One Thing I Noticed Running OD&D(ish) Rules...

[jimlotfp]

Four sessions into my Olden Domain campaign, I've noticed something.

I'm using d6 damage for everything (well, small weapons and monsters do 1/2d6, and ogres and giants and stuff will do more).

This makes big fearsome monsters not so fearsome as they are with variable damage. For example, the crew of 6 1st level PCs (plus 3 hired 0 level NPCs) defeated a roper in Friday's game. In AD&D, that could have been up to 20 points of damage per bite. OD&D? 6 points max. Considering everyone starts with at least d6, that's not really DEADLY.

(well, I use a houserule... 0 hp is unconscious, -1 or lower is dead... so my own fault really)

Still, houserule or no, there's little chance of taking a character out of a fight in one hit, and none at all for the fighting men (d6+1 starting HP) or dwarves (d6+2 starting HP). So the big beasties are more subject to being ganged up on.

So is this indeed an intended and oft-encountered feature of OD&D combat, or am I screwing something up?

[Fandomaniac]

Why not raise the Roper's bite to 2d6 or 3d6? The beauty of OD&D is that it's your game, your adventure, your creation. Nothing is set in stone and there is no wrong way to play OD&D. Make your Ropers as deadly as you want them to be.

[jrients]

I come at it from a different angle. In terms of the simple logic of what can kill whom I consider it a feature that most folks in the world have 1 to 6 hit points and most attacks do one to six hit points. Any weapon is potentially deadly to any average joe, without need to refer to critical strikes or any crap like that. Fighting men are a cut above the rest and might survive a potent strike.

[dwayanu]

I don't have the Strategic Review article presenting the "roper" handy, but the Ready Ref Sheets don't list any damage -- so I guess that being dragged to the maw is simply supposed to be fatal (regardless of HP). The save versus getting roped is as for poison.

If HP are rolled, then the average first-level fighter has between 1/3 and 1/2 chance of getting killed in one hit.

An Efreeti goes from dishing out two (d6) HD in Vol. 2, to three (d8) in Supplement I. Monsters generally get more damage-dealing capacity. Basically, you've got a different power curve in the original set; the "superhero" title really fits!

[sham]

Jim

I have found that encounters with large numbers of ANY monster type, the rare monster with a high AC, or special attack types (ghouls, giant centipedes) are a often a greater threat than the single "high" HD monster encounters.

If you use the commonly house ruled "max HP at 1st" method, which I do use btw, yes a Fighting-Man isn't going down to a single hit.

But I love the fact that all men can be slain by a single dagger stab or spear poke from a Goblin until they have some experience under their belt.

As was mentioned, homebrew that Roper if you think it's not meeting your own expectations. Constrict, incapacitate, extra range, enhanced surprise chance, etc. are all possible special attacks that might beef it up in order to accentuate what you might have been planning as a memorable challenge.

[jimlotfp]

I've got no problem with the single monsters being weaker overall if that's how it "naturally" plays out. I just wanted to be sure what "by the book" looks like before deciding if it needs house rules.

(and another thing, lack of multiple attack sequences for the monsters, very handy for PCs, heh)

[burke]

Many of the larger creatures in Monsters & Treasure do more damage than 1D6.

Ogres do 1D6+2 points of damage (trolls do only 1D6 damage, as they use only their talons and fangs). Cloud giants do 3D6 damage. Wights remove whole Hit Dice from their victims. If I understand the rules correctly a very old golden dragon might do up to 12D6 damage with its fire breath.

As the roper is not included in the OD&D rules it is already a house rule, as such I don't see any problem with giving it more damage dice. But perhaps it would be more appropriate and in the vein of the rules (as it is not using any weapons) to give it more attacks instead (like the hydra), one per tentacle.

As a player in Jim's Olden Domain campaign I thought the roper was plenty scary, even with only 1D6 damage and I'm still amazed that no PC lost their life in the battle.

[Zulgyan]

If I understand the rules correctly a very old golden dragon might do up to 12D6 damage with its fire breath.

Actually, IIRC, dragons deal with their breath a damage value equal to it's hitpoints, saving throw for half.

[burke]

Feb 1, 2009 6:05:07 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

Actually, IIRC, dragons deal with their breath a damage value equal to it's hitpoints, saving throw for half.

Thanks for the clarification! It was explained more fully in the example of subduing a dragon.

