A D@D/BX Hybrid game

[Deleted]

Dragons at Dawn is a cool game but it is a bit too different from D&D to use the unlimited supply of D&D adventures and add-ons currently available. What I'd like to see is a "Basic" version of the D@D game which is as compatible as possible with D&D adventures (such as B2) which still preserves as much of Dave's original rules as possible.

Here's where I'm starting:

1-The character classes will all have a simplified OD&D hit dice progression: fighters 1 hit die per level, thieves 3 hit dice per 4 levels and wizards 1 hit dice per 2 levels. Hit points will also determine hit points as per D&D but will determine fighting value as D@D.

2-Combat will be resolve on a hit dice-vs-hit die table. While the table will be d20 it will work as D@D. This same table will be used as a universal skill table comparing character level versus skill difficulty "level" (as per bestialwarlust's thread) and as the basis for all saving throws.

3-Armor will provide saving throws to avoid damage. As D@D but converted to d20 as above. The wider range of potential values will allow more types of armor or a simple partial armor system. Also, most monsters will not have an armor save unless they are wearing armor or have notoriously hard skin, such as rhinos, giant bugs or dragons. Shields will increase DV not armor save.

4-The type of hit die for characters and monsters will be determined not by class but by size. Tiny monsters such as pixies, kobolds and squirrels will have d4 hit dice. Small monsters such as elves, goblins and dogs will have d6. Humans and man-sized monsters d8. Orgres, troll and tigers will have d10 whilst huge monsters such as dragons and elephants will use d12 hit dice. This allows large monsters to be hard to kill without automatically hitting more often.

5-Weapon and creature damage will also be based on hit die size. This will end up matching the monster manual values in many cases; goblins do d6 damage, orc d8 and ogres d10 forex. Small or crude weapons such as daggers and clubs will do the next smaller die size whereas two handed weapons will do two small dice of damage. For example, human weapons deal d8 damage normally with club/daggers doing d6 and two-handed swords 2d6. Hobbit weapons will be d4 / d6 / 2d4, etc.

6-While hit dice won't be used for damage, each character will get an additional die of damage per four hit dice. Also, damage will "bleed" over from one monster to another. So if a character does 12 points of damage to a group of orcs that have 4 hps each then they will kill 3 orcs. The same is true for spells such as fireball which will do a base amount of damage to a group rather than doing that damage to everyone in the area of effect. So large groups of monsters will be treated as a large single monster for many cases. This is so you can adjudicate large battles without worrying about the position of each little monster or henchman.

7-Spells will work as D&D however there will be a much wider list of spells and spells will not vary by caster level. A fireball spell might do 5d6 points of damage no matter who's casting it. If you want more damage you'll have to use a 4th level fireball spell. Also, some spells might be better than others. For example a wizard that knows a 5d6 damage fireball might be able to create or find a 6d6 damage fireball.

8-Ability scores won't be used, just ability modifiers. There won't be a set list of abilities for everyone, instead the list can vary by class, race, or even game world.

[tombowings]

Well done.

Use multiple dice per hit die per damage sounds like a lot for Heroes and Superheroes, yo scrounge up but totally workable.

I'm intrigued to know about your use of abilities though and how they vary by race and class.

[havard]

Interesting!

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2012 1:52:27 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Use multiple dice per hit die per damage sounds like a lot for Heroes and Superheroes, yo scrounge up but totally workable.

Heroes will do 2d8 per attack and Superheroes 3d8 (assuming normal weapons). Since damage bleeds from one monster to another, extra damage is functionally the same as having extra attacks. In fact, I'll probably suggest that extra attacks be used instead for ranged combat.

I'm intrigued to know about your use of abilities though and how they vary by race and class.

I do this in BX: you roll a d6 and compare the number to a chart which as all the abilities in order (Str=1, Int=2, Wis=3 etc). PCs roll four dice and get +1 as an ability modifier for those 4 abilities rolled. (so you might have four with +1 or one +3 and one +1). Then they roll two negative dice that each give -1 to the ability modifier rolled. A +1 and a -1 will cancel each other out. The result is kinda like point buy since all characters will end up with a +2 combined modifier.

Since it's chart based, you can swap out one ability for another or put the same ability multiple times. For example, since there are no elven clerics, you can swap the Wis entry in their chart for a Luck stat. Or you could remove Con from the negative chart for dwarves and replace it with a second entry for Cha (thus emulating AD&D's racial modifiers).

