|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 2, 2015 6:57:40 GMT -5
Yep, I get it, and I can appreciate it.
So let's suppose my Fighting-Man has reached 8th level (128kXP) and so requires another 128kXP to reach 9th level at 256kXP. What about the superhero Dwarf standing next to him? He too has reached 8th level (128kXP) which is his "soft cap". What comes next?
Let's say we also have an Elf 8th level M-U. What comes next for this guy compared to a Man?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 2, 2015 7:05:56 GMT -5
Yep, I get it, and I can appreciate it. So let's suppose my Fighting-Man has reached 8th level (128kXP) and so requires another 128kXP to reach 9th level at 256kXP. What about the superhero Dwarf standing next to him? He too has reached 8th level (128kXP) which is his "soft cap". What comes next? Let's say we also have an Elf 8th level M-U. What comes next for this guy compared to a Man? In the case of my revisions - no elves or dwarves or hobbits, the four PC races are all - all classes available and the same max of 16th level. I will wait to see tetramorph's reply. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 2, 2015 10:09:40 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, is your most recent post in reply to Admin Pete's posts, only, or also to my most recent post as well? Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 2, 2015 17:32:26 GMT -5
Sorry I wasn't very clear. I was mainly replying to this comment: I am okay w/lvls near and past 12th becoming fairly astronomical. I really want 12th to be a "limit point," and such high numbers encourages that. but it's an open discussion, so my post was also a more general comment. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 2, 2015 18:46:14 GMT -5
Yep, I get it, and I can appreciate it. So let's suppose my Fighting-Man has reached 8th level (128kXP) and so requires another 128kXP to reach 9th level at 256kXP. What about the superhero Dwarf standing next to him? He too has reached 8th level (128kXP) which is his "soft cap". What comes next? Let's say we also have an Elf 8th level M-U. What comes next for this guy compared to a Man? All lvls past the cap mean +1HP per lvl only. All fay cap at lvl8 but start w/+4 to all saves. So the capped out fay will still have saves that human characters cannot match until lvl12. Why have lvl caps for fay at all? B/c they have other advantages. This is 0e game balance. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 2, 2015 21:02:36 GMT -5
All lvls past the cap mean +1HP per lvl only. What I really meant to ask was: how many XP does the capped elf require for 9th? Do his saves improve? Spell casting? Attack matrix? Or, perhaps more succinctly, how is a 10th level elf M-U different to a 10th level man M-U? Is the difference just a few hit points, or is it more than that? |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 3, 2015 10:07:55 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, okay, so no extra HD after hitting max lvl, so, no change to attacks, saves or spells. Just +1 HP. A 10th lvl elf MU has the saves of a 12th lvl human MU and only 8 spells per day vs. 10 spells per day for the human. The elf gains elven advantages, armor, hidden doors, etc. Does that answer your question better?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 3, 2015 17:39:22 GMT -5
Does that answer your question better? Yep, that makes it clear thanks. The +1 hp per level beyond the cap is a consolation of sorts. So the 12th level elf is really just an 8th level elf with +4 hp. It might be clearer if you don't mention adding levels beyond the cap; adding a level has all the usual implications of adding a level  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 3, 2015 20:48:35 GMT -5
waysoftheearth, Admin Pete, scottanderson, monk, The Semi-Retired Gamer, The Red Baron, Bartholmew Quarrels, merctime, and anyone I missed and anybody else interested! I have focused mainly on M&M, character stuff in this discussion. If I write up a little "rules-lite 0e" supplement, I would like it to be a bit more comprehensive in order to be worth the while. So, inclusive of stuff in M&T and U&WA. When you read and reread the LBBs, tell me the truth, when and where do your eyes glaze over, when do you skip a paragraph because you are saying somewhere inwardly to yourself, "yeah, I'm not going to use that, that is too complicated, that is too weird, that is to idiosyncratic, I will never be able to remember that, etc." Things like encumbrance, distribution of experience (with all that lvl division, etc.), monsters with multiple HD against "normal men," etc. Now, if you follow that stuff strictly, good on you, you win the prize for "Most Old School." But if you don't, what do you do instead? Let's make this rules-lite 0e complete and working! Thanks!
|
|
monk
Prospector
Posts: 90
|
Post by monk on Aug 3, 2015 21:07:25 GMT -5
Now, if you follow that stuff strictly, good on you, you win the prize for "Most Old School." But if you don't, what do you do instead? haha! Love this. I'll have to think about it, but there's def some areas that I gloss over just as you've described. Some of them we've tried to play and just didn't find to be fun. Others I've never used becasue I prefer a version in Holmes or Moldvay. I'll get back to you. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 4, 2015 5:06:17 GMT -5
The 3LBBs are brief but gloriously dense; the more you look, the more you'll find.
