|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 8, 2011 15:58:28 GMT -6
In using that rule there is a double bonus/penalty at work. XPs by monster are based on the relative strength of the monster. As a character climbs in level, he will naturally slow down with the (nearly) exponential expansion to get to the next level. So, when you fight lower level monsters, you won't be leveling at a good clip anyway. Similarly, higher level monsters are worth more XP and if you fight outside of your weight class and win, you will be awarded handsomely. Adding extra rules for fractional level difference is not only a PITA, it also really does not make any sense. This got me curious as to what it looks like in terms of # of monsters needed to level up. For simplicity's sake, let's assume a fighter against 1 HD foes, and ignore treasure and sharing XP with other party members. Level 1 - 2000XP needed -> 100 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 20 kills to level up. Level 2 - 2000XP needed -> 50 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 40 kills to level up. Level 3 - 4000XP needed -> 33 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 120 kills to level up. Level 4 - 8000XP needed -> 25 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 320 kills to level up. So this really gives the PC a strong motivation to seek out monsters of their level. I'm currently playing the rules such that I don't divide by the player's level. The progression in that case is 20, 20, 40, 80 which is a huge difference and I've seen at the table that higher level characters are perfectly happy to wander around easier levels. Time to change that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 8, 2011 15:33:57 GMT -6
With the recent discussion of XP/HD progression, I had another question I want to ask. It's probably been answered earlier, but no harm in discussing it again. The progression of XP doubles between each level except between 1st and 2nd. For example: Fighter Level XP Delta 1 0 N/A 2 2,000 2,000 3 4,000 2,000 4 8,000 4,000 5 16,000 8,000 6 32,000 16,000
From reading Dragons at Dawn, it seems that what Arneson meant was for XP acrued to be reset to 0 between each level - in which case the amount of XP required between levels does double (2,000/4,000/8,000/16,000). So normally a fighter would require 16,000 XP to get to 5th level, but under the alternate method, they would need 30,000 XP! My first question is does anyone know if the intent was doubling of XP required? And the second question is that given that the side-effect is that PCs get level up faster, does anyone really care?
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Dec 1, 2011 21:33:27 GMT -6
I've just been awarding 100XP per monster in our monthly game. I find the divide by level too finicky. Players get a lot more XP from monsters compared with treasure, but not too bad. We currently have 2nd, 4th, and one 6th level character. The doubling of XP required for each level evens things out over time.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 26, 2011 16:14:51 GMT -6
Going back to the original post - if the fighter gets to exercise everything waysoftheearth lists, I think the fighter is just as good as the cleric, but at times may not feel that way. But really, those who complain about the fighter being underpowered are probably not playing OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 25, 2011 12:34:49 GMT -6
I always look at the Fighting Capability of the fighter and tell myself - that's where he's better, and the alternative combat doesn't take that into account.
I'm thinking of switching things around such that FC applies to the # of attacks (and maybe a + for one of the rolls) using the d20 charts. This will make me infinitely more happy with the fighter 'as-is'.
Does this sound about right, I've based it on the OD&D FAQ?
- The character's HD is based on the FC, Hero being 4, Superhero 8, Wizard ?
- If fighting opponents at an HD ratio of 1HD or less (ie. Hero (4th level) vs 4 1HD or 2 2HD monsters) then the player may roll as many attacks as their HD, 1d6 damage per hit.
- If fighting higher level monsters, then it is one roll, a hit does HD x 1d6 damage.
- Monsters work the same way. So troll either rolls 6 attacks (+3 to one) doing 1d6 each (+3 to one), or rolls one attack, doing 6d6+3.
I believe there are people here who play this way. Do you find it too deadly? Should the single attack hit do only 1d6 damage?
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 24, 2011 16:11:21 GMT -6
BTW, you forgot one:
Because they are mechanically simple, the fighting-men have the best personalities.
