|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 18, 2014 13:58:32 GMT -6
Just looking at this table and thinking "this could be better."
Rolling 2d6, we have only six different things that can happen: D = dispel T = turn 7, 9, or 11 = chances of success - = No effect
Seems like one could either make use of some of the even numbers, or at least extend the chart so that 3 and 5 were used along with 7, 9, and 11.
Anyone tinker with this table? Share!
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 18, 2014 14:15:42 GMT -6
By experimenting with the numbers, I realized that the turn undead table is really the reaction roll table in a different format, with the T and D results being exceptions.
A Good reaction on 2d6 is 9+.
If you subtract the undead creature's hit dice from the cleric's level and double the result, you get a modifier to the roll. "Turn on 7+" is the same as "Clerics one level higher than monster get +2 on reaction roll, Good or better means the undead flee."
The exceptions are:
- Cleric 2 levels higher: no roll for reaction, roll for number automatically turned. - Cleric 3+ levels higher: roll for number automically destroyed.
Given this, I think expanding or modifying the results would work best if you take into account the standard reaction rolls:
- Neutral (6-8): undead aren't turned (may try again?) - Bad (3-5): undead target cleric first - Very Bad (2): as above, but also cleric falls from grace or angers Heaven/the gods, must pray or make atonement. Future rolls fail except on Very Good (12+,) which signifies restored faith/divine forgiveness.
A lot depends on how you interpret what the cleric's power is or where it comes from. Is it an actual power, or just an undead morale roll? Is it because the cleric is filled with detectable divine power, or is it just a matter of personal faith?
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 18, 2014 17:41:51 GMT -6
I believe that Labyrinth Lord tables extend the numbers to 3 and 5
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 18, 2014 23:44:49 GMT -6
Great insight there talysman, I gotta look into that some more. :-) Just math-wise: Rolling 2d6 your chances to get or beat
3, 5, 7, 9, and 11
are
97.2%, 83.3%, 58.3%, 27.8%, and 8.3%
respectively. So I can see why nobody bothers with 3, that might as well be T for all intents and purposes. However the 5 is still interesting in my opinion. So I guess an expanded chart (including even 3 if you really want to) keeps things interesting a bit longer. The question is whether it's really worth it.
And yes, Labyrinth Lord does use 3 and 5; they also keep two levels worth of T after 3 which (given the percentage chance) seems weird but keeps the cleric away from the dreaded D result for a bit longer: In B/X a level 4 cleric gets D on skeletons, in LL you have to wait until level 6 to do the same.
Side note: It's interesting how OD&D and B/X operate in terms of "hit dice turned or destroyed" but AD&D seems to use "number of creatures turned or destroyed" instead. Curiously LL's AEC sticks with the B/X approach as well.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 19, 2014 2:09:01 GMT -6
I suppose it is a way to say "you can still fail on a 2"
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2014 2:18:00 GMT -6
If you subtract the undead creature's hit dice from the cleric's level and double the result, you get a modifier to the roll. "Turn on 7+" is the same as "Clerics one level higher than monster get +2 on reaction roll, Good or better means the undead flee." I'd prefer it around the other way; it's the undead who are reacting to the cleric's unbearable presence, so IMHO it should be the undead making a reaction roll, and fleeing on a poor result. It's interesting how OD&D and B/X operate in terms of "hit dice turned or destroyed" but AD&D seems to use "number of creatures turned or destroyed" instead. I'm not certain that's right... M&M p22 says: "Monster turned away, up to two dice in number.". It would be easy enough to read that as "2-12 monsters turned away". Or is this clarified somewhere else in the 3LBBs?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 19, 2014 6:30:53 GMT -6
I'm not certain that's right... M&M p22 says: "Monster turned away, up to two dice in number.". It would be easy enough to read that as "2-12 monsters turned away". Or is this clarified somewhere else in the 3LBBs? FWIW, Holmes left the notation with the table essentially the same, "T = automatically turned away, up to 2 dice in number", but then further explains in the text: "If there is more than one of the undead, roll two 6-sided dice to see how many are turned away". It's the same in the manuscript and the published rulebook. So Holmes interpreted it as you did above and this was left unchanged by Gary/TSR.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Mar 19, 2014 8:14:59 GMT -6
I've always read that as a straight Number of Undead Turned (not hit dice).
