Round and Round We Go

I plan on getting back to the Karameikos subject this week; this is just an interlude.

Over the last ten years I've been posting to this blog, there are some subjects that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. One of my main areas of speculation/musing has been combat rules, specifically as they relate to the B/X system, and my various ideas, proposals, and thoughts on how best to tinker them to better model what I'd like to see.

Mm. Mm-mm-mm.

This post is a "placeholder" of sorts, so that when I am (once-again-sometime-in-the-future) wondering about my past thoughts on the subject and going through this blog by "tag," this particular post will come up FIRST and save me a bit of time. Here goes:

I like the B/X encounter ("combat") rules as written. For the most part, they model exactly what I want.

Variable combat damage by weapon? Yes, exactly as written. Two-handed weapons losing initiative? Yes (though among the missile weapons this only applying to crossbows, not bows). Armor class and ability score adjustments? Yes. Shields? Yeah, with some liberal interpretation of the "cover rules" when it applies to shield walls. Initiative and surprise? Yep. Hit dice and hit points and healing? Yes, though I reserve the right to change the way monsters heal damage, should the issue ever arise in play.

After all the "thought experiments," "practice runs," and actual table play, I am fine and dandy with the way the rules model the basics of combat. Every variation or adjustment I've made has all ended up being for naught....the simple, abstract system as it exists perfectly replicates the way I want my combats to run, right down to ten second beats (rounds).

Now this doesn't mean there aren't some existing "holes" in the system; there are, and they could sure stand to be plugged. Here are things that will (probably, eventually) need to be worked out and adjudicated in the long run, as they aren't found in the B/X system:

• Disarming
• Grappling
• Long-term injuries, maiming, scarring
• Partial or piecemeal armor
• Required space for maneuvering (long weapons)
• Stunning, knockouts
• Take-downs (overbearing, tripping, etc.)
• Weapon breakages

I'd also like to add some simple rules for multiple attacks (for fighters only) as B/X proper does not include any of the other editions' options. I can also see limiting the damage of a "normal sword" to 1d6 unless it is used with two hands...but probably not. Much more likely is simply giving a +1 bonus to attack rolls when using any melee weapon two-handed but...again...probably not (I don't want to be giving a low-strength character an advantage for using a heavy, two-handed weapon).

But other than "plugging holes," I have come to terms with all aspects of the Encounter rules (Chapter 5) of the B/X rulebooks. Other aspects of the game (evil clerics, alignment language, equipment costs) still need some adjustment, and I will almost certainly fiddle with monsters and magic items (if only to make the game a bit more interesting and campaign specific). But as far as combat goes, I'm just going to consider the matter SETTLED. It functions...both practically speaking and as a model. And after nearly a decade of tuning it, I am satisfied. Finally.

The ultimate justification for 18 strength receiving
a damage bonus is B/X...

Let's Talk Hit Points

Delta's recent post on natural healing through the editions prompted me to look back through my blog for some post or other on the subject, because I was sure I'd addressed this before (possibly more than once). However, I found nothing which means I failed to label the post, it's embedded in the comments somewhere, or else the conversation I've had was done on someone else's blog in years past. So I decided to consolidate my thoughts on the nature of hit points (and how non-magical healing works) in one place: here.

I started my gaming career with the Moldvay basic set about 36 years ago; long before the advent of video games with "health bars" (pools of points that must be depleted before "losing" an avatar), but even so I could grok the concept. Dungeons and Dragons was a game, right? And I'd played games before: different ships in the old Milton Bradley game Battleship could take different numbers of "hits" before being "sunk." A fighter in D&D wasn't much different from a battleship or aircraft carrier, a cleric or elf was more like a cruiser, while thieves and magic-users were the lowly destroyer. Easy enough to grasp.

Hit points in Moldvay are simply defined on page B6 as

...the number of "points" of damage a character or monster can take during battle before dying.

with no additional explanation being given. The reader is told how to calculate the points, how damage interacts with the points, and how they are healed (by natural rest, if not by magic). No other information is provided...but for a nine year old child, what more does one need? The PCs and NPCs are simply playing pieces in a game, no different from the plastic boats in the aforementioned game.

Even at high levels, when a character has scores of hit points, the whys and wherefores matter little, because PCs generally won't be needing to rest in bed for months to recover from injuries...ready access to high level healing magic makes sure characters are up and recovered in very short periods of time. And who cares what happens to the monsters!