In my experience, it's always my fighting men I've had the most fun developing personality-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 24, 2011 14:31:48 GMT -6
Great post, I've always liked to play the fighting-man as-is and don't really feel I have to keep up with the cleric of m-u. Your post does raise a few questions in my mind, the problems I see is that some of his advantages at low-level are equal to other classes, and some at high-level are shared by other classes. So overall, he's never 'better' at any one thing. 1. Fighting-Men have the best armour. The magic-user description (M&M p6) says " The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armour of the fighters" explicitly stating that fighters have the use of magical armour, and hence non-magical armour by implication. However Clerics can don the same magic armor, so not really an advantage. 2. Fighting-Men have the best HD and hit points. " they gain the advantage of more 'hit-dice'" (M&M p6). See also "Dice for Accumulative Hits" (M&M p17-18). Yes, but for the first 4 levels of play the Cleric is on-par with the fighting-man, save for the +1 at 1st level. 3. Fighting-Men have the best saving throws of clerics, fighting-Men and magic-users (for the levels listed 1 to 13). According to the Saving Throw Matrix (M&M p20) clerics require an average roll of 10.7 to save, fighting-Men 10.4, and magic-users 11.8. Yes, but the Dwarf and Hobbit are both better. 4. Fighting-Men have the best attack rolls. See Attack Matrix I (M&M p19). Yes, but it's not until 4th level that any difference really shows up, and then its just 5%. 7. 92% of all magical weaponry appearing on the treasure tables (M&T p23-24) is usable by fighting-Men only. 80% are swords, 8% arrows, 1% bows, 1% axes, and 2% spears. Only the 4% daggers, 2% maces and 2% hammers are usable by magic-users and clerics respectively. Yes - as long as the DM keeps the treasure output this way, it certainly helps the fighter; and annoys the cleric. 9. Fighting-Men have multiple attacks versus 1 HD (and fewer) monsters. Implied by: " 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" (M&T p5). Later (SR Vol 1 No 2) clarified as meaning " A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)". It occurs to me that I don't recall anywhere that this is stated as solely a fighting-man capability, though everyone plays that way. So this advantage doesn't exist, though perhaps I'm mistaken. 10. Similarly, a 1st level fighting-Man (with 1+1 HD) is not subject to multiple attacks per round by high HD monsters. A 1st level magic-user or cleric (with 1 HD) is subject to multiple attacks. This disappears pretty quickly (2nd level).
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 22, 2011 23:11:36 GMT -6
It seems likely here 6 turns = 60 minutes. That's not the way Gary played it. Here's what puzzles me if the spell 'turn' is in minutes - most of the durations are 6 or 12 turns. If you were choosing a duration length for a spell, why would you choose 6 and 12 minutes as your durations? These values don't fit well into the 10 minute exploration turn - better to choose 1/2, 1/4 of a movement turn. Now 6 and 12 turns do make sense as choices if they mean 60 minutes and 120 minutes as that fits nicely with the 5 turns + rest one turn exploration cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 22, 2011 10:02:02 GMT -6
I think this holds for the magic item descriptions, but I'm not so sure of the spells, for example:
It seems likely here 6 turns = 60 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Nov 13, 2011 16:35:49 GMT -6
I don't quite get it. If you're hoping to reach a wider audience by taking advantage of the S&W market, why would you not support potential customers who use AAC? Or if it's just a personal project that adheres to your personal preferences, rather than your target customers', then why worry about having S&W compatibility?
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jun 27, 2011 14:38:51 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Jun 27, 2011 14:38:51 GMT -6
I think Mr. Mearls really has his work cut out for him.
The fragmentation of the market has greatly diminished the power of the D&D brand.
I'd be curious to know how many people would come back if they released a new ruleset based on 3.5 instead of 4 (essentially release a pathfinder clone). Sure some people would stay with 4e, some with Pathfinder, but would enough come back into the fold? Or are we now in a 'post-D&D' era where fragmentation is the norm?
Thank god the OSR is all compatible. Though I guess DCC RPG is challenging that.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Apr 27, 2011 8:00:07 GMT -6
I ignore individual movement rates at larger scales and go with the OD&D movement rates, which are based on 5 mile hexes.
Plus I'm lazy and counting by 6's is too much work.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Apr 13, 2011 11:11:07 GMT -6
The first thing that occurs to me is that 3d6 (no re-rolls) in order the odds of having two stats of 16+ are pretty small, so "by the book" this rule shouldn't come into play much at all. The first module I owned, B1 In Search of the Unknown has a magic rock that may grant a one-time attribute increase. This left me with the impression that permanent ability score boosting magic was a common method of getting characters 'over the hump' of stat requirements. Personally, if a player wanted to dual-class and didn't meet the attribute bonus, I'd have them seek out an ancient lost artifact that would fix that. I always like to use 'in-game' mechanisms instead of rules.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Mar 14, 2011 9:50:43 GMT -6
Oracle of the Polyhedrons
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Mar 2, 2011 9:30:23 GMT -6
I would assume it was because only the DM owned a d20.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 20, 2011 23:35:35 GMT -6
Ok, so new question. When fighting a Giant, for instance, does a Hero use the Fantasy Table or does he attack as 4 men? If he gets his choice, why wouldn't he always choose to fight as 4 men (which has better odds to do damage)? If he is forced to make a single attack on the Fantasy Table, why should a Warrior be more dangerous to a Giant than a Hero?* *This is based on the logic that a Warrior (2nd level Fighting-Man) cannot roll on the Fantasy Table, but gets 2+1 attacks against mundane enemies and thus deals far more damage to a Giant than a 4th level Hero would. I'm not speaking from experience here, but if playing 'a hit kills' then 12 hits are required in a round to kill a giant, while a hero can do it with one hit. If playing with 'a hit does 1d6' then if the hero hits, have him cause 4d6 damage if using the fantasy table. But really if he can attack on the mass combat table, that does seem a better bet.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 2, 2011 13:10:15 GMT -6
- There's lots of great player options, and combat is never dull.
