Combat Damage

[Deleted]

Hi!
I just bought D@D and I’m fascinated by its mechanics (and its importance as a piece of game history). One of D@D’s aspects that I find most interesting is its damage rule: roll your HD as d6s. Simple, but definitely “pulp” in my mind. However, the HPV struck me as really low, leading to a very lethal game, maybe a little too lethal to the kind of campaigns I would like to run.

I wish I had a group to playtest this (and some other 3d6 “Old School” games...hehehe), but since I’m currently “group-less” I would like to share this thought with you: does anyone thought about modifying damage to reflect the level difference between combatants?

For example: a 3rd level Fighting-man x a 5th level Fighting-man. If the 3rd level PC hit, he would deal minimum damage or 1d6. If the 5th level hit, he would deal 2d6 damage. What do you think?

Another option would be to reduce all damage to 1d6 + level.

[aldarron]

Yeah, Gygax seems to have thought so too, having gone to just 1d6 damage. There's a couple things to consider though. In practice, the PC's don't get damaged all that often, due to the AC save and other factors in their favor. The second is that hits only occur something like 20% of the time - using the chart as is. This means a group of adventurers figting a singe or couple powerful monsters are going to get in a lot more hits than the monsters will. If they are fighting a group of monsters, chances are the fighters multiple kill ability and the wizards at will abilities will mop them up. On the other hand, if a fighter faces an equal fighter or two groups of adventurers square off, yeah its libel to be over quickly in pools of blood. As perhaps it should be.

However, not trying to talk you out of your idea, cause it might suit your game better and by all means do what seems most fun!

[Mushgnome]

May 10, 2011 14:08:43 GMT -6 @tzimiscedracul said:

For example: a 3rd level Fighting-man x a 5th level Fighting-man. If the 3rd level PC hit, he would deal minimum damage or 1d6. If the 5th level hit, he would deal 2d6 damage. What do you think?

Statistically, the 5th level fighting-man does inflict more damage by virtue of increase chance-to-hit.

Assuming both combattants are wearing plate+shield (AC2) the 3rd level hits on a 17 (4 in 20 chance) and the 5th level on 15 (6 in 20), therefore he will inflict 50% more damage over time.

Furthermore, the higher-level combattant has more hit points. The 3rd level f-m needs an average of 5 hits to kill the 5th level f-m, and vice-versa.

5/3 hit points * 150% to-hit probability = the 5th level f-m is 250% "more deadly" than the 3rd-level fighting man, even though they both deal 1d6 damage.

If you increase the damage to 2d6 as you propose, then the 5th level f-m is roughly 5 times more effective than the 3rd level, perhaps a little "overpowered" for my tastes, but maybe right for your campaign.

[Deleted]

Wow! Thank you guys for the feeback. I'm seeing D@D in a different light now

As I said, my recent lack of players has made it hard for me to test any ideas. O love to fudge with most systems, but usually I try to run a game without changing any rule first. This is hard when you see your old group just once every three or four months.

[paramander]

I initially had the same concerns.

Once I get my group moved over to D@D I'll let you know how it works in practice for us. Against a foe with the same Fighting Strength there is only a 27.77% chance of hitting. And even unarmored (AC 1), a warrior has a +2 AC versus saves, which means 72.22% of strikes actually damage him. That means a given hit only has 20% chance to hit and injure the warrior. If he is a Hero he has 14 hpv, which means just under half the strike will not kill him. So entering into battle with an equal foe, any particular blow will only be lethal about 11% of the time. The lethality of blows increases if he already injured.

Now if you stack superior morale, adverse conditions, and asymmetric warfare onto this, you can really turn the tables.

Man, I think my guys are missing out. I'm going to stick their characters onto D@D character sheets this week and slip them onto the table and see how it goes. Maybe after breaking the gaming dry spell (no play since before Thanksgiving) they will be ready to try stuff out.

[Mushgnome]

I just realized my reply above is completely irrelevant to D@D (I misread the @ as &), sorry.

[aldarron]

May 11, 2011 9:08:17 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

I just realized my reply above is completely irrelevant to D@D (I misread the @ as &), sorry.

I wouldn't say completely irrelevant. Tis alsways interesting to compare.