|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 23:00:31 GMT -6
FWIW, REH's Conan did wear armor... Very true. He was also a king and led armies from day one. Arnold sure did a number on the character's legacy.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 22:57:09 GMT -6
Haha foxroe !!! Of all the flames, my favorite ones are:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 19:00:01 GMT -6
A flaming sword that comes in brief contact with metal or leather armor wouldn't likely do any extra damage. In fact, leather would be even better as an insulator. Textiles would be the same unless the contact time was several seconds long or long enough to ignite. Against bare skin, however, a preheated flaming sword would be devastating (hot knife through butter, anyone?). So maybe, if you are fighting half-naked humanoids, an extra 16.67% damage per hit might be reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 18:38:00 GMT -6
Yes, my PDF's are 6th printing (according to the Acaeum). There was a 7th print run, but the difference in the note is not mentioned. So the WotC PDF's are 7th printing maybe? I bought mine in January of this year if that helps.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 18:28:02 GMT -6
All of this to say that there are both mechanical and common sense reasons for armor being represented by armor. Exactly. It enhances realism. I've never really enjoyed unrealistic Conan-types for this reason. Historically, armor is critically important until firearms came along. However, the OP wanted a world where unarmored heroics exists (it is fantasy, after all). They can both exist in the same game. All that's needed is a little creative justification. The mechanics support both styles just fine as long as fighters and clerics and harder to hit than M-Us and all but the toughest monsters.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 18:16:55 GMT -6
Instead of class-based AC, why not just adjust hit points accordingly and give monsters one "hit" number. If a character is hit 50% of the time, he gets normal hit points. If he's hit 25% of the time, double his hit points etc. I'm not entirely sure I follow. Maybe an example? But real quick as I'm brainstorming, one of the main tenets of D&D's combat system is static AC and dynamic HPs (and likewise static damage and dynamic "chance to hit" to properly balance)*. Flipping that would would make for exceedingly swingy combat, IMO. The designers nailed it the first time. It also makes sense to me now that Vol.1 would allow for an ability score bonus "to hit" and HPs. A likewise bonus to AC or damage would be redundant (double-dipping) and again more swingy. That's really cool and I can't believe I just now realized this. Neat!
*Otherwise, you end up with an MMO like WoW, Diablo, or even 4E where combat is identical at every level among like combatants and the world "scales" around you. Works for number-crunching computers but would be a drag at the table. Two things improve traditionally: "Chance to hit" and HPs. That's really all you need. Improving in all four areas at the same rate makes all combat the same and rather pointless, TBH. May as well just save the time and never improve if you are always fighting someone of the same ability and just walk through minions like they are grass. The LBBs do the best at countering this issue compared to other editions, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 14:45:55 GMT -6
My barely related take:
The best thing about the LBBs is their abstraction, especially in combat. So, I just use class-based AC nowadays. M-Us begin the game with an AC of 9. Fighters and Clerics begin the game with an AC of 2 (I read this as the default assumption, anyhow). Now, just mentally translate "Armor Class" into "chance to be it." Wanna make Conan? He has AC 2 because he's a nimble ballerina. Wanna make Aragorn? He has AC 2 because he's wrapped in steel. The whole point is that level 1 M-Us get hit at least 55% of the time, and the others get hit at least 20% of the time; it doesn't matter why. And yes, this applies to shields (or lack thereof) as well. Are you AC 2 instead of 3 because you have a shield or because your two-hander looks awsome? Just pick whichever works for you.
That's the only balance implied as I see it. Rationalize what the numbers are meant to represent anyway you want. As long as it fits the implied campaign setting, then nothing will break. Easy! And remember, these numbers will improve for all classes, magically, as they explore dungeons, of course.
My 2 coppers.
Somewhat minor aside: I tend to read that leather and chain armor-types are really only for monsters and outfitting armies, anyway. To me, it reads like PCs are either "armored" or "not armored" (assumed to have the best armor available). Even the magic item list just says "armor." The class descriptions also just say "armor". Unless you have house-rules for sneaking, hiding, and stunts and such based on specific armor types, then it won't really matter much.
Going on a stealth mission? By all means wear some leathers, a loincloth, or a ninja costume, but you shouldn't be stand-up fighting anyway (it is an actual STEALTH mission, right?) AC in this case assumes you are being, well, stealthy!
