Fighters and d6 damage

[bestialwarlust]

I posted this in the delving deeper forum but since that's nearly od&d I thought I'd post this here for a broader view point for those that wouldn't check that forum.

Now for clarification this will be for my game where I use the abstract one minute combat round to prevent this thread from going into timing

For my upcoming game I'm deciding on whether or not to use variable weapon damage. I just got finished watching The adventures of Robin Hood movie -- the 1938 classic with Errol Flynn.

The fight between Robin and Guy is where Gary got his inspirtaion for combat and hit points. And after watching this movie again I can see where the abstract d6 damage comes into play. As the damage might not only come from a weapon but from kicks, falls,bludgeons, etc...

In this context it makes sense a player or ref could narrate and attack roll as "After several of your swords swings were dodged and parried you kicked the orc knocking him over a small bench causing him to fall and knock his head hard on the floor. The orc regains his senses a short moment after this coming at you with death in his eyes while furiously swinging his sword at you"

A d6 is rolled by the ref, in my games I always roll damage, and the orc takes damage based on that roll. I kind of like that idea and if you use variable weapon damage you'd lose out on that bit of imagination in combat where the damage could've been caused by some other move during the combat round.

So after my long windedness to get to my point here's what I was considerding for the fighter only. When a damage roll is made, any damage rolls done for the fighter you roll 2d6 and then pick the highest number.

This gives fighters even more of an edge in combat and I think is a good way to represent thier skill with weapons. I'm curious as to the thoughts of others on this.

[geoffrey]

To me, the skill of a fighting-man is represented in two things:

1. His "to hit" score gets better as he rises in level. Thus a 7th-level fighting-man has a better chance than does a 1st-level fighting-man to do damage on any given combat round.

2. His increased hit point total. A 7th-level fighting-man has more hit points than does a 1st-level fighting man, thus allowing the former to stay in combat for more rounds before being slain or having to run away.

In short, better chances "to hit" plus more chances "to hit" represents the fighting-man's skill. I personally do not think that increasing the damage done on a "hit" is necessary, but neither do I think it a bad thing.

[Finarvyn]

I concur. I've created equations in the past to estimate combat effectiveness for fighter characters and the two key elements tend to be damage inflicted and damage survived. The longer you survive, the more total damage you can inflict. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, hit points effectively become an offensive statistic.

Having said this, I kind of like having variable damage by class. I've been tinkering with d6+1 for fighters, d6 for clerics and thieves, d6-1 for magic-users.

[Deleted]

I like the EPT tables.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2013 17:11:40 GMT -6 @sirravd said:

I like the EPT tables.

EPT used variable weapon damage. At least the '75 version. EPT also allowed users of some weapons to fight in closer formations (3 or 4 per 10' instead of 2).

I don't see how this has anything to do with abstracting combat or the length of the round. Weapons have a cost, both in gold and weight, and should get something for that cost.

Combat can be just as abstract or narrative rolling a d8 as a d6.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 11, 2013 21:06:26 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

EPT used variable weapon damage. At least the '75 version.

I have the '75 set also. It does have variable damage, but it's worthwhile noting that it differs from the "standard" variable damage system given in Greyhawk:

Daggers, thrown rocks, and other "light missiles" deal 1-4 hit points.
Battleaxes, flails, morningstars, maces, halberds, poleaxes and pikes deal 2-7 hit points but require 80%+ (equivalent to ~14+ on 3d6) strength to use.
The great two-handed broadsword deals 3-8 hit points but requires 90%+ (equivalent to ~15+ on 3d6) strength to use.
Everything else deals 1-6 hit points damage.

On top of this there is the table of multiple damage dice which allows for multiple damage dice per round starting at 4th level (and on a sliding scale thereafter), double damage dice on a natural 20, and instant kill hits on a natural 20 followed by a 19+.

Mar 11, 2013 21:06:26 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

EPT also allowed users of some weapons to fight in closer formations (3 or 4 per 10' instead of 2).

The 3LBBs hint that up to three can fight abreast in a 10ft wide passage (U&WA p12) -- though presumably they must be armed with spears to operate in such a narrow space!

[mordrene]

Forgive my ignorance but what is this ept you speak of?

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2013 14:25:43 GMT -6 mordrene said:

Forgive my ignorance but what is this ept you speak of?

I believe he means Empire of the Petal Throne.

[mordrene]

Mar 12, 2013 14:26:49 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Mar 12, 2013 14:25:43 GMT -6 mordrene said:

Forgive my ignorance but what is this ept you speak of?

I believe he means Empire of the Petal Throne.

are there replicas of these rules or charts anywhere?

[Deleted]

As a matter of fact, this has come up recently. Somebody posted it here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=monterstreasure&thread=8107&page=1#111038

[Deleted]

This page, on the other hand, has reprints of the original 1975 rules if you want to read the whole thing for yourself. I've played EPT and it is a great game. Tita's (the business linked) also has reprints of other versions of the rules but I recommend you stick with the one linked below.

www.tekumel.com/tita/ept.html

[Deleted]

I mean I like it in terms of its variable damage dice as a function of hit dice.