But what if you have a game with little access to healing magic (for whatever reason). What if it's important to know and understand why healing takes so long? What if you have players complain that the "normal human" can recover from a near-mortal wound in a day, while the high level character can take weeks (or months!) of bed rest to feel 100%?

Okay, that's enough preamble; let's hash this out once and for all.

I've written before of the origin of hit points, as an evolution of the Chainmail combat system originally used for running Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. Gygax gives the best explanation of what hit points represent "in game" in the text of his (1st edition) AD&D books:

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment...thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

Players Handbook, page 34

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which 4 points of damage, we must assume that a hero could, on the the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses - and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations...therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Dungeon Masters Guide, page 82

One should note the implied difference between player hit points and monster hit points (this is inferred more strongly in the DMG text on combat, page 61): monster hit points represent actual physical damage that can be sustained before expiration; player character hit points represent both that AND "something more."

Leaving out the "magical forces" description which is a bit of a hand wave (oh, it's just magic, let it go), I can totally buy into combat ability and "fitness." It explains why fighters roll more dice for HPs than other classes; it explains why constitution adds to these extra hit points (and in the case of AD&D, add more hit points to fighter types). Assuming that a single successful attack roll delivers an amount of "potential damage" sufficient to slay a normal (non-heroic) human...i.e. one mortal wound...those extra hit points represent the character bobbing and weaving, parrying blows with shields and weapons, expending energy and slowly bleeding away life-force to fatigue. It's not that the constitution bonus implies a character getting beefier over time (with experience)...instead, it's the character's high fitness level acting as a "force multiplier" for the character's skill at defending herself.

[see other posts on D6 damage justification, variable weapon damage, shields...even this bit about battleaxes...for earlier discussions on this concept]

[please note (regaring the battleaxe) that I am currently at peace with the weapon as presented in B/X. Apologies for the digression]

So then...back to healing: per the research presented in Delta's post, the human body can take weeks to recover from wounds; up to 12 weeks in the case of broken bones, but even 3 weeks for minor injuries. Presumably, a character with multiple injuries (i.e. a character who has taken damage from multiple sources: traps, falling, combat encounters, etc.) will take longer to heal as the body is forced to divide its recuperative ability amongst many damage spots. This "real world" study compares rather favorably to B/X healing time at high levels; for example:

• A 36th level fighter with maximum hit points (144 for 18 constitution) would, on average, require 76 days of bed rest (just under eleven weeks) to heal from one hit point.
• A 36th level fighter with average hit points (94, no constitution bonus) would, on average, require 47 days of bed rest (six and a half weeks) to heal from one hit point.
• A 14th level fighter (usual B/X max) with average hit points and a 13 constitution (59 hit points total) would require an average of 30 days to recover fully from one hit point (a bit more than four weeks).

Now I understand that, while the numbers seem within the realm of reason for the human body's ability to heal, one might wonder why it takes so much longer for a high level character to recover than a low level character. For that matter, why would it take longer for a fighter to recover than a magic-user (who, of course, has fewer hit points), let alone a normal human (who can recover from one hit point in a single day!)?

The answer lies in the abstract nature of hit points: damage sustained is subjective based on the individual suffering the damage. The simple explanation is that the injuries sustained by the high level fighter are more grievous than the wizard (or lower level character) precisely because the character has the capacity for sustaining more grievous injury!

A normal human in B/X has a range of 1-4 when it comes to hit points. Most one hit dice creatures have a range of 1-8 (implying that monster constitution bonuses and "fight-worthiness" are factored into that range). In heroic fiction...the type on which D&D is based...these creatures are represented of the various mooks dispatched with impunity by the likes of Conan, Sonja, Aragorn, etc. Are they made of glass, shattering into a million pieces at the touch of a war hammer? No, but they might as well be for the gleeful way they seem to throw themselves on the point of a blade.

For such opponents their lack of hit points represents a lack of survivability...a lack of the ability to prevent the mortal blow from landing. They are retired from the fight early...whereas the experienced adventurer has greater skills of self preservation precisely because of their experience and...in the fighter's case...their greater combat ability. The blow that shatters the arm of a high level fighter (necessitating a longer period of rehabilitation) would shatter the skull of the poor wizard, leaving her finely tuned brain slopped on the floor.

