HD types: d6+1; d6; d6-1

[Zulgyan]

So what about hitdice in this way?
Fighting-men: 1d6+1
Clerics: 1d6
Magic-users: 1d6-1
Monster: 1d6

A level 4 FM is 4d6+4

A level 3 MU is 3d6-3

[busman]

I'm curious what the change is for?

Hit Dice are already reasonably balanced based on how quickly XP is earned and how many per level.

At level 1, they are all the same, yes. But, at 8,000XP the FM is at 4HD, the MU is at 2HD and about to go to 2+1 in 2,000 more XP, and the Cleric rides on 4 as well. And it gets wider from there. Yes, a MU at Necromancer comes in with 7 HD, but it takes 200,000 XP to get there, while the FM gets that amount as a Champion at 64,000XP.

I discovered this while doing my Thief variant. I was going to make their HP higher, but doing it BTB from Greyhawk with the XP rate they had and effectively MU HD along the way, they gained HP at a rate just behind the FM. They just gained levels more quickly, so had smaller awards per 1,000XP.

Side note: with your method a MU at level 3 is avg 7.5hp and with the BTB method is 8 hp.

[Zulgyan]

I don't really like F-M and Cs having the same hit points at the beginning levels.

I also like how I can use this later for grapple and other combat maneuvers. (Following the combat example that appeared in the Strategic Review).

In the case of the magic-user, the average hitpoints is in some levels higher than BTB and in some other's lower.

[Finarvyn]

I assume that the change is an attempt to keep everyone using d6 rather than the Greyhawk variant of d8 for fighters, d6 for clerics, d4 for MU....

I'm guessing that Zulgyan is proposing a system sort of like Greyhawk where each level gains another HD (with his +/- alteration) instead of the progression in Men & Magic.

[Zulgyan]

I still want to have all dice re-rolled from the scratch upon gaining a level.

What I really like about keep the d6s is that I can use that for maneuvers such as grapple, disarm, etc. Just like the SR's example of combat did for grapple.

It's easier to roll a couple of d6s than a couple of d8s.

I also wanna keep "the numbers small".

[busman]

May 27, 2008 19:28:53 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

I don't really like F-M and Cs having the same hit points at the beginning levels.

I also like how I can use this later for grapple and other combat maneuvers. (Following the combat example that appeared in the Strategic Review).

In the case of the magic-user, the average hitpoints is in some levels higher than BTB and in some other's lower.

It's really only the first 4 levels that the Cleric is close to the FM, after that the Cleric really slows down.

The concern I'd have is with your HP inflation you've created versus the monsters which are not changing. Things are a close in the first few levels, but in levels 5-8 you've created a nearly 2HD inflation for fighters and about 1HD inflation for both MU and Clerics. HD, not HP. This will make things, on average, easier for your parties. Which can be dealt with as long as you're aware of it.

[Zulgyan]

I think that the inflation is not really that significant. The maximum it gets it's a 9 hp difference.

[busman]

May 27, 2008 20:34:52 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

I think that the inflation is not really that significant. The maximum it gets it's a 9 hp difference.

9hp is over 2.5HD difference. Avg hp of 1HD is 3.5. This is like giving that fighter 12+3HD at level 10 instead of 10+1, while 10HD creatures will still be 10HD. That's a 20% advantage.

edit: Which again, you can deal with, as long as you're aware of the inflation. Instead of throwing 10HD monsters, you're going to want to throw 11HD and maybe 12HD monsters

[Zulgyan]

Given that in my OD&D you should replace "Cleric" with "Thief", maybe it's not that troublesome, since magic healing is very rare.

I was already feeling that FM hps were too low for me.

[dwayanu]

Alternatives:

You might give fighters +1 at the levels (2,3,4) at which they would otherwise match cleric-level HD; clerics gain levels more rapidly.

In AD&D, fighters have an average +1 per HD advantage over monsters. Giving them a much lesser advantage (even with the boost at those levels) in D&D doesn't seem a big problem to me. The monsters still score hits more often!

===

Greyhawkesque:

Using d4 or d6-1 per level boosts average MU HP (more if d6-1 has a minimum of 1 per die). That peaks at +3.5 for levels 6 and 7. From Wizard on, it leaves them with less (-1.5 through level 14, less a pip from then on).

The approach boosts fighters and MUs while leaving the cleric behind.

If you're producing the same average as with Supplement I, it makes sense from one view to give monsters the same boost. From another view, maybe you want to shake up that balance. It's your game!

[Zulgyan]

But look at the AD&D Fighter that has HD is d10 while Monster HD is d8.

With the 1d6+1 vs. 1d6 the effect is the same, with less inflation. Acceptably low IMO.