[jrients]

One other thing, by my reading of the rules all creatures with multiple hit dice are entitled to multiple attacks against one hit die foes. This makes first level extra dangerous, as clerics and magic-users can be wholesale slaughtered by the larger monsters.

[Zulgyan]

I declare that to be unplayable mr. jeff rients!










;D

[burke]

Feb 1, 2009 8:54:13 GMT -6 jrients said:

One other thing, by my reading of the rules all creatures with multiple hit dice are entitled to multiple attacks against one hit die foes. This makes first level extra dangerous, as clerics and magic-users can be wholesale slaughtered by the larger monsters.

Yes, but I think it works the same as for figthing-men, in that even one higher HD foe (even a veteran) "shields" the others. Philotomy explains it a lot better:

www.philotomy.com/#multiple_attacks

[jrients]

Feb 1, 2009 10:59:32 GMT -6 burke said:

Yes, but I think it works the same as for figthing-men, in that even one higher HD foe (even a veteran) "shields" the others. Philotomy explains it a lot better:

www.philotomy.com/#multiple_attacks

I don't disagree with Philotomy, but it only takes a few gnolls or bugbears to really make things hard on a first level party.

[burke]

Feb 1, 2009 11:39:29 GMT -6 jrients said:

I don't disagree with Philotomy, but it only takes a few gnolls or bugbears to really make things hard on a first level party.

This makes the fighting-men important members of the party as their first level 1+1 HD negates this effect.

[Fandomaniac]

Feb 1, 2009 11:52:48 GMT -6 burke said:

This makes the fighting-men important members of the party as their first level 1+1 HD negates this effect.

You're absolutely right Burke, and that is why any 1st level party who doesn't have at least one Fighting-Man is heading towards "Epic Fail!"

[korgoth]

Jan 31, 2009 21:45:43 GMT -6 jrients said:

I come at it from a different angle. In terms of the simple logic of what can kill whom I consider it a feature that most folks in the world have 1 to 6 hit points and most attacks do one to six hit points. Any weapon is potentially deadly to any average joe, without need to refer to critical strikes or any crap like that. Fighting men are a cut above the rest and might survive a potent strike.

I have found it thus in running EPT. Most people are 1st level, all weapons are deadly. Even though EPT does have criticals, and allows for multiple damage dice when level ratios are highly disparate (though this has only come up one time... when a 1st level Warrior charged a shoggoth and was totally destroyified).

Uniform damage and a smaller scale to things (hp, damage, number of classes, etc.) is one of the coolest things about OD&D.

[dwayanu]

Dead at -1 might be groovy, but I found the combo of -2 and maximum HP at 1st level too much a drag.

(Yeah, in the same session we went to "dead at zero," we finally had a dead PC -- a roll of 6 damage on an MU with the usual 6 HP. The player was the same guy who'd never played before with an allowance for negative HP, yet he took a few minutes to catch on. "He's really, really dead, Jim!" )

[mythmere]

It's only a feature of pure LBB OD&D, Jim. Supplement 1 introduced AD&D-style damage numbers as the optional rule (and then they stuck to the optional rule for all published after that). Numbers tended to be lower than in AD&D, but only slightly.

[jimlotfp]

Feb 15, 2009 18:22:44 GMT -6 mythmere said:

It's only a feature of pure LBB OD&D, Jim. Supplement 1 introduced AD&D-style damage numbers as the optional rule (and then they stuck to the optional rule for all published after that). Numbers tended to be lower than in AD&D, but only slightly.

Yeah, I use spells and magic items and monsters ut of Greyhawk, but not the AD&D-ish combat options (else might as well use AD&D, to my thinking).

[mythmere]

Feb 16, 2009 16:55:20 GMT -6 jimlotfp said:

Feb 15, 2009 18:22:44 GMT -6 mythmere said:

It's only a feature of pure LBB OD&D, Jim. Supplement 1 introduced AD&D-style damage numbers as the optional rule (and then they stuck to the optional rule for all published after that). Numbers tended to be lower than in AD&D, but only slightly.

Yeah, I use spells and magic items and monsters ut of Greyhawk, but not the AD&D-ish combat options (else might as well use AD&D, to my thinking).

Definitely if you use all the books, it's striking how little actually got added in AD&D. I like having the extra room in the combat options (gives you a better spread of numbers for house ruling), but then, I also leave out so much from the rest of the supplements that my game plays more like a hopped-up version of Holmes or Moldvay basic. I think it's fascinating how you can get very different games depending on what you subtract from the full ruleset. But I'm straying off topic...