|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 17, 2012 16:15:29 GMT -6
Not sure I'm following all this, but average damage per round is increasing from 1.9 (.55 x 3.5) to 2.79 (.7975 x 3.5)? Isn't that the same as giving the fighter almost a +5 to hit? That seems like a large to-hit bonus for OD&D. Good point. This is why AD&D two-weapon fighting is given a -2 on the main weapon and -4 on the off-hand weapon (I think those were the numbers). I've read somewhere that evens out the bonus. Let's see with a d8 sword and a d6 short sword. .55 x 4.5 = 2.475 .45 x 4.5 + .35 x 3.5 = 3.25 Nope, it's still a +3 ~ +4 -6 and -4 works: .35 x 4.5 + .25 x 3.5 = 2.45 Of course, it's still a curve (not linear), so this only matches at this particular character level.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 15, 2012 5:33:31 GMT -6
Thanks for that aher!
I was never a huge fan of stats (more a calculus guy). Since I've restarted playing D&D (quit when I was 12) I have been reteaching myself using first principles. I'll add your formula to my bag of tricks, but I'll need to derive it myself to truly grok it.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 14, 2012 14:59:57 GMT -6
... and I just kept going... It looks like the crossover point is a to-hit value of 8 which means two-weapon fighting is better at lower levels and against heavier armored foes. To keep some perspective on this, we're talking about less than 1/2 point of damage per round difference between the two. So really it won't make much difference in an OD&D combat. 'Feel' wise, I think it captures the 'light fighter' vs. 'heavy fighter' really well. As it stands if I were faced with the three weapon options I would choose two-weapons fighter not because it does more damage, but because it partially negates a shield opponent's advantage. I would suggest you make the shield advantage apply regardless of opponent type. Now it would be interesting to see how a shielded opponent would do...
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 14, 2012 14:41:39 GMT -6
The extra attack roll increases the probability of hitting (and thusly scoring damage) to an extent that it is superior to a roll 2 take the best damage 'advantage'? In general, rolling multiple dice where only one has to beat a target number greatly increases your odds. As you saw in my example, it jumped from 55% to 79% with just one die. The other thing is that your chance to hit always goes up, and as it gets higher, the chance of hitting grows exponentially when you roll two dice. Whereas your rolling of two dice for damage doesn't increase in damage as you level up.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 14, 2012 14:30:53 GMT -6
... and I just kept going... It looks like the crossover point is a to-hit value of 8 which means two-weapon fighting is better at lower levels and against heavier armored foes. Edit - the horizontal axis is your 'to hit' number, and vertical is damage per round. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 14, 2012 14:07:14 GMT -6
To compare these two techniques you can calculate damage per round:
dpr = % chance to hit x average damage
Let's assume you're an OD&D 4th level fighter needing a 10 to hit leather (AC 7). That's 55% chance. Now if you roll two dice and take the best, that's the same as saying 'What is my chance of hitting at least once on two dice?'.
This is easier to calculate if you reverse the question: 'What is the chance that I not hit with two dice?'. This is %miss x %miss = 45% x 45% = 20.25%
So your chance to hit is 1 - 0.2025 = 0.7975 And average damage on a d6 is 3.5 so:
DPR for roll atk twice = 0.7975 x 3.5 = 2.79125 dmg per round
Now for the other case, average value for roll 2d6 and take highest is trickier to calculate. I basically used a spreadsheet to get the value 4.47.
DPR for roll dmg twice = 0.55 x 4.47 = 2.4585
Hopefully that gives you enough info to build out a spreadsheet to analyze things the way you want.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 7, 2012 15:02:52 GMT -6
I've always had a hard time visualizing distances. I think growing up in a city your horizons are short so you can't 'see' 5 miles around you and the subway makes long distances meaningless. So I just don't grok it.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 1, 2012 12:40:43 GMT -6
My cover doesn't have the greenish lightning bold, but it is certainly cut off at the bottom, at little bit worse than the picture above.
I suspect the cover is probably posted edge-to-edge so depending on how it falls in the trimmer you can expect variance in the cut off. Looking at James M's picture, I can see he does have more of the bottom than me - and I'm certain we got our stuff from the same printer since I live in the same city.
Having never owned this, I'm perfectly happy with what I have.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 31, 2012 21:55:36 GMT -6
I don't even want to think about how cheap they were, say, ten years ago. Not quite the same ROI as Apple stock, but still pretty good. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 31, 2012 15:59:55 GMT -6
I have a similar workaround that would probably be much more useful at the table than the original LBBs, but I'd really like to have a box set of my own. Unfortunately I can't rationalize shelling out $200 for one. I'm also secretly hoping the OSR fad tanks it so the OCE box sets will fall into my price range. Of course I would prefer the original rather than a reprint, but beggars choosers etc. Wow, I just checked Noble Knight and Troll and Toad. I didn't realize the price had gone up so much. I bought my 6th printing copy from Troll and Toad about 1.5 years ago for $75. It's now double that!