It never made sense to me in B/X that you could turn Vampires, for instance, and then roll to see how many Hit Dice you turned. Vampires have 7-9 Hit Dice, so you can't get more than one on 2d6. Since a successful Turn turns a minimum of one, you'd always turn exactly one on a success. Whereas in OD&D/Holmes, you'd turn a minimum of 2.
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Mar 19, 2014 8:35:17 GMT -6
The actual table I've never modified, though I do like this notion of adding at least one category between 7 and T. Probably too late to introduce that into my current campaign, though.
In the past, I've dabbled with the idea of switching undead turning to a massive damage bonus against undead (+1d6 per cleric level), or allowing the cleric to choose between traditional turning and extra damage. In my current campaign I've kept the traditional turning only, while scaling back how many undead can be turned at low levels (1-4 at 1st level, 1-8 at 2nd level, then normal from level 3+).
Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 19, 2014 9:17:50 GMT -6
The actual table I've never modified, though I do like this notion of adding at least one category between 7 and T. Probably too late to introduce that into my current campaign, though. Never too late to introduce a new or revised table into a campaign. (Particularly since it's a minor change.) Just let the players know and make the switch.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 19, 2014 14:40:53 GMT -6
Thanks for pointing out that B/X is actually broken here by using the "roll 2d6 to determine number of hit dice turned" rule. In retrospect I am a little embarrassed that the vampire example didn't occur to me before. It seems strange that vampires have "Number Appearing: 1-4 (1-6)" but then a cleric would only ever be able to turn a single one of them. I guess this needs to go on my list of actual B/X errata, not house rules. I wonder if it could be fixed by saying "roll Ld6" instead of "roll 2d6"? In that case a 6th level cleric who turns vampires on 11 could turn 6d6 hit dice worth, which averages out to 21. So for the average wilderness encounter with 3 vampires, each 9 hit dice, the cleric would turn 2 out of 3. Seems reasonable to me, but I wonder what everyone else thinks. (Sorry, I know fixing B/X is not actually "on topic" here.)
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 19, 2014 15:22:36 GMT -6
Thanks for pointing out that B/X is actually broken here by using the "roll 2d6 to determine number of hit dice turned" rule. In retrospect I am a little embarrassed that the vampire example didn't occur to me before. It seems strange that vampires have "Number Appearing: 1-4 (1-6)" but then a cleric would only ever be able to turn a single one of them. Does B/X limit the number of attempts? I believe AD&D only allows three turning attempts total per day. OD&D doesn't specify, but most people seem to go with once per undead type per encounter. If B/X does the latter, it's not too bad, since you can try to avoid encountering all the vampires in a locale simultaneously. But if it limits turn undead the same as AD&D, that's pretty crappy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:27:53 GMT -6
"Monster turned away, up to two dice in number" always seemed totally clear to anybody I've ever played with; it's 2-12 monsters.
As for changing the table... why? What's the game goal other than "putting different numbers on a chart," which is entirely as arbitrary as the numbers currently on the chart. "I reject your arbitrary numbers and substitute equally arbitrary numbers of my own" doesn't seem worth the effort to do it, and what results other than "unaffected, turned, destroyed," can there be?
Further, the whole point of OD&D was QUICK PLAY, and unnecessary complications just slow things down.
I guess I'm saying, "Convince me this isn't just a solution desperately in search of a problem."