Characters of lesser ability suffer lesser wounds...or they suffer mortal ones. There's really no in-between.

And this makes perfect sense, considering the pseudo-medieval setting. Without the presence of clerical magic, the setting of D&D is not one that includes paramedics, ambulance rides, and ER visits. Chiurgy is presumed to be primitive, unsanitary, relying on leeches and superstition. In such a setting, when deprived of magic, characters have no choice but to rely on their own ability to heal and pray their wounds aren't serious (and that they don't become infected).

To me, this makes it crystal clear why Gygax caps natural healing at four weeks, regardless of damage taken (see DMG, page 82, "Recovery of Hit Points"): a character's injuries are moderate enough that they can heal them in a month's time, or they won't be healing at all. Any type of injury that would require more than four weeks of natural healing means the type of wound that killed folks back in the days before modern medicine.

B/X is largely based on OD&D and Supplement I, both for its hit point totals and its healing. As such, it has a bit more "heroic fantasy" and "game" in its system than AD&D (which was written and refined after OD&D and its supplements). It's a bit less crunchy with the unhappy truths of the medieval world (no random disease tables, no aging penalties, no real taxes or tithes) than its Advanced counterpart...and as such I can understand why it allows natural healing that might take up to three months time. However, I find it far from unreasonable to scale healing as it does given the abstract nature of hit points, damage, and combat in its system.

Certainly I find it far more reasonable than the default way health and healing is modeled in 4th and 5th editions.

BY THE WAY (sorry...almost signed off): just a couple more things.

• On the healing of monsters: as the natural healing of a player character is presumed to be "human scale" (that is D3 hit points per day of bed rest is good for a 1 HD human), my initial thought is that any monster engaged in natural healing should recover a multiple of hit points equal to its hit dice. For example, a hill giant (8 HD) should recover D3 hit points X8 per day of rest. Though I 'd probably want to do some research into whether or not large animals (like elephants) heal wounds and injuries at the same rate as humans. If so, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
• On the nature of falling damage: this has long been a sticky subject. While it is possible to die from a short fall (10'-20'), most folks don't, and I've been told by rock-climbing friends that almost all falls 50' or more will kill you dead in our planet's gravity (though there have been some amazing survivals)...and I presume this would be the case even with a large creature, like an elephant. The best I could come up to model "realistic" falling damage is to assign a gradually increasing damage die, again based on "human scale." So:

10' - 1D4 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

20' - 1D6 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

30' - 1D8 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

40' - 1D10 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

50' - 1D12 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

60'+ - 1D20 damage (multiplied by hit dice)

I suppose some DMs might want to ramp the damage dice up to D% for a truly humongous distance but, as it is, a 50'+ distance fall has a good chance of killing even a high level character or monster (*PLEASE NOTE* "hit dice" for adventurers would max out at NINE for 9th (name) level and greater in B/X, providing a slightly higher level of survivability for such characters...even for falls of 60+ feet...because of their bonus HPs. I suppose we can attribute some of their staying power to "magic" after all!).

; )

Assessing Damage

Jonathan N. posted the following comments on Wednesday's post regarding the B/X battle axe:

Huh. I would have made the battle axe just do 1d4+4 damage instead. Actually, 1d6+2 is probably more fair. Same average as 1d10.

Indeed, it IS the same average damage. But it's not the same range of damage, which for my game is the important part of the design model.

Back up for a moment. Recall D&D's original roots in CHAINMAIL, a tabletop war-game. It included a man-to-man element, but it was still of the "one hit equals one kill" variety: with a war game we are much more concerned with the movement of armies as a whole, not individual melees. Weapons were on a human scale, and humans (with the exception of some fantasy hero-types) of the "grunt" variety, regardless of arms and armor. One man = 1 die roll = 1 hit absorption...the standard unit of play from which all other units derive.

[a "hero," as an example attacked as four units, i.e. four humans, capable of rolling four dice to attack and absorbing four hits of damage. A "superhero" was the equivalent of eight units]

When you get to Men & Magic (volume 1 of OD&D, from which B/X is, more or less, directly derived), this standard unit mentality is still present. Heck, CHAINMAIL is the default combat system (with the "roll-D20-versus-AC" being an "alternative" option). The new game, however, is concerned with a smaller scale of action...heroic individuals operating at the skirmish level...and thus a more granular approach to combat is needed. Players aren't using armies in D&D, but individual characters...and losing one's character is the equivalent of losing one's entire army.

