|
Post by Fearghus on Mar 17, 2015 18:52:56 GMT -6
Hello,
I downloaded DDv4 recently and had v3 available. I have NOT had an opportunity to play, but have read the books and compared/contrasted with some similar rule-sets.
One thing that nags at me is, why +1 to damage for exceptional strength?
I am typically a proponent of str as a bonus to hit, and that weapons gain a bonus to hit instead of variable damage. This train of thought is only for the abstraction of D&D style combat. The idea is that weapons such as a pollaxe were made to penetrate armor. In order to reflect that in an AC system, a bonus to hit is provided. Or, as you (WotE) pointed out in another thread, treat all targets as AC6. Either is fine and in the same spirit.
So, why strength to damage instead of to hit?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2015 5:05:11 GMT -6
Hi Fearghus, DD's dam adjustment for 15+ strength is a generalisation of EGG's house rule. However, EGG's adjustment was for fighters only, so it's plausible that should be the case for DD too.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Mar 18, 2015 12:11:35 GMT -6
Got it. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 11, 2015 23:53:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 12, 2015 3:09:10 GMT -6
Whoa. Is it that easy? Great! *Poof!* Thieves now have hit die progression/hit points greater than cleric but less than fighters. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Apr 12, 2015 18:15:54 GMT -6
What I did for my home game is made my own DD booklet. I used the text version, put in my house rules/changes. Then made a booklet and printed out for my players. I find that the easiest way to make changes for what I wanted. This way I don't have a separate handout for house rules.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Apr 13, 2015 19:41:04 GMT -6
I will have an opportunity to play DD in the next few weeks via Hangouts. Looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2015 6:24:39 GMT -6
Whoa. Is it that easy? Great! *Poof!* Thieves now have hit die progression/hit points greater than cleric but less than fighters. Thanks. 1. Download this. 2. Replace thief HD progression (on p17) with cleric HD progression (on p11). 3. Use the cleric's attack matrix rather than the M-U's. Enjoy
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Apr 17, 2015 22:37:10 GMT -6
Interestingly, I've been considering doing just the opposite of this.
I don't see the cleric as a 'priest'; that is, a preacher/proselytizer, like a full-time pulpit guy... That's an NPC's job. I see the cleric as more like the military arm of a given faith, much like the knights hospitalier, only in the world of fantasy being able to eventually earn 'miracles' (spells) from proving that faith (gaining xp).
So my cleric is more fight-y, and has the second-best hit dice available. Think I'll use that link for my house rules... Thanks, Ways!
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Apr 18, 2015 0:31:55 GMT -6
Ha ha! Thanks, Ways. Now I'll start messing around with it and never really get anything done. I've no problem seeing clerics as tough guys. They clearly are as presented. I only choose to view Thieves as scrappy, rough and tumble tomb-robbers, brigands and swashbuckling rogues among other things who've gotten into plenty of scrapes with the law and their victims and various guardians of that which they've pilfered (probably unsuccessfully quite a bit). I just cannot picture them, as having chosen to use their skills in the capacity as adventurers, as weak, slinky, slimeballs.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2015 2:56:34 GMT -6
Sounds like you might be after a roguish fighter machfront. A "proper" thief would, I think, be more like Tolkien's Gollum, or Dickens' F a gen or Jack Dawkins (aka The Artful Dodger). As EGG said: With no genuine prospect of any AC better than 7 a few extra hp won't matter, and an improved attack matrix might only tempt the poor thief into trouble he isn't really built to handle...
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Apr 18, 2015 14:56:56 GMT -6
Yay! I'm not too up on printing the word doc as a booklet but I'm going to figure it out. I can add my own classes for my home group and print it out all professional like! Thanks Ways.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Feb 25, 2016 22:21:53 GMT -6
Just going to piggyback on this thread instead of starting a new one...
I'm going to be running a live DD-based OD&D game in about a month and have been giving the rules a more careful read.
1. In the description of the elf and in missile combat, it mentions moving while using a bow. How does this work? I can't find a general description in the text. A dungeon exploration phase gives two moves, generally 12'/120 feet each. Is this the same in combat? A character could move 12' and use a bow, or move 24', or 24' and use a bow if an elf?
2. Heroic fighters and monsters of 3+ HD make multiple attacks versus normal types who are man types. This seems like a required shift, and not a combat requirement. So if a 4 HD monster attacks a group of 1st level fighters in plate and shield, he would have to do 4 attacks as a 1 HD monster instead of 1 attack as a 4 HD monster. I was thinking of making this optional, particularly for players, so fighters can shift into multiple attack/fantasy combat mode if they want. I'm not good with probabilities...is there any chance that choose to make one attack at a higher level would be more beneficial than multiples? Or would multiples at 1 HD always be better, even against an opponent with a very low AC?