Yep, it's fun to write house rules, but there's just so much value in original you've gotta be pretty darn careful when cutting stuff. There's a high chance of tossing out the baby with the bathwater so-to-speak, sometimes without even knowing what you're missing.
Having said that, there are a few minor things I prefer to alter and/or do without:
* Ability score trading to pump up the PR score,
* M-Us needing to be Wizard level to create scrolls,
* The by-the-book method of "switching" class to run dual-classed figures (IMHO the GH method works better),
* Earned XP being factored by dungeon level/player level (too complex with mixed groups operating thru multiple dungeon levels),
* The Tolkien-esque goblin/kobold/hobgoblin/orc/gnoll, and Burrows-Mars critters,
* Large monsters that deal only 1-6 damage (still not convinced this is correct anyway),
* Neutral purposed magic swords that lack genuine punch,
* The "official" 100-600 gp cost of attracting even a handful of Men-at-Arms,
* The aerial and naval mini-wargames (which I largely replace with aerial and naval exploration games).
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 4, 2015 16:40:31 GMT -5
* Ability score trading to pump up the PR score, * M-Us needing to be Wizard level to create scrolls, * The by-the-book method of "switching" class to run dual-classed figures (IMHO the GH method works better), * Earned XP being factored by dungeon level/player level (too complex with mixed groups operating thru multiple dungeon levels), * The Tolkien-esque goblin/kobold/hobgoblin/orc/gnoll, and Burrows-Mars critters, * Large monsters that deal only 1-6 damage (still not convinced this is correct anyway), * Neutral purposed magic swords that lack genuine punch, * The "official" 100-600 gp cost of attracting even a handful of Men-at-Arms, * The aerial and naval mini-wargames (which I largely replace with aerial and naval exploration games). Thanks, waysoftheearth, rad and helpful. In my current draft I've already suggested dumping any swapping for PR (great minds, I'd like to think). Likewise I've said an MU needs to be one lvl above the lvl of the spell to turn it into a scroll or potion. All costs in terms of gp and time apply. From lvl 8 MUs can enchant other magical items as well. I'll have to study the "switching" rules. I've always hated "dual-classing" anyway, and ignored it. My first temptation would be do "simplify" not by borrowing from GH but by suggesting that it simply be dumped! I've already got a note for simplified XP in my doc (great minds again?). "The Tolkien-esque goblin/kobold/hobgoblin/orc/gnoll." waysoftheearth, please elaborate on this one. I never use the Burrows-Mars critters -- I just don't know them. But I don't feel a need to suggesting any dumping of monsters, as any monster is optional as is. I am working up a simple rule of thumb for monster multiple-attacks and variable damage based upon relative HD. I will share that shortly. "Neutral purposed magic swords that lack genuine punch." waysoftheearth, please elaborate on this one. Yes, good point about the cost of "advertising." I will put it right into my document right away. Thanks. I like those mini-war-games! How do you do them as exploration? At any rate, I don't feel I need to tell a ref what to ignore in exploration, but it would be nice to give ideas for simplifications on what we frequently use (or believe we ought to be, etc.). Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 4, 2015 17:11:06 GMT -5
So I have been thinking about multiple attacks and multiple dice damage based upon HD of monster. I've been thinking in groups of 4 and 6.
