|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 25, 2017 16:01:50 GMT -6
A quick aside: It's funny to me. The dropping an item when surprised "rule", the surprise "rules", the various "x in 6 chance rules", along with the "rules" for distracting monsters with food and treasure, etc. always read to me as Gary saying: "My players tried to pull off these shenanigans once, here's how I handled it. Just a head's up!" YMMV. That's because that is literally what they are. And yes, I do mean LITERALLY. Makes perfect sense and adds so much charm to the game. Thanks for the insight.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 20, 2017 14:09:45 GMT -6
The plan is to add some smarts to the battle report so it can aggregate stats from lots of battles and report back a summary. So then, finally, we can see what impact the different loadouts really have on player "success" in these one on one battles... I am beyond excited for this!! I'm humbled by the work you've put in. I think this absolutely deserves it's own thread (and maybe a sticky) once you get it up and running to your satisfaction. So cool!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 18, 2017 16:48:05 GMT -6
I asked Rob about the scores of Robilar and other Greyhawk characters. They are pretty good and I assumed they had been increased over time by different magical effects, especially wishes. Rob's response was that wasn't the case. Wishes were saved for emergencies: hopelessly lost, PC deaths, etc. He explained that for generating ability scores they did use 3d6 in order, but they rolled multiple sets and chose the one they wanted. Interesting, that's how most crpgs work. You keep pushing the "generate random stats" button until you get a set you like. (Assuming you forego any point-buy options, which I always do...)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 18, 2017 16:06:34 GMT -6
A quick aside:
It's funny to me. The dropping an item when surprised "rule", the surprise "rules", the various "x in 6 chance rules", along with the "rules" for distracting monsters with food and treasure, etc. always read to me as Gary saying: "My players tried to pull off these shenanigans once, here's how I handled it. Just a head's up!" YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 18, 2017 15:53:13 GMT -6
Sure, so is it... . Sword and shield/dagger/lantern/etc; 50/50 either item is dropped. . Sword in one hand and nothing in the other; sword is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? . Two-handed sword; is always dropped? Or is 50% likely to be dropped? Ways, IMO btb would be • 50% / 50% (i.e., one or the other) • Always • Always I’ll walk back my earlier statement a bit and admit there could be ambiguity if this rule is broken down sentence by sentence, and that ambiguity comes in, I think, because of the “some item” in the first sentence. But reading the two sentences of the rule together as a unit, as they’re meant to be taken, I think provides a clear procedure. This would be my interpretation if I had to choose. I believe the second sentence is Gygaxian for excluding items in packs, bags, etc. Overall, this is one of those rules that always feels like a Gary houserule. Maybe Gronan remembers if this was actually used BITD. I know it's in the book so it's canon, but I wonder how widespread this rule was in actual play. Anyway, this would make two-handed swords only useful for Chainmail-esque man-to-man initiative rules (higher class weapons and such). ------------ Off-topic: I'm inclined to treat to everything outside of M&M as either optional or merely suggestions for exploration. Vol III especially reads as some "cool stuff you can use." Everything in Vol. II I assume are either examples, or campaign-specific. I could be entirely wrong, however. I guess what I'm saying is that I usually focus on M&M for actual "rules" (I use that term very loosely, but for our purpose here, is necessary). Maybe this is a separate discussion I can bring up on another thread. ------------ Great stuff guys. Looking forward to your sim waysoftheearth ! EDIT: On second thought, maybe we SHOULD assume every rule has a systemic purpose. We can't assume Gary wasn't taking all these things into account when he published the 3llbs. I formally disagree with my own post! Carry on...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 15, 2017 16:14:21 GMT -6
Simple rule idea All weapons do one die of damage. Fighting men add 1 to all damage rolls Wizards subtract 1 (minimum 1 on a hit.) Clerics and Thieves stay at 1d6. Two-weapon users gain Advantage on attack rolls. Two-handed weapon users gain Advantage on damage rolls. I don't know how much sense this makes but it seems good because it rewards certain combinations appropriately. It's not crazy effective. And most importantly it doesn't add any additional rolls - rolling with Advantage just means throwing one extra die in the same roll. I dig it. I will just note that class damage as a concept is a little bit of double dip since they are already differentiated by the attack matrix (and magic weapons). But, if you wanna pump up the fighter and nerf the M-U a tad, this is a nice way to do it. EDIT: I only mention this because in my OP I was trying to give suggestions for keeping class balance BTB. Still good ideas though, Scott Anderson .
