Attack Matrix II: Monsters Attacking

[Deleted]

Does anyone else find it odd that monsters per Men & Magic are better at fighting (have better to-hit rolls) than fighting-men according to the Attack Matrix II on p. 20?

How is it that a 2 HD bestial gnoll is better (10%) at fighting than a 3rd level 'professional fighting-man?  Why not just use monster's HD against Attack Matrix I? 

It seems there must have been a good reason for this, but it does seem odd.

[Deleted]

So that monsters are more dangerous than PCs. Gary wanted the game to be hard.

[foxroe]

Welcome to the forums, Christopher!

I apologize ahead of time if this is too preachy (and off topic)...

Yes, as the estimable Mr. Mornard points out, the original game is intended to be very challenging to the players. This is a concept that a lot of newcomers to the "olde ways" have a hard time with. Your character is just a playing piece with a high mortality rate (kind of like a piece on a chess board). Player attachment to characters is something that organically evolves through play; a good player realizes how dangerous the environments of D&D can be and uses his or her "skill" as a participant in the game to ensure that the character survives. Unlike later editions, there is no assumption that your character is somehow special and impervious to deadly harm.

While combat in all its forms is the forte of the Fighting-man/woman, it does not mean that they should wade into melee with everything they meet. A good player (regardless of character ability) knows when discretion is the better part of valor.

[Finarvyn]

Also there is the observation that players tend to travel in packs whereas monsters may be solo. I like the fact that characters have to advance a while in order to become more equal to monsters. It makes for a better challenge.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2016 23:48:52 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

So that monsters are more dangerous than PCs. Gary wanted the game to be hard.

That makes sense.  But, seems to me that this could be accomplished in ways that don't resort to helping the monsters "cheat".  But again, the rules are merely guidelines so I suppose I have no legitimate gripe other than for curiosity's sake.

Welcome to the forums, Christopher!



I apologize ahead of time if this is too preachy (and off topic)...



Yes, as the estimable Mr. Mornard points out, the original game is intended to be very challenging to the players. This is a concept that a lot of newcomers to the "olde ways" have a hard time with. Your character is just a playing piece with a high mortality rate (kind of like a piece on a chess board). Player attachment to characters is something that organically evolves through play; a good player realizes how dangerous the environments of D&D can be and uses his or her "skill" as a participant in the game to ensure that the character survives. Unlike later editions, there is no assumption that your character is somehow special and impervious to deadly harm.



While combat in all its forms is the forte of the Fighting-man/woman, it does not mean that they should wade into melee with everything they meet. A good player (regardless of character ability) knows when discretion is the better part of valor.

Thank you for the welcome and the well thought out response.  I have played most of the editions including original.  However, I am coming to the realization that my understanding of how to play OD&D has been very much colored by my experience playing later editions of A/D&D.   I forget which edition explained in its text that combat was the heart of the game system and I have since seen D&D through that lens. It is really interesting and exciting to come to OD&D with new eyes, although it is difficult to rid myself of the assumptions I have lived with for more than 2 decades. One thing I would find very helpful is an extended explanation of how Original D&D was intended to be played with examples of play included.  I have read the Old School Primer and that was partly helpful, but I wasn't completely sure how to translate that into actual play since I have not really seen anyone run an OD&D game before nor have I played in one.  Where I live everyone plays the newest and shiniest versions of the game.

Posted by Finarvyn


Also there is the observation that players tend to travel in packs whereas monsters may be solo. I like the fact that characters have to advance a while in order to become more equal to monsters. It makes for a better challenge.

This also makes sense. Again, it does seem like "cheating".  It reminds of computer wargames, strategy games, etc. that give the AI die roll bonuses or resource bonuses to challenge the player.  It seems artificial, and well, kind of like cheating.  I suppose if I wanted I could use Attack Matrix I and simply add in an extra monster to any given encounter to keep it challenging though. 

[Zenopus]

Just because a fighter has improved his ability to score a damaging hit does not mean he has surpassed the ability of a monster of a certain HD to also score a hit. In other words, Monster HD is not equivalent to Fighter level.

If you need justification, consider that monsters may fight differently from humans, and have natural attack forms that are more lethal than those of humans. Remember that in OD&D, most monsters get a single attack for 1d6 damage. But a 2 HD gnoll may be physically stronger than any normal human plus have the ability to scratch with claws and bite with teeth in addition to attacking with a weapon, all giving an increased chance to score a hit in a single abstract combat round.

Also, think about an Ogre in OD&D. They get a single attack for 1d6+2 damage. But they attack as a 4-6 HD monster, giving them a +5 to hit, which is equivalent to a 7-9th level fighter. You could consider this difference to model the great strength of the Ogre, which is much higher than any human could have and gives the Ogre an increased chance to score a hit.

[Mushgnome]

Also keep in mind the fighting man PC likely has magic weapon, armor, potions, etc. to compensate.

I disagree that the concept of "cheating" can be applied to a game with no winners or losers.