3. Combat is generally divided into normal and fantasy in terms of multiple attacks. What about a mix of participants? Consider the following example: a monster of 5 HD attacks a party of 6. The party includes at least one heroic-level fighter. Would the combat be considered 'fantastic' and the monster restricted to a single attack at 5 HD, or would it be able to attack normal types in the party with 5 attacks? And if the heroic-level fighters are then slain, it could switch to multiple attacks?
I kind of like this, because it gives the impression that the monster has to be more cautious since there are powerful opponents. Once they are dealt with, it could then just start mopping up the remaining characters. Reversed, a party facing a group of orcs and an ogre would pile on the ogre, then they could mop up the orcs with multiple attacks.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 29, 2016 2:14:19 GMT -6
Simon will have the answers of course but here's my tuppence worth. 1. I'm sure there's only one more in combat so the elf could, for example, move 60-feet, fire, then move the remainder of his or her movement allowance. 2. If an heroic monster or hero opts for multiple attacks as a first level or one hit die creature it loses any damage modifier too so the referee does have some tactical considerations to make. 3. I would say it depends on which target or targets the attacker chooses to focus on; if the opponent is heroic - just one attack. Thanks Mike
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 5, 2016 8:22:15 GMT -6
strangebrew, have you resolved your questions? It seems that WotE may be on hiatus, so I'll take a crack at answering them. But, I would also suggest that you venture over to WotE's DD web page. It's possible that he may have content there that will answer your questions. The link is in his sig under "PBP Games". 1. The Elf can perform what is known as "split move and fire". I'm not sure that DD goes into defining this, but it seems that is what the intent is. I'll attempt to clarify it. Generally, all missile troops can fire twice per turn if stationary. DD throws in that missile fire on the move is at -2 to hit. Since there are two moves to the turn, it seems what is being suggested is that any character, other then an Elf, could move his/her full distance for one portion of a turn and fire on the other portion of the turn at -2 to hit. The Elf, on the other hand, suffers no penalty for moving and firing. So, he/she can move and fire, then move and fire again without penalty. So, yes, a bowman can move 12" and fire once during a turn with a -2 to hit penalty, where an Elf can move 24" and fire twice during the turn without penalty. Consequently, how I handle non-elf missile fire on the move is that I allow them to move up to half their movement rate and still fire during each portion of the turn. So, a bowman could move 6" and fire, then move 6" more and fire a second time each turn if not engaged in melee. This still results in only a 12" move, yet gives 2 volleys per turn. If they would need to move more then 6" to get into position during either portion of the turn, they could only fire one volley. So, it is possible that they could move up to 18" and still fire one volley. 2. & 3. Combat will always be either "normal" or "fantastic". If your opponent is normal, then you are in "normal" combat i.e. multiple attacks per level or HD as a 1st level Fighter. If your opponent is a "fantastic" or "heroic" type, then melee is fantastic i.e. one attack at character's level. In both cases, any bonuses to hit are added to only one roll (usually the final roll). Where you will most likely run into trouble is in how you define "normal" types. The easiest way is to define "normal" as 1HD or less. Otherwise, you may run into situations where you have 2HD Cavemen facing 4th level Fighters with normal henchmen. Does the Cavemen get multiple attacks against the henchmen? Does the 4th level Fighter get multiple attacks against the Cavemen? It can't be both. You'll have to decide what you consider the threshold for normal types. Some distinguish them as those who tend to fight in large groups and have less than 3HD. The problem with this approach is that all the character types would fall into this definition and clearly we would want our 2nd level Fighter's benefiting from multiple attacks against normals, instead of being lumped as a normal. That is obviously the intent of the rule to begin with. hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Mar 7, 2016 16:57:08 GMT -6
Hey derv, thanks for the insights. I think the whole normal/fantasy combat thing might be more trouble than its worth, especially since i'm going to be playing with a bunch of new-school players. I might just simplify it to 1 HD like you mention. Likewise with moving and shooting I might simplify it to a half-move 1 attack for everyone kind of thing.
