Question on DaD Combat System

[Deleted]

I read Dragons at Dawn over the last few days, but I'm still a little unsure of the combat system.

A character or monster's Hit Dice is how much damage they do in combat, whereas their HPV is how much damage they can take, correct?

Therefore, barring an armor save, a Warrior Skeleton (2 HD, average roll of 7) who successfully hits will kill any character of levels 1-4 in one hit (Warriors have 7 HPV, all other characters have less)

A True Troll with 12 Hit Dice would do an average of 42 damage on a successful attack, which would kill even the highest level Warrior and two or more characters of most other classes

Am i looking at this right? Seems awful deadly for a single successful attack

Steve W
Baltimore, MD

[aldarron]

Apr 21, 2010 17:26:20 GMT -6 @stevenw said:

I read Dragons at Dawn over the last few days, but I'm still a little unsure of the combat system.

A character or monster's Hit Dice is how much damage they do in combat, whereas their HPV is how much damage they can take, correct?

Therefore, barring an armor save, a Warrior Skeleton (2 HD, average roll of 7) who successfully hits will kill any character of levels 1-4 in one hit (Warriors have 7 HPV, all other characters have less)

A True Troll with 12 Hit Dice would do an average of 42 damage on a successful attack, which would kill even the highest level Warrior and two or more characters of most other classes

Am i looking at this right? Seems awful deadly for a single successful attack

Steve W
Baltimore, MD

That's correct. Remember that a die roll covers a full minute of combat (a long time really). Don't under estimate the armor Saving Throw though and if you are applying a range of modifiers it can be tough for even a True troll against a well armored superhero backed up with magic and a team of other characters as most are. Of course, low level charcters have no business standing toe to toe with such a fantastic foe, but should look for alternative ways, distance weapons and group attacks. There's also the effect of morale to consider. Remember that these combats are essentially Chainmail based and are not meant to be drawn out battles of Hit Point attrition. But you bet, on a bad day, even superheros can meet a bloody end.
Typically though, characters in Arnesons games would be facing hordes of orcs and zombies and

[Deleted]

Can I ask how or if Dexterity modifiers are used when player characters (with Dexterity scores) do combat against monsters (which generally don't list Dexterity scores)?

Thanks,

Paul

[aldarron]

Choice of what combat modifiers and how to apply any of them is really a matter of Referee preference. The only important thing is to be consistent in what you do. The modifiers listed in D@D did not come about all at once, but over several years of play and Arneson said he rarely applied them all. If you wish to use dexterity modifiers with monsters you certainly can. Further you can decide whether the dex modifier should apply to only humanoid monsters or all of them. I can think of several ways you might handle it:

1) Depending on your source for monsters, they may already have a dexterity rating in some other system which you could convert to a 1-10 scale.

2) You can roll 2d6-2 and give them a dex rating - I do this for humans and many humanoid monsters. It's kind of a Holmseian approach.

3) You can assign a dex rating that suits the character of the monster - the same way you would assign HD, AC etc. to a monster you are creating - I do this for most non humanoid monsters.

4) You can assume most monsters are middle of the road and give them all a dex of 5.

In my own game I use a mix of D&D, AiF, and Spellcraft and Swordplay monsters for the most part. Aside from the fact that it's well written, Spellcraft and Swordplay is particularly handy because its also d6 based and uses essentially the same Chainmail inspired AC system.

[geordie]

Apr 21, 2010 18:44:23 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Remember that these combats are essentially Chainmail based and are not meant to be drawn out battles of Hit Point attrition.

DMed a dungeoncrawl* today using D@D and it's all about maximising morale, boosting reaction time and using good ol' tactics and abilities (e.g. darkvision, coupled with the darkness spell) to strike first and hard - because it's lethal if the enemy gets the drop on you.

*One elfin mage, 2 plate-clad dwarves (wizard and warrior) and a cowardly troll fought up through Glendower Dungeon (from the FFC book).

[aldarron]

Very cool Geordie. For me it was one of those AHA moments when I put the clues together from FFC and DGUTs that morale had been much more important to Arnesons' early games than in D&D. Suddenly all those morale references in OD&D made sense and a Blessing can have a real effect on the game. Would love to hear more about your game sometime.

[geordie]

The thing was that I'd planned the dungeon for straightforward combat encounters to test out the system but given the lethality of combat and that the spellcasters couldn't rely on their magic to always work (or leave them in a conscious state), the players sought to avoid prolonged fighting. Also the very cowardly troll had a base morale status of shaken and it took a pep talk from the elfin mage (the group's leader as he had the highest APP stat) and an APP save (as I thought the pep talk wasn't great) to raise it to normal before combat.

Added to this, having used protection points to stock the dungeon then having the party work up through the dungeon, meant that the 1st encounter (the hardest single foe) could have TPK'd them if they hadn't ran away: level 4 had one sealed room with a pit in it. Breaking the seal summoned the giant slimy child-faced maggot-mage down the pit who slowly pursued them up through the levels. The characters led a pursuing bunch of beastmen back to the maggot to 'help' dispatch it (which I handled as a mass combat, very T&T).

The system subtly promotes tactical creativity in a different way to OD&D (no ubiquitous sleep spells and oil bombs in this session). Good fun!

[EdOWar]

I finally received my copy and had a chance to read it over a couple of times. A question occurred to me regarding magic weapon '+X' bonuses. I see where magic weapons negate the effects of magic armor on a +1 for +1 basis, and that they allow one to attack creatures with negative armor classes. But do magic weapon '+X' bonuses have any other benefits, such as adding to Attack Value or adding to the damage roll (as they would in D&D)?

