Blackmoor Combat and Arnesons System

[snorri]

I agree this could seem a lot of wasted dices, but maybe not so much. It means "to hit" and "damage" roll are the same. I think Ken St-André got that point in his 'reverse ingeenering' method doing T&T. But there's another point about it: how damages are shared. As far as I can see in Castle Blackmoor and in TotF, PC's are allmost allways outnumbered by monsters. Two methods could have been used : share dices or share the total value among available opponents. It means, when a hero roll 4 dices vs 4 orcs, each of them has a separate save - so probably not not all the dices are wasted. To be tinkered a bit, but I think there's a point here.

And yes, projectiles are tricky here - as they're in T&T. Maybe for the same reason.

[aldarron]

Woefully ignorant of T&T

We may be putting some more cracks in the mystery egg. Arnesons' use of "values" is all over the board in FCC and ToTF, but one interpretation that does fit the texts is to see "attack values" or simply "values" as akin to HD/damage dice in some references. In other references "values" clearly refers to what we now call "hit points". So maybe its possible the system involved automatic hits at variable damege values (triple hit dice, for ex), defense saves vs. AC, and variable "defense" values. Meaning maybe the "hit points" were fixed in the sense that they didn't originally increase with level, but were variable in circomstances, meaning a triple value defense meant your HP were multiplied by three for the purpose of that particular combat situation.

Its worth keeping in mind that Defense values in CHAINMAIL refer to the points give to structures in sieges, very much like hip points.

[snorri]

Jul 23, 2010 15:41:27 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Woefully ignorant of T&T

There are a lot of people with a far much better knowledge and understanding of T&T here, but ahve a look on www.freedungeons.com/rules/.

I will check again about that 'value' issue. Still, I think your suggestion that point value could have been the basis of hit points is not bad.

[aldarron]

Digging a little further I noticed two little bits in some familiar ground in ToTF:

Pg 45. Breeding pond frogs “fight at Double value for 2-12 rounds” – but 3 hit points are the only value given.

Pg 47. “double strength and HIT POINT VALUES”. There, plain as day, Arneson is specifically telling us hit points are one of the values being multiplied. Strength here means fighting strength or capability – hit dice or level in the case of player characters in D&D.

The idea of multiplying hit points in some combat situations seems really intriguing and definetly a game changer.

[aldarron]

Defining values and defense ala Arneson
In Supplement II, Temple of the Frog we have a puzzling statement, much discussed:

"There are 8 frogmen with double strength and hit point values, each of these also having +2 on saving throws and defensive capabilities. There are 5 frogmen with triple values and +3 on saving throws and defense, and 2 frogmen with quadruple capabilities and +4 to saving throws and defense! " [Blackmoor, p. 45]

Since much of this language is unusual for D&D but appears in varying degrees of ambiguity in works to which Arneson was either the author or coauthor, its useful to look through the references and clarify the meaning if possible.

“values” – when used alone, this term means both attack values (Strength – Hit dice or Fighting Capablility) and defense “values” – hit points.

Double value means multiply Hit Points and Hit Dice by two. Following the frogmen example, it may, at the referee’s discretion, also be taken to mean to add 2 to AC and saving throws. Likewise with Quadruple (+4 to AC/saving throws and HP/HD times 4) etc.

Defensive Capabilities – this term refers to Armor class and perhaps more, including saving throws.

“defense” – When written by itself, defense refers to Armor Class. Most often appears as “saving throws and defence”

Bonuses to armor class are treated exactly as a magical bonus, meaning they remove damage dice from the opponent as in this quote from Men and Magic:” Protection: A ring which serves as +1 armor would, giving this bonus to defensive capabilities and to saving throws.”

[snorri]

I agree with the analysis. What puzzle me in the Temple of the frog is the cohexistence of a % layer and this otehr one, where modifiers are expressed in a scale which fits better a 2d6 or 1d20 system. Editing maybe one reason, but probably not the only one. If a comon frogman has AC7 and 1HD, a +3 or +4 is easy to convert into the 'alternative' system. Should we consider as well damages (1d8 for bite, 1d4 for each hand in variable system) to be doubled or tripled ?


Edit: I just finished this post, when my eyes felt on the endnotes in my open Blackmoor print, p. 13.

**- roll of 19+ (95+, in any case) - victim seized & severed
*** roll of 18+ (90%+, in any cast - victims swallowed

So, the use of % as an alternative to the alternative is confirmed there, with a roll over on a d100. It makes Blackmoor looks a proto-Rolemaster! It could explain some things about the "% layer".

