Multiple hit dice

[Red Baron]

Why do so many monsters have multiple hit dice? It makes sense for a hydra or a EHP to be able to take a heroic number of hits, but when small animals and evil humanoids can get skewered by a spear and shrug it off, that doesn't seem right. It certainly isnt fair for fighting men to be denied their one attack per level on a fiend-folioed up version of a goblin or dwarf that arbitrarily has 2 or 3 hit dice instead of one, yet is still intended to be a pack monster.

[Stormcrow]

D&D wasn't designed to distinguish "pack monsters" from "singular monsters"; it was designed to distinguish fantastic monsters (multiple hit dice) from mundane monsters (one hit die).

[waysoftheearth]

Hey Red Baron, I don't believe OD&D says fighters get multiple attacks only versus 1 HD opponents; that came along later, with AD&D. I'm pretty sure that OD&D says (in the FAQ article) fighters have multiple attacks versus "normals".

So far as that goes, M&T has only a few critters in the 2 or 3 HD range including gnolls, cavemen, dryads, horses, ghouls, wights, and maybe a couple of others. Later publications added more, sure, but either way it's pretty easy to pick the "normal" types out from the heroic types.

There's a reasonable (I think) argument that the 3LBBs hint 2 HD gnolls and cavemen qualify as "normal"; cavemen are listed as "men" in U&WA, and gnolls are given as an example of a "person" in the charm person spell description. Also the fighting capability stats for the PC classes give us a decent hint as to what's "normal" as opposed to what's "heroic". If you choose to entertain any of that speculation, then the magic line in the sand between normal and heroic appears to be nearer to 3 HD than to 1 HD.

But all that aside, the ref can determine whether a particular monster type from Fiend Folio (or anywhere else) should qualify as "normal" or not, and thus whether or not it should be subject to multiple attacks.

[Red Baron]

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[inkmeister]

I basically agree with the OP. I'd feel no guilt about re-writing any monster statistics, including hit dice, AC, etc. I think Gary and co. made their choices based on what seemed sensible to them, and I think it is totally fine if you do the same.

I seem to recall stats like the wolf in B/X getting 2 hit dice. A friggin wolf gets 2 hd versus a trained human warrior that gets one? Makes no d**n sense to me, that's for sure.

[Porphyre]

The FAQ in the SR actually says:

"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)."

and later:

"this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less."

[Porphyre]

Oct 10, 2013 12:29:07 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I seem to recall stats like the wolf in B/X getting 2 hit dice. A friggin wolf gets 2 hd versus a trained human warrior that gets one? Makes no d**n sense to me, that's for sure.

Not just a "friggin wolf". A Big Bad wolf

[snorri]

Oct 10, 2013 12:29:07 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I basically agree with the OP. I'd feel no guilt about re-writing any monster statistics, including hit dice, AC, etc. I think Gary and co. made their choices based on what seemed sensible to them, and I think it is totally fine if you do the same.

I seem to recall stats like the wolf in B/X getting 2 hit dice. A friggin wolf gets 2 hd versus a trained human warrior that gets one? Makes no d**n sense to me, that's for sure.

According to M&T, wolves have 1HD and CA8 in OD&D

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 10, 2013 15:02:39 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

The FAQ in the SR actually says:

"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)."

and later:

"this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less."

True, Porphyre, but you haven't quoted the complete sentence which says:

Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.

I read this as meaning:

1. When the ratio of attacker's:defender's HD is 4:1 combat is treated as "normal".
This means an 8HD fighter treats 2HD enemy as "normal", a 12 HD fighter treats 3 HD enemy as "normal", and so on.

2. When the defender has base 1 HD (or fewer) combat is treated as "normal" (even if the attacker has fewer than 4 HD).

3. When combat is "normal" the attacker is allowed one attack roll for each of his "combat levels" (e.g., his HD).


This tells us when combat is treated as normal, but does not give us an absolute definition of which creatures are "normal" versus which are "heroic/fantastic" (this being relevant to numerous effects beyond multiple attacks that will affect only normals). For this we have various examples and hints (including some in the FAQ), and from there it's up to the ref to rule either way.