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 14, 2017 4:42:44 GMT -6
Despite all that, a shield's 1 pip of AC still improves a player's protection against normal (THAC2 17) attacks on the Alternative matrices by an average of 13.6%. I.e., consider a defender against a THAC2 attack: - Plate 25% likely to be hit - Plate and shield 20% likely to be hit --> plate+shield is 1/5th (20%) less likely to be hit. - Mail 35% likely to be hit - Mail and shield 30% likely to be hit --> mail+shield is 1/7th (14.3%) less likely to be hit. - Leather 45% likely to be hit - Leather and shield 40% likely to be hit --> leather+shield is 1/9th (11.1%) less likely to be hit. - Unarmored 55% likely to be hit - Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> shield is 1/11th (9.1%) less likely to be hit. Average advantage of a shield vs THAC2 attacks = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%. If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them (on average) 17.15% less likely to be hit by a THAC2 attack. That's 1 in 6 territory. * p.s. (If you aren't already weary of it): the duration of an OD&D combat round. Or, another way to look at it copying waysoftheearth 's method: consider a defender against a THAC2 attack: - Plate 25% likely to be hit - Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> plate is 50% less likely to be hit. - Mail 35% likely to be hit - Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> mail is 30% less likely to be hit. - Leather 45% likely to be hit - Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> leather is 10% less likely to be hit. - Unarmored 55% likely to be hit - Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> unarmored is 9% more likely to be hit. Average advantage of any armor vs shield only (THAC2 attacks) = (50 + 30 + 10) / 3 = 30%. If we consider just mail and plate armored figures, versus only carrying a shield makes them (on average) 40% less likely to be hit by a THAC2 attack. That's 2 in 5 territory. Metal armor being 40% more effective than carrying only a shield seems reasonable to me. But, I'm also not an expert on medieval armor, so I can't speak to it's historical accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 12, 2017 13:03:48 GMT -6
Sometimes I compromise. 3d6 in order, ignore low score penalties. The minuses don't balance the bonuses. Giving NPCs and monsters the same bonuses does!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 11, 2017 17:34:03 GMT -6
3. New players just want to start playing. Is there anything more true about the game than this! I just hand them pre-gens, usually let them each choose between several, and the supplies and things are already on the sheet. I ask if anyone wants to add any supplies based on remaining cash or if they would like to change weapons or such. Normal and usual answer is no and I'm like, "Great let's play," I give them about a twenty to thirty word statement and we start playing, at this point they know they are responsible for asking questions, if they are not clear on something I say. Even more telling, creating PCs in the 3llbs from scratch is actually FASTER and more intuitive than explaining the 5E pregen jargon included in the starter set. How's that for an endorsement??