[aldarron]

Oho! That's really interesting because I've been doing a little thinking lately about the monster list and Arnesons contributions to Supp II in general. Many of Arnesons early monsters were giant versions of ordinary creatures and I noticed the monster lists seem to be made up of a couple of seperate lists, including the list of giant creatures that have the footnotes you just pointed out. I just asked Steve Marsh on DF and he said he didn't write any of those giant monsters, but he thinks (not sure) he wrote the merman.

[snorri]

Another point with the armor / save issue. I was re-reading once again M&M, trying both to forget Chainmail and later D&Ds editions, like a 1974 buyer who do'nt owns Chainmail and wants to play D&D as a full game satnding by itself.

and p. 20-21, just after the saving throw matrix, I read

Failure to make the total indicated above results in the weapon having full effect, i.e. you are turned to stone, take full damage from dragon's breath, etc. Scoring the total indicated above (or scoring higher) means the weapon has no effect
(death ray, polymorph, paralization, stone, or spell) or one-half effect (poison scoring one-half of the total possible hit damage* and dragon's breath scoring one-half of its full damage). Wands of cold, fire balls, lightning, etc. and staves are treated as indicated, but saving throws being made result in one-half damage.

If we read it from a later D&d point of view, the passage above apply to saving thrown only. But, even if the attack matrices are described as '20-dice score to hit', nothing states clearly who roll the dice. So this could appears as being this explanation: the armor class is a saving thrown, which protects from damage (note the reverse is true too, you can use the saving thrown as an attack die). Mecanichly, this changes allmost nothing, except whoo roll the dice.

It also enable to simplify the initiative issue: both foes roll to avoid damages during the round, and those who fails get damages. After all:

such things as speed, feocity and weaponry of the monster are subsumed in the matrixes

The only exception would probably be range weapons, where the Dex as indication of who fires first could apply.

* Also notes that poison does damages. Is it one dice of damage or half hit points could be discussed.

[Matthew]

That bit about saving throws and hit dice goes some way towards explaining why dragons do damage equal to their hit points in AD&D.

Here is another thought on the subject of saving throws and armour class: what if the 2d6 roll mitigated damage equal to the amount by which it exceeded armour class? Would that be too much with regard to the number of hits it could reduce damage by?

[aldarron]

Sept 28, 2010 13:16:43 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Here is another thought on the subject of saving throws and armour class: what if the 2d6 roll mitigated damage equal to the amount by which it exceeded armour class? Would that be too much with regard to the number of hits it could reduce damage by?

It's a seriously interesting idea Matthew. I don't think it would be too much at all, and has the interesting effect of reducing the effectiveness of armour against higher level attackers. A superhero doing 8d6 damage wouldn't be much bothered by it, which makes a certain kind of sense.

In this context this quote is especially interesting "“Armor proper subtracts its bonus from the hit dice of the opponents of its wearer.”
– Monsters and Treasure, page 31

The quote is in a section devoted to magical items so it seems pretty clear that Magical armour is meant, but the fact that magic isn't mentioned leaves some room for interpretation, and suggests the quote may have once had a broader meaning.

The "bonus" in this sense could simply mean any amount over AC rolled on a 2d6. If you take "hit dice" to mean "damge roll", its not that big of a reduction, but if you are taking away entire d6 Hit Dice (damage dice) then its quite possible to get no damage if you get a good roll, but also possible to take damage from a massively deadly attack no matter how good your roll.

Its also a curiosly good reason for making AC range 2-9

[aldarron]

So its been some time since I started this thread and, as with any kind of scholarship, our understanding of the development of combat in Blackmoor and early D&D is maturing with time. With that in mind, I’d like to revist something I wrote a while back and consider a few of Arneson’s quotes, what they imply and what they don’t.
I wrote:
“It’s the special nature of Ironclad ships that requires different wargame rules. The point of Ironclads weren,'t just that they were low to the water and hard to hit, it was also that the armor plating was famously hard to penetrate. Arnesons' Civil War Ironclads game may have had ships with hit points ranging from 1-100, and a combat table or some mechanic indicating the chance to penetrate armor class by weapon type (6pdrs, 12pdrs, musket etc.), resulting in variable damage by weapon. This is entirely consistent for both a ACW Ironclads game, and for Blackmoor. In such a game, the hit points for a given type of ship/individual are fixed, but stronger attacks have a more damaging effect against weaker armors and vice versa, once a hit is successfull. This would require two steps (presumably two rolls) a chance to hit/penetrate step and a damage step - as with D&D. Arneson might easily have translated Weapon type vs Armor Classs into attacker level vs Armor Class. So as the character/monster levels up and becomes a stronger weapon on the table…”

Here’s some of Arnesons comments on the initial developments:

“The major changes were lack of 'well defined' character classes, if you made your saving throw you suffered NO damage, And magic was handled more like is was in Adventures In Fantasy. There were many other details but these were the biggies.”