Of course, just because an ability isn't listed in a chart doesn't mean a character might not get it later on. A Ring of +1 Luck for instance.

[aldarron]

Nov 23, 2012 22:16:02 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Dragons at Dawn is a cool game but it is a bit too different from D&D to use the unlimited supply of D&D adventures and add-ons currently available. What I'd like to see is a "Basic" version of the D@D game which is as compatible as possible with D&D adventures (such as B2) which still preserves as much of Dave's original rules as possible.

Here's where I'm starting:

1-The character classes will all have a simplified OD&D hit dice progression: fighters 1 hit die per level, thieves 3 hit dice per 4 levels and wizards 1 hit dice per 2 levels. Hit points will also determine hit points as per D&D but will determine fighting value as D@D.

2-Combat will be resolve on a hit dice-vs-hit die table. While the table will be d20 it will work as D@D. This same table will be used as a universal skill table comparing character level versus skill difficulty "level" (as per bestialwarlust's thread) and as the basis for all saving throws.

3-Armor will provide saving throws to avoid damage. As D@D but converted to d20 as above. The wider range of potential values will allow more types of armor or a simple partial armor system. Also, most monsters will not have an armor save unless they are wearing armor or have notoriously hard skin, such as rhinos, giant bugs or dragons. Shields will increase DV not armor save.

4-The type of hit die for characters and monsters will be determined not by class but by size. Tiny monsters such as pixies, kobolds and squirrels will have d4 hit dice. Small monsters such as elves, goblins and dogs will have d6. Humans and man-sized monsters d8. Orgres, troll and tigers will have d10 whilst huge monsters such as dragons and elephants will use d12 hit dice. This allows large monsters to be hard to kill without automatically hitting more often.

5-Weapon and creature damage will also be based on hit die size. This will end up matching the monster manual values in many cases; goblins do d6 damage, orc d8 and ogres d10 forex. Small or crude weapons such as daggers and clubs will do the next smaller die size whereas two handed weapons will do two small dice of damage. For example, human weapons deal d8 damage normally with club/daggers doing d6 and two-handed swords 2d6. Hobbit weapons will be d4 / d6 / 2d4, etc.

6-While hit dice won't be used for damage, each character will get an additional die of damage per four hit dice. Also, damage will "bleed" over from one monster to another. So if a character does 12 points of damage to a group of orcs that have 4 hps each then they will kill 3 orcs. The same is true for spells such as fireball which will do a base amount of damage to a group rather than doing that damage to everyone in the area of effect. So large groups of monsters will be treated as a large single monster for many cases. This is so you can adjudicate large battles without worrying about the position of each little monster or henchman.

7-Spells will work as D&D however there will be a much wider list of spells and spells will not vary by caster level. A fireball spell might do 5d6 points of damage no matter who's casting it. If you want more damage you'll have to use a 4th level fireball spell. Also, some spells might be better than others. For example a wizard that knows a 5d6 damage fireball might be able to create or find a 6d6 damage fireball.

8-Ability scores won't be used, just ability modifiers. There won't be a set list of abilities for everyone, instead the list can vary by class, race, or even game world.

Some great ideas Hedge, especially #3!

[Deleted]

I've put together a draft of my Hit Chart.



The numbers might look funny but I did it to make the value reciprocal. A FV of 1 hitting a DV of 2 is the opposite of a 2 hitting a 1. For example, the 1 will beat the 2 40% of the time whereas the 2 will beat the 1 60% of the time. I did this so that either participant can roll the die and the probabilities will be the same. So you can use the chart to compare similar things (Str vs Str forex) or the PCs can make "dodge" rolls to avoid getting hit instead of having DM rolling to-hit rolls for the monsters. If the values are even then either side will succeed 50% of the time.

Fighting Value is equal to a creatures hit dice. Defense Value is equal to hit dice plus Dex plus a bonus for shields (+1 for small, +2 for large).

For skill rolls, the Difficulty Value of a skill will be equal to the opponents level. If there isn't a monster being tested against, use either the current dungeon "level" * 2 or the spell's level * 2.

So, in general, combat will be hit dice versus hit dice and all other tests will be level vs level.

