Monsters Deal 2-4 Damage Dice?

[waysoftheearth]

There have been a number of discussions on these boards on the subject of damage caused. Do dragons and elephants really cause just 1-6 hit points damage per hit?

Everybody seems to think so... but where does it say so in the 3LBBs?


If you have a later printing of Men & Magic, you will have seen the oft quoted line which it states:

"All attack which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted."

(M&M p19).

This is regularly taken to mean that all hits from all sources should deal 1-6 damage. Unless otherwise noted.

What is not often "noted" is that this statement appears in a section entitled "Attack Matrix I: Men Attacking". Men attacking. We might read this as "Man-types" attacking so as to include other 1 HD humanoids, but rarely does the term "Men" include all monsters!

The next section, "Attack Matrix II: Monsters Attacking" (M&M p20), says nothing regarding the damage monsters do on a successful hit. The detail of this is covered in Monsters & Treasure.

That volume provides explicit detail on the damage caused by only a select handful of monsters (ogres, giants, efreet, djinn, elementals, sea monsters, oozes). However, we are also informed that:

LARGE INSECTS OR ANIMALS: This category includes giant ants and prehistoric monsters. Armor Class can be anything from 8 to 2. Hit Dice should range from 2 to anywhere near 20, let us say, for a Tyrannosaurus Rex. ... Damage caused by hits should range between 2-4 dice (2-24 points).

(M&T p20).

Note that "This category includes giant ants...", and hence these are merely an example, and other creatures must therefore also fall into this category. Moreover, we are told that monsters with 2 to 20 HD qualify, and that creatures in this HD range cause 2 to 4 dice damage per hit.

Thus, the 3LBBs inform us that man-types (presumably the PCs and any man-like monsters) cause 1 die damage per hit, while larger creatures (with 2-20 HD) cause 2-4 dice damage per hit.

2 HD sounds low for two damage dice, but then again, the only 2 HD "monsters" listed that are not man-like are horses, and these are listed more for their carrying capacity than as enemy to be defeated in mortal combat.


That's all I can see on the subject right now... if you see something I missed please raise it here

[talysman]

When I looked at which monster descriptions include damage ranges, the pattern I noticed was that any non-humanoid monster or any humanoid armed with size-appropriate weaponry basically does 1 die of damage per 4 HD, with some exceptions:

(1) Monsters with hit dice in between two multiples of four do "pro-rated damage", at a rough rate of +/- 1 point of damage per1 HD. Some of the pro-rate giant types seem to do one less point of damage than they should, and ogres do more than expected.

(2) trolls are specifically stated to do only 1 die of damage even though they have the strength of an ogre. This is where I got the idea that humanoid monsters only do increased damage when using a weapon.

(3) A couple supernatural creatures do damage beyond what is expected (earth elementals do different damage based on whether the target is in contact with the ground or not, water elementals do different damage based on whether the elemental is in the water or not.)

(4) The entry you quote makes no direct connection between hit dice and damage, and the numbers don't work out as expected if you try to correlate them. At 1 die of damage per 4 HD, a 2 HD creature shouldn't do more than 1 die of damage, but a 20 HD tyrannosaurus rex ought to do 5 dice instead of merely 4 dice.

Clearly, Gary and Dave had some rough ideas of damage related to size that worked out to about 1 die per 4 HD, but they didn't actually have a formula in mind, just gut feelings, which would explain the exceptions in (1) and (4). My own preference is to just regularize the formula, but with an allowance for creature sizes that occasionally don't match their hit dice.

I think there was another thread about this same topic, where Rob Conley came up with a different formula, and I mentioned my personal house rule of setting the damage equal to hit dice for creatures of less than one die (centipedes do only a few points of damage, for example.)

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks Talysman.

You might recall our previous discussion on exactly that subject matter.

However, in this thread I was not trying to determine any kind of relationship between HD and damage.

Rather, I was challenging the widely accepted dogma that all monster hits should cause 1-6 points of damage.

[increment]

You should add elves to the list of monsters whose damage is detailed in OD&D; for them we see another indication that the intended reading of a "normal" hit is 1-6 damage.

I'm not sure I find your reading compelling when you suggest that the "large insects or animals" section is intended to apply to any large monsters, though I am sympathetic to the general sentiment that the authors intended large monsters to deal exceptional damage. As for the placement of the "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted," since it was a later interpolation, I think it's reasonable to suppose it was crammed wherever it would fit in the layout (i.e. at the bottom of that page), not specifically intended to be scoped to that chart. It clearly is not indented the way the sentence above it is, for example. Do you think the "All base scores to hit..." sentence after the "Monsters Attacking" chart is only applicable to monsters? Surely that isn't what the authors intended.