Enter hit points: the granular solution that fits the war gamer's paradigm. If your character is your "army," than each hit point represents a "grunt."  On the battlefield scale we're concerned with how one force attacks another force, and standard units (i.e. soldiers) are removed depending on the results of the attack. On the small scale we look at attacks on an individual (man-to-man) basis, to see how many hit point "units" are removed as the result of an attack.

Now, as I said, weapons are based on "human scale;" originally (in CHAINMAIL) a successful attack resulted in the removal of one unit, i.e. one soldier. But now that we are looking at a granular scale, we need to determine just how granular (that is, how many hit points) are possessed by a "standard unit." And the OD&D answer to that question is D6. That is how many hit points a one HD human soldier has in OD&D.

[remember that the D8 hit points per HD thing in B/X was a later adjustment in Supplement I (Greyhawk) that was carried over to Basic, AD&D, B/X, etc.]

One unit has 1 to 6 hit points. Thus, one human scale weapon inflicts 1 to 6 hit points of damage...this is the origin of the "all weapons do D6 damage" rule of OD&D and its descendants: Holmes, Moldvay, etc.

Once you know the "standard" elements involved, you can tweak and adjust. You can say that a heroic fighter PC (who starts with the lofty title of "veteran") can have MORE than the standard HPs: in OD&D it's 1D6+1; in B/X, it's 1D8. You can say that a 1st level magic-user only has 1D4 hit points (no doubt due to being a pasty academic) but that an experienced 2nd level magic-user has 2D4...she's been hardened by adventure and hiking in the wilderness. You can say that an ogre, a creature capable of sustaining damage enough to kill four men, receives 4 dice worth of hit points.

And you can adjust weapon damage appropriately as well. A dagger is capable of killing a sedentary citizen within 10 seconds (the length of a B/X combat round), but generally takes longer against a trained fighter, except under extreme circumstances (the fighter is weak and/or injured, the weapon is enchanted, etc.).

SO NOW (having got the preamble out of the way), let's look at the battle axe again. An attack roll is a check to see if an opponent can inflict damage in the round; the damage roll provides an indication of HOW that damage was inflicted based on the amount of the result.

A battle axe has a good range of damage (1 to 8...enough to kill a trained veteran with a perfect blow). Let's break that down in granular fashion:

1 point - a blow from the weapon's haft, the kind that will leave a nasty welt or bruise.
2 points - a severe blow from the weapon's haft to a vital joint or organ (like jamming the butt of the axe into the diaphragm like a blunt spear).
3 points - a concussive blow, capable of stunning the person with pain or blunt force trauma.
4 points - a strike with the axe head, causing a major laceration and probable blood loss.
5 points - a strike with the axe head that tears muscle, breaks bone, and/or severs major arteries.
6 points - a deep blow to the body, causing massive internal damage and blood loss.
7 points - a severing blow to a vulnerable joint or a full-on strike to the skull with the business end of the axe causing immense damage and probable death.
8 points - a wicked blow to the neck causing decapitation and immediate death.

This is a good range of damage, easily scalable to an opponent. For example, a concussive blow (3 points) versus a normal citizen who only possesses 3 hit points, might be a blow that puts the guy into a permanent coma. On the other hand the 3rd level fighter on the receiving end of an 8 point decapitating strike can consider that she just dodged a bullet (or, rather, an axe) and that her luck (those extra hit points from her greater experience) won't last forever.

Darkwolf's rotoscoped axe-work is pretty good.

Decreasing the range from 1-8 to 5-8/3-8 as Jonathan N suggests decreases the range of possibility inherent in a weapon like the battle axe. What's worse, it's no longer "human scale:" a weapon that inflicts a minimum of 3 hit points of damage (let alone 5!) will automatically kill three-quarters of the "normal human" population found in B/X. It leaves no room for the possibility of a glancing, non-fatal blow from a weapon that has more attack surfaces than just the axe head.

The +1 attack bonus I gave in Wednesday's post ("Can-Opener") stems from the ideas that A) a wedge-shaped axe-head delivered forcefully is good at penetrating armor, B) a mass weapon like an axe delivers enough concussive force to inflict damage even when failing to penetrate armor, and C) the battle axe is light enough (compared to other two-headed weapons), that A and B aren't offset by the weapon's overall lack of maneuverability compared to light, one-handed weapons (5 pounds versus 15 pounds).