What about encumbrance? Well, even fully armored and with common delving supplies, you can still easily hall out 2000 coins at 1st level. 3000 is the max and most fighters and clerics are rolled up with about 1000 coins worth of encumbrance with an average starting money roll. That's enough to potentially level up. After that, most your XP will come from gems/jewelry/fighting and, not to mention, bags of holding! This makes encumbrance (and thus movement rates and XP for gold) essentially less important. If you use a grid or minis and want to rigorously track movement, encumbrance, and XP from gold for some reason, then just say M-Us have MV of 12" and the others a MV of 6" due to armor (or 9" if magic armor). But again, combat rounds are a minute long and abstract, so this level of detail isn't really necessary unless you just personally enjoy it.
This is an annoyingly long way of saying that I don't worry too much about movement rates, encumbrance, XP for gold, or armor types. Magic, better treasure, retainers, and class phenotypes will take care of all that in no time!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 16, 2017 3:18:02 GMT -6
I don't have an opinion other than to point out that there are differences in the printings. My WotC reprint PDF says: "NOTE: All items will be guarded by appropriate monsters. If the referee desires he can simply roll on the Monster Level Tables in Book III." While, an earlier printing (not sure which) says: "NOTE: All items will be guarded by appropriate monsters. If the referee desires he can simply roll on the Dungeon Encounter Matrix, (see VoI. III) fifth or sixth level monster classes." I don't know if this helps foxroe .
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 12, 2017 15:23:50 GMT -6
I don't remember where I heard this - maybe it was about Warlock and not ODD - but many players considered different systems constructed for specific purposes to be more interesting than a general solution which we might consider to be more elegant. That's why you get thieve's skills on d%, attack rolls over on d20 based on AC, saves on d20 over static numbers, skill checks under on d20 or 3d6... all various individual solutions to different problems: that's the way they liked it. This is basically UNIX philosophy, as well. So, if OD&D is to UNIX, as AD&D is to Windows, then which edition is the MacOS analog?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 11, 2017 21:52:42 GMT -6
What about 2d6 damage against cold-based monsters which would be vulnerable to fire? It occurs to me that perhaps a flaming sword should do 1d6-1 damage against humanoids since the flame would cauterize any wound preventing blood loss and infection (like a lightsaber). Nah nevermind that's lame... Also, because not lame:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 11, 2017 19:05:20 GMT -6
How much damage does burning oil do? Maybe use that as a reference?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 11, 2017 11:11:46 GMT -6
What's your preference? (Generally spoken, I guess most if not all of us use d20s in OD&D.) A question worthy of it's own thread, IMO. Many pros and cons to each unique curve.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 10, 2017 23:12:27 GMT -6
Maybe a stretch, but I'll add the DUNGEON! boardgame:
2d6 versus effect for monster attacks 2d6 versus monster type for each of the "adventurers" or spells to kill
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 10, 2017 23:02:00 GMT -6
Very interesting.
Looks like if there are more "monsters" than could comfortably fit in a chart, then some form of target number or "AC" is necessary. This presumably would allow for more monster variety without overburdening the ref with custom charts and tables to look up. In a game with a finite number of weapons and/or monsters, then those weapon vs. monster charts make a ton of sense.
OD&D and MA being more "wide open" lends itself better to a more generic level vs AC chart and might explain why the weapon vs AC, damage vs size, and weapon speeds never gained overwhelming popularity.