So, one way would be:
An additional attack every four (4) HD
An additional die of damage every six (6) HD
Another way could be:
An additional attack every six (6) HD
An additional dice of damage every four (4) HD
Either way it is a clean thing for the ref to remember of the top of his/her head without consulting a chart. Which one do y'all like better? Neither? Why? What would you do?
|
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75 
|
Post by todd on Aug 4, 2015 20:26:38 GMT -5
One idea that I've had is, for battles between opponents of different hit dice (or below hero level?), is to use Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat but keep hit points for damage and allow creatures with multiple attacks to trade extra attacks for extra damage dice. A 4HD giant, for example, could attack 4 times for 1d6 each or attack once for 4d6, or twice for 2d6 each, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 4, 2015 22:53:23 GMT -5
I'll have to study the "switching" rules. My interpretation of the original rule is here: ddo.immersiveink.com/#changing-classddo.immersiveink.com/#elvesMy interpretation of the alternative, GH, rule is expressed as XP progress tables (for DD V4) here: forum.immersiveink.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=436The difference is that by the original model the player chooses when to become dual-classed, and XP division (between classes) is thereafter a player controlled activity so there's no XP penalty for being capped in one class, you simply pile all XP into the other class. By the GH model a PC is (or isn't) dual-classed at the outset and, if he is, XP division is always fixed at 50/50 (or 33/33/33 if treble-classed). The latter is (IMHO) simpler, and XP/HD progression tables can be forecast in advance, and the dual-classed PC will be impacted (50% XP loss) by carrying a capped class. "The Tolkien-esque goblin/kobold/hobgoblin/orc/gnoll." waysoftheearth, please elaborate on this one. "Neutral purposed magic swords that lack genuine punch." waysoftheearth, please elaborate on this one. Magic swords are, theoretically, the best weapons in game. Intelligent magic-swords are the best of the best. Purposed intelligent magic-swords are the ultimate best of the best. Lawful intelligent magic swords will paralyse their purposed foes! Chaotic intelligent magic swords will disintegrate their purposed foes! Alas, Neutral intelligent magic swords only give the weilder +1 to saving throws  DD is more generous, however: ddo.immersiveink.com/#purpose  How do you do them as exploration? I use something approximately like these: ddo.immersiveink.com/#seafaring-explorationddo.immersiveink.com/#aerial-explorationAlthough I do try to use more "realistic" movement rates |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 4, 2015 23:11:34 GMT -5
One idea that I've had is, for battles between opponents of different hit dice (or below hero level?), is to use Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat but keep hit points for damage This is pretty much what is suggested in 3LBBs already  U&WA invites the player to use either the MtM or Alternative matrices to determine hits but the remainder of the combat framework is IMHO inherited from MtM--or rather it was as written in 1973/74, and the game then moved on from there. Possibly, it had already moved on in practise by the time D&D was printed! FWIW, number of attacks can be derived from the Fighting Capability stat in M&M which, from memory, equates neatly to 1 attack per HD for fighters (alas, it isn't quite so neat for clerics). You may hear that the Fighting Capability stat isn't intended for D&D; that it's only intended for Chainmail. You might not hear that the Fighting Capability stat also appears in the 1973 draft of D&D which never even mentions Chainmail. In the 73 draft FC is expressed only in terms of number of men; there is no Hero, Superhero, or Wizard FC. There are also words to the effect that: FC is the number of normal men a figure can fight on an equal basis. It's pretty solid ground, IMHO, that a figure with FC of two Men has two attacks. It was later (after FC had already been concieved, and when it became necessary to cut the combat section out of the 3LBBs to save on space) that FC was adapted to a more CM-compatible view with hero and wizard FCs. It's a moot point anyway because the original (1973) D&D combat rules that were cut from the printed 3LBBs are very similar to the Man-to-Man rules with a %-based attack matrix I in place of the 2d6 MtM matrix. So, while either attack matrix can be used to determine hits, FC was still--on the day OD&D was printed--representative of the number of Men the figure could "fight as". |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Aug 4, 2015 23:26:25 GMT -5
* Earned XP being factored by dungeon level/player level (too complex with mixed groups operating thru multiple dungeon levels) I always assumed the factor to be an eyeballed figure. The judge thinks "Well, they were seven characters from 4-8 level, plus a dozen hirelings, and they routed 60 orcs, a hero-orc, and two ogres, and this all took place on the 2nd and 3rd levels of the dungeon....so I'll give 2/3 experience as gold recovered." |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2015 8:33:56 GMT -5