[Deleted]

I can't prove this, but I'd also bet a nickel that either Dave or Gary started with both using the same matrix and then decided monsters needed an advantage. Remember, the original brown box D&D went through about 3 to 4 years of playtesting before publication.

[derv]

I tried to post something humorous to the effect that I still some times use just Matrix 1. It lost it's quality since Michael posted while I was busy thinking of a witty way of writing it.

Suffice it to say, that I would be willing to double Michael's bet and see nothing wrong with playing the game with only the one matrix, if that's what you would want. It has very little bearing on low level games anyway.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2016 12:31:15 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Just because a fighter has improved his ability to score a damaging hit does not mean he has surpassed the ability of a monster of a certain HD to also score a hit. In other words, Monster HD is not equivalent to Fighter level.

If you need justification, consider that monsters may fight differently from humans, and have natural attack forms that are more lethal than those of humans. Remember that in OD&D, most monsters get a single attack for 1d6 damage. But a 2 HD gnoll may be physically stronger than any normal human plus have the ability to scratch with claws and bite with teeth in addition to attacking with a weapon, all giving an increased chance to score a hit in a single abstract combat round.

Also, think about an Ogre in OD&D. They get a single attack for 1d6+2 damage. But they attack as a 4-6 HD monster, giving them a +5 to hit, which is equivalent to a 7-9th level fighter. You could consider this difference to model the great strength of the Ogre, which is much higher than any human could have and gives the Ogre an increased chance to score a hit.

Monster HD not being equivalent to Fighter level makes sense.  A 2 HD gnoll doesn't necessarily mean that he is a level 2 fighter or level 2 monster.  This is an interpretation I have brought to the game perhaps. Thanks! 

Posted by mushgnome 

Also keep in mind the fighting man PC likely has magic weapon, armor, potions, etc. to compensate.

I disagree that the concept of "cheating" can be applied to a game with no winners or losers

Yes, magic weapons, armor, etc. do compensate.  This is a good point. And you're right, "cheating" is not accurate.  

I think artificial is what I meant.  But perhaps this isn't really fair since this is a fantasy game and most any representation of fantasy  gaming is going to seem 'artificial'. Again, I am likely looking through the wrong lens.

Posted by gronanofsimmerya

I can't prove this, but I'd also bet a nickel that either Dave or Gary started with both using the same matrix and then decided monsters needed an advantage. Remember, the original brown box D&D went through about 3 to 4 years of playtesting before publication.

That is fascinating.  The layout and organization of the LBB give the impression that the original game was a bit ramshackle. But knowing that a great deal of thought and effort were put into those three little brown rules books only adds to its charm.  It amazes me that such a lasting legacy was produced by something so humble in appearance, again only adding to the game's appeal aside from the actual playing of the game itself.

It's also good to know that my idea of using one attack matrix puts me in good company.

Posted by derv


I tried to post something humorous to the effect that I still some times use just Matrix 1. It lost it's quality since Michael posted while I was busy thinking of a witty way of writing it.

Suffice it to say, that I would be willing to double Michael's bet and see nothing wrong with playing the game with only the one matrix, if that's what you would want. It has very little bearing on low level games anyway.

If you still want to come up with something I promise I'll laugh. 

[aldarron]

I'll address the second part first:

Oct 18, 2016 22:54:08 GMT -6 christopher said:

Why not just use monster's HD against Attack Matrix I? 

It seems there must have been a good reason for this, but it does seem odd.

I've got an upcoming 'blog post where I talk about this, but there's no harm in foreshadowing a bit here. If you have been following my revelation and discussion of Dave Megarry's early Blackmoor Character sheet, here or my discussion a couple years back of Pete Gaylords sheet, you might guess where I'm going with this.

Early Blackmoor combat was based on a skill system Dave Arneson developed as a replacement for using the Fantasy combat table in CHAINMAIL. Basically, he took the weapons list form CM and had his players make a 2d6 roll for each weapon. That then became their "ability score" for the weapon. To hit an opponent with the weapon a player had to roll the score or less on an attack roll.

Okay. What is worth noting here is that Arneson did not make up similar weapon "skill scores" for his monsters. Monster attacks weren't nearly so granular. How exactly a monster hit a character is still something of a mystery to me, but the point is Dave handled character attacks on one table and monster attacks on another.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Gary did the same thing in D&D.

Oct 18, 2016 22:54:08 GMT -6 christopher said:

Does anyone else find it odd that monsters per Men & Magic are better at fighting (have better to-hit rolls) than fighting-men according to the Attack Matrix II on p. 20?

How is it that a 2 HD bestial gnoll is better (10%) at fighting than a 3rd level 'professional fighting-man? 

The gnoll has an advantage in the target number but that's about it right? A 3rd level fighting man has a decent chance to have a magic weapon, has a fighting capability of Hero -1; can engage in multiple attacks (3) against "normals" including, I would argue, the gnoll, and is quite likely to be wearing significantly better armor than the AC5 gnoll, and has a 1d+1 hit point advantage.

So maybe it is fair to say the gnoll is better at hitting than the F-M but I don't think it is quite accurate to say it is better at fighting.