There is a lengthy footnote on this subject in PatW (pg338) which basically argues that combat in OD&D is underspecified to the point where we are left with speculation. In fact, it seems pretty clear that there was supposed to be a combat system section of OD&D, but it ended up on the cutting room floor. Gygax's clarifications on the subject did come pretty quickly, though - by July, he'd written in a fanzine that "a normal hit would score from 1-6 points of damage." But before the end of the year, he had already extended the monster damage system to use polyhedral dice (published in GPGPN #14), which made the original intended system obsolete, whatever it was. The point being, things were vague at the start and were also in flux pretty much immediately. I wouldn't say there are "dogmas" about this, there are just interpretations that are more so or less so consistent with later clarifications and our fragmentary evidence.

Moreover, the interpretation of OD&D damage-dealing is even more complicated than this, thanks to the multiple hit rules at the start of M&T, which allow "one roll as a man-type for each hit-die" of an attacking creature, such that "a [six hit-die] Troll would attack six times." PatW covers the origins of this idea in Chainmail. The implication is, though, that the more hit dice you have, the more attacks you get round, and thus the more opportunities to deal damage - this too provides a way that a more powerful creature can effectively deliver more damage per turn, by dealing out multiple parcels of 1d6s thanks to multiple hits.

Even this idea was immediately open to tinkering. In the FAQ in the Strategic Review, Gygax explained that one should determine a ratio between the hit dice of the attacking and defending creatures to decide the number of attacks allowed. A fourth level fighter attacking some orcs, for example, "is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4." Presumably then against a 2 hit-die creature, the fighter would get only two two attacks. This "clarification" ultimately did not have much staying power in the rules, and the multiple attack rules were ultimately made pretty different.

So basically, it's a mess, yeah. If anybody had dogmas, they should renounce them.

[geoffrey]

Nov 27, 2012 19:43:12 GMT -6 increment said:

But before the end of the year, he had already extended the monster damage system to use polyhedral dice (published in GPGPN #14)...

Interesting! What is GPGPN?

[increment]

Nov 27, 2012 20:06:35 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Interesting! What is GPGPN?

Sorry, that's the Great Plains Game Players Newsletter, Jim Lurvey's fanzine. Gygax published quite a few of the early additions to OD&D in its pages. The tables in question would later be published with some modifications in Greyhawk.

[waysoftheearth]

That's a very interesting and informed post Increment, thanks

My position is to be less concerned with whatever might have been "intended", and more concerned with what actually appears in the 3LBBs. This is likely the perspective that most new comers to the 3LBBs are initially faced with.

That being said, I agree entirely with most of your post -- especially your comment regarding dogma. Which is, I guess, why I wrote the original post.


I think it is still worthwhile noting that while the 3LBBs state:

"All attack which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted."
(underline added)

They then go on to otherwise note that large monsters (with 2 to 20 HD) deal 2 to 4 dice damage.

It's worth a moment's thought in any case.

[talysman]

I don't think that the Large Insects or Animals entry is meant to cover normal creatures or monsters in general, just unusual creatures (like the dinosaurs mentioned) and magically enlarged normal animals. Note that wolves are specifically mentioned under the Small Animals entry, and horses have their own entry (with no note on damage at all.)

I'd argue that the Large Animals entry exists primarily to support the Growth of Animals spell from Men & Magic, which says "A spell which will cause from 1-6 normal-sized animals (not
merely mammals) to grow to giant-size with proportionate attack capabilities." Large animals do 2 dice of damage minimum because they are twice their normal size.

That would explain why a 2 HD Large Animal does 2 dice damage, but a 6 HD troll does only 1 die of damage, and an 8 HD giant doesn't do any more damage than a magically-enlarged wolf.

[jjarvis]

The "otherwise noted" caption could be why I went with the damage dice = square root of hd.
3 HD or less = 1d6 damage, 4-8 HD= 2d6, 9-15 = 3d6, 16+HD = 4d6. It isn't d&d orthodoxy but it works.

[runequester]

In a way, the 1D6 damage makes the most sense. Since it's always been clear that hit points reflect a lot more than simply physical health.
If anything, damage should be a reflection of how ferocious and skilled the enemy is, as that is what would deplete your resources, endurance, skill, luck etc, and not specifically how much weight/impact they have.

Besides, unless we use Greyhawk, two handed swords and daggers do the same damage. the implication strongly being that we're not really talking about health as such. A magical weapon does extra damage, because it can predict where the target moves, drains his energy etc.


Exceptions like an ogre or a trex are those creatures that are judged to be particularly aggressive or ferocious, for the t-rex, it's likely fear as much as physical attacks.

[Deleted]

Wondering if anyone used this odd chart from Empire of the Petal Throne. It shows the amount of damage done based on a comparison of the attackers level (or HD if it's a monster) to the defender. This chart takes the place of the one-attack-per-level rule. Although it isn't obvious, the number on the chart is the number of d6 damage the attack does. Barker was sloppy with his usage of terms.



This chart is used in conjunction with a damage spread rule that lets you apply excess damage from one monster to a similar monster. So if you're fighting orcs with 4 hit points each and do 12 points of damage, you kill three orcs.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 27, 2012 21:27:36 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

the 3LBBs state:

"All attack which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted."
(underline added)

They then go on to otherwise note that large monsters (with 2 to 20 HD) deal 2 to 4 dice damage.