A creatures size will affect it's fighting and defensive values. Both will be decreased by a high size. That way, large monsters with tons of hit dice won't automatically hit everything. Their attacks will be slower and easier to avoid. However, large monsters will also have a penalty to any armor saves used to avoid their damage.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand your ability modifier generation. That said, this sounds like a great game, and I'd love to see the finished product!

[aldarron]

Awsome! I particularly like that you can create opposing rolls of almost anything, say "jousting" or "target shooting"; same principle used in Weseley's Braunstein games.

[sirjaguar]

Hail and well met.
I commend all the work put toward advancing a game (D@D) that's already excellent. Versus rolls are cool, and your hybrid D@D/BX universal table is innovative.

How would morale factor into your game? Would it still affect a character's (or monster's) combat ability?

Now here's a short rant:
Personally, I like games with disparate and inconsistent resolution systems as they feel more old school and the clunkiness encourages ad hoc gaming (that is, skipping die-rolling resolution except when absolutely necessary because it might entail several minutes of looking up a rule). One resolution system is so reductive; it takes away the magic. I like 2d6 and I side with the camp that says the "alternative combat system" was for people too challenged to figure out Chainmail's fantasy combat and MtM tables (OK, maybe no camp says _that_, but to heck with all the evidence that the ACS was de rigeuer). I definitely would not substitute a PC's dodge roll for a monster's too-hit roll; from an odds standpoint it's all the same, but conceptually it seems wrong. In my head I see a monster swinging randomly and a PC leaping out of the way like a Wipeout contestant. Finally, why bother balancing skill tests with character/dungeon level? A higher level character is just better at lots of things (or most things).

Rant aside, I _really_ like the idea of using different hit dice types for different sized monsters. That's brilliant. And for D@D combat shield bonuses are also great and would suffice.
Exalt.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2013 23:29:30 GMT -6 sirjaguar said:

How would morale factor into your game?

Morale will work exactly as B/X. My main goal is to be able to use D&D modules without any major conversion.

Personally, I like games with disparate and inconsistent resolution systems as they feel more old school and the clunkiness encourages ad hoc gaming (that is, skipping die-rolling resolution except when absolutely necessary because it might entail several minutes of looking up a rule).

I do it primarily for the players. It doesn't matter if the player is trying to hit an orc or dodge dragonfire or repair his hyperdrive, he'll state his intent and roll a d20. The player doesn't have to stop and ask the DM what die to use or what he needs to succeed. The players don't have to know the rules (or the rule's limitations) to act.

In my head I see a monster swinging randomly and a PC leaping out of the way like a Wipeout contestant.

The alternative is for PCs to stand still while monsters whack on them! Having the players roll put the fate of their character directly in their hands (even if is still just random chance).

Finally, why bother balancing skill tests with character/dungeon level? A higher level character is just better at lots of things (or most things).

The idea that the difficulty varies by dungeon level is for such things that might become more difficult as the characters descend. On the upper levels, the locks on chests will be simple and the traps will be crude (since they were constructed by goblins or kobolds). As the characters descend, the locks will be more complex and the traps more sophisticated (possibly made by ancient beings long gone). The purpose isn't to balance skills vs difficulty but to allow the players who wish to seek out more challenge to do so by descending dungeon levels or traveling to the monster infested wilderness.

[Deleted]

Here's an example of what I'm thinking about ability scores. The concept is simple, to roll up a character, the player rolls 4 positive (good) dice and 2 negative (bad) dice and place them on the chart for the particular race or background of the character. Some die rolls will give the player a choice as to what ability to put it towards and one die can be moved after all the rolls are made.

For example, when rolling for a human, a player rolls a 1, 3, 4, 6 for his positive dice and a 2, and 3 for his negative dice.

This will give the character a Str +1, Int -1 Con +1 and his choice of a single +1. the +1 Dex and -1 Dex cancel each other out and he ends up with a regular 0 Dex modifier. The player could put his +1 choice into Str or Con or he could pick on of the other abilities not on his sheet like Luck or Size.

Each character will have random stats but all character will have a +2 overall modifier so it is similar to point based character generation in that respect.

The DM can use one chart for everyone or he can use a different chart for non-humans or even a different chart of different human backgrounds (a Barbarian chart for example). Also, each chart can include new abilities applicable to that particular race.

Here's examples for dwarf and elf characters.



I'm not satisfied how these charts have turned out so will probably be changing them. The thinking is that the random abilities will include things that other games would classify as Advantages or Disadvantages but in a simpler way and that the racial charts would replace the need for the various +1 of this and -1 of that.