However, we are given the distinction between "normal" and "heroic" explicitly for the player classes as the fighting capability statistic. But even without the fighting capability statistic we have the fundamental notion that Heroes (4th level fighters) are heroic.

[Stormcrow]

Oct 10, 2013 16:27:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.

I read this as meaning:

1. When the ratio of attacker's:defender's HD is 4:1 combat is treated as "normal".
This means an 8HD fighter treats 2HD enemy as "normal", a 12 HD fighter treats 3 HD enemy as "normal", and so on.

Nonono... The example happens to be 4:1; the principal is also true for 3:1 or 5:1, or any ratio other than 1:1. The "as is" clause makes this clear: X:1 for X>1 is always fantastic combat.

This tells us when combat is treated as normal, but does not give us an absolute definition of which creatures are "normal" versus which are "heroic/fantastic" (this being relevant to numerous effects beyond multiple attacks that will affect only normals). For this we have various examples and hints (including some in the FAQ), and from there it's up to the ref to rule either way.

That's because the authors assumed you could apply a commonsense definition to the normal/fantastic distinction. Normal combat is combat that is more or less the same as historical combat.

[Red Baron]

Why are so many monsters, that would by common sense assesment of their strength be deemed normal, given a fantastic number of hit dice?

[Stormcrow]

It's not about strength, it's about whether they can fight with the big guns of fantasy.

Look at the various types of figures available in Chainmail when using the Fantasy Supplement. Notice that only some of the figure types can fight on the Fantasy Combat Table. Figure out why those creatures are on the table and you've figured out the difference between normal and fantastic combat.

For the most part, but not exclusively, fantasy combat occurs with figures that represent a single creature, rather than 20 creatures. An exception would be Elves with Magic Swords. Those Magic Swords are what turn Elves from a normal combatant to a fantastic combatant capable of fighting dragons and the like.

Since D&D doesn't have separate combat tables for normal and fantastic types, and since all combat is at 1:1 scale, it only distinguishes whether you're fighting monsters with more or less than one hit die. Fighting with creatures with more than one hit die is generally considered to be fantastic combat, but if some exceptions creep in with what is considered "fantastic," so be it.

[llenlleawg]

Another way to approach this is for DMs to (re)consider how many monsters over 1 hit die are generally encountered. Or, said differently, when PCs reach higher levels, where have all the goblins gone?

Consider it this way. An ogre is a challenging opponent even to a superhero. Sure, we may assume that the 8th level fighter has magic armor, but even so, the ogre is no slouch. Faced with three ogres, the superhero would be well advised to avoid combat. Those 1d6+2 damage rolls will add up quickly. However, there is something of a deep habit of setting progressively higher level monsters against the players, even while the effective damage output of the players and their ability to avoid damage does not go up as notably. A fighter at 7th level might be able to last longer toe to toe against a troll than a fighter at 1st level against an orc, but he's certainly going to use up a lot of his resources (i.e. hit points) in doing so.

I am not saying here that players should not be able to encounter particularly lethal locales (e.g. "low level dungeons"). What I am saying is that higher level players should also be able to enjoy the fruits of being higher level precisely by being able to have longer staying power in their dungeon exploration. After all, if a magic user is going to bother memorizing a cloudkill spell, which he can't even use until he is 9th level, he should have a chance of running into opposition with less than 5 hit dice. Likewise, if the signature kickass ability of a fighter is his combat dominance over "normals", then higher level fighters ought to be able to encounter normals.

[Red Baron]

Oct 11, 2013 6:31:58 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

Another way to approach this is for DMs to (re)consider how many monsters over 1 hit die are generally encountered.
higher level fighters ought to be able to encounter normals.

Nice thought. Taking a look at page 11 m&t this doesnt appear to be happening. The table of monster levels found on each dungeon level attempts to do this, but at higher levels normals completely disapear, which is a bit disapointing. You pretty quickly end up with large groups of 2 or 3 hd monsters that cause a high bookeeping, mundane combats.

Maybe you could get around this by increasing the group size of normals and increasing the power of fantastic monsters on deeper dungeon levels. Instead of a dozen 2hd monsters youd get either a few interesting fantastic monsters or a big party of normals.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 11, 2013 10:27:37 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Nice thought. Taking a look at page 11 m&t this doesnt appear to be happening. The table of monster levels found on each dungeon level attempts to do this, but at higher levels normals completely disapear, which is a bit disapointing. You pretty quickly end up with large groups of 2 or 3 hd monsters that cause a high bookeeping, mundane combats.