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 11, 2017 15:27:53 GMT -6
Some thoughts: 1. OD&D is perfect for reducing the barrier to entry. Character creation is trivial (5 mins tops) and this makes PCs less precious. When it takes an ENTIRE session to roll up a party, then does anyone really wonder why players fear character death? If I spent hours researching and building a PC, the last thing I want is for it to die entering the first dungeon (or en route for that matter, ha). 2. The concept of an open-world campaign is not foreign to modern gamers. MMOs and games like Skyrim, Witcher, Souls, etc. are lauded for their open elements (no video game is truly open, however). You will find many gamers that prefer the "side quests" to the "main quest." Tell players that TTRPGs are the only way they will ever get a truly open experience. The older the edition, the easier to emulate an open-world it becomes for the DM (ref around these parts). 3. New players just want to start playing. I played with my family for the first time over the holidays using the 5E starter set. They gave me the box for Christmas and wanted to check it out. The adventure is open-world. There were pregens. So it worked out fine. Still too fiddly for newbs (my mom and sister) and I had to handwave most of the mechanics. And 5E is far less dense than all but OD&D, imo. If we play again, I will use the 3llbs so that we can just get started without making it seem so involved like later editions. When we play Catan, for instance, we pull out the box and play. OD&D is perfect for family game night. Try doing that with AD&D or any WotC edition. Good luck with that. 4. ACTUAL PLAY!!! I watch many online streams (almost all 5E) of actual play. It's a mix of modules and homebrew settings. The worst ones by far, according to comments and myself, are the railroads. They just AREN'T FUN for anyone but the DM. The most popular ones all give players narrative control and the DM just runs combat and NPCs and "sets the scene". That's it. Also, the rules they ACTUALLY use I can count on one hand. Roll to hit, roll damage, roll ability checks (no saves in the traditional sense in 5E). You don't need 300 pgs for that. The 3llbs would be perfect for these streams. Many of the best DMs are familiar with older editions and you can tell they still use many of those principles behind-the-screen. When streaming, you don't want play to slow down at all. Especially the live games at cons on stage and in front of an audience. It's REALLY important. I think once the word gets out on OD&D it will continue to gain popularity. WotC is heading in this direction already. 5E sits right between OD&D and Basic for complexity to me. I hope the next version goes even closer to Basic or the 3llbs (my preference, obviously). Or, they could publish a comic-book sized paperback ruleset (24-32 pgs) to use for streams, PbP, cons, etc. and I guarantee it would be a huge hit. The only things that really slow down play from what I've observed are: spells (sometimes need to look up specifics, plus, spells are fun to read), monster special attacks (same, plus monsters are awesome to read as well), and PC special attacks/actions (time-waster). Use OD&D and you have cut any downtime by at least one-third. And probably way more, since once you get rid of PC powers, combat actions become negligible. You can then go back to simple combat systems and emphasize DM fiat (Even in combat! How novel!!) 5. Lastly, I don't think reddit and other forums (even this one) are good examples of average players. If you are willing to go online and edition-war, debate RPG philosophy 101, nitpick rules, etc. then you are talking about an extreme subset. Don't let reddit cloud your view of typical games. Many tables enjoy complexity, most (I'd argue) don't. What you read online is not the real world. Most people have limited time, and just want to get going as fast as possible. What better than OD&D for that?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 22:20:50 GMT -6
When all weapons do 1d6 damage, it's not the length of your blade that matters. It's how you wield it. That's what men with daggers always say. Or, as those with lightsabers would say, "It's a grower not a shower." (Using all my willpower to resist posting Spaceballs gif...must..not..give in..to the..Schwartz) So, instead:
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 18:38:46 GMT -6
When all weapons do 1d6 damage, it's not the length of your blade that matters. It's how you wield it.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 8, 2017 16:24:37 GMT -6
I don't know the flavor of my weapon, but the ladies I've known certainly seem to like the taste. Said Lady: "Is that a longsword in your scabbard, or are you happy to see me?"