Part of me wants to present it as a resource management dungeon crawl, with a lot of tension regarding lighting, wandering monsters, etc. but the other part of me wants to hand wave away most of that minutia and play it free and loose. Both ways have their merits, so I guess I'll have to consider which would be best for the players.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 9, 2016 10:01:24 GMT -6
Hi strangebrewOn Simon's forums I actually posed similar questions, and he has examples and answers there. You my also want to browse the game I am running there to see how this stuff worked out in practise.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 9, 2016 16:37:13 GMT -6
In both cases, any bonuses to hit are added to only one roll (usually the final roll). This is only true for the to-hit bonus gained from hit dice. Other attack bonuses apply to all rolls: "Elmo's player throws four 20-sided dice for Elmo; 15, 2, 14, 8, adjusting each roll by +2 due to surprise and a further +1 due to his sorcerous blade, resulting in two hits." - (from a post by WotE on his forum)
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 9, 2016 20:38:51 GMT -6
True, I hope strangebrew understood I was referring to any bonus to Hit Dice. But, your example does bring up an interesting item of question. Does DD offer a +2 to hit for surprise? I find that to be a little excessive considering surprise grants a free move segment already, in this case an uncontested attack. I'm curious where WotE gleaned that ruling from.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 10, 2016 6:18:36 GMT -6
This may be of interest to those playing DD. This guys reviewing DD on his blog. The first post is on dungeon stocking. Not sure if there will be more to follow. I would expect so. A member here? Yore
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 14, 2016 3:51:04 GMT -6
Hey strangebrew, Thanks for your interest in DD, and my apologies for not replying sooner--I don't frequent these boards as I used to. Thanks also to those above who provided some solid answers to your questions. FWIW, here are my (overdue) replies: I'm going to be running a live DD-based OD&D game in about a month and have been giving the rules a more careful read. Nice Let us know how it goes. 1. In the description of the elf and in missile combat, it mentions moving while using a bow. How does this work? CM p11 (Rate of Fire): "If they" (crossbowmen, archers, longbowmen) "are moved over one-half of their normal movement they may fire once only if they beat their opponent's die roll". Which is to say: missile fire on the move is less effective. Then: CM p12 (Split-move and fire): "horse archers move up to one-half of their normal movement, immediately conduct missile fire procedure, and continue to move out the balance of their normal movement". Which is to say: movement during a split-move and fire does not adversely affect missile fire. Finally: M&T p16 (Elves): "Elves on foot may split-move and fire". A dungeon exploration phase gives two moves, generally 12'/120 feet each. Is this the same in combat? I don't believe it is written that way. . CM (1971) makes it 12" (plus charge bonus) per one-minute turn. . D&D (1974) is not explicit, other than saying the basic system is that from Chainmail. . EW (1976) makes it 12" per a melee period ("period" because turn and round appear to be used interchangeably; either way it's 12"). . Holmes (1977) makes it 2" per round and 20" per turn, but remember a Holmes combat turn is 100 seconds. If we compress/truncate the turn to 60 seconds (0.6 of its documented size) we instead get 2" x 0.6 = 1.2" per round or 20" x 0.6 = 12" per one minute turn. A character could move 12' and use a bow, or move 24', or 24' and use a bow if an elf? Technically, an Elf with a 12" movement and a bow could: * Remain stationary and fire twice, * Move up to 6", fire once, and then move up to 6" more. * Move up to 12" and not fire at all. However, without using of miniatures to track positions accurately it's reasonable enough to simply allow the Elf player on the move one shot at any time during his turn. 2. Heroic fighters and monsters of 3+ HD make multiple attacks versus normal types who are man types. This is true, but not quite the complete picture. ANY figure (normal or heroic) with multiple HD makes multiple attacks versus normals. A 2 HD caveman or gnoll or 2nd level fighter is--according to DD V4--a normal-type and yet has two attacks versus normals. So if a 4 HD monster attacks a group of 1st level fighters in plate and shield, he would have to do 4 attacks as a 1 HD monster instead of 1 attack as a 4 HD monster. Yes. I was thinking of making this optional, particularly for players, so fighters can shift into multiple attack/fantasy combat mode if they want. I'm not good with probabilities...is there any chance that choose to make one attack at a higher level would be more beneficial than multiples? Or would multiples at 1 HD always be better, even against an opponent with a very low AC? By the book a figure does not _choose_ to employ its fantasy or normal attack mode. _Combat resolution_ is determined to be normal or fantastic by the ref, depending on who is invovled. There are many heroic/fantastic monsters that are impervious to normal attacks; these can _only_ be hit in fantastic combat. 