Magic user hit die

[mythmere]

I've heard differing opinions on the original idea of giving the magic user a d6 hit die when fighters and clerics are boosted up to d10 and d8 (via the supplement).

The argument against using a d6 is that it's not consistent: either use the supplement as a whole, or don't use it at all.

The argument in favor is that by giving the m-u a higher hit die, it "tightens up" the spread, keeping things closer to the original white box.

I prefer the d6 m-u, but that's just because I feel like they're too weak with a d4 - so my opinion's not a good basis for making a retro-cloning decision; it's based on how I like to play.

What are your general opinions - d6 or d4?
Keep in mind: ALL publishers under the game would be stuck with the result of this decision, although generally only the total hit points of an NPC would be shown in a module (so basically, they could ignore it entirely and just say, "yup, that particular NPC has 1hp per die less than the average you'd expect.").

d6 or d4?

[Zulgyan]

I have been using this: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=955

But that method would not be liked by the majority of people.

Why not go with the original method? Start with 1d6 and then play around a bit with the number of d6s rolled each level?

[busman]

The original books approximate the MU getting HD at a rate of slightly slower than d4 per level, actually. d4 is a boost to the overall curve of the MU.

The clerics most closely approximate the d6. Again, it's mildly lower than straight d6.

The fighting men, pretty closely approximate a d8. Again, slightly lower than d8.

To most closely approximate without duplicating the original texts, d4, d6, d8 is pretty good.

[Zulgyan]

1d6+1 FM
1d6 C
and
1d4 MU

could also work.

But again, maybe the original approach, with d6 amounts somewhat modified for each class would the truest to the origin.

IMO, keeping Monster HD d6 based is crucial. So I would based everything around that.

[busman]

Jun 10, 2008 14:43:48 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

1d6+1 FM
1d6 C
and
1d4 MU

could also work.

But again, maybe the original approach, with d6 amounts somewhat modified for each class would the truest to the origin.

IMO, keeping Monster HD d6 based is crucial. So I would based everything around that.

1d6+1 is very close to 1d8.

By going d4 d6 d8, it's clearly different than the original texts. Of course, it's closer to GH, which could be a problem.

Maybe your 1d6+1, 1d6 and 1d6-1 idea which also approximates the same results is the clearest of all existing texts, Zul.

[Zulgyan]

Yes, but 1d6-1 would be really odd for most people. It would be often criticized IMO.

[Zulgyan]

Once reason I think d6 based monster HD is really good: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=monterstreasure&action=display&thread=458

[busman]

Jun 10, 2008 14:49:55 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Yes, but 1d6-1 would be really odd for most people. It would be often criticized IMO.

Possibly, but you're going to get criticism one way or the other. d4, d6, d6+1 is going to get complaints as well. There's no winning, unfortunately. I, personally, like the consistency of the d6-1, d6, d6+1.

[Zulgyan]

What I think is important is to keep the OD&D power level, so that OD&D and S&W players handle the same terms and values.

8 points of damage should mean a really fierce hit (ogre attack at max damage) to both.

Maybe it's best to stick with a redesigned original method. All start at 1d6, FM 1d6+1, and the they receive varied amounts of d6s at different levels.

[mythmere]

For monsters, I've been using the GH numbers. Using parts of GH isn't a problem - in fact, it happens to be legally safer (those numbers match with the ones I'm specifically "authorized" to use).

The GH system introduced more capacity for different monsters to vary in terms of their tactical profile. When a giant hits for 2d6 and a human hits for 1d6, there's not a lot of room in between for varying the monsters. So I've always liked the alternative combat system and its hit dice, and that's the main reason, I guess, for importing that aspect of GH into S&W.

As it stands right now, everything for hit dice and damage is based on the GH method.

Hmm.

[Zulgyan]

I would personally stick to close to the OD&D power level, so as to be different to the rest of the retro-clones and mantain compatibilty.

But it's you who decides. And I'm fine with any decision really.

Possible methods I suggest are:

1. Playing with different amounts of d6 for each class as in the original books.

2.
FM 1d8
C and Monster d6
MU 1d4

3.
FM 1d6+1
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d4

4.
FM 1d6+1
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d6-1

(note that in this method a level 4 FM has HD 4+4).

[mythmere]

Jun 10, 2008 16:26:23 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

I would personally stick to close to the OD&D power level, so as to be different to the rest of the retro-clones and mantain compatibilty.

But it's you who decides. And I'm fine with any decision really.

I haven't made a decision - all I'm saying it that at the present time it's done using the GH damage/hp spread. It sort of depends whether my target is the early region of 0e (as a nebulous thing reaching from the LB all the way up to what's basically 1e) or whether the target is really the white box set only, pre-GH. I'd been thinking of it as a white-box clone because of the three classes (ie, pre-thief) because the introduction of skills into the game is where I think many problems began. But when GH was published, there were actually two incompatible systems developed. And the question is which version of 0e to follow - the white box or the GH version.