Arneson
"Dark Lord Of Gaming" Oct 12, 2008, 8:16pm

We used CHAINMAIL three times but the COMBAT MATRIX was too simple and could not be expanded. I recall our last matrix filled a big part of the basement wall. So I went back to using my old ACW naval rule combat system.

Dave Arneson, May 22, 2008, 7:27pm
Some Fred T Jane (Armor class 1912) some Fletcher Pratt (1938 hit points, armor class) plus more than a few others.
Dave Arneson Aug 4, 2008, 1:01am

Something similar to Armor Class appeared in a naval wargame by Fred T Jane's (Jane's fighting ships). (The game had the players throwing darts at pinned up ship pictures for hits, I think?) They also figured in a couple WW I era sets of rules and my own Damm The Torpedos! (Never actually published.)

Arneson, Nov 30, 2008, 7:33pm

First Fantasy Campaign (1977)
“AC was determined by the description of the creature (Hide, scales, etc.) and how impervious it was in the accounts given in mythology about it. HD was determined pretty much on the size of the creature physically and, again, some regard for its mythical properties…
All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player revived a ''Saving Throw"
against any Hit that he received.” (Introduction)

Taken together several things are implied.

Dave is saying that AC was a featured addition to the Combat methods he used after moving from the Fantasy Combat Table in CHAINMAIL. AC as he used it was derived from his naval game experiments in which AC and HP were important classifications. In Fletcher Pratts game mentioned by Dave, Armor is part of the “hit point” calculation, but Dave seems to be making it distinctive.
The combat system of early Blackmoor was the “usual” one and not one of the “major changes” between Blackmoor play and and OD&D.

Greg Svenson recalls much the same:
“We used 2d6, but we were doing individual combat on the first adventure and we changed very rapidly to something far more like the alternative combat system within the first month of play (this would be in January of 1971). So, it was something in between. If we needed specific probabilities we used 3d6 (a couple of us were math majors and could figure out the dice rolls needed to get any specific probability). I did not see a d20 before the brown box came out. I actually never played Braunstein.” ODD74 Re: Combat -- How did you do it?
« Reply #2 on Feb 26, 2008, 7:28pm »

We know now that Arneson did have percentile dice he could use if he wanted to and in any case he was using percentiles in his gaming from early on, as he mentions here, “We had several mathematicians, and working out percentages for six-sided dice was child's play for them, but it gave me a headache. So really, the dice sat there for three or four years. Then we did fantasy, and I said "Hey, let's use this stuff for it." So when we started on Blackmoor, we started using 20-sided dice at the same time. Go figure. They're gamers, you know?” GAMESEthingyCH “Lost Interview with Dave Arneson”

Dave’s original system is perhaps then implied to have been in percentages and have been the “usual” level vs AC. Its unclear how many AC’s there were but since they seem to have been the same as the armor categories listed in CHAINMAIL, and that’s the “usual” ones in D&D. We know for certain of only three levels initially Flunky, Hero, Superhero, but its possible there was a finer gradation.

I’ve argued previously that HD played a large role in early blackmoor combat and developed a combat table for D@D following these ideas. While I’m sure that’s true, at the least in the sense of damage rolls, my reasoning for proposing a HD v. HD combat table had to do primarily with the combat system in AiF and because it provided a convenient way of reworking CHAINMAILs Fantasy Combat Table. Although the D@D table is an elegant way of restating a lot of what Arneson was doing, I think a stronger case can be made, in light of the above and some of the information Snorri has provided that it was probably a version of the Alternate tables that Arneson worked up back in 1971.

In light of all that I’ll post the following. I mentioned before that I have a pdf copy of a 1973 era D&D manuscript from Minnesota with illustration that appear a lot like others by Dave Arneson. The manuscript is in private hands, but for the purpose of this discussion I’ll present a photo of the combat tables, which you will note, are done in percentages:

[havard]

Fascinating stuff Dan!

I wonder what else can be found in that manuscript...