Maybe others can add to this list?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 15:44:44 GMT -6
* deleted * I need to improve my reading comprehension, never mind No worries. Do you happen to remember if PCs (or monsters, I suppose) were allowed multiple attacks against 1 HD creatures?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 15:00:40 GMT -6
Just for kicks, here is the passage magremore is referencing: "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."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 14:55:13 GMT -6
Added a note to my OP. Thanks everyone. More suggestions are always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 14:46:13 GMT -6
So, to finally wrap up, I think these combat simulations suggest that the interplay between loadout, AC, the drop rule, and surprise attacks is more subtle than it may at first seem. I don't think we can say that "all three main loadouts mathematically equal", but nor are they going to be vastly different without larger adjustments. I think this is the valid conclusion as well. I will go back to the OP and point this out. "all three main loadouts mathematically equal" is not the correct phrase to use it seems. I need to think of something better to replace it. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 14:38:01 GMT -6
While I do enjoy reading over that list I must say that, personally, I like it simple in my games. Also, just from reading over it, I'd say maces, long and especially great swords are too powerful. Why would anyone wield axes or flails? Negation of shield bonus means AC is reduced by 1, and only if the target is using a shield. A warhammer gives a flat 2 AC reduction against all targets. Great swords parry every 3rd attack, which probably makes them *the* defensive weapon. Some weapons reduce AC by 2 - I'm guessing that's an armor piercing quality? Then what if these weapons are used against unarmored targets - do they still reduce AC by 2? Just my thoughts And this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to avoid
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 14:26:58 GMT -6
Enjoyed reading through this and the linked thread on MU endgame this morning, so thanks to both of you! I suggest changing “Multiple attacks against ‘normal men’” to “Fighting capability.” Let me know if I’ve misunderstood what’s being said, but I think it’s “wrong” to take the rule from M&T page 5 and apply it as multiple attacks in the alternative combat system. Are multiple attacks mentioned elsewhere in the LBB? (Sincere question—I’m putting “wrong” in quotes for a reason. ) In M&M, PCs are assigned a specific Chainmail fighting capability for each level, but Monsters don’t have that. Instead, the paragraph on p. 5 tells how to figure monster fighting capability ("Attack/Defense capabilities") by simply rolling one die for each HD. That is for the “normal” combat system, and the Troll example that follows is a Chainmail example.* HD pluses aren’t added to the alternative combat's d20 rolls as they’re already accounted for in the attack matrix (because of their +, Trolls use the 6–8 col rather than the 4–6 col). This is also the easiest way to read “ferocity” (HD) being “subsumed in the matrixes.” *Not the only place where the LBB clarify fighting capability without it applying to the alt combat system, as the same is done in the “Levels Above those Listed” section in M&M page 19. You make a very strong case. I was torn on this topic. I've seen arguments both ways. A big reason why I included a "condensed" version is for reasons like this. I tend to lean in your direction. Sadly, I am not a Chainmail expert and FC is not something I completely understand. I will gladly remove it from the ACS if that seems to be the consensus. In fact, I would prefer this. However, I know some people consider this a major class feature, so I waffled and hesitated. I believe "support and upkeep" should be included as I cannot think of a reason not to. "Fighting capability" i'm willing to ditch from the ACS as a Chainmailism unless someone else has a counter-argument. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 14:19:21 GMT -6
I almost hate to derail the present thread, but -- In other words, why is this XP --> level connection such a surprise? Hey Fin! Derail away! I'm not precious about any of this So, to answer you question: Skill-based RPGs. In those games, you use XP to buy ability score increases, skill ranks, damage increases, to hit increases, wealth, powers, feats, and many more things that I'd rather not even think about (yuck). As I mentioned, in a class-and-level game, this should NOT have been surprising. However, I seem to always be surprised by something in the 3lbbs. When I went through and discovered that XP was "only" used to increase level, I was very much pleasantly surprised. I don't like skill (or point-buy) games so I was very excited by this revelation. I fully admit to being tainted by more modern RPGs. My bias is clearly showing. I'm in the process of rectifying that, I promise! OD&D is my favorite game for these reasons and I like it when I find surprising (to me) justifications. Great question Fin!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 2:26:53 GMT -6
Also, I'll let this thread simmer a while before I amend the OP with these additions.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 2:12:17 GMT -6
What about wizards though? When are they allowed to build strongholds? Are they exempt? Thoughts? See here. Fantastic!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 2:11:20 GMT -6
Another crazy exercise I contemplated while doing this: the same investigation on a spell-by-spell basis! Maybe next weekend...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 2:09:41 GMT -6