[a +1 attack bonus is also enough to offset the +1 AC bonus provided by a shield, and "hooking" shields was a well-documented tactic of axe-use by Viking warriors and others; however, I know there are more than a few people who disagree with the amount of protection offered by a shield in B/X]

These are justifications to my overall design goal of making the battle axe a viable weapon choice in B/X, based on the B/X system as it exists. Increasing the average damage doesn't fit into my particular paradigm, but increasing the range of weapon damage (via the use of the variable weapon damage table) does.

For me, anyway. Plus it gives me a chance to roll dice of other shapes besides the D6. I've got them on-hand anyway.
; )

By The Way: I personally don't think this is anything that needs to be pointed out in a game text. The designers of Monopoly don't bother explaining why you receive $200 for Passing Go, after all. I realize that it's kind of "the thing" these days to include handy little sidebars in texts explaining design choices (boy, role-players sure are an over-analyzing bunch, aren't we?) but is it really worth it to make a cramped layout and increased page count? Well...that's a rant for another day.

KLOANE WAR KNIGHTS - C.3 P.3

Damage & Death

Beamrazors and blasters, the ubiquitous weaponry of the setting, lead to especially grisly and traumatic (if not fatal) wounds. The critical hit table that follows should be used in place of the one found in the X-Plorers rulebook (adjust for PHY as normal):

ROLL 1D8*	RESULT
1 or less	Instant Death!
2	Mortal Wound
3 to 4	Grievous Wound
5	Incapacitated
6 to 7	Beaten
8 or more	Adrenaline Surge!

*Add PHY adjustment; if damage sustained is from unarmed attacks, treat all results of 5 or less as Incapacitated.

Instant Death! Just what the result says.

Mortal Wound: Character will die in D6 rounds (adjusted for PHY) unless intervention is provided in the form of a psychic talent (for example, resist death or vitality transfer).

Grievous Wound: As Incapacitated, but the character has been permanently maimed and/or scarred and will probably require cybernetic reconstruction to fully recover.

Incapacitated: The character is incapacitated with pain and will fall unconscious (for D6x10 minutes) unless she succeeds at a PHY saving throw. A conscious character can take one action (psychic or otherwise) per round, but all dice rolls are made at a -2 penalty and the only movement possible is very slow crawling.

Beaten: The character knows her luck has run out, but suffers no other ill effects. If wounded again, subsequent critical hit rolls are made at a cumulative -1 penalty.

Adrenaline Surge: As per the X-Plorers rulebook.

Star Knights are taught to revere life and act in its preservation whenever possible, though sometimes the greater preservation of life means ending the life of another (especially when it comes to Shadow Lords and other corrupt psychics). When using a beamrazor, a Star Knight may choose to Grievously Wound an opponent instead of killing it at 0 hit points, usually slicing away an opponent’s weapon hand or arm. If the target is a Shadow Lord roll 1D4 to see how many limbs are severed as dictated by “the will of the Star Force” (on a roll of “4” the Star Knight cannot help but cut the villain in twain, causing Instant Death).

Cybernetic Reconstruction

Cybernetic replacement in KWN is not a matter of improvement, but rather one of expedience: with the ubiquity of cyborgs (see Chapter 2), why take the time to grow a cloned organ for transplant when a borg limb is more cheaply installed (and without the threat of host rejection)? Due to the number and diversity of sentient species, the study of cybernetic installation is much easier to master than the medicine and biology of a million life forms spread across the galaxy; skilled surgeons in the KWN setting are more akin to a mechanic than a family practitioner.

Characters that sustain a Grievous Wound may require reconstruction as part of their healing process; roll on the following table:

ROLL 1D8	RECOVERY RESULT
1 to 4	Cybernetic reconstruction needed
5	No cybernetics, but -1 to INT*
6	No cybernetics, but -1 to AGI*
7	No cybernetics, but -1 to PHY*
8	Full miraculous recovery!

*Attribute permanently reduced.

A character requiring cybernetic reconstruction has to put in time in a capable medical facility, either shipboard or planet-side; until she does she cannot recover more than one-half her lost hit points.