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 31, 2012 15:35:08 GMT -6
Some games do use a hex map to represent all maps (GURPS I believe), but I think square maps are better for mapping human-made buildings and roads as they conform to right angles.
Now if we were descended from bees, maybe we'd create hexagon-based buildings. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 30, 2012 15:16:38 GMT -6
One effect of a hypothetical LBB rerelease by Wizards: my head exploding from sheer joy. Yeah, I'm not too excited about the prospect for purchasing, though it would allow me to attract some more players: Yeah, I'm using the original rules that WotC just republished, you gotta try them out!. People are funny that way that out-of-print material is somehow not usable. I have my originals I bought on ebay, and my custom-made hardcover 6x9 single-volume edition. I don't actually need another copy.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 30, 2012 12:35:51 GMT -6
I think it highly unlikely Wizards will offer any old material in PDF format; but I could certainly see them re-packaging and re-printing physical copies for the 40th anniversary. The problem with selling PDFs is that there is nothing to differentiate a legitimately purchased version from a pirated version. It's my opinion that the sticker price required to upsell pirated copies into legitimate copies is too low to make it worthwhile. A printed copy would have a great margin and would have higher sales without having to compete with a PDF. The only target audience for the products are RPG collectors and the small population of old school players.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 28, 2012 19:40:43 GMT -6
I noticed 2e wasn't in there. =) That's actually because I stopped playing around the time Dieties & Demigods was released. I only returned to RPGs in 2007. So for me, 2e never happened.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 27, 2012 9:36:34 GMT -6
I use this as a general guideline. Obviously a party of 1st level adventurers are not going to be able to take 30 orcs let alone 300. I tend to use this number for tribes rather than encounters. Thus, the Black Skull tribe would have that number but not groups designed for encounters. A little epiphany I had recently since I've been rediscovering the 'Old Ways' is that's where the 'evasion and pursuit' rules come into play. I had always ignored them in the past. If a band of 1st-level adventurers are silly enough to wander out of the 'civilized' radius around their home base, they can still hope to escape detection. If they're not surprise, it's pretty easy to evade a large party of monsters.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 27, 2012 9:27:43 GMT -6
I think I now have enough rulebooks, between OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e, 3.5e, 4e, S&W, S&W:Whitebox (BHP Box), S&W:Whitebox (BHP Hardcover), S&W:Whitebox (4th), S&W:Core, LL, LL OE, LL AEC, LotFP, LotFP:GE, OSRIC.
For the record, we use LL & LL AEC at the table, but my heart belongs to S&W.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 26, 2012 13:02:12 GMT -6
Very interesting thread. I generally don't sweat the exact time a "round" takes... except that movement matters. FWIW, and I am not sure this is relevant, a 10 second combat round would mean 6 combat rounds in a combat turn... as in 1d6. I dunno. Just brainstorming. This would address my concern with the odd 6 or 12 'turn' duration of spells. If they are actually 6 or 12 combat rounds in duration, then that's 1 - 2 minutes. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 26, 2012 12:34:03 GMT -6
3d10 x 10 gives an nice bell curve centered on 160/170 orcs.
If you want something with a linear probability (all results are equally likely) then I would roll d100 and a d6. The d6 indicates what '100s' the number is: 1-2:1-100, 3-4: 101-200, 5-6: 201-300. Re-roll any result < 10. This sounds complicated but is really just as fast and you only have a 3% chance of having to re-roll.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 26, 2012 12:20:15 GMT -6
Of course WotC knows Arneson is a co-author, they've said so in every rulebook since 3.0.
These books are marketed for the nostalgia factor. WotC has stated publicly that they are attempting to 'unite the tribes' under a single umbrella of D&D rules. Part of this plan needs to get the attention of lapsed players and grognards who played AD&D at its peak. I think republishing these books is the perfect way to get the attention of all these old gamers, and then entice them with a 5e that 'plays just like you remember it'.
At the time these people were playing, Arneson's name had been wiped off the books and Gary was the face and voice of D&D. As far as the audience is concerned, Gary is the creator of D&D.
Note - my personal views differ. Without Arneson we wouldn't have D&D rules; without Gary the D&D rules would never have been codified. To this day, I love mining Arneson's stuff for things that got left out or changed.