A week or two ago I noticed something else which seems relevant to my case...


I have a woodgrain boxed set.
It includes a single sheet of paper printed on one side only which I have not seen in any other OD&D boxed set. The extra page is entitled "Dungeons & Dragons Correction Sheet".

The Correction Sheet lists half a dozen or so corrections to each of the three volumes. About half way down the page it states this:

Page 14, line 24: "...doing two, three or four dice of damage (depending on size)!

Page 14, line 24 is the Balrog entry, the text of which says "...doing two dice of damage!"


So, the correction sheet unequivocally clarifies the fact that Balrogs too do 2 to 4 damage dice, depending on size.


That's about as decisive as OD&D gets

[Porphyre]

Wow!
Is it some way we could have a fac-simile of such Correction Sheet?

[Deleted]

...and people complain that D&D is ALREADY such a bloodbath.

For what it's worth, yes, dragons, balrogs (not including immolation), etc, did 1d6 damage per hit in Greyhawk (the game, not the supplement.) This made ogres and giants really dangerous. This is in keeping with the highly abstract nature of OD&D combat, where the object is to determine the net result of a minute of combat.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 11, 2013 9:35:38 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

This is in keeping with the highly abstract nature of OD&D combat, where the object is to determine the net result of a minute of combat.

There are folks on these boards who will argue that a combat turn is one minute long (because Chainmail turns are one minute long), and that there are ten rounds of combat in the one minute combat turn (because U&WA p8 says so), and that therefore OD&D's combat rounds are 6 seconds long.



Just for the record, @gronanofsimmerya :

Was an OD&D "combat turn" always one minute long?

Were there indeed ten 6 second "rounds" of combat within a one minute "combat turn"?

[Deleted]

The game was not run to that level of precision. Based on what Gary and Rob let us do in "one turn," that is, between attacks, 6 seconds makes no d**n sense.

[scottenkainen]

Phew. Glad to have that notion dispelled!

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[geoffrey]

Jul 27, 2013 13:13:24 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The game was not run to that level of precision. Based on what Gary and Rob let us do in "one turn," that is, between attacks, 6 seconds makes no d**n sense.

Thank goodness you're here. I greatly appreciate your common-sensical observations based on the fact that you were there.

When I think of literary criticism, I must suppose that nearly all of it would be blown to smithereens by a single man who was there: "Fellas, I knew Will [William Shakespeare], and I knew him well. We spent hours together most every day, and we considered each other dear friends. I sat in the room while he wrote half his plays, and we discussed all of them over and over. Let me tell you that virtually all of your learned dissertations and closely-argued theses regarding minutia in Will's plays are worth less than toilet paper. You guys haven't even risen to the level of being wrong. You're so way, way far out there as to be worthy only of a laugh."

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 27, 2013 13:13:24 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The game was not run to that level of precision. Based on what Gary and Rob let us do in "one turn," that is, between attacks, 6 seconds makes no d**n sense.

That's good to know, thanks.

[Deleted]

If you think Shakespeare is wobbly, try i) seeing what people have done with Gary and Dave's ideas in 40 years, and then ii) go to seminary.

[Deleted]

Also, in keeping with "we made up some $hit we thought would be fun," Gary and Dave and Rob reffed the same way... a "turn", that is, the amount you could do between "attacks," was mostly "about what the referee thinks is fun." Can somebody in the first rank and somebody in the second rank trade places in the same amount of time somebody can grab a potion of healing, pull the cork with their teeth, and drink it?

If Gary and Dave were here, I'd bet a pony keg of Guinness that their answer would be either "If you want" or "Who cares?"

And I **KNOW** that's what Rob would say, and he's around to ask!

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 11, 2013 8:20:54 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Wow!
Is it some way we could have a fac-simile of such Correction Sheet?

See here:

www.acaeum.com/library/errata_orig.html

[Porphyre]

Thanks!

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2013 19:53:05 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Jul 27, 2013 13:13:24 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The game was not run to that level of precision. Based on what Gary and Rob let us do in "one turn," that is, between attacks, 6 seconds makes no d**n sense.

Thank goodness you're here. I greatly appreciate your common-sensical observations based on the fact that you were there.

When I think of literary criticism, I must suppose that nearly all of it would be blown to smithereens by a single man who was there: "Fellas, I knew Will [William Shakespeare], and I knew him well. We spent hours together most every day, and we considered each other dear friends. I sat in the room while he wrote half his plays, and we discussed all of them over and over. Let me tell you that virtually all of your learned dissertations and closely-argued theses regarding minutia in Will's plays are worth less than toilet paper. You guys haven't even risen to the level of being wrong. You're so way, way far out there as to be worthy only of a laugh."

Except it would be more like: "Will Shakespeare!? What the hell are you talking about?! Those plays were written by my ol' buddy Edward de Vere!"