Receiving cybernetic replacement diminishes a person’s sense of self, as they become less organic, more machine. For every incident of reconstruction, the character’s PRE score is permanently reduced by one point, reflecting the blow to the psyche. Because of the attribute’s importance, this can be a tremendous loss to a Star Knight or psychic character.

A character can elect to forgo cybernetic reconstruction even when indicated (she still requires a medical facility to fully recover). Doing so means permanently lowering the character’s max HPs by one point per level of experience. In addition, a character will suffer other challenges depending on the nature of the injury (damaged vision, loss of locomotion, missing hand/arm, inability to speak due to a missing jaw, etc.). Such effects will need to be adjudicated by the Referee.

An individual purposefully maimed by beamrazor (see Damage & Death above) always requires cybernetic reconstruction to replace the lost limb(s).

Vehicle Combat

Vehicle combat with atmospheric craft isn’t much different from normal combat: standard vehicles have hit points (not hull points) and AC just like PCs, and if brought to 0 hit points the vehicle ceases to function. All cycles have 10 hit points and AC 12, while cars have 20 hit points and AC 14. The pilot of a vehicle adds any AGI adjustment to AC (to reflect their maneuvering) and psychics may add their psychic defense bonus (PRE) as well. At high speeds, opponents have an additional penalty of -2 to hit a moving vehicle (individuals firing from such a moving vehicle receive the same penalty).

Explorer vehicles are a little less maneuverable and don’t receive AC bonuses from their pilot, but they are fairly sturdy with an AC 16 and 40 hit points.

[to be continued]

[Kloane War Knights is copyright 2013 by Jonathan Becker and Running Beagle Games. The X-Plorers rpg is copyright 2009, Dave Bezio & Grey Area Games. The X-Plorers trademark is used under the X-Plorers Trademark License]

Revisiting Variable Weapon Damage

Let's see...where was I? Oh, yeah...basic weapons.

[I suppose I should extend a congrats to the St. Louis Skaven this week...those tricksy, tricksy rats. Congrats. I was smart enough to only have a couple Fullers on hand this weekend so as not to get too tossed. Ugh...]

Taking a look at the Moldvay list, I find that I want to talk about variable weapon damage. Back in 2009, while working on my B/X Companion, I thought it would be a great idea to vary weapon damage by character class instead of by weapon (an option I included in the book), in order to allow PCs of any flavor to use whatever gear best suited their personal taste. Over 18 months later, after many actual games of awesome B/X play I came to the conclusion that I really preferred straight, Rules As Written, D6 damage for ALL weapons (with minor bonuses for two-handed weapons). I wrote why here, and have been using some variation of "standard D6 damage" ever since.

However, with some evolving ideas I have regarding the nature of hit points, I'm starting to reconsider my stance. Yes, it's easy (for me) to roll D6s when it comes to damage...but then, I've been working on getting rid of damage rolls, anyway. With that in mind, does a six point range of damage make sense?

So we come to that wonderful unit of measure, the hit die, and what it represents. Simply put it is a measure of attacking power, equal to one human scale soldier.

The ashcan that started it all.

There are no "hit dice" in Chainmail; at least, the explicit term is not used. The number of dice rolled for attack (and the target number needed to "kill") depends on what type of troop attacking and the type of troop being attacked. Hit dice, as explained in the second book of OD&D (Monsters & Magic) is described in terms of the default combat system (Chainmail, remember?) so that an ogre (with 4+1 HD) would roll 4 times, attacking the same as 4 men, and requiring the equivalent of 4 wounds (four successful attack rolls) to kill. The +1 gives the ogre a +1 on one of these attack rolls and +1 to the number of "hits" (i.e. HPs) possessed.

Again, these attack dice are not as straightforward as they might appear, as they depend on the type of troop being attacked to figure their relative value. Chainmail is explicit that an ogre fights as "heavy foot." With 4 HD, these attack dice look like the following against various defenders:

vs. Light Foot: roll 4d6, any 5+ kills.
vs. Heavy Foot: roll 4d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Armored Foot; Light Horse: roll 2d6, any 6 kills.
vs. Medium/Heavy Horse: roll d6, any 6 kills.