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2016 21:00:07 GMT -6 christopher said:

I think artificial is what I meant.  But perhaps this isn't really fair since this is a fantasy game and most any representation of fantasy  gaming is going to seem 'artificial'. Again, I am likely looking through the wrong lens.

Breaking out the monster attacks into a separate table gives the developer (and, by extension, the DM) the ability to fine tune the numbers for whatever particular need they have. There wouldn't be any purpose, for example, if you were to create a Saving Throw table specifically for monsters and just copy the numbers from one of the character classes' tables. So, making a monster attack chart is only needed if you are adjusting the numbers in the first place, otherwise, you would only need a "Fighters and Monster" to hit chart. You're trading simplicity for flexibility.

For me, I tend to prefer simplicity, so I created one to hit chart for monsters and all PCs, regardless of class, which also is my saving throw chart and my skill resolution chart. But this means that tweeking my numbers become more complicated (sometimes prohibitively so). D&D generally went the other direction, providing a wide variety of different charts that can all be individually modified without affecting any other rules systems. It's a trade-off.

[derv]

Oct 19, 2016 21:00:07 GMT -6 christopher said:

If you still want to come up with something I promise I'll laugh. 

Did you hear the one about the blind Swordsman with only one arm? They call him Lucky.

He walks into a dungeon.....and a door, and a table, and a treasure chest.

On the third level he gets into a fight with 30 orcs. He knew he would beat them single-handed.

So, he gets back to town and goes to the local watering hole. He says to the bartender, "Do you know the difference between ignorance and apathy?"

The bartender says, "I don't know and I don't care."

The bartender looks at him and says, "Ya know you look just like that Thief who stole a bushel of prunes from the market."

"Ah", says the Swordsman, "I get that sometimes. That was my brother. He's been on the run ever since."

[foxroe]

Oct 20, 2016 15:51:30 GMT -6 derv said:

Oct 19, 2016 21:00:07 GMT -6 christopher said:

If you still want to come up with something I promise I'll laugh. 

Did you hear the one about the blind Swordsman with only one arm? They call him Lucky.

He walks into a dungeon.....and a door, and a table, and a treasure chest.

On the third level he gets into a fight with 30 orcs. He knew he would beat them single-handed.

So, he gets back to town and goes to the local watering hole. He says to the bartender, "Do you know the difference between ignorance and apathy?"

The bartender says, "I don't know and I don't care."

The bartender looks at him and says, "Ya know you look just like that Thief who stole a bushel of prunes from the market."

"Ah", says the Swordsman, "I get that sometimes. That was my brother. He's been on the run ever since."

Bah-dum-dum...ching!

[Deleted]

So maybe it is fair to say the gnoll is better at hitting than the F-M but I don't think it is quite accurate to say it is better at fighting.

Yes, I think that is fair.  The gnoll is better at hitting, but this does not mean that he is better at fighting.  I agree.  I still found it odd, but given the replies explaining the reasoning behind the two separate matrices, it is beginning to make more sense.  This forum is a great resource for people like myself who have a lot of questions. 

For me, I tend to prefer simplicity, so I created one to hit chart for monsters and all PCs, regardless of class, which also is my saving throw chart and my skill resolution chart. But this means that tweeking my numbers become more complicated (sometimes prohibitively so). D&D generally went the other direction, providing a wide variety of different charts that can all be individually modified without affecting any other rules systems. It's a trade-off.

Yes, I also prefer simplicity as I am easily distracted and sometimes absent-minded.  I tend to like my world (and fantasy worlds) and the systems in which I operate in them organized and to have a certain cohesiveness to them. This isn't to say I don't like complexity, just not complexity for complexity's sake.  I believe it was Iggy Pop who said, "I am a simple man with complex tastes".  At the same time, I don't necessarily find the need for a universal mechanic.  And I agree that D&D's multiple subsystems are nice because you can tweek one subsystem without necessarily messing up another subsystem.  I am trying to find that happy middle-ground.  I suspect though, that this tinkering becomes its own kind of hobby.  The proliferation of rules tweaks, clones, and other similar things on these forums and elsewhere attests to that.  But again, that only adds to charm and the power of the game to be what you want it to be is very attractive.

Posted by derv

Oct 19, 2016 at 10:00pm christopher said:

If you still want to come up with something I promise I'll laugh. 

Did you hear the one about the blind Swordsman with only one arm? They call him Lucky.

He walks into a dungeon.....and a door, and a table, and a treasure chest.

On the third level he gets into a fight with 30 orcs. He knew he would beat them single-handed.

So, he gets back to town and goes to the local watering hole. He says to the bartender, "Do you know the difference between ignorance and apathy?"

The bartender says, "I don't know and I don't care."

The bartender looks at him and says, "Ya know you look just like that Thief who stole a bushel of prunes from the market."

"Ah", says the Swordsman, "I get that sometimes. That was my brother. He's been on the run ever since."

Note to self:  Don't drink hot coffee while reading derv's response to an invitation to tell a joke.