Looks to me like a perfect opportunity to simply rule it "normal combat".

Each to his own I guess.

[oldkat]

I've always thought this-- ""1. When the ratio of attacker's:defender's HD is 4:1 combat is treated as "normal".
This means an 8HD fighter treats 2HD enemy as "normal", a 12 HD fighter treats 3 HD enemy as "normal", and so on.""--

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 14, 2013 12:40:22 GMT -6 oldkat said:

I've always thought this-- ""1. When the ratio of attacker's:defender's HD is 4:1 combat is treated as "normal".
This means an 8HD fighter treats 2HD enemy as "normal", a 12 HD fighter treats 3 HD enemy as "normal", and so on.""--

IMHO it's a perfectly valid interpretation of what is written. Whether or not it was intended that way, I find this interpretation preferable to the alternate for a number of reasons:

1) In the alternate interpretation half of the sentence prior to "as is" is superfluous. Why would the author construct such a complicated sentence for so simple a point?

2) It appeals to me that the "magic ratio" of hero:normal (4:1) remains relevant.

3) It means that the fighting-man's multiple attacks capability continues to be applicable against mooks even at higher levels, and at the same magic ratio (4:1).

I.e.,
At 4 HD a hero has 4 attacks vs 1 HD monsters so can handle 4 of them at a time.
At 8 HD a superhero has 8 attacks vs 2 HD monsters so can handle 4 of them at a time.
At 12 HD a lord has 12 attacks vs 3 HD monsters so can handle 4 of them at a time.


Others clearly prefer the alternate interpretation, and that's fine too.

Although I do feel sorry for those higher level fighters faced with gnolls, ghouls, lizardmen, bugbears, and the like

[Stormcrow]

The 1:4 ratio is just from the example of an Orc versus a Hero. The FAQ defines non-fantastic combat as any combat where one side has only one hit die.

[coffee]

That 4:1 ratio sounds familiar. Isn't there something like that in Empire of the Petal Throne?

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2013 8:21:32 GMT -6 coffee said:

That 4:1 ratio sounds familiar. Isn't there something like that in Empire of the Petal Throne?

I don't think so. EPT uses a chart that increases the PCs damage over lower hit die monsters. Note that damage in EPT carries over from one monster to the next so more damage == more kills not just overkill. So, for example, a 6th level fighter will do triple damage versus 1 hit die monsters and double damage against up to 3 hit dice monsters. Clerics and Magic-users do less damage, equivalent to a fighter one or two levels lower, respectively.

[coffee]

So similar, but not the same. It's been a while since I read that. Thanks for checking on that for me!

[kesher]

Why would the author construct such a complicated sentence for so simple a point?

Um, 'cause that author is Gary Gygax?

Why do so many monsters have multiple hit dice? It makes sense for a hydra or a EHP to be able to take a heroic number of hits, but when small animals and evil humanoids can get skewered by a spear and shrug it off, that doesn't seem right. It certainly isnt fair for fighting men to be denied their one attack per level on a fiend-folioed up version of a goblin or dwarf that arbitrarily has 2 or 3 hit dice instead of one, yet is still intended to be a pack monster.

This is an interesting thread, but I haven't seen anyone address what seems to me a common misunderstanding. HD (and by extension LVL) are an indication of overall prowess; HPs represent, as Gygax makes clear in some of those excellent early Sorcerer's Scroll articles even before explaining it in the DM's Guide, an abstract ability to avoid the killing blow. This point became squishy with AD&D, as HPs deviated by class and character and monster potential damage became far more varied, while combat went into the partial slow-motion of "segments". It started to seem more blow-by-blow, even while maintaining the one-minute combat round time-frame of ODD.

So, IMO anyhow, it's not clear in M&T that any monster is "intended" to be a pack monster; HD are an abstract threat level carried over for the most part, as mentioned, from Chainmail. As a DM you might have a mob of goblins (now, THAT'S a good band name...) attack the characters; you might also have them face a 2 or 3 HD goblin champion. Sure, the "Heroic" Fighting Man can take out a crowd of "normal" goblins (who aren't seen, along with most humanoids, as being significantly different than "normal" men). However, the goblin champion is another matter entirely.