It's clear that if I use the GH version, I can set up a system that will get lots of new material published ... but it won't be true white box. material that's published. On the other hand, if I do ONLY the white box, it will curtail the amount of material being published.

Unless I can think how to pull a rabbit out of my hat. Which I'm good at, but nothing's come to me yet.

[akiyama]

Jun 10, 2008 16:26:23 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Possible methods I suggest are:

FM 1d8
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d4

FM 1d6+1
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d4

FM 1d6+1
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d6-1

(note that in this method a level 4 FM has HD 4+4).

For me, the above methods are all good.

These work for me too:

FM 1d8
C and Monster 1d6
MU 1d6

FM 1d10
C and Monster 1d8
MU 1d4

FM and Monster 1d8
C 1d6
MU 1d4

The only method I don't like is the one you chose, having the MU get 1d6 while the fighter gets 1d10!

[Zulgyan]

Maybe you can leave it to the gamers choice and offer the alternatives.

Statblocks in S&W modules could be presented as:

Royal Guard: AC 4(16); HD 3;Mv 9; uses sword

The indivdual DM knows that HD 3 in his game is 3d6 or 3d8 or whatever. He knows that a sword deals 1d6, 1d8 or whatever.

If you stat an NPC you can go with:

Zteog: AC 9(11); M-U 4; Mv 12; staff

M-U 4 can mean 4d6, 4d4, 4d6-4 or whatever to the individual GM.

To be more newbie friendly, provide a standard method and then have a paragraph discussing the alternatives.

Then when publishing for S&W always keep it universal, saying only HD number and not dice. IN that way, the statblock is usable for wider variety of referees.

[philotomy]

Jun 10, 2008 16:38:41 GMT -6 mythmere said:

And the question is which version of 0e to follow - the white box or the GH version.

I would rather see a white box version, rather than a GH version. I think that's the "missing element" in the retro-clone lineup. With GH material, you start getting into territory already covered by OSRIC or LL. Without GH material, you're breaking new ground. (And there's nothing to prevent adding a "Supplement G" sometime down the line, with optional rules...)

[sham]

I dunno. As a recent OD&D convert, one of the things I love about the system is the d6 synergy. Characters and Monsters have d6 for Hit Dice, Weapons deal 1d6 damage, and canonical MU spells, Lightning Bolt and Fire Ball use d6 for damage.

I can't offer a solution, just that this synergy is lost once you adjust the ranges. Something gets 'nerfed' in the process.

You'll have less work behind the scenes balancing things if you maintain d6 HD for Monsters. It's one of those little OD&Disms that makes it unique.

[Zulgyan]

I edited my last post with an idea.

[busman]

Jun 10, 2008 16:54:30 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I would rather see a white box version, rather than a GH version. I think that's the "missing element" in the retro-clone lineup. With GH material, you start getting into territory already covered by OSRIC or LL. Without GH material, you're breaking new ground. (And there's nothing to prevent adding a "Supplement G" sometime down the line, with optional rules...)

I totally concur. It's as close to straight white box as possible that's not been even close to attempted before.

That said. any of these methods, though stated in GH terms are actually very close to the white box. When I get home tonight I can post my excel files showing all the curves of each of the methods.

[sham]

I missed Phil's post, but I also concur with his statement. White Box makes S&W unique. Just my opinion, though. It's your baby.

That said, I think Zulgyan's edited idea is awesome. Just list the HD in adventures and modules.

My last post went OT from MU HD, but the question pertains to the whole White Box d6 synergy.

[mythmere]

I will be out all day tomorrow, but just to let everyone know - I am leaning very heavily toward dropping the GH methods, going to the d6 HD, and scaling the monsters back to the LB power level.

There will, as a result, be various scalings-back elsewhere through the document to compensate (effect of high ability scores, for instance).

This means that the Rosetta Stone aspect of the game will, unfortunately, evaporate: the project will be one of promoting 0e to "new" players, and promoting the production of 0e products (free or not). House ruling is going to be interesting. I'll also have to double check the rules for parrying and such - they'll probably provide too much of a bonus, which wasn't such a big deal with the wider hp spreads from GH.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 10, 2008 19:15:56 GMT -6 mythmere said:

I am leaning very heavily toward dropping the GH methods, going to the d6 HD, and scaling the monsters back to the LB power level.

I think this sounds good.

As others have mentioned, the more "advanced" the rules evolution, the more it starts to look more like AD&D or OSRIC or LL or others on the market.

Maintaining the LBB feel and scale should be a high priority, if S&W is to be accepted as a unique rules set.

[greyharp]

Jun 11, 2008 22:19:48 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Maintaining the LBB feel and scale should be a high priority, if S&W is to be accepted as a unique rules set.

I have to agree with this statement and although that may mean giving up the idea of a Rosetta Stone game, there is no reason why that particular dream can't be kept alive through the associated S&W zine, especially if Zulgyan's excellent suggestion of non-specific stat descriptions is used.