An interesting exploration sixdemonbag ; there are many subtleties hidden in the 3LBBs that you won't spot immediately. For example, you missed that "high level" fighters can detect invisible opponents (M&T p16). It's significant (IMHO) that player levels are not equivalent in XP terms, and become less so as they players rise up. I.e., with 100,000 XP: a fighter is 7th level, a M-U is 9th level, and a cleric is 8th level. It's also significant (IMHO) to observe how normals, heroes, and superheroes are treated differently. E.g., a number of spells, magic items, and monster abilities will affect normals and heroes differently. Sometimes, this is written into the 3LBBs as explicit level ranges, other times it's not. FWIW, if we're just talking about what's in the 3LBBs, I don't recall that player level determines whether the player has, or is subject to, multiple attacks against normal men. -- The former is determined by his Fighting Capability (if you like the CM system) or his number of HD (if you prefer the alternative system and are applying M&T p5 to player types). -- The latter is determined by whether or not the PC is considered a normal man. How you determine that is another topic, but most (I dare to believe?) would agree that normal-men have non-heroic fighting capabilities. Whether a 1st or 2nd level fighter, a caveman, a gnoll, etc. is a normal man gets interesting I have nothing to add except I agree with everything you say here. I'm really glad you found this interesting. What I thought would be straight-forward, was anything but. Naturally! I still don't have a good grasp on FC or Chainmail, in general. I chose to stick with the ACS but even then, as you mentioned, things get murky. I love the 3lbbs for just this reason. It's so much fun to dissect.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 2:01:45 GMT -6
Interestingly, since the DM controls the amount of treasure available AND the amount of XP given for defeating monsters, we can safely say that PC advancement is solely at the Ref's discretion. Thus, the ref ultimately controls the rate at which PCs progress and is, in fact, campaign-specific. For a class and level-based RPG, that's fair enough. Treasure can also be randomly determined according to the dungeon population guidelines; monsters can be randomly determined according to the dungeon/wilderness exploration guidelines. The ref doesn't necessarily decide these random outcomes. Moreover, the players decide whether they attempt to defeat or run from monsters, and whether they find or pick up treasure, and who ends up with it. I agree that the ref can put potential XP into the equations, but I'd say it's more the players who determine how much XP they gain. FWIW, Greyhawk also includes a bunch of magic tomes and items which issue XP gains or losses for reading them or just handling them. First of all, thanks for the responses, ways! Very interesting point you bring up here as always. I think I'd argue that random generation itself is still discretionary (as in the ref still decides whether to even bother with random tables and has veto power regardless). However, you are indeed correct that players could, in effect, "put the brakes" on advancement. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be: Refs control the maximum rate of XP accumulation if exercising veto power over random treasure and monsters. In hindsight, I probably should have explicitly excluded random tables from this investigation. Re: Greyhawk, that's another good reminder. My focus was on the 3lbbs despite name-dropping the aforementioned, so thanks for the additional source of XP in that supplement that I missed. Next, in the 3llbs, XP ONLY affects character level. A little surprised, I had to verify this claim. Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find any mentions of XP affecting anything other than class level. XP determines the cost of living (U&WA p24). Also, experience adjustments earned due to prime requisite score might be a factor in class selection? Also... (perhaps stretching the definition here?) XP is the "commodity" which is lost when the player gets energy drained by undead. Ya? Awesome catch on support and upkeep!!! Here's the passage: "Player/Characters must pay Gold Pieces equal to 1% of their experience points for support and upkeep, until such time as they build a stronghold." So, XP does, in fact, affect the amount of gold paid out for "support and upkeep." This "flat tax" is eventually eliminated upon name level for fighters and clerics (assuming they build) and thus should be included. What about wizards though? When are they allowed to build strongholds? Are they exempt? Thoughts? Prime reqs aren't directly affected by XP (unlike the other way around) so I didn't include it. XP does provide a "buffer" against energy drain but it doesn't affect the chances of it occurring or the severity so I didn't include it. To be honest, I don't know if energy draining is better or worse at higher or lower levels as far as XP is concerned. Besides the obvious, "the less XP, the closer to death from energy drain," do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks again, for your input.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 6, 2017 0:30:10 GMT -6
We all know XP is the means by which characters increase ability and influence. But, what are the specifics in game-terms? I was curious about this question and I couldn't find any similar threads. So, I decided to find out myself. Maybe someone else will find this exercise interesting or perhaps even useful.
Before we break down each of the three classes, how is XP gained? Well, in the 3lbbs, there are two primary methods: treasure and defeating monsters. Experience points are awarded at a 1 GP = 1 XP exchange rate. This is pretty straightforward.
Via example, when monsters are defeated (not necessarily killed, an important distinction) they provide 100 XP per HD. Now, this rate is changed over the course of future publications to the point where it becomes fairly arbitrary. (See the SR article and Greyhawk supplement for some possible alternate values.)
Interestingly, since the DM controls the amount of treasure available AND the amount of XP given for defeating monsters, we can safely say that PC advancement is solely at the Ref's discretion. Thus, the ref ultimately controls the rate at which PCs progress and is, in fact, campaign-specific. For a class and level-based RPG, that's fair enough.
Next, in the 3lbbs, XP ONLY affects character level. A little surprised, I had to verify this claim. Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find any mentions of XP affecting anything other than class level.
This made my life easier since I could now focus on mentions of PC level (named or numeric). In other words, XP is singularly tied to PC level with no other outside influences. My focus is now on class "level" and not "XP," per se, as it appears in the text.