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 19, 2014 15:40:40 GMT -6
Thanks for pointing out that B/X is actually broken here by using the "roll 2d6 to determine number of hit dice turned" rule. In retrospect I am a little embarrassed that the vampire example didn't occur to me before. It seems strange that vampires have "Number Appearing: 1-4 (1-6)" but then a cleric would only ever be able to turn a single one of them. Does B/X limit the number of attempts? I believe AD&D only allows three turning attempts total per day. OD&D doesn't specify, but most people seem to go with once per undead type per encounter. If B/X does the latter, it's not too bad, since you can try to avoid encountering all the vampires in a locale simultaneously. But if it limits turn undead the same as AD&D, that's pretty crappy. I just searched through my PDF of the B/X Basic rules and couldn't find a rule on that. However, B/X does the "if you fail you can only try again once you gain a level" with thieves, so I wouldn't put it past them that you can't try again in a given encounter. The example of a cleric turning stuff is written as two separate encounters, one with ghouls, one with skeletons. The B/X Expert rules don't seem to contain anything either (aside from an example where the cleric only turns one out of three mummies). So yeah, my best guess is that it's broken. Or for some unknown reason Moldvay and Cook decided that high-level undead need to be fought in regular combat, period.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 19, 2014 16:31:52 GMT -6
What's the game goal other than "putting different numbers on a chart," which is entirely as arbitrary as the numbers currently on the chart. "I reject your arbitrary numbers and substitute equally arbitrary numbers of my own" doesn't seem worth the effort to do it, and what results other than "unaffected, turned, destroyed," can there be? Off topic warning! :-) I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that's a good general philosophy for game design. One of my pet peeves are the XP tables for example, especially those in AD&D. There's just no telling what kind of drunken madness went into those, just compare the power curves of the fighter, druid, and magic-user. The XP tables in B/X are actually more sensible, but still not without weirdness. If there's a way to make the XP tables "better" and by that I mean "one can explicate why the tables are the way they are" in my case, then I am all for replacing them. No game does that to my knowledge, I mean focus on explaining their rules. LL is kinda on the crazy side with their XP tables varying in insane ways just to make sure they are not the same as in the original game. (So LL makes even less sense is what I am saying.) Regarding turning undead, it would be helpful if Dan Proctor and friends had explained why they were futzing with the power curve of the cleric. I mean the table just sits there, with different results than B/X, in what is ostensibly a B/X clone. Should be explained, shouldn't it? Maybe they had a good reason, maybe not. (I guess they didn't, why else not provide the rationale?) Overall I get annoyed when people can't or won't explain their rules. They just declare them as "god-given numbers" or whatnot with zero rationale. And I don't believe in cults of personality either. Whether the numbers came from Dave, Gary, or Dan Proctor doesn't matter. If they seem random and lacking rationale, they should be (a) analyzed to maybe decipher a hidden meaning and (b) replaced without fear if better numbers/rules can be found. Playing a game shouldn't be a religious experience, it should be a rational one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 16:43:15 GMT -6
The rationale for the numbers is "Dave wrote up a chart that he thought looked about right, and then Gary dicked with it until it looked about right to him."
There is no hidden meaning; most wargames in the pre-computer era were written with seat of the pants estimates for numbers and then playtesting to make sure it worked about right. And 'better' numbers is an entirely chimerical idea.
Also, there is the very real danger of what my Stats professor referred to as "If you crunch the numbers long enough, anything will correlate." The XP tables in D&D were designed "by naked eye" because it was back when computers lived in universities, and hand calculators didn't exist.
You're looking for meaning where there isn't any, other than "this looks about right." That's all the meaning there is.
If another set of numbers looks more "about right" to you, fine, but there is no objectivity about it. It is merely substitution of one arbitrary set of numbers for another.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2014 18:05:36 GMT -6
If another set of numbers looks more "about right" to you, fine, but there is no objectivity about it. It is merely substitution of one arbitrary set of numbers for another. I don't think this is a fair assessment--nobody here is talking about plugging in an "arbitrary set of numbers". This discussion, and others like it, is about looking at the numbers objectively and, with relatively trivial computations, introducing a degree rationality.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 19, 2014 18:18:30 GMT -6
You're looking for meaning where there isn't any, other than "this looks about right." That's all the meaning there is. In general this is simply not true. It may be true in particular cases like XP tables. But for example the basic combat system makes perfect sense AND it can be rationally explained (even if Dave and Gary didn't bother). If you plug in the "base case" of two "normal humans" stabbing away at each other without armor you get what you'd expect: About a 50% chance each round of killing each other. (Well 55% in OD&D where "normal men" count as level 1 fighters for some reason.) Movement rates fall into the same category, they are not perfect but they seem in line with the real world. Apparently there's even some rhyme and reason to treasure distributions. I respect game mechanics for which sensible conclusions can be reached, that's all I am saying. And despite all my grumbling, I still enjoy playing OD&D/AD&D. But if we can do better in places, we should. Of course that may never be possible for either XP tables or turning undead. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 19:51:09 GMT -6
This discussion, and others like it, is about looking at the numbers objectively and, with relatively trivial computations, introducing a degree rationality. How so? Undead are imaginary, as are XP, wizards, etc. Objectively in terms of what? Computations of what? Rationality in terms of what? At the end of the day, it's all still an elaborate game of make-believe.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 19, 2014 20:31:42 GMT -6
I guess I'm saying,]"Convince me this isn't just a solution desperately in search of a problem." Hey, Michael. As my OP stated, I don’t see a “problem” here, only a table that looked like maybe it could become better. I see a large jump from one number to another and was looking for suggestions on how folks might have addressed that number gap. Seemed like a fun thing to tinker with. As for changing the table... why? What's the game goal other than "putting different numbers on a chart," which is entirely as arbitrary as the numbers currently on the chart. "I reject your arbitrary numbers and substitute equally arbitrary numbers of my own" doesn't seem worth the effort to do it, and what results other than "unaffected, turned, destroyed," can there be? Well, I see a pattern which means the numbers aren’t totally arbitrary. I wouldn't really suggest different numbers per se, but additional numbers. Further, the whole point of OD&D was QUICK PLAY, and unnecessary complications just slow things down. Agreed, but I don’t see that a newer chart would slow down play any. Still seems pretty quick to play.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 19, 2014 20:54:19 GMT -6
If another set of numbers looks more "about right" to you, fine, but there is no objectivity about it. It is merely substitution of one arbitrary set of numbers for another. I don't think this is a fair assessment--nobody here is talking about plugging in an "arbitrary set of numbers". This discussion, and others like it, is about looking at the numbers objectively and, with relatively trivial computations, introducing a degree rationality. I thought it was more like "hey, I just noticed there's room in that table for more results!"