I plan to buy these books even though I don't need them. I want WotC to know that there is a market out there for the older D&D play styles. The better these books sell, the more likely other material will show up. I'm holding out hope for a module compilation, and OD&D. And yes, I will continue to play retro-clone rules.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 21, 2012 20:11:54 GMT -6
No, but.... I'm not getting involved in that spat.
Here's my personal opinion - if the AD&D reprint is successful WoTC will reprint OD&D in 2014 as a 40th anniversary edition. I doubt they would expect that anyone would actually play it - it just for the nostalgia and curiosity market.
What I wish they'd also do is bundle in a re-edit of the rules so it would be playable by current gamers. Of course then we'd be arguing for years about changes in wording or clarifications that ruin the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Jan 14, 2012 16:28:05 GMT -6
I'd probably do 3d10 x 10.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 13:45:45 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Jan 11, 2012 13:45:45 GMT -6
Thinking more about WoTC statements regarding modularity and making complexity optional, I think the approach is possible, with the exception of handling compatibility at the table for the stat-blocks found in the MM and modules. That one will need some creative solutions.
Base: B/X style Attributes, Classes, Spells, Combat.
Add-ons: - Feats and Skills - Minis combat (+Feats to support) - Powers (provides 4e style powers to add to classes, spells are recast as powers)
The problem will be dealing with the power-levels of monsters. For example, Feats and Skills boost 'to-hit' and damage levels, so how to do you make a monster work regardless of which options are chosen at the table? The only way I could see it work is to publish multiple stat blocks for each monster.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 24, 2011 12:30:03 GMT -6
I'd say in a mixed party you let the lawfuls share as a group and neutrals share with them if they behave sufficiently as a team member. Chaotics get only what they kill and carry out. If you want chaotics to hide their alignment, then you'd have to keep XP totals secret.
With this, I'd see the lawfuls acting like a collective chaotic against the other chaotics. I still think everyone would just end up killing each other.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 23, 2011 20:53:51 GMT -6
Oh, it would be fun but I don't think it would be any good for a campaign. I think it would be more like a game of Paranoia.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 20, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 20, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6
Harbinger: I hear you on that--I was there myself not long ago. For whatever reason, though, the PBB has hit my sweet spot. Did it hit your sweet spot as a DM or as a PC? Do you think it unburdens the DM sufficiently; I found that 4e required me to study stat blocks too much.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 23:35:26 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 19, 2011 23:35:26 GMT -6
I dunno...at this point, I'm converted to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, which, when the Core Rules are added, do exactly what you're describing.. Yeah, I guess you're right, but after having burned out on 4e, I never want to go back to any game that uses skills and feats (or shudder powers). I don't want to ignite the fierce debate around their merits - suffice to say I fall into the 'DM ruling' camp which is why I hangout here these days. In Mearl's posts, he did a great job of explaining the pros and cons of such mechanics. So I'm probably not a good candidate for a 5e customer.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 16:16:08 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 19, 2011 16:16:08 GMT -6
Google brought me to this thread, so I'd thought I'd revive it.
I had been reading the Legends & Lore columns by Mike Mearls with great interest and hope. He obviously understands a lot about how older editions had a 'feel' that 4e lost when they rebuilt to core assumptions. 3e was perhaps rules-heavy, but it still felt a lot like D&D.
So I was really hoping 5e will take the modular toolbox approach he espoused at the beginning of his column. You'd have the basic system that would look a lot like BD&D, and then have 'advanced combat', 'advanced character creation', etc. rules that could be tacked on. Of course I don't know how much that would work in the real-world. If D&D 4e taught WoTC anything, it's to be wary about how cool designs can turn ugly when they meet the reality of play.
I've been less enthused since Monte took over the column. His columns give me the impression he's not as 'old-school' in his thinking. Perhaps however, the two of them will synergize their styles into the ultimate version of D&D ever published.... or at least the second best one after OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 10, 2011 0:47:45 GMT -6
I vaguely remember crunching the math on starting with HD 1+1 and using reroll keep highest when going to HD 2 and higher. I found that it increased HP by about .25 per level vs the expected value of you just rolled at that level (ie 4d6 at 4th level).
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 8, 2011 22:43:46 GMT -6
Ah, right. I use the 'silly' XP rules from Men & Magic with 1 HD = 100 XP, so advancement is much faster than with Greyhawk XP awards.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 8, 2011 16:39:14 GMT -6
I've been meaning to post this info for a while. I was reading White Dwarf #5 and in an excellent series on how to run a campaign called D&D Campaigns, Lewis Pulsipher has the following suggestion:
This blew my mind when I read it. This is the first time I've ever seen a mechanical game effect that captures the nature of the Chaos/Law divide.
Of course, in actual play it probably doesn't work as chaotic players would end up trying to kill their party members. It's still an interesting idea.
|
|