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 7, 2017 20:11:25 GMT -6
Absolutely. Facing is vital. Shield only counts from front or left side. This reminds me, as a ref, I need to utilize "monsters" with shields more often. I tend to forget or just never even consider it. This would include man-types and goblins, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 7, 2017 17:26:00 GMT -6
Whoa! 😳 That would be an amazing project waysoftheearth . You are going above and beyond and I love it!! I certainly don't want to cause you any extra work. This topic has surprisingly gone into a very interesting direction. I didn't realize the complexities and possibilities in analyzing these things. If you need any help or assistance crunching numbers please let me know. What I thought was fairly simple is clearly more complex. I enjoy reading your old data analyses and I'd be glad to contribute if it would be of any use to you.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 7, 2017 9:06:18 GMT -6
Worthwhile noting also that carrying a shield yields more than just 5% protection. Average advantage = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%. That's almost 3 in 20 over all. If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them 17.15% less likely to be hit. That's 1 in 6 territory Thanks for laying that out. That's really neat to see. I certainly have never looked at it that way, by percent ratios. I learned something!! Decreasing your chance to be hit by only 5% is much better than what is obvious. Good stuff WotE. However, I should note, that despite the hidden benefits (especially at the best ACs), giving up your shield for a possible +1 damage is still better every single time, across every armor type. Consider these DPRs: Plate and +1 damage vs Plate and shield = 0.90 vs 0.875 (3% edge) Chain and +1 damage vs Chain and shield = 1.35 vs 1.225 (10% edge) Leather and +1 damage vs Leather and shield = 1.80 vs 1.575 (14% edge) None and +1 damage vs None and shield = 2.25 vs 1.925 (17% edge) So, like for like, when playing in a game with these common house rules, foregoing the shield for a +1 damage, roll 2 keep highest, or +2 to hit (or more!) will always be the better choice (if one cares about such things, which I personally don't but many do.) Change those bonuses to either a +1 to hit or reroll 1s and then you have evened things out, on average. Rerolling 1s will actually be a little worse at the best ACs and a little better at the worst ACs, averaging out to almost even with a shield. A +1 to hit is even across the board, of course.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 6, 2017 21:21:14 GMT -6
In Treasure Hunters, we use a 2d6 to hit mechanic with ascending AC starting with 5 for unarmored. The shield is +2. Armor is +1/+2/+3. I don't have the statistical analysis, but it seems about right- shields are as valuable as chain armor; but all armors are more valuable so it messes things up. Using 2d6 if you wanted to match traditional AC you would need to use ascending ACs starting at 7 and going to 10. The extremes would only be off 3.33% so it's pretty close to BTB. Of course, you only get 4 unique ACs that way. I like your method a lot. The high end matches plate and shield, and the low end is MUCH more vulnerable (if that was your intent). Looks good to me.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 6, 2017 16:35:43 GMT -6
Also, this is really only for those players and refs that like this sort of thing. I don't use any house rules for damage. All mundane weapons do 1d6 damage. Only magic items receive any bonus. I'm hardcore like that!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 6, 2017 16:34:19 GMT -6
Average Bonus Chance to Hit a Given AC1d20 = +0% 1d20+1 = +5% 1d20+2 = +10% A 1-3 level fighter has THAC2 17, and therefore a 20% chance to hit AC2. With a +1 bonus the same fighter now has a 25% chance to hit AC2. I.e., a +1 adjustment gives him a (25/20 = 1.25) 25% advantage. Assuming all ACs are encountered equally frequently, a +1 to hit adjustment gives a 1-3 level fighter an average 13.33% advantage. To figure a "global" +1 advantage across all of Attack Matrix I, we'd need to state a working assumption about how frequently each column on the matrix is used... without figuring it the odds, I suspect it might be nearer to 10% than to 5%. Absolutely correct Ways. That's why I stated that the above assumes average AC, in other words, 5.5. I also noted that the extremes are skewed (high and low ACs). This is purely based on averages, not how often each AC occurs in the game. That would be beyond this scope. But, you make a great point in reminding everyone that if all you encounter is a certain AC, then you these numbers might not hold up. Really, the point was just to remind everyone that that +1 (+5%) on a d20 and +1 (+16.67%) on a d6 don't mean much when it comes actual damage rates. A very common house rule is giving two-handed weapons +1 damage, and I wanted to show that a +1 to damage is almost always better than a +1 to hit and that rerolling 1s on a d6 would be almost the same as a +1 to hit, again, on average. A player might never choose to use a shield if these common house rules are in effect. I wanted to give some alternatives. But you are completely right that saying my assumption on an average AC might not be 100% accurate at the table and will change over the course of a campaign. Maybe I can take a look at the monster list and calculate the average AC from that list. Although, that still doesn't tell us the frequency. Maybe using the wandering monster frequency from U&WA might give us some reasonable expectation. This would be a nice a little project, in fact. Thanks waysoftheearth for bringing up this important detail. EDIT: Like you mentioned, column frequency would need to be factored in as well. This is all using the first column, since it's usually only at PC creation when anyone cares about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 15:23:05 GMT -6
I don't really like that shields conveniently splinter when I'm almost dead. Feels too deus ex machina for my tastes.