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2014 21:52:00 GMT -6
How so? Undead are imaginary, as are XP, wizards, etc. Objectively in terms of what? Computations of what? Rationality in terms of what? At the end of the day, it's all still an elaborate game of make-believe. Undead and wizards are imaginary, but D&D describes them in terms of real numbers. There are mathematical relationships between these numbers. In the case of the clerics versus undead table, there are mathematical relationships between cleric level, undead HD, and each of the possible results. As well as any number of others. The same applies to many of the D&D tables. Computations on the numbers can reveal the precise nature of these intrinsic numerical relationships. For example, we can calculate the (mean, max) number of undead HD a cleric can turn per cleric level. Notwithstanding errors, these mathematical relationships are objective--they "just are". Having illustrated the nature of a relationship we are now in a position to identify anomalies and evaluate their implications. Rational thinking can, if desired, be used to "correct" anomalies. This would typically, but not always, imply "smoothing" out lumps or bumps in a mathematical relationship and can ultimately result in the creation of "house rules". Believe it or not, some people enjoy it.
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
D&D is 50? That makes me ... even older.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ratikranger on Mar 19, 2014 22:29:17 GMT -6
Thank you for that waysoftheearth, you did a much better job than I could have describing what I am interested in. I should make you my PR man! :-)
One more thing regarding the "it's all just make-believe anyway" argument: The problem is that you can apply that line against just about anything, including against D&D itself. We could, after all, just sit around a table without dice and rules and still have an "interactive story-telling" game of sorts. And some people like that kind of thing.
But if you look at how Gary used the argument (and the related "it's only fun if it's heroic" one), it's usually to defend the way his rules work against people who want to replace entire subsystems for the sake of "realism" or whatnot. In White Dwarf 7 there's a letter from Gary about exactly that, and he's *right* to say "look pal, I designed these rules to be heroic and quick, that's how we like the game" and that's that.
Most people here, however, are already "on Gary's side" so to speak. We already like playing a heroic, rules-lite, quick-to-adjudicate game. We're not trying to make OD&D "more realistic" or replace it with RuneQuest or whatnot. But some of us like to look at the internal workings of the system and ask ourselves if it can be streamlined, made better in some (admittedly frequently subjective) sense, and what the consequences are if we do. Does it stay close to what the original rules did? Is it faster to adjudicate? Does it require fewer tables? Can one mechanism from over here be fruitfully applied over there? And so on and so forth. I consider myself a student of game design, and you learn that kind of stuff best by studying existing systems, tinkering with them, and observing the results.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Mar 20, 2014 2:25:13 GMT -6
Perhaps a way to negotiate these positions re: turning undead is to ask what effect the different numbers will have on game play. This can be considered both in terms of (a) mechanics for the player or DM (does it make his life easier, harder, more or less the same, better, etc.) and (b) the results in the game world.