- The core rules are nice and tight without being overbearing like they were in 3rd.
- It broke us free from the 3.5 monopoly! For various reasons that have been mentioned all over the internet, we abandoned it after 10 sessions and went to LL.
I'd be willing to be a player in a 4e game any day, but I'd have to think long and hard before running a campaign world using it.
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Mar 31, 2010 20:01:25 GMT -6
This thread interested me enough to unlurk and join the discussion. Like many others, I took a look at the chainmail mass-combat rules and said to myself - there must be a way to make this work for D&D. My main motivation was to go to a 'roll a pile of dice' method, where each d6 represented an increase in the character's attack capability. So here were my basic assumptions: - Attack capability: Dagger,etc is Light Foot; Mace, Flail is Heavy Foot; Long Sword is Armored Foot. This effectively means Wizard -> LF; Cleric -> HF; Fighter -> AF
- Defense capability: Leather is LF; Chain is HF; Plate is AF. Unarmored grants an extra attack die, shield grants a defense die that negates a hit on 5 or 6.
- +1, +2, etc., grants a single +1 (or +2, etc) to a single die, declared before hand by the attacker.
- The attacker can split their attack dice however they choose against melee foes.
- Use the standard mass-combat tables for number of dice and 'to-hit' calculations.
- Each 'hit' causes 1d6 damage.
In order to get a simplified view of what this would mean in terms of probability, I took the simple case of Armored Foot Attack against Armored Foot defense and look at hit probabilities and damage output at different hit dice. First off, hit probability quickly reaches 50%+, so combat is more about being able to absorb more damage than your opponent than avoiding getting hit. Secondly, +1 to a single die skews the hit probability enormously. It is always better to roll x dice with a +1 than to roll x+1 dice (e.g. HD2+1 is better than HD3). So in the Men&Magic progression, there are some cases where the player gets worse as they level up. To compensate, they are able to attack more individuals simultaneously. As long as the +1 only applies to 'to-hit' and not damage, the damage output isn't affected too badly. Damage output is much higher - with the d20 rules, a 4-6th level fighter does an average of 1.05 damage per round with a 30% hit probability. With these rules, they do 2.33 at 4th, and 3.5 at 6th. So combat is much deadlier, and healing ability becomes very important. Interestingly, the 'rounds-to-kill' an equal level opponent levels out at 6 rounds at 3rd level and above. I've attached a graph showing the cumulative probability of getting hits at each hit-die level. This is assume the 'to-hit' number is a 6. While I like the idea of rolling a lot of dice, I think my small tests of this method show that it may not be that fun in play as it is very lethal. This in part is because it really wasn't designed for a 'hit-point' system. It could perhaps benefit from a 'minimum threshold' concept as mentioned by someone else where there is a minimum number of hits required to damage a foe. A few conclusions - I really like the mechanical feel of this - roll a bunch of dice, pick up each one that hits, roll them for damage. - As is, too deadly to be fun. A single combat would exhaust the characters hit points to the point they'd have to turn back. - I really like the 5-6 for shield defence. It also happens to line up with early rules that gave a shield a 33% chance of being effective. - Plusses should only be granted to 'to-hit' rolls. That has a knock-on effect of increasing the damage dealt. If you add the plus to the damage as well, then damage output becomes too strong. I wonder if this could be the source of the Holmes Basic rule that magic weapons only add to 'to-hit'. - I tried playing with having armor reduce the 'hit-dice' of the attack, as mentioned for magic armor in the LBB, and it does create an interesting effect - but has problems at HD 1-3. Which again, might be why Dave Arneson started everyone at Hero (4HD) level (or so I've read). Attachments:
|
|