What do you guys think?

[Zulgyan]

Is this correct?

1d6+1 save average as 1d8 -> 4,5
1d6 save average as 1d6 -> 3,5
1d6-1 save average as 1d4 -> 2,5

[sham]

May 27, 2008 23:18:02 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Is this correct?

1d6+1 save average as 1d8 -> 4,5
1d6 save average as 1d6 -> 3,5
1d6-1 save average as 1d4 -> 2,5

The averages are indeed the same, since it's 3.5 for a d6, and your adding 1, leaving as is, or subtracting one. The results won't be the same, since the FM will never have a 1 or an 8, and the MU might have a 5.

If I were to tinker with the OD&D HD, I would probably use your model here. I'm leaving it as is for now, but I do like using d6 whenever and wherever possible.

[dwayanu]

Much of AD&D is Greyhawk material revised. I've long thought that the revisions were the product of lessons learned from lots of actual use in play.

The boosts in damage (e.g., d8 for a sword, multiple attacks for many monsters) are pretty much the same in supplemented D&D and AD&D. The latter goes further in strengthening player-characters.

So, if you want to shift things more in the AD&D direction then I think you're just following the lead of the game's designer.

[busman]

May 28, 2008 8:38:26 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Much of AD&D is Greyhawk material revised. I've long thought that the revisions were the product of lessons learned from lots of actual use in play.

The boosts in damage (e.g., d8 for a sword, multiple attacks for many monsters) are pretty much the same in supplemented D&D and AD&D. The latter goes further in strengthening player-characters.

So, if you want to shift things more in the AD&D direction then I think you're just following the lead of the game's designer.

Totally agreed, you see the trend right from Supplement I all the way through to today's 4e of slowly pushing the PCs to be more survivable, more heroic, etc. It's actually a fascinating line to follow through the years.

[dwayanu]

Supp. I may have gone the other way on average, at least at low levels. Magic-users IME became much more "old or bold, but not old and bold," and the new thief class was in the same boat.

On the other hand, Swords & Spells significantly weakened monsters -- and they lost more ground in AD&D.

I think some monsters got significantly beefed up in 2E. My initial impression of 3E was that monsters were much tougher -- but then I saw how "ramped up" everything was. 4E might take the trend to a whole new level, but one DM reported that his first two games were both TPKs.

[coffee]

May 28, 2008 9:23:33 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

but one DM reported that his first two games were both TPKs.

But was that because the monsters were tougher or because the new "per encounter' and 'per day' abilities were confusing? I know that's going to take me some getting used to, should I decide to ever play 4e.

[Zulgyan]

My thread became a 4E thread *sight*

[ffilz]

The averages are the same if 1d6-1 can produce 0. However, if 1-1 = 1 instead of 0, then 1d6-1 has an average of 2.6667 (1+1+2+3+4+5=16, 16/6=2.6667).

1d6+1 is also better for a fighter with a low constitution (-1 hp per die, average is 1,2,3,4,5,6=21, 21/6=3.5) versus 1d8 (average is 1+1+2+3+4+5+6+7=29, 29/8=3.625).

Overall, I think this system and supplement 1's system have little effect. I think a bigger effect is from the boosting of the value of constitution (up to +4/die in AD&D) and strength, and the weapon damage in supplement 1 (though most monsters also gain damage in supplement 1).

Frank

[dwayanu]

Sorry!

FWIW, here's the thread at K&K Alehouse about the 4E runs.

[coffee]

May 28, 2008 10:17:37 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

My thread became a 4E thread *sight*

Sorry. I get sidetracked. I won't do it again! (at least, not on this thread...)

[Zulgyan]

Just joking! no problem

The averages are the same if 1d6-1 can produce 0. However, if 1-1 = 1 instead of 0, then 1d6-1 has an average of 2.6667 (1+1+2+3+4+5=16, 16/6=2.6667).

Yes, it can be zero. Because all hit dice is rolled each level. So, for example, if you go level 3 and you roll 4, 6 and 1, you then substract 3. And the result is like having rolled 3+5+0.

[Zulgyan]

This has no real meaning but in EGG's OD&D house rules, fighter's HD was 1d6+1 and M-U and Clerics had 1d6.

[dwayanu]

IMO, in the long run that would be too easy on MUs. I don't think those rules were used in extended campaigns, though -- just low-level "one offs" at conventions and the like.

I could be wrong on that!

In the standard (both Vol. 1 and Supp. I) schemes, MUs eventually outpace clerics in HP; it's a hard road to get there, though.

IME, the number one check on the MU population is competition with peers. One Charm Person or Magic Missile (or Sleep, at low enough levels), and your goose is cooked! They're like Wild West gunslingers.