-Havard

[cooper]

Dec 19, 2009 23:19:13 GMT -6 aldarron said:

More Hit dice clues from the FFC:

Blackmoor Military Manpower. Distribution (Initial)

Baron Fant: HD: 8 + 2; 28 Men
Captain Krey: HD: 4 + 1; 20 Men (gone)
Dwarves: 150
Elves: 180
Peasants: 158 Men (base)
Earl of Vestfold: HD: 9 +1; 351 Men
Baron Jenkins: HD: 6 + 2; 28 Men
Swenson's Freehold: HD: 8 + 5; 30 Men
Merchant's: HD: 4 + 1; 14 Men
Bandit's: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men
Inspector General Snider: HD: 6 + 1; 22 Men
Wizard of the Wood

This list apparently dates from sometime late in the first year or early in the second of Blackmoor. There are two important things to note about the HD, which appear to refer to the troops in each location or under each person listed. First is that a number of them have unusual HD bonus numbers, especially 8+5 in Svensons freehold. These numbers need to be looked at more closely.
The second thing to notice though is that they exist. Hit Dice is the only number Arneson feels is important enough to record, ergo it is likely the only number needed to resolve combats. Once again, highly suggestive of a HD v HD combat matrix.

The FFC introduction provides another clue in support of this hypothesis: “HD was determined pretty much on the size of the creature physically and, again, some regard for It's mythical properties. For regular animals that were simply made larger, like Beetles, a standard text book provided interesting facts about the critters and all were given HD proportionate to their size, relative to other Beetles for instance.” Here again HD is tied to the size and powers of the creature and suggesting it is a central combat mechanic.

I have to disagree with you here. What this shows is that baron Fant had 8+2 hit die and he arrived in blackmoor with 28 men. This page of FFC talks about when everyone first arrived, "the initial garrison" is quoted in the text. He's showing us the early history of Blackmoor.

[aldarron]

Yep, could be that and I think thats the most common reading. The reason I thought it seemed to refer to the troops is that the wizard had no HD and the Bandits did. Then again, the bandits could have been controled by a player, and the wizard, being a wizard, was expected to be casting spells in combat not dealing damage via HD.

[Matthew]

That is a fascinating table, Aldarron. The significance of the pattern "2, 2-3, 3-4, 4" still eludes me, but I suppose it explains why we see such things on the combat OD&D table. What is most interesting to me is that it is a roll over system with fighting ability ending for fighters and monsters at the same point. That fits perfectly with my own conversion of the Fantasy Combat Table, which uses "ten" points [i.e. 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 50]. It is also interesting to see that HD 1 Monsters have less combat ability than level 1 fighters, who advance steadily in ability at 5% per level.

Why did Gygax not simply adapt this system on a 1:1 basis, I wonder? It would surely have made sense to go with:

Level	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Hit Dice	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
AC 2	95	90	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50
AC 3	90	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45
AC 4	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40
AC 5	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35
AC 6	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30
AC 7	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25
AC 8	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25	20
AC 9	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25	20	15

Seems like he always tended towards making things less symmetrical and more eccentric. Perhaps a desire to spread out fighting ability over levels, but that does not really explain things either. Oh well, I suppose that personality trait is part and parcel of what made the D&D game so successful, a lack of perfect intuitive sense.

[aldarron]

Sept 11, 2011 14:04:37 GMT -6 Matthew said:

That is a fascinating table, Aldarron. The significance of the pattern "2, 2-3, 3-4, 4" still eludes me, but I suppose it explains why we see such things on the combat OD&D table.

I wonder if it may have something to do with accomodating the +/- relationship with conversions from CHAINMAIL we talked about here odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=chainmail&thread=5892&page=1#73864

Sept 11, 2011 14:04:37 GMT -6 Matthew said:

What is most interesting to me is that it is a roll over system with fighting ability ending for fighters and monsters at the same point. That fits perfectly with my own conversion of the Fantasy Combat Table, which uses "ten" points [i.e. 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 50].

Trying to remember which of your CHAINMAIL tables you are refering too. Can you link?

Sept 11, 2011 14:04:37 GMT -6 Matthew said:

It is also interesting to see that HD 1 Monsters have less combat ability than level 1 fighters, who advance steadily in ability at 5% per level.

Why did Gygax not simply adapt this system on a 1:1 basis, I wonder? It would surely have made sense to go with:

Level	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Hit Dice	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
AC 2	95	90	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50
AC 3	90	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45
AC 4	85	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40
AC 5	80	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35
AC 6	75	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30
AC 7	70	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25
AC 8	65	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25	20
AC 9	60	55	50	45	40	35	30	25	20	15

Seems like he always tended towards making things less symmetrical and more eccentric. Perhaps a desire to spread out fighting ability over levels, but that does not really explain things either. Oh well, I suppose that personality trait is part and parcel of what made the D&D game so successful, a lack of perfect intuitive sense.