As regards (a), new numbers hardly make things more difficult mechanically for the player or DM, at least one he gets used to the new table (since many or most of us know the old numbers by heart). Does it improve the game, from the players' or DM's perspective? I can't see that it does, mechanically at least. So, we'll call this judgment a tie, with a slight leaning towards a negative since, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
How about (b)? Well, the result will be clearly that undead that used to be driven away automatically now have a chance of *not* being turned. This means that undead may get one more level's worth of "combat play" in them (since, e.g., a 2nd level party would no longer be guaranteed to be able to deal with skeletons by turning them if they are turned only on a 5+). Is this an improvement? Not intrinsically, as far as I can see. I have generally felt, esp. with the higher undead (even including ghouls) who are *very* dangerous in actual combat, the power to turn undead is the players' counter-weapon. That is, as we old schoolers often insist, level draining is *supposed* to be scary, so combat with wights, wraiths, specters, or vampires is almost always a bad choice. It may be a lesser of evils, but the risk is high. Having a cleric turn these undead with assurance is the players' response to the "no save" feature of these undead (or the disease of mummies, or even the save vs. paralysis of ghouls), and I think this is just fine. I have no problems with it conceptually, nor in terms of game play. Indeed, I've never understood the notion that it is somehow "unfair" for greater undead to be turned away, but it's player whining to complain about the lack of saving throw for level draining.
That said, play styles differ. This change will possibly have some (in the long run minor) change in player strategy, since the turning will be at certain levels less certain, so the decision to confront these undead, rather than flee or try to bypass them altogether, will need a slightly different calculus.
What I think @gronanofsimmerya was reminding us is that there is nothing here that is obviously better or makes obviously better sense or produces obviously better game play. By the same token, it hardly hurts game play either, and it does have some, but not much as far as I can see, impact on the players' decisions. So, if you like this slight change to produce slightly different strategy when faced with the undead, then fine. Otherwise, I don't see that it's worth the change.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 20, 2014 4:46:12 GMT -6
I don't think this is a fair assessment--nobody here is talking about plugging in an "arbitrary set of numbers". This discussion, and others like it, is about looking at the numbers objectively and, with relatively trivial computations, introducing a degree rationality. I thought it was more like "hey, I just noticed there's room in that table for more results!" That was my intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 9:16:18 GMT -6
What I think @gronanofsimmerya was reminding us is that there is nothing here that is obviously better or makes obviously better sense or produces obviously better game play. By the same token, it hardly hurts game play either, and it does have some, but not much as far as I can see, impact on the players' decisions. So, if you like this slight change to produce slightly different strategy when faced with the undead, then fine. Otherwise, I don't see that it's worth the change. The rule is definitely "Make up some *hit you think will be fun." You mention "undead that used to be driven away automatically now have a chance of *not* being turned". My reaction to that is "Interesting idea, let us know how it works." But there's a difference between "Here's a new wrinkle on the table" and "let's use some new numbers." And "better" is a word I use with great caution.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Apr 6, 2014 22:07:43 GMT -6
For Zylarthen I desired a somewhat smoother progression, with a slightly greater range of possibilities (good and bad) but where the median chances were roughly the same, and where T's and D's were simply folded into the odds and/or the rolls. As can be seen, Undead from Greyhawk and early S&T were added to the original 3LBB standards. Keep in mind that since there are no player-character Clerics in Zylarthen, any character can attempt to "turn" Undead, and a wisdom score of 14 or higher gives one a +2 bonus to the turning roll. The table is designed under the assumption that a character with a 14+ wisdom will be the go-to turner, and thus it is +2 "harder" than the OD&D equivalent. Thus, one should subtract 2 from each number to translate the table for Clerics in OD&D. Even then, it's probably slightly more tough (for the players) than the original table. I'm sure I had a good reason for that at the time, but now I've forgotten what it was.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 7, 2014 13:51:31 GMT -6
Nice table, oakesspalding. I'll have to try this out!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 12, 2014 11:22:45 GMT -6
As many know, I use monsters made with the aid of the Random Esoteric Creature Generator. Occasionally a random undead beast will turn up.
On the table I replaced the standard undead with their HD equivalent. For example, a 2 HD undead gets turned as a ghoul. The table tops out with vampires which have only 7-9 HD. I added two lines to the table:
10-12 HD 13+ HD
I then made the obvious extrapolations for the levels and chances of turning these bad boys:
10-12 HD undead are turned by a Lama on a roll of 11, and by a Patriarch on a role of 9. (Bishops and below haven't a prayer.) 13+ HD undead are turned by a Patriarch on a roll of 11. (Lamas and below haven't a prayer.)
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 22, 2014 13:11:16 GMT -6
Not a comment on revising the numbers in the table so much, but I wrote a post that seems relevant to this discussion my blogcomments welcome
|
|