So I have been thinking about multiple attacks and multiple dice damage based upon HD of monster. I've been thinking in groups of 4 and 6. I believe it was the case in DA's original game that "Hit Dice" were the number of dice a figure rolled for damage when he scored a hit, and this increased with each level. Hit points of damage that could sustained were instead related only to tier"; mortals had 7 hp, heroes 14 hp, and superheroes 28 hp. In the 3LBBs this is kinda turned around. Hit points of damage that can be sustained are derived from HD, which increase each level. But the number of dice a figure rolls for damage when he scores a hit, stays more static. A normal hit does one die damage (1-6 hit points). The 73 draft states (in the combat section that was cut from the 3LBBs) that larger creatures should, by default, cause two dice damage on a hit. Although that was cut, the 3LBBs still state in various places that larger monsters should do more dice of damage. With that in mind have a re-read of Large Animals and then, for example, look closely at Sea Monsters and Purple Worms side by side... In any case, the 3LBBs also say that even a hit with a spear can do two or even three dice damage! Also, we should recall that D&D Combat is rooted in CM which has normal combat, and also fantastic combat. So in D&D-land combat is always either normal combat (where figures have one attack per HD as a normal man versus normal-types) OR fantastic combat (where figures have one attack as a leveled figure versus fantastic-types). I'd be inclined to keep one die damage for normal combat, but would be comfortable with multiple damage dice in fantastic combat. This could certainly help higher-level combat to play out more briskly. I haven't done any math on it, but glancing at the FCT my instinct is that something around one damage die per 2 to 4 HD might stack up relatively "close-ish" to the results we see in the original fantasy combat. Hmm... that could be an interesting little side project... |
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Aug 5, 2015 10:28:36 GMT -5
I think an issue that I run into is judging HD versus size. Because a high-level fighting man can have as much HD as a Frost Giant but I don't expect the Frost Giant and the Fighting-Man to be equally damaging with a weapon. Maybe the size of a creature (or the relative advantage versus an opponent) adds a die to damage? What about HD difference as well? Maybe a large 5 HD hill giant versus a 4HD human fighting man would strike, on a hit, for 3d6 damage (1d6 base damage + 1d6 for the size difference + 1d6 for the HD difference). PCs could operate on the same principle: the 4HD human fighting man versus the 1HD small kobold would strike for 5d6 damage (1d6 base damage + 1d6 for the size difference + 3d6 HD difference). Or does this introduce other problems or needlessly complicate matters?
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 5, 2015 11:01:27 GMT -5
I haven't done any math on it, but glancing at the FCT my instinct is that something around one damage die per 2 to 4 HD might stack up relatively "close-ish" to the results we see in the original fantasy combat. Hmm... that could be an interesting little side project... Yes, waysoftheearth, that is exactly my thought. Groups of 4HD stack up nicely to the basic tier system of (relatively speaking) normal / heroic / super heroic / (and even) crazy monstrous (16HD+). As you describe, sometimes this is about number of attacks with normal damage with each successful hit, othertimes this is interpreted as a single hit dealing multiple dice of damage. I wanted to come up with a quick rule of thumb that could be delivered as a chart but basically memorized by a ref, hence my "every 4dh an additional attack/die dmg / every 6hd an additional die dmg/ attack." I just don't know which would be best, which would be too over-powering, which too under, etc. Anyway, please share your interesting little side project as quickly as you usually do these things! Thanks so much. I am very much enjoying this continued brainstorm. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Aug 5, 2015 12:37:40 GMT -5
I have notes jotted down where I compared how fantasy monsters attack on the normal combat tables in Chainmail and got:
Balrogs: 6 men
Dragons: 12 men
Giants: 7 men
Lycanthropes: 4 men
Ogres: 3 men
Roc: 4 men
Trolls: 3 men (7 men in fantastic combat)
Wights: 1 man
Evil Wolves: 1 man (2 men in fantastic combat)
Wraiths: 2 men (4 men when mounted)
These values are for attack only.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 5, 2015 14:41:34 GMT -5
The Red Baron, okay, so you would be more for granting multiple attacks w/d6 damage per success as opposed to one (or at least fewer) attacks w/ extra dice of damage?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Aug 5, 2015 15:07:25 GMT -5
If you're using the ACS, I endorse the DD interpretation stated above:
Normal hits, even by enchanted weapons and large monsters score 1d6 points, although to-hit modifiers are retained.
Fantastic hits score full damage, although only one attack is made (excepting Hydra and Chimera which make multiple attacks in fantastic combat).
I usually play with comnbat resolved by the ACS (AD&D).