I think Gygax is deliberately collapsing the tables, and I suppose it was to allow for differences at higher levels of play. Interesting things happen when you convert the d20 tables to percentiles. From my notes:

"a separate “to hit” chance is given for each level. In the printed work (3Lbbs - hereafter PW), several levels are conflated (1-3, 3-6 etc.). The percentile chances do not precisely match when converted to d20. PW level 1-3 matches Arneson Manuscript (hereafter AM) LVL 3, but PW 4-6, then matches AM LVL 4, PW 7-9 matches AM level 7. This pattern would seem to be deliberate but it is hard to tell. If so, presumably the more granular percentile table in the AM came first and the PW levels were copied from it and collapsed. A more granular combat table presented by Gary Gygax, in Liaisons Dangereuses #73, August 16, 1976, is a much closer match except that he still combines LVL 1-2 (matches AM2) and levels 7-8 for unknown reasons (matches level 7 AM) making level 9 mismatched between the two.

TABLE 15: MONSTER ATTACK - "CHOPS" BY MONSTER

The Hit Dice range is almost the same up to 4 except that 1+1 in the PW is simply given as 2 in the AM. At 4 the AM is again more granular going up by whole numbers until a column marked 9+ whereas the PW combines dice as 3-4, 4-6 etc. The percentiles however do not match the PW d20. The PW charts give monsters a 10% chance better to hit up to 4 HD and thereafter, because the columns are less granular, the chance for monsters to hit actually becomes 5% worse at level 9. Thus the relationship between the numbers of the Monster Attacks table between the PW and the AM table is less clear than the “Player Attacks” table, but it may be best explained by the PW table being reworked with collapsed HD columns and new numbers to hit numbers to account for more granularity with monsters above 9 HD."

[Matthew]

Sept 11, 2011 20:30:12 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I wonder if it may have something to do with accommodating the +/- relationship with conversions from CHAINMAIL we talked about here odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=chainmail&thread=5892&page=1#73864

I would have expected to see it earlier in the table, but definitely a possibility. If it were, then the equivalence would look something like:

2 = 2
2-3 = 2+ or 3
3-4 = 3+ or 4
4 = 4+

Not very intuitive, but not impossible either. Since the table says "up to 1" we can assume 1+ = 2, if extant. The OD&D table would be:

2-3 = 2 or 3
3-4 = 3+ or 4
4-6 = 4+, 5 or 6
6-8 = 6+, 7 or 8
9-10 = 9 or 10
11- = 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16

That makes a certain kind of sense, since we do have creatures with 3+, 4+ and 6+ hit dice in Monsters & Treasures, but also creatures of 2+, 5+, 7+, and 8-12+ if we count giants. It definitely covers the necessary range until you hit 8+ (2+ counts as 3, 5+ counts as 6, 7+ counts as 8).

Even if in early drafts creatures with more than 4 hit dice had pluses we might construe them as simply being one higher on the table (though this makes it harder to imagine 4 as meaning 4+).

Sept 11, 2011 20:30:12 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Trying to remember which of your CHAINMAIL tables you are referring too. Can you link?

Hmmn, now I shall have to investigate my memories! Okay, let me see... ah, right, now I recall, my initial idea of a 10 point spread failed because I missed the jump from 8 to 9 in the Monster Matrix, so they actually had an eleven point spread. Actually, that makes more sense, since in the Arneson chart above the spreads are 9 and 10, but in OD&D they are 10 and 11. Ammended values below:

Jun 3, 2009 18:44:38 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Here is the Fantasy Combat table using the idea of "Hero +1" etcetera as a modifier:

Level	Dragon	Elemental	Treant	Giant	Hero	Lycanthrope	Roc	Super Hero	Troll/Ogre	Wight/Ghoul	Wizard	Wraith
Swordsman	13	11	13	12	8	9	11	11	10	7	12	12
Hero	12	10	12	11	7	8	10	10	9	6	11	11
Swashbuckler	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Myrimidon	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Champion	11	9	12	10	6	7	9	9	6	5	10	9
Super Hero	10	8	11	9	5	6	8	8	5	4	9	8
Lord	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7
Lord 10th Level	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7

One incongruity is that a "Super Hero −1" has less chance of slaying a Treant than a "Hero +1". Otherwise, though, the numbers work out quite nicely (probably Treant slaying did not come up much either).

Anyway, if we then understand that a fighting-man otherwise gets as many attacks as he has levels with the understanding that if he makes only 1 or 2 then he gets a +1 bonus to hit on one attack.