Right off the bat, I noticed a huge problem. "Level" has a zillion meanings in the 3lbbs, as we are well-aware. A simple text search through my WotC PDFs (control-f, FTW!) proved woefully insufficient. Levels refer to: dungeon, spell, monster, class, falling distance (look out below!), life energy, fighting and magical ability, etc. Egads!
So, manually reading through each booklet it is!! Yay! I jest, but this was actually quite fun. However, I did go cross-eyed while skimming a few times, so it's very possible I missed some instances. Please feel free to alert me to anything I overlooked.
At the outset, while working backwards, another genuine surprise: Volume III has no mention of class level having any mechanical effect! This volume mostly concerns dungeon and wilderness creation, along with some mass combat guidelines. However, containing ZERO references was still not predicted. Bright side: less work for me. OK, moving on...
Volume II has only two tangible effects that I could find: 1.) being subjected to (and performing) multiple attacks and 2.) controlling intelligent swords. The former is somewhat controversial depending on the definition of "normal men" and whether this applies only to monster attacks and/or Chainmail. If defined as any character with 1 HD or less, then it counts. Otherwise, it doesn't apply. I'm counting it for now (more below). The latter bit about intelligent swords is actually very important and something I have never considered before now.
NOTE: Every time I read through the 3lbbs, I notice something new. I don't have a good theory as to why this is the case.
Onward...
Volume I, as I figured, has almost all the information I was after (aside from the two particulars in Vol. II, above). This was indeed expected.
Finally! What follows is a class-by-class breakdown of the effects of XP with some observations thrown in at the end. Enjoy!
Fighting-Man
- "Prevailing" against intelligent swords in "key situations" - Multiple attacks against "normal men" - "Build castles" at name level - Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spell resistance*
Magic-User
- Being subjected to multiple attacks - Multiple attacks against "normal men" - Manufacture "anything magical" at name level - Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spell resistance* - "Number of spells of each level" - Spell effectiveness** - Spell "research"
Cleric
- Being subjected to multiple attacks - Multiple attacks against "normal men" - Build a "stronghold" at name level - Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spell resistance* - "Number of spells of each level" - Spell effectiveness*** - Turn undead
* Wall of Fire/Ice, Confusion, Charm Monster, Death Spell, Insect Plague, etc. ** Duration, range, bypass Wizard Lock, chance to Dispel, damage, creatures affected, weight limits, sanity retention, Balrogs!, etc. *** Quantity of water/food created, Raise Dead time limit, etc.
Some casual observations
Effects common to all classes: multiple attacks, hit points, to hit scores, saves, and spell resistance.
Binary effects (i.e., either you have it, or you don't. These don't "progress" in the usual sense. Think "feats."): Baronies, subject to multiple attacks, magic item creation, and spell resistances. Some of these are endgame goals. For the Magic-User, it's creating magic items. For the rest, it's building an army and controlling territory.
To form a condensed list, let's do some minor pruning. First, let's assume multiple attacks are for monsters only and only against weak NPCs (PCs aren't "normal"). Then, let's combine all the spell-related stuff into "Spellcasting." Lastly, let's leave out the binary "feats" and endgame stuff. Now we have this:
Condensed Breakdown:
Fighting-Man
- "Prevailing" against intelligent swords in "key situations" - Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save
Magic-User
- Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spellcasting
Cleric
- Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spellcasting - Turn undead
When pruning endgame, binary, and multiple attacks, we are left with a nice, concise list of those things affected by XP as PCs level up.
If interested in endgame activities, then XP for gold is a must. It's crucial, in fact, as it provides the sole means of acquiring lands, armies, and magic creation.
If not interested in endgame activities, then XP for gold is less important. XP could be awarded, instead, for any GENUINELY CHALLENGING combat or creative spellcasting as determined by the Ref. Just be warned: no murder hobos allowed if there is no eye on the endgame. Otherwise, just make the rule: XP for gold ONLY and wandering monsters occur on a 5 or 6!! That'll show 'em.
Please let me know what else I missed. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 5, 2017 22:32:13 GMT -6
I once had a girlfriend who claimed that 15% of my jokes were incomprehensible. "That's a fifteen percenter," she would say. She seemed to say it more than 15% of the time. Look at it this way: 85% of the time you were 100% hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 5, 2017 22:25:16 GMT -6
I can certainly relate to attempting (in my head) clever satire and then being serenaded by a chorus of crickets. The poor guy, hopefully he wasn't scared off. Of course, a simple clarification would suffice as well.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 1, 2017 21:17:45 GMT -6
|
|