As an aside, I dig the ratio interpretation as a consistent 4:1; it never occurred to me to look at it that way before...

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 22, 2013 8:21:32 GMT -6 coffee said:

That 4:1 ratio sounds familiar. Isn't there something like that in Empire of the Petal Throne?

It's probably just that the "4 HD hero" is so deeply ingrained in D&D that the 4:1 ratio seems familiar.

[machfront]

Oct 23, 2013 9:45:08 GMT -6 kesher said:

As an aside, I dig the ratio interpretation as a consistent 4:1; it never occurred to me to look at it that way before...

Same here on both counts.

Though wouldn't we have to totally ignore the sentence of the FAQ that says:
"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)." ?

However, with my confirmation bias switches set firmly in their 'On' positions...

This sentence quoted so often in the thread:
"Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less."
does seem to say, that the multiple attacks are due to the ratio. It doesn't say "...he is allowed one attack for each of his levels due to the opponent having 1 or less hit die." It notes the ratio instead.
Also, the "as is" portion could mean: "just like any combat would be were the opponent to have 1 hit die or less regardless of the aforementioned ratio."

But, again, we'd have to ignore the earlier sentence in the FAQ I first quoted.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 3, 2013 19:34:33 GMT -6 machfront said:

Though wouldn't we have to totally ignore the sentence of the FAQ that says:
"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)." ?

I don't see why it's necessary to ignore that phrase machfront? It's a perfect example of the below 4:1 ratio business (if that's the way you want to read it) in action.

A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)."

IMHO it's the definition of "normal men" and whatever is included along with "and so on" that is subject to debate.

Since "normal men" is not defined explicitly in OD&D it's up to the referee to rule on what qualifies as a "normal man" from the examples that do appear. Among these hints we have berserkers (1+1 HD), dervishes (1+1 HD), and cavemen (2HD) all listed as "Men", and hobgoblins (1+1 HD) and gnolls (2 HD) given as man types affected by the charm person spell, and also the fighting capabilities given for PC types, where 1st and 2nd level fighters attack as "men" while 3rd level (and higher) fighters instead attack as "heroes".

If you choose to call 2 HD man-types "normal men" as could be implied by these hints, then the phrase in question works perfectly well with the notion of a 4:1 ratio. In this scenario the superhero has 8 HD, and normal men have up to 2 HD. 8:2 = 4:1.


On the other hand, many refs prefer to rule as per the AD&D PHB in which fighters have one attack per level versus "all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die". Worth remembering that AD&D also grants higher level fighters multiple attacks (albeit fewer of them per round) versus *all* opposition, regardless of hit dice.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 3, 2013 21:34:36 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

If you choose to call 2 HD man-types "normal men" as could be implied by these hints, then the phrase in question works perfectly well with the notion of a 4:1 ratio. In this scenario the superhero has 8 HD, and normal men have up to 2 HD. 8:2 = 4:1.

I see you've taken the phrase "fantasy game" to new heights.

[machfront]

Interestingly, the fact that I allow fighters to attack as many hit die as he has levels seems to map out in the same manner the 4:1 ratio might. Ways shows above that a 12th level fighter could "take on" 4 opponents of 3HD strength (assuming, as it seems he does, one attack per each opponent's hit die). The same is true of my house rule (though a bit looser and more malleable, as my house rule would allow that 12th level fighter to attack 1 12HD opponent once, or two 6HD opponents once each, etc.).


Anyway.
Ways you yourself asked earlier why would the writer over-complicate a simple idea, etc. But, if the 4:1 ratio was the intention, wouldn't it have been simpler to explain it as just that? Why not simply state that it was always a 4:1 ratio or vs. 1HD or less in any case?
Then again, that sentence by itself does seem to do just that. It's just that the earlier sentence referencing 'normal men' remains the rub. You excuse 2HD opponents as being possibilities but fail to explain why might it would continue to be the case for 3HD opponents for the 12th level fighter except for the 4:1 ratio alone.