Under this interpretation it is imagined that the fighting-man can choose to fight as though at a lower level than his current one.

Jun 5, 2009 7:52:24 GMT -6 Matthew said:

It is worth noting that the groupings in the OD&D alternative combat table very closely mirror the 2 point reductions:

Levels 1-3: Man +1, 2 Men +1, Hero −1
Levels 4-6: Hero, Hero+1, Hero +1
Levels 7-9: Superhero −1, Superhero, Superhero +1

It is also interesting to note this sort of thing when "level ranges" are considered for AD&D adventures, such as 4-7 for the A1-4 series, which makes them "hero tier", if you see what I am saying. Not many modules work like that, but some do.

Here is the fantasy table taking into account heroic ability:

Level	Swordsman	Hero	Swashbuckler	Myrimidon	Champion	Super Hero	Lord	Lord 10th Level
Swordsman	7	8	9	9	10	11	12	12
Hero	6	7	8	8	9	10	11	11
Swashbuckler	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Myrimidon	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Champion	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Super Hero	4	5	6	6	7	8	9	9
Lord	3	4	5	5	6	7	8	8
Lord 10th Level	3	4	5	5	6	7	8	8

It is possible that a "+3" after the hit dice number of the Troll indicated it was to be treated as a Troll three steps better than that on the fantasy table, both in defence and offence. An Ogre, after all, is only 4+1, and reference is made in Chainmail to "true" Trolls being more powerful than ogres. Of course, 6+3 is actually four steps higher than 4+1, not three, but you could tentatively build a fantasy table based on hit dice if you were so inclined. Trolls and Ogres normally need an "8" to drive back a hero, whilst the hero needs a "9" to drive back an ogre.

The way the fantasy table is set up actually explains a lot about why monsters have a different attack matrix from classed characters in AD&D, and may also help explain from where they derive their armour class scores.

Notice man versus monster is an 11 point spread (3 to 13), but man versus man is a 10 point spread (3 to 12).

Jun 5, 2009 14:19:38 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Thinking a bit more on this, I decided to map to hit scores for the alternative combat table onto "fighting ability" (an often overlooked part of AD&D, basically a number equivalent to fighter level on the 5% increment scale).

Alternative Combat System

Hit Dice	Fighting Ability
1	1
1+1	2
2-3	3
3-4	5
4-6	6
6-8	7
9-10	9
11+	11

Fighter Level	Fighting Ability
1-3	1
4-6	3
7-9	6
10-12	8
13-15	10

Notice how 2, 5, and 7 are absent from the fighter progression? Interesting, I would say, but the range is clearly very similar. Let us see how that maps onto the Fantasy Combat Table by hit dice:

Fantasy Combat Table

Monster	Hit Dice	Hero	Super Hero	Fighting Ability	Armour Class
Ghoul	2	9	12	3	6
Wight	3	9	12	3	5
Ogre	4+1	8	11	6	5
Troll	6+3	8	11	7	4
Wraith	4	8	10	5	3
Lycanthrope	4-6	7	10	6	5, 4, 3, 2
Giant	8-12+2	6	9	7, 9, 11	4
Roc	6	5	8	6	4
Dragon	5-12	5	8	6, 7, 9, 11	2
Treant	8	4	7	7	2
Elemental	8, 12, 16	4	7	7, 11, 11	2

Notably, all the monsters have a 3 point difference to hit heroes and super heroes (meaning two places for heroes +1, and super heroes −1), except the Wraith:

Monster	Hero −1	Hero	Hero +1	Super Hero −1	Super Hero	Super Hero +1
Ghoul	8	9	10	11	12	13
Wight	8	9	10	11	12	13
Ogre	7	8	9	10	11	12
Troll	7	8	9	10	11	12
Wraith	7	8	9	9	10	11
Lycanthrope	6	7	8	9	10	11
Giant	5	6	7	8	9	10
Roc	4	5	6	7	8	9
Dragon	4	5	6	7	8	9
Treant	3	4	5	6	7	8
Elemental	3	4	5	6	7	8

It is also obvious that Giants, Ogres, and Trolls are the odd monsters out here. Their hit dice and fighting capability in the alternative system is much higher than the Fantasy Combat Table would suggest. It is also interesting to note that they are the only monsters on this list to have a "+" notation after their hit dice.

And here we see that both in the Fantasy Tables and the OD&D Matrix there is a 10 point spread for men, and an 11 point spread for monsters. Fighter level 16+ eventually sends it into a 13 point spread, of course, but that is way off the scale, though technically if you added veterans, warriors and normal men into the fantasy table for man versus man you would end up with a 13 point spread.

