The mechanic for hand-to-hand fighting is completely different; a CRT they call "the Morale Table" Hit Divisors (cover) obviously doesn't apply here. I wish I could find my way to a convention to play this. I would say that the missile fire has a base divisor of 5 (open terrain). This is similar to what I shared earlier with Bath's method, except here you are applying the divisor after the roll of "hit dice". The number of dice rolled is determined by the number of figures firing and the range of the target. Cover is a common modifier to dice rolls in most war games. So, Bodenburg is no exception. What's different about Bodenburg is how you apply the hits by priority (applying damage to a unit), where you may only be wounding figures with higher Combat Values. What you describe for hand-to-hand melee is only part of the resolution. The CRT (morale) does have "hit" effects that need to be applied, but it is also meant to determine if melee will even happen or if someone will withdraw or rout prior. Melee itself is handled by rolling three different colored dice for each man attacking per Combat Value. They call this a "Basic Roll". So, a Knight would get three Basic Rolls. Honestly, melee is risky for both sides. Results could go either way. It is not a simple roll to hit solution and the attacker may be the one who is the casualty.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Feb 15, 2020 23:52:38 GMT -6
It's the same kind of caveat noted by captainjapan above regarding the "Manpower" list and its use of HD. How do we know that all of the material in that list is exactly what Arneson wrote down in 1971 (including the use of the term "HD"), versus being revised by himself at a later date (for example after D&D came out), versus being edited by Judges Guild when preparing FFC? If you are considering the content of the FFC in general, then whether we do or don't know can have a number of reasons, that are, again, context dependent and often have to do with basic principals of textual criticism. In the particular case cited, the answer is threefold - the general and strong trend throughout the FFC (and Arneson's writings generally for that mater) not to exhibit any concern to alter text for the sake of compatibility with published D&D, the dateable content of the list itself, and the basic principal of editing which is that the reason for altering things is to improve clarity, not to turn them into nonsense. The HD ratings in the manpower list are nonsensical in D&D terms. It occurs to me that , this being a manpower list, the Blackmoor heroes might be described in terms of their own manpower for purposes of fighting alongside their troops, in a mass combat. So, they are described in terms of HD, which allows them to battle as their man-type equivalent, plus whatever bonus might be, to hit 1HD creatures (orcs, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 17, 2020 19:18:42 GMT -6
The HD of Baron Fant is 8+2, exactly the same as the Dice for a Super Hero level. Yes, that's been discussed, but what significance do you mean that single correlation to carry? The entire list is: Baron Fant: HD: 8 + 2; 28 Men Captain Krey: HD: 4 + 1; 20 Men (gone) Dwarves: 150 Elves: 180 Peasants: 158 Men (base) Earl of Vestfold: HD: 9 +1; 351 Men Baron Jenkins: HD: 6 + 2; 28 Men Swenson's Freehold: HD: 8 + 5; 30 Men Merchant's: HD: 4 + 1; 14 Men Bandit's: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men Inspector General Snider: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men Wizard of the Wood Zac, if you are able to explain all or most of them in sensible and consistent D&D terms, I'd be more than willing to listen. I can imagine other possible reasons why it could have ended up being written that way. Arneson could have originally written "Baron Fant, Super Hero, 28 Men" in 1971 and then later after D&D came out changed it himself to "Baron Fant, HD 8+2, 28 Men". HD 4+1 might be his short hand for a Hero (HD 4) with some kind of bonus of 1 point (it's possible that Arneson may have customized parts of the "Dice for Accumulative Hits" from Men & Magic). Just so stories aren't science, right? It can be fun and useful to speculate, but first we must have a good reason to, like, having a problem for which there isn't a ready answer. Speculation leads to testing and possible solutions or elimination of poor ideas. In this case, we don't have a question or problem to test, we have a claim. The claim speculates that a small portion of text containing HD has been altered for unknown reasons from it's original, while the rest was left as is. There's no evidence for the claim. Nothing in the text itself that suggests the deliberate injection of a familiar pattern or any problem text that has been properly fixed. There is no particular textual reason to see why the claim is even being made. The claim therefore lies entirely with the predilections of the claimant. Nevertheless, to support the claim a story is constructed over how it might possibly have been done. There is no way to refute the story or any others that might be put forward to explain the thing that the claimant invented. I'm trying to put this as matter of factly as possible to allow you to see the hoops. Let me do an Occam's Razor; the text is as it was written. As written it is entirely consistent with the game conditions of 1971 prior to 2nd Coot Invasion. Keep in mind the FFC is not an isolated source. I'm not convinced by this list alone (which may have been altered at any date up to 1977) that its use of "HD" is referring to "damage dice". Neither is anybody else. However when considered with other information, damage dice seems a leading likely explanation, which is all that's being claimed.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 20, 2020 23:48:44 GMT -6
For simplicity's sake, let's say that HD refers to both damage dice, and HTK/HP (taken as a fixed average or rolled randomly, as preferred.) As a PC goes from flunky to hero and then to super-hero, "HD" increases from 1 to 4 and then to 8. A Wizard would presumably have 2 HD since they fight as 2 armored foot in normal combat.
That much seems seems reasonable to me, based on the discussion here and what I've read elsewhere. Svenson above mentions the use of armor class in Blackmoor very early on. So my question is: do we have a working theory on how successful "hits" were determined in Blackmoor?
The M2M table seems like an obvious candidate until the question of monsters attacking comes up. The FCT doesn't involve AC so that seems unlikely. The mass combat table could be used if AC was translated to troop-types but that seems too clunky even for Arneson.
Instead, it's been reported that AC was more of a "saving throw." This makes sense as a successful hit would simply be a failed save based on AC. However, there doesn't seem to be any concrete accounts of such a system. This seems to be one of the last mysteries of Arneson's pre-D&D combat system. My guess is that this armor save was some type of 2d6 roll or perhaps a single die throw if there were only a few classes of armor.
Does anyone have any theories or insight into this?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 21, 2020 13:21:39 GMT -6
d10 (percentile d20): save on AC or better.
It could be made to work with 2d6 too.
I speculate that the combat table may have been level based- PC level vs monster level (HD). A simple single column table.
|
|