Still...I like the idea because otherwise I too would 'feel sorry' for the very high level fighter against, say, bugbears. I believe a 12th level fighter should be able to take out a handful of those just as a Hero should be able to wade through a handful of drunken guardsmen.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 4, 2013 1:13:52 GMT -6 machfront said:

Ways you yourself asked earlier why would the writer over-complicate a simple idea, etc. But, if the 4:1 ratio was the intention, wouldn't it have been simpler to explain it as just that? Why not simply state that it was always a 4:1 ratio or vs. 1HD or less in any case?
Then again, that sentence by itself does seem to do just that.

Yes, exactly.

Nov 4, 2013 1:13:52 GMT -6 machfront said:

It's just that the earlier sentence referencing 'normal men' remains the rub. You excuse 2HD opponents as being possibilities but fail to explain why might it would continue to be the case for 3HD opponents for the 12th level fighter except for the 4:1 ratio alone.

I don't really understand what you're asking machfront... but in any case, I'm not claiming to have the one true answer all sorted out. I'm just reading what's there.

FWIW, I don't really believe the 4:1 business matters overly much either way. It's academic since a fighter wouldn't be whacking 3 HD bugbears with 4:1 inspired multiple attacks until he achieved 12 HD himself, at 14th level. The vast majority of OD&D play occurs at levels lower than 14th, so does it really matter?

The important distinction IMHO is between "normal" and "heroic/fantastic" types. So it all boils down to how you define what is "normal".  If you're running medieval/fantasy mash up like "D&D" then the boundary between normal and fantastic will likely be a blurry one. Are elves and orcs and whatnot "normal" or "fantastic" in your game? 

It seems to me that there are reasonably solid guidelines in this regard (in addition to stuff already posted/discussed above):

1. Monsters classed as anything other than straight up "normal types" (such as Lt Ft, Hv Ft, etc.) on the Fantasy Reference Table (CM p43) are heroic/fantastic,
2. Fighting Capability of PC types (especially fighters) clearly delineates the distinction between normal and heroic,
3. Monsters occurring in large numbers in M&T are our normal mooks.

As it happens, the only two monsters in M&T that occur in scores and have more than 1+1 HD are gnolls (# 20-200) and cavemen (#30-300). To me these guys are regular mooks. We get 100s of them occurring on the battlefield at a time and there is nothing heroic about them (ignoring the spurious remark about Lord "Sunsany"). It's no surprise that these guys feature in other "normal" hints, either.

If we look to Greyhawk we can speculate about whether 2+1 HD lizardmen (# 10-40) or 3+1 HD bugbears (# 5-20) are normal or heroic. To me, lizardmen differ from gnolls only insofar as there are fewer of them about, but they're still classic mooks.

Bugbears are said to be giant hairy goblins but it's moot whether I personally would rule them "normal" or "fantastic" because I can't recall having ever seen a 14th+ level fighter running into bugbears. That aside, my own preference is that these would be fantastic to most fighters I'm likely to see in game, but I don't have any problem with the (largely theoretical) notion of a 14th level fighter dispatching bugbears in short order. IMHO 14th level fighters shouldn't be preoccupied with bugbears; they should have far bigger concerns, so let's get them out of them way quickly.

[waysoftheearth]

It's also interesting that the critical hit table for aerial combat (U&WA p27) gives specific treatment to NPCs "under the third level".

Interesting insofar as the distinction between 1st-2nd level NPCs and "the rest" lines up exactly with the distinction between normal and heroic fighting capabilities of 1st-2nd level fighters and "the rest" (the 3rd+ level fighters).

[Deleted]

Nov 5, 2013 6:48:54 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Interesting insofar as the distinction between 1st-2nd level NPCs and "the rest" lines up exactly with the distinction between normal and heroic fighting capabilities of 1st-2nd level fighters and "the rest" (the 3rd+ level fighters).

Since the three places where a normal/fantastic distinction of combat is mentioned (Chainmail, the FAQ, and these aerial rules) are all 100% Gygax, it seems that this distinction was a Gygaxian thing rather than an Arnesonian thing. That would explain why it's unclear in the original rules as it wouldn't have been present in Dave's original notes/draft.