[remember, the ogre receives a +1 bonus on one die roll, so (for example) really only needs to roll a 5+ against a medium or heavy horseman]

Using OD&D's alternative combat system (the D20 system in place with every edition since, and which is the base for D20 in general), hit dice transforms to a probability of inflicting damage within one round of combat, and a measure of vitality (HPs) for a creature, each HD being equivalent to a single fighting man...the latter being made clear with the advent of Supplement I (Greyhawk) when both fighters and monsters were awarded D8 hit points per HD (and non-martial adventurers/humans being awarded fewer).

Here in Greyhawk we see the first "variable damage by weapon" chart, which is generally adapted in Moldvay. The only differences found (at least where the weapons on the two lists match) are the pole arm whose D8 damage in OD&D increases to D10 damage in B/X (matching the missing "halberd" damage type), and the spear which, in OD&D, has 3 different damage ranges depending on how it is used. Both sword and battle axe are given D8 damage...though note that a battle axe does not carry the "two-handed only" restriction found in B/X.

Just for review, here's how the variable damage types break down (in B/X, which contains a better "dungeoneering weapon list"):

D4 damage: torch, dagger, sling stone ("rock"), club ("stick")
D6 damage: arrow/quarrel, hand axe, mace/hammer, spear, "short sword"
D8 damage: battle axe, "normal sword"
D10 damage: pole arm, two-handed sword

The more I stare at this list, the more sense it starts to make for me...but only with a changing idea of what hit points are.

See, before I was looking at the D6 damage thing in light of the idea that all normal humans have D4 hit points...a range of 1 to 4. But this isn't entirely accurate. A human being in B/X (or OD&D + supplements) has a HP range of 1 to 8 (with a single hit die); however, most humans encountered aren't "worthies" sporting more than four. Allow me to break it down (a little different from my D6 post):

• 1 hit point: an individual on death's door. Any damage will slay this person. True invalids, babies, people without the will or strength to stand on their own. Such individuals may take no action in combat, save to crawl around on the floor.
• 2 hit points: small children or the elderly. People with diminished capacity, suffering from severe illness, or wounds. Such an individual might survive a weapon wound...if they're very lucky. Such individuals suffer a -2 penalty to attack rolls in combat.
• 3 hit points: a "deficient" person...someone who's out of shape, lacks energy/vitality or a "will to live," but who is otherwise capable of normal (if weak) human action.
• 4 hit points: a normal person in full health.
• 5 hit points: a normal person in full health but one who is exceedingly healthy/strong in body OR incredibly strong-willed and spirited (able to fight through pain/illness, etc.).
• 6 hit points: a normal person in full health who is both exceedingly strong in body AND in willpower/spirit.

To this range of 1 through 6 use the following adjustment:

• If a character has had formal fight training (professional soldiers, noblemen, etc.) add +2 hit points.

This gives us the full range of 1 to 8.

This is what I'm currently using, by the way, to calculate HPs for creatures of all shapes and sizes (and by reverse applying these principles, for finding out what kind of monster is encountered based on the average number of HPs per HD the thing has). A normal "orc soldier" would have 6 hit points, for example...an exceptionally strong or cunning one would have 7, while a leader type with both size and an iron will would have the full 8 hit points. A soldier "past his prime" (perhaps retired based on injury in battle) would still have 5 hit points (3 HP category + 2) while even an elderly chap (if he can carry a sword) would still have 4 hit points.

12 to 14 HPs

This is per hit die, you understand. The aged gnoll warrior would have 8 HPs (2 HD at four each) compared to average adult warrior, who'd have 12 (6 per die). If they were hardened veterans, they'd have 14 apiece, while elite types (the chief's bodyguards and such) would have 16. A gnoll child would be pretty tough (4 hit points), but would not fight as well as a human warrior (-2 penalty to attack rolls, reducing Base Attack Bonus to +0).

OKAY...having given you an overview of this "HD reinterpretation," let's look at the weapons and their damage maximums.

First, change the term "short sword" for one-handed sword, and "normal sword" for longsword. Then consider the following:

1. Remember that damage range is based on "roll over" attack number and so die type (in this case) equals "maximum rollover" (i.e. maximum damage).
2. Battle-axes and longswords (both with a maximum length of c. 4') can be used one or two-handed.
3. When used two-handed (and only when used two-handed) these weapons bump their maximum damage from 6 to 8.
4. True "two-handed" weapons (zwiehanders and pole arms) have additional penalties when used within the close confines of a dungeon environment