[Deleted]

One of the biggest problems with trying to come up with an "Arnesonian" ruleset is the lack of source material. In this post I'll be looking at Adventures in Fantasy to see what I can take from it.

A character's chance to hit in Adventures in Fantasy is based on four factors:

-"Body Type" of the target
-A comparison of both combatant's Dex
-A comparison of both combatant's Size
-A comparison of both combatant's HD or levels

Other than the body type chart, the values for the other three comparisons are reciprocal, meaning if a character with a high dex gains a 10% bonus to hit a low dex target, that target will get a 10% penalty to hit back.

I've only acquired a copy of AiF recently so I didn't realize how close my system mirrors AiF's methods. I don't use "body type" and as of now, a high DEX will only make you harder to hit but not easier to hit back. Arneson's view of Size, where a high size makes you easier to hit, matches how size was used in 3e which is close to what I'm using. Overall I seems that my system is suitably Arnesonian in concept even if it doesn't match AiF's percentages exactly.

Like DatD, AiF uses an armor save. The save doesn't block 100% of the damage but only a portion of the damage based on the type of armor (1/3 for leather 1/2 for chain and 2/3s for plate). Since I use an all-or-nothing save, I converted the AiF numbers to a straight save percentage. For example, in AiF plate armor blocks 2/3s of the damage 90% of the time which works out to blocking all damage 60% of the time (keeping the same average per round).

Leather: 18.3%
Chainmail: 30%
Full Plate: 60%

In another thread about armor effectiveness, I calculated these percentages from OD&D's alternate combat system by looking at the hits deflected by a higher AC. Those numbers were:

Leather (AC7): 18%
Chainmail: 35%
Plate: 55%

As you can see, both sets of numbers are within 5% of each other. That surprised me.

Converting the AiF numbers to a d20 roll-high save gives the saves as:

Leather: 17+
Chain: 14+
Plate: 10+

That seems like a reasonable starting point.

I'm not sure what to do about helmets. The AiF rule gives helmets a 10% save but it's not clear if that is rolled separately, if it is added to the other percentage, or if that roll is for having a helmet only and helmets are assumed into part of the other suits.

[Deleted]

In addition to the combat-related stuff, from Adventures in Fantasy I also want to port over the idea of "sorcerous combat" where two wizards duel when they come near each other. The description in AiF is pretty vague so I don't know how I will translate it into a form compatible with B/X.

Some other sources of inspiration ...

Dungeon: I like the idea of treasure cards because you can adjust your deck to make the treasure fit in with the particular dungeon or monster. For example, if you are delving into dwarven ruins you'll tend to find more dwarf-related treasure items. With a treasure deck that's an easy thing to accomplish. Monsters will be rated on the number and level of cards in their treasure rather than having treasure types.

Empire of the Petal Throne: I mentioned earlier using EPT's damage spreading system which, by my understanding, originated with Dave. In addition, I will import the number of figures per rank based on weapons, rerolling hit points at every level, small/medium/larger versions of monsters and the critical hit system.

In EPT, if you roll a 20, you can either do double damage or go for a one-hit kill by rolling a 19+ on a second die. In my game, a critical hit will occur whenever you roll a 20 or roll 10 more than you would normally need. In addition, characters can learn other "special attacks" that they can perform on a critical such as grappling attacks, disarms, take-downs etc. These can either be learned by the character or be a function of the weapons (a character armed with a halberd can perform a take-down on a rider). Monsters will also have their own special attacks that activated when they get a critical. Kobolds will duck under your legs to attack from behind, goblins can climb on top of you to bite you, giants will grab you and shove you into a sack etc. This way you can distinguish the various monsters who would otherwise only be differenciated by number of hit dice.

Since the EPT combat rules allow larger combats to be run, I want to encourage players to recruit larger bands of henchmen. These bands will be enough men to fit on 10x10 square, so 10 in close formation (spearmen) or 5 in open formation (swordsmen). The bands will have a system to track their quality and morale as well as a system to replace combat losses. I'll probably start with something like Mordheim to begin with.

It goes without saying that I'll be consulting the FFC but since that is mainly about world-building, it won't have much impact on the rules.

[aldarron]

Just wanted to mention, Hedge has some further ideas along these lines posted here link