[aldarron]

Nope. The + rating does not grant any added damage or attack bonus. Bonuses to attacks and defense apply only to the specific creatures the sword is a bane against. Damage is always 1d6 UNLESS you would like it to be otherwise in your campaign or the weapon specifically has a damage multiplier as a special ability. Since magic swords are all unique,that's a definet possibility.

[EdOWar]

May 14, 2010 20:59:00 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Nope. The + rating does not grant any added damage or attack bonus. Bonuses to attacks and defense apply only to the specific creatures the sword is a bane against. Damage is always 1d6 UNLESS you would like it to be otherwise in your campaign or the weapon specifically has a damage multiplier as a special ability. Since magic swords are all unique,that's a definet possibility.

Damage is always 1d6? Do you mean it is always equal to the HD of the wielder of the sword, rolling HD d6?

Thanks.

[aldarron]

May 14, 2010 21:48:48 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

May 14, 2010 20:59:00 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Nope. The + rating does not grant any added damage or attack bonus. Bonuses to attacks and defense apply only to the specific creatures the sword is a bane against. Damage is always 1d6 UNLESS you would like it to be otherwise in your campaign or the weapon specifically has a damage multiplier as a special ability. Since magic swords are all unique,that's a definet possibility.

Damage is always 1d6? Do you mean it is always equal to the HD of the wielder of the sword, rolling HD d6?

Thanks.

Yep. I didn't word that very well. Trying to post and bottle feed my youngest at the same time. Damage is always rolled on d6's and is dependant on the HD of the weilder and any Fighting Strength modifiers or special properties that might be involved, but is not related to the + rating of the weapon, that having only to do with its strength vs numenous beings.

[EdOWar]

Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

[aldarron]

May 15, 2010 16:07:31 GMT -6 aldarron said:

May 14, 2010 21:48:48 GMT -6 EdOWar said:

Damage is always 1d6? Do you mean it is always equal to the HD of the wielder of the sword, rolling HD d6?

Thanks.

Yep. I didn't word that very well. Trying to post and bottle feed my youngest at the same time. Damage is always rolled on d6's and is dependant on the HD of the weilder and any Fighting Strength modifiers or special properties that might be involved, but is not related to the + rating of the weapon, that having only to do with its strength vs numenous beings.

after going through the swords section in the FFC with a fine tooth comb, I've come to the conclusion that Arnesons "combat Increase" references for swords did indeed mean a bonus to damage, so I've revised the above ruleing. In addition to reflecting the ability to attack numenous beings, the plus rating is added to any damage done by the sword and may also be added as a bonus to Armor Class saving throws.

[paramander]

I had a chance to pick up the pdf a few months back and had initially thought that the Chainmail system for mass combat could simply work as is for D@D; as I re-read through the D@D pdf I saw that the system there was perfectly fine. Funny though, the old AD&D ways are so ingrained I had not considered that magic weapons did not add to damage by default. I certainly would let the weapon also subtract from armor class. That comes from a personal preference to alter the target number rather than the random number generator.

While I prepare for my first game using D@D, I decided the following for combat:

Weapons
1. 'light weapons' like staves and daggers do d6-1 per HD of the wielder. So a Hero would do 4d6-4 damage.
2. 'great weapons' do d6+1 per HD of the wielder. The Hero would do 4d6+4 damage. A great weapon would be a two-handed weapon.
3. Crossbows may not do more than split the HD of an attack (time is spent reloading), but may do damage as a great weapon.


I've also played around with using a LoneWolf-style combat table instead of the one in the book, but have not made a decision yet one way or the other. I might post that if I go that route, but I had better make a decision soon, Saturday approaches...

Oh, aldarron, thanks for a great pdf...!

[aldarron]

May 3, 2011 16:59:07 GMT -6 paramander said:

I had a chance to pick up the pdf a few months back and had initially thought that the Chainmail system for mass combat could simply work as is for D@D; as I re-read through the D@D pdf I saw that the system there was perfectly fine. Funny though, the old AD&D ways are so ingrained I had not considered that magic weapons did not add to damage by default. I certainly would let the weapon also subtract from armor class. That comes from a personal preference to alter the target number rather than the random number generator.

While I prepare for my first game using D@D, I decided the following for combat:

Weapons
1. 'light weapons' like staves and daggers do d6-1 per HD of the wielder. So a Hero would do 4d6-4 damage.
2. 'great weapons' do d6+1 per HD of the wielder. The Hero would do 4d6+4 damage. A great weapon would be a two-handed weapon.
3. Crossbows may not do more than split the HD of an attack (time is spent reloading), but may do damage as a great weapon.


I've also played around with using a LoneWolf-style combat table instead of the one in the book, but have not made a decision yet one way or the other. I might post that if I go that route, but I had better make a decision soon, Saturday approaches...

Oh, aldarron, thanks for a great pdf...!

Yer very welcome!

lots in your post, lets see... Subtracting a weapon bonus from AC is an idea I like and can potentially have interesting consequences if you are using an AC saving throw. There's also a varient proceedure incorporating AC into the Fighting Strenght calculation detailed in the soon to be released supplement....

I think the adjustments for light and "great" weapons are really good and very reasonable adjustments.

Crossbows - the average crossbow takes very little, if any, more time to load than to knock and draw a bow, however, the big, armor piercing types were a lot slower, so I'd say your rule would be better if it distinguished between heavy and standard crossbows and applied only to the heavy ones - but of course that's just my suggestion.

Can't comment on "Lone-wolf sytle", but if you are most comfotable with that go for it. As long as there's a couple key stats for something like HD, HP, you can use almost any system you like with a little tweaking.

[paramander]

Yep, being totally gameist here. Crossbows are that slow because they need to be. Balance the mechanical advantage against the bow. I am so very guilty of sins against historical accuracy. If HACA finds out I am a dead man. Sssshhhh!