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 5, 2015 15:37:22 GMT -5
I think an issue that I run into is judging HD versus size. Because a high-level fighting man can have as much HD as a Frost Giant but I don't expect the Frost Giant and the Fighting-Man to be equally damaging with a weapon. Maybe the size of a creature (or the relative advantage versus an opponent) adds a die to damage? What about HD difference as well? Maybe a large 5 HD hill giant versus a 4HD human fighting man would strike, on a hit, for 3d6 damage (1d6 base damage + 1d6 for the size difference + 1d6 for the HD difference). PCs could operate on the same principle: the 4HD human fighting man versus the 1HD small kobold would strike for 5d6 damage (1d6 base damage + 1d6 for the size difference + 3d6 HD difference). Or does this introduce other problems or needlessly complicate matters? I see your worry. But that is why I distinguish monsters from NPCs who are of a playable class. I would not give NPCs of playing classes multiple attacks or damage die. But if a 9HD vampire (on one of my proposed systems) can attack thrice and to 2HD damage each attack, I don't care that he isn't giant in size. It just feels right. Its a freakin' vampire lord, dude! What do you think, Todd? |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 5, 2015 15:38:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2015 17:15:51 GMT -5
I think an issue that I run into is judging HD versus size. Because a high-level fighting man can have as much HD as a Frost Giant but I don't expect the Frost Giant and the Fighting-Man to be equally damaging with a weapon. To some degree this is why "reasonable" HD caps make good sense; btb non-fighters have a soft cap of 7 HD, and fighters have a soft cap of 9 HD (after which HD growth slows dramatically). Frost Giants have 10 HD which even superheroes wouldn't match. This is also where FC could be more useful as number of attacks. In the 1973 draft (prior to inclusion of CM FCs) the top FC for fighters was 6 Men, and the top FC for non-fighters was 3 Men. In the 3LBBs the top FC for Men is "superhero" which is equal to 8 attacks vs normals, and which possibly could be ruled as up to 8 Men's damage in a turn vs fantastics. Meanwhile, a D&D-Frost Giant would attack in normal combat as ten men, and could possibly be ruled as up to ten Men's damage in a turn vs fantastics. At this point, it becomes worth asking whether fantastic combat should be considered more abstract than normal combat. In CM, a single throw of the dice (2d6) on the FCT can result in a hero slaying a giant, or vice-versa. This single roll abstracts the whole of a fantastic battle and could concievably involve many smaller hits from the hero, or fewer big hits from the giant. Fun stuff |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Aug 5, 2015 17:43:46 GMT -5
Alternate combat system: the standard d&d atrack matrix using a d20 to hit armor classes. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2015 18:30:11 GMT -5
Trolls: 3 men (7 men in fantastic combat) ... Evil Wolves: 1 man (2 men in fantastic combat) Can you explain what you mean by "(7 men in fantastic combat)"? My understanding is that "Men" (aside from the special case of normal Elves with magic swords) don't attack in fantastic combat; they use normal combat instead. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Aug 5, 2015 19:40:36 GMT -5
I was unclear.
I dI'd not mean on the fantastic combat table found in chainmail. I meant in combat vs fantastic characters using any resolution system.
Chainmail specifies that certain monsters fight as higher troop types when combating fantastic characters in man to man or mass combat.
|
|
todd
Prospector
Posts: 75
|
Post by todd on Aug 6, 2015 12:37:03 GMT -5
The more I think about it, I think for myself, I'm going to try running with the 1 attack per HD method and see how it plays out-- of course I could change my mind tomorrow... or after lunch.
In my mind, the mechanics make more sense to me as looking at HD as the per round combat potential of a creature. It can be spent, up to the limit of the creature's HD, as multiple attacks or as other maneuvers (blocking, parrying, etc.) or as one single attack (still resolved as multiple attacks if HD allows but all hits resolve as a single hit for cumulative damage).
In a sense, I think I'm separating the fiction from the mechanics a bit which makes more sense to me as I think about creatures of equal HD who should not, at least in the fiction, behave identically in combat-- an 8 HD Vampire Lord and an 8 HD Stone Giant would both roll 8 dice to resolve if they all out attacked a single opponent but, in the fiction, the Vampire might be darting around slicing up his victim with 8 precise blows while the Stone Giant is swinging his great stone club just once, the attack rolls determining how squarely it hits his victim.
This thread has been great food for thought!
|
|