3. Combat is generally divided into normal and fantasy in terms of multiple attacks. Combat is always either normal or it is fantastic. What about a mix of participants? Consider the following example: a monster of 5 HD attacks a party of 6. The party includes at least one heroic-level fighter. Would the combat be considered 'fantastic' and the monster restricted to a single attack at 5 HD, or would it be able to attack normal types in the party with 5 attacks? And if the heroic-level fighters are then slain, it could switch to multiple attacks? I kind of like this, because it gives the impression that the monster has to be more cautious since there are powerful opponents. Once they are dealt with, it could then just start mopping up the remaining characters. Reversed, a party facing a group of orcs and an ogre would pile on the ogre, then they could mop up the orcs with multiple attacks. Thoughts? By the book, normal-types always prefer to fight other normal-types before heroic/fantastic-types (not surprising considering what a hero can do to them). In a mixed melee it can be useful to resolve any heroic combat separately from the normal combat going on around them. In your example above, the Hero would tackle the Troll in heroic/fantastic combat (protecting the normals, if you like), while his Men stay out of harms way or tackle the accompanying Orcs in normal combat. If the Troll were to defeat the Hero, then yes, the Troll would thereafter switch to six attacks in normal combat versus the normal Men who, at this point, had better leg it. Hope that is helpful strangebrew, and that your game goes well Simon
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 14, 2016 3:55:56 GMT -6
Does DD offer a +2 to hit for surprise? I find that to be a little excessive considering surprise grants a free move segment already, in this case an uncontested attack. I'm curious where WotE gleaned that ruling from. Yes, DD V4 does say surprise attacks are at +2 to hit. CM2 p22/CM3 p25 (Melee): <<For any man attacking from the rear in melee ... add one to the die roll of the attacker>>. +1 on 2d6 equates nearest to +2 on 1d20; so we have rear attack are at +2 on 1d20. This appears to carry over into Holmes, insofar as: Holmes p21 (How Gets the First Blow?): <<the fleeing party must accept an attack without any return on his part, the attacker adding +2 to his die roll for hit probability>>. Then, we also have: The Thief! p3 (Example of a Thief in Action): <<If the thief strikes silently from behind ... hit probabilities from behind should be increased by 20% (+4 on numbers shown to hit)>>. So here we see a +4 adjustment on a d20. We already have it (above) that rear attacks are at +2, so a thief striking silently from behind adds an _additional_ +2. Possibly, this additional +2 could be due to the surprise nature of the thief's attack. The text states, at least, that he strikes _silently_ from behind. Does silently imply surprise? Finally, we have: M&T p12 (Attack Dragons): <<Sleeping Dragons may be attacked with a free melee round by the attacker and +2 on hit dice for chances of hitting>>. Possibly this "free melee round" at +2 on the dice for chances of hitting is a surprise round. Certainly, the dragon would get a surprise wake up. DD V4 surmises all of the above into the one generalisation that surprise attacks are struck at +2. It seemed a plausible case at the time, but ultimately it's pretty thin sauce. FWIW, I am currently considering whether or not this adjustment should be written out of the forthcoming V5.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 14, 2016 19:22:45 GMT -6
DD V4 surmises all of the above into the one generalisation that surprise attacks are struck at +2. Fair enough, WotE. Thanks for the explanation. Out of all the examples, I think the sleeping dragon may be the strongest. But, I'm not sure if the intent of this rule was for it to be generalized. Of course, these sort of bonuses are a two way street too. Something for a GM to think about
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 6, 2016 11:54:11 GMT -6
.... Finally, we have: M&T p12 (Attack Dragons): <<Sleeping Dragons may be attacked with a free melee round by the attacker and +2 on hit dice for chances of hitting>>. Possibly this "free melee round" at +2 on the dice for chances of hitting is a surprise round. Certainly, the dragon would get a surprise wake up. DD V4 surmises all of the above into the one generalisation that surprise attacks are struck at +2. It seemed a plausible case at the time, but ultimately it's pretty thin sauce. FWIW, I am currently considering whether or not this adjustment should be written out of the forthcoming V5. The sleeping dragon bit seems to first appear in the Pre-D&D material in the FFC where it is merely a "free chop" with no bonus. I'm inclined to think an attack on a sleeping creature or an attack from behind is a bit different from a typical surprise, but in any case I think the more conservative view is that no bonus is implied in surprise in the 3lbb's beyond the free attack/attacks. A free attack is a pretty big advantage as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 30, 2016 15:35:54 GMT -6
ANY figure (normal or heroic) with multiple HD makes multiple attacks versus normals. Does this include magic-users, clerics, etc?
|
|