"Hey guys! Check this out! My shield is about to splinter!" It's almost like I'm choosing when my equipment fails, which doesn't sit right with me. However, I agree shields need some kind of boost. Magic shields being the only +3 to AC in the 3llbs is a nice touch.
Shields soaking a point of damage would also be essentially the same as a +2 to AC. Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 13:42:20 GMT -6
I also really dig simplification. But I keep the shield mechanic so that it is clear that AC increases when dropped or split. So many ways to skin a ca.. uh.. use a shield!! Good stuff tetramorph .
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 10:53:06 GMT -6
Tease: I will be using a similar simplified class-based system for my D.W.A.R.F. houserules which I will post in the workshop when I finalize them. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 10:46:29 GMT -6
tetramorph , I like this. You could essentially remove the shield bonus and incorporate it into the 3 main armor types: leather, chain, and plate. So: Armor | AC (New) -------------------- None | 9 Leather | 6 Chain | 4 Plate | 2 No thieves? Get rid of leather. Chain? Not really necessary. So this can be simplified to class AC: Class | AC ---------- M-U | 9 Cl | 2 F-M | 2 If the cleric or f-m wants to sneak around they can just drop their AC to 9 like a m-u. This also allows conan-types where AC is based on speed, skill, and ferocity. If the type of armor is still desired then just use the standard table. But, the reason for this thread, was to give players multiple ways to throw dice without impacting game balance.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jul 5, 2017 9:59:36 GMT -6
I posted this on DF, before I discovered this forum, but I wanted to share it here in case anyone finds it useful. I really like that all weapons in the 3llbs do the same same amount of damage. This makes weapon choice purely personal flavor, and this is a feature, not a bug. It makes all-d6 hit dice elegant in design. However, many players like to wield two-handers, two weapons, or shields. BTB, giving up a shield makes you 5% more likely to be hit. That's not fun. It's not a lot, but OCD players will notice it. So, what if you could make all the above situations equivalent, mathematically *(see below)? Good news, you can. The key is looking at DPR (damage per round). I ran some numbers, in case anyone is interested. These averages assume a 1st Level Fighting-Man. Let's look at the basics first: Average Damage per hit1d6 = 3.5 1d6 (Reroll 1's) = 4.0 1d6+1 = 4.5 Best of 2d6 = 4.47 Average Bonus Chance to Hit a Given AC1d20 = +0% 1d20+1 = +5% 1d20+2 = +10% Now, we can determine what the expected damage per round (DPR) would be (assuming a Level 1 Fighting-Man and AC's of 9 through 2, 3LBB-style). Average Damage Per Round (DPR)Damage/To-Hit:1d6/1d20 = 1.31 1d6/1d20+1 = 1.49 1d6 (reroll 1's)/1d20 = 1.50 1d6/1d20+2 = 1.66 Best of 2d6/1d20 = 1.68 1d6+1/1d20 = 1.69 Some relevant observations: A +1 to-hit is the same DPR as rerolling 1's on a single damage die. +1 damage, +2 to-hit, and roll 2d6 take highest are all virtually the same DPR. Also, note that a +/-1 to-hit and +1/-1 AC are mathematically equal on average (although a given AC vs. a given chance to-hit will skew towards the extremes). What's the point? Well, here are some house rules that might prove useful, all being equal in terms of DPR, just choose based on personal preference: Two-handers reroll 1's for damage and two-weapon fighting earn a +1 to-hit. This makes all three main loadouts mathematically equal *(see below) (sword and board, dual wield, and two-handed). An empty hand provides no mechanical benefit aside from carrying torches, potions, magic items, scrolls, grabbing, punching, etc. and nor should it, IMO. Ranged weapons don't need any bonuses because fighting at range is its own benefit. I would allow crossbows to reroll 1's on damage rolls if they are