Sept 11, 2011 20:30:12 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I think Gygax is deliberately collapsing the tables, and I suppose it was to allow for differences at higher levels of play. Interesting things happen when you convert the d20 tables to percentiles. From my notes:

"a separate “to hit” chance is given for each level. In the printed work (3Lbbs - hereafter PW), several levels are conflated (1-3, 3-6 etc.). The percentile chances do not precisely match when converted to d20. PW level 1-3 matches Arneson Manuscript (hereafter AM) LVL 3, but PW 4-6, then matches AM LVL 4, PW 7-9 matches AM level 7. This pattern would seem to be deliberate but it is hard to tell. If so, presumably the more granular percentile table in the AM came first and the PW levels were copied from it and collapsed. A more granular combat table presented by Gary Gygax, in Liaisons Dangereuses #73, August 16, 1976, is a much closer match except that he still combines LVL 1-2 (matches AM2) and levels 7-8 for unknown reasons (matches level 7 AM) making level 9 mismatched between the two.

TABLE 15: MONSTER ATTACK - "CHOPS" BY MONSTER

The Hit Dice range is almost the same up to 4 except that 1+1 in the PW is simply given as 2 in the AM. At 4 the AM is again more granular going up by whole numbers until a column marked 9+ whereas the PW combines dice as 3-4, 4-6 etc. The percentiles however do not match the PW d20. The PW charts give monsters a 10% chance better to hit up to 4 HD and thereafter, because the columns are less granular, the chance for monsters to hit actually becomes 5% worse at level 9. Thus the relationship between the numbers of the Monster Attacks table between the PW and the AM table is less clear than the “Player Attacks” table, but it may be best explained by the PW table being reworked with collapsed HD columns and new numbers to hit numbers to account for more granularity with monsters above 9 HD."

Interesting. Looks like there was a lot going on when they were using percentiles. Have to think about this some more!

[soundchaser]

Just surfed this longish thread... nifty ideas... I was wondering about the 2d6 roll under 10 thing, and wondered, well, I may have missed it, but if I was running it in this way, I'd roll two different colored dice. One would be adding, one would be subtracting. This generates a range of -5 to +5, so I'd take the result obtained and add 5. Now, this generates the range of 0 to 10, not 1 to 10, but would generate the bell curve without need of re-rolls... have to try this in a roll under AC game I think.

[geoffrey]

Jan 28, 2011 11:47:08 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I mentioned before that I have a pdf copy of a D&D manuscript prepared by Dave Arneson in 1973. The manuscript is in private hands, but for the purpose of this discussion I’ll present a photo of the combat tables, which you will note, are done in percentages:

I missed seeing that before today. Very cool.

[Deleted]

Yes that table has blown my mind. It makes me question everything I thought I knew about early D&D history.

Why is this document still hidden?

[Deleted]

Because some collectors wish to preserve the rarity of the items in their collection with the belief this increases its collectible value and its dollar value.

Note: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the above, merely stating an answer I have heard folks with rare or unique items give when posed similar questions.

[aldarron]

Apr 9, 2012 10:10:38 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Because some collectors wish to preserve the rarity of the items in their collection with the belief this increases its collectible value and its dollar value.

Note: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the above, merely stating an answer I have heard folks with rare or unique items give when posed similar questions.

That's the usual way of it, but not in this particular case. The particular document of which I have a .pdf is not an original - it is a photocopy made years ago. It was until a decade or so ago, among a stack of RPG material boxed up and moldering in MAR Barkers garage. Barker, didn't know or remember what most of the stuff was and asked the present owner to help him clean out his gargarge one summer day, intending to throw it all away, but gave it to the present owner instead. Long story short, the owner contacted me to help resolve questions of provenience which I have done and will be publishing shortly. In the meanwhile discussions are ongoing about how best to make the mss itself available in a legal and acceptable manner.

[Deleted]

Cool!

Thanks for the information. If I understand your sequence of events correctly, I shudder to think how close these archives came to being destroyed.

Have an exalt!

[akooser]

@ aldarron

That's very cool. Looking forward to seeing the document in the future.

[blackbarn]

Fascinating thread. I like a lot of the ideas, whether or not they are the way Arneson ran his early game.

[aher]

Jan 28, 2011 11:47:08 GMT -6 aldarron said:

We had several mathematicians, and working out percentages for six-sided dice was child's play for them,...

This is very interesting: Does anyone know who specifically were the mathematicians in Dave's group?