[Deleted]

I agree, SirRavd ... and it works out pretty well in play. If you can find someone willing to run an EPT game I encourage you to give it a try. It's a blast peeling away the layers of the "onion" that is the rich world of Tékumel.

[Deleted]

I've never played EPT, but I know the setting moderately well. I'd love to play in it. I agree: Tékumel is brilliant.

[rleduc]

I've been tempted to try to start an EPT play by post here or wherever space can be found. Too swamped now, but maybe once this semester ends about June, if there is interest.

[makofan]

rleduc - let me know if you do please

[rleduc]

Will do.

[Mike]

Fighters certainly do have benefits built into the combat tables but at first level they're as lame as everyone else. I give all fighters +1 damage and a further +1 for strength scores of 15 or better.

[cooper]

Since levels 1-3 typically deal with humanoid opponents, better to use the 2d6 man-to-man attack matrix, unless fighting rats, carrion crawlers, or the rare ogre until groups are at a heroic level.

The damage is still 1d6, but when the fighter unmounts a wolf riding goblin with his spear, then pulls out his dagger to stab the plate wearing goblin through his visor, no one will doubt the awesomeness of fighting-men.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 31, 2013 8:37:42 GMT -6 Mike said:

Fighters certainly do have benefits built into the combat tables but at first level they're as lame as everyone else.

By the book, the 1st level fighting-man is +1 to hit (due to the +1 appearing in his 1+1 HD).

When he gets to 2nd level, he is no longer +1 to hit (now having 2 HD), but he instead attacks twice per round versus "normals", which covers most of the humanoid types he is likely to encounter.

So he's not quite as lame as everyone else

[Deleted]

First level fighters are not lame.

NO first level character is lame.

There are no lame characters; there are only poor players.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 31, 2013 16:48:56 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

There are no lame characters; there are only poor players.

True, but sometimes it can be a drag when a low-level character can't do much. We've all experienced the "five minute day" where the party enters a room, fights bad guys, then has to camp for the night. That's why I like to take a page from Gary's house rules and start characters off at 3rd level or so -- more hit points, more spells, more options.

Just my two coppers, of course. I've played lots of different styles of campaigns from low to high level and all can be fun if handled correctly by the GM and the players.

[waysoftheearth]

...that's not to mention the basic weapon options open to the 1st level fighter, which other PCs don't have:

+ use of missile weapons,
+ use of spears on/receiving a charge (can deal 2-12 or 3-18 damage),
+ use of spears to fight up to 3 abreast in a passage,
+ use of spears, possibly attacking from rearward ranks.

Fighters are also assumed to have the best armour which is, presumably, why plate mail is dirt cheap at 50 gp.

Perhaps the other classes should pay 75 gp and 400 gp for chainmail and plate (AD&D prices) so they don't enjoy the fighter's benefit for free.

[scottenkainen]

If the Boot Hill game doesn't start up first, sign me up for EPT.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[talysman]

Mar 31, 2013 18:10:03 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Fighters are also assumed to have the best armour which is, presumably, why plate mail is dirt cheap at 50 gp.

Perhaps the other classes should pay 75 gp and 400 gp for chainmail and plate (AD&D prices) so they don't enjoy the fighter's benefit for free.

That's actually not a bad idea. If you want to open all armor types to all classes, but still keep fighters as "special", you can use the price differences, plus these three rules:

• Magic armor is mundane unless worn by a fighter.
  
• Move = 6 (leather) or 3 (metal,) doubled for fighters.
  
• Anyone with Move 3 is considered overburdened (must rest 2 turns after 4 turns activity, always goes last each round.)
  

Clerics can optionally be treated as fighters for armor rules, depending on who you see the class.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 31, 2013 17:36:49 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

True, but sometimes it can be a drag when a low-level character can't do much.

They can do plenty. They can talk, explore, fiddle with things they shouldn't, barter, solve puzzles, search rooms, meet people, etc., etc.

[Finarvyn]

I stand corrected. I should have said "can't do much in combat." Clearly you are correct as to a nice list of non-combat alternatives.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 1, 2013 12:58:35 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I should have said "can't do much in combat."

Well, since D&D is not a combat game, this doesn't seem to be a problem.

[zeraser]

OK, I'll bite.

In what respect is D&D "not a combat game"? Certainly one doesn't have to include combat in all (or even any) sessions of play - but given a) the amount of pages in published materials that deal exclusively with combat and b) the game's lineage in miniatures wargaming, it seems like a rather polemical provocation to assert that D&D is "not a combat game." What's your agenda here?

[tombowings]

Apr 1, 2013 14:46:44 GMT -6 zeraser said:

OK, I'll bite.

In what respect is D&D "not a combat game"? Certainly one doesn't have to include combat in all (or even any) sessions of play - but given a) the amount of pages in published materials that deal exclusively with combat and b) the game's lineage in miniatures wargaming, it seems like a rather polemical provocation to assert that D&D is "not a combat game." What's your agenda here?

Except that unless you want to end up skewered by a random number between 1-300 orcs at first level, it seems to play more of a combat avoidance game of treasure finding, in my experience.