preloaded or all movement that round is spent (re)loading (i.e., no movement that round earns rerolling 1's for crossbow damage which is a nice balance and gives some differentiation between bows and crossbows). Thrown weapons don't need any adjustments because the weapon is lost and/or needs to be picked up again to use which is it's own penalty.Enjoy! EDIT: *Please see waysoftheearth 's extremely detailed (extremely awesome!) analysis further down this thread. My house rules get you VERY close to equivalency but see what happens when you incorporate some more common rules as waysoftheearth shows below. Not as straightforward as I originally surmised!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 28, 2017 16:15:41 GMT -6
Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear... It's not just a matter of days' names, Roman historians themselves made the connection. The comparison is made in the Germania by Tacitus (I checked). On the Uranus/Ymir connection (and more) I'll make a post tomorrow, but that's 100% my idea. I think Gronan was making a joke. Uranus... ahem. In English, Uranus has a few meanings. Not sure about Italian. Nevertheless, I look forward to your post. I didn't mean to downplay your hypothesis at all, as I know nothing about the various etymologies being discussed. If Gronan's comment wasn't a joke.. well then.. I am disappointed!! Sidenote: Your art is really great. You are very talented. Everyone should check out the link in artikid's signature.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 28, 2017 14:07:27 GMT -6
Uranus is connected to Ymir, hurr hurr hurr... Not sure about that,just my conjecture, but I'm pretty sure Romans thought Odin=Hermes. To this day Wednesday in italian is Mercoledì (day of Mercury) Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 27, 2017 19:57:36 GMT -6
I like the cleric primarily because it's uniquely D&D. I don't need every class to have historical/fictional foundations. I like the cleric being the midpoint between a F-M and M-U, without duplicating either. That's no easy feat and was quite genius in its inception by DA and final form by GG.
Why take away the one class that is unique to D&D and other RPGs, in general? Doesn't seem right to me. Healer classes are cool and feel very DNDish/RPGish for lack of a better term.
Having said that, they are probably the only class i'd ever consider jettisoning of the original 3, but then again, I'm not sure what the point would be. I would still like to see a combo fighter/wizard class, regardless.
So, why not clerics? Gary did a genius job of making sure they aren't stepping on anyone's toes and I haven't really come across any replacement that is obviously superior.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 23:39:19 GMT -6
2d6 may not be a normal curve, but the Central Limit Theorem states that after 31 throws, it's close enough. A great point to remember, Gronan. Any underlying distribution shape (even random or uniform as in d20 or triangular as in 2d6) will trend to a bell curve at N > 30 samples (possibly less if the underlying shape is already close to normal like 2d6). So, even a d20 over time will become a bell curve. My assumptions above were based on a single throw. Also, thanks, Gronan, for putting my graduate degree to good use* for the first time since college! Just reading the phrase "Central Limit Theorem" gave me a PTSD flashback!! And, if anyone mentions Fourier or Laplace transforms, I'm gonna go cry in the corner in fetal position lol. *I think we can all agree that analyzing D&D is the BEST use of any learned math skillz
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 22:55:28 GMT -6
And channeling the power of your gawd through your wangnoodle means something. Intentional misspellings or not, this made me spit my beer everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 19:54:55 GMT -6
I'm no CM expert, but I read it as the latter. YMMV.
|
|