Oct 11, 2009 11:09:12 GMT -6 aldarron said:

...there was no thaco and d20’s in the original blackmoor system (1972-73) – that must have come later, but there are important clues here.

1. The roll must be less than – not equal to - the target number
...

The "roll under" dice mechanic makes some sense in the context that there were mathematicians involved in the origins. In probability theory, the main object of interest is the distribution function, F(x) = Pr(X <= x).

This function satisfies certain properties: (1) it's monotone non-decreasing, (2) continue à droite, limite à gauche (I know how much grognards love french ), (3) it goes to 0 as x goes to negative infinity, and (4) it goes to 1 as x goes to infinity. Any function with these 4 properties is the df of some probability distribution.

Once you know the df, you know everything about the distribution: If its a continuous function, you can compute the pdf as f(x) = F'(x) i.e. the 1st derivative of the df. If its a discrete distribution (as in the case of dice), you can compute the pmf as f(b) = F(b) - lim F(x) as x approaches b from the left. And so forth.

The main point is that F(x) is a "less than" thingy, which naturally gives rise to a "roll under" dice mechanic.

By contrast, actuaries developed their own theory of the same subject in parallel with mathematicians. Instead of choosing the df as their main object of study, they chose the "survival function," S(x) = P(X > x) = 1 - F(x) , the complement of df. Although they study the same thing, they say it differently and use different notation. They want to know when the random variable X is greater than some value x. Hypothetically, if Dave had "several actuaries" playing in his Blackmoor group, they'd be just as capable of working out the percentages, but I'd expect a "roll high" dice mechanic instead!

[captainjapan]

How did a monster know if he landed a hit or not, before the Alternate Combat matrix was invented? I guess the players had to roll a check against their weapon skill. What did monsters do?

[aldarron]

CaptainJack there are two answers to this.

We know that the Fantasy combat table was used, at least for a short time, by Arneson, and hints in the RSV and Dungeon! boardgame suggest it may have been used by the other TC Referees at other times for monster attacks when they were running games.

The other answer boils down to Armor worn. Arneson says for his games he developed an "Armor Class" hit method drawing from his adaptation of Greene's Ironclads game. I explain how that could be in this POST

[captainjapan]

Jun 28, 2020 5:11:48 GMT -6 aldarron said:

...The other answer boils down to Armor worn. Arneson says for his games he developed an "Armor Class" hit method drawing from his adaptation of Greene's Ironclads game. I explain how that could be in this POST

aldarron,

you don't mean THIS Greene?. It's the first (really, only) hit I found after reading GameSpy's 2004 Arneson interview.

[increment]

No, Walter Green's rules, which Arneson lightly adapted from the version given in Featherstone's Naval War Games. Green defined four "weapon classes" of guns, from Superheavy down to Light, and then three implicit levels of armor: wood, lightly armored, and heavily armored. Arneson's adaptation separates the guns into five types instead of four, and adds an "armor penetration" table that shows how much armor each type can penetrate: as I read it, a type 5 gun, the weakest, can only penetrate from 0-2 inches worth of armor (the page runs out of space at type 2, so it's not clear if the omission of type 1 guns is intentional). Arneson in the ranges chart below that separates Green's three categories of armor into four, the first being wood, followed by progressive 4" levels of (iron) thickness, which are roughly consistent with the armor penetration thicknesses above.



My understanding of Dan's argument is basically this. J. Snider's copy of OD&D has the numbers 5, 4, 2, and 1 handwritten next to certain values of the armor class table (a "1" is next to AC8, and a "5" next to AC3), and the "square" numbers on the Megarry sheet (which may represent armor class) contain the numbers 2 and 4 for characters that may have had armor classes corresponding to the Snider handwritten values. Grant those "mays", and then take the d6 roll-equal-or-over values of just the 6" range (very bottom) of Arneson's version of Green's range chart: those would be a "compatible expression", as Dan puts it, of what the system would be for a d6 roll-equal-or-over to-hit system corresponding to the Snider handwritten values, if we posit they refer to a four-tier armor progression similar to Barker in some lost transitional d6-based combat system for Blackmoor. Dan also provides some supporting evidence for the idea that d6's were rolled for armor class or to-hit at times in Blackmoor. I understand that is the basic thrust here: that because the Green/Arneson rules can be used to do a d6 resolution against four armor types, if we grant that a transitional Blackmoor system also used d6 resolution against four (or maybe five) armor types, then the Green/Arneson system would be a good candidate for the system Arneson meant when he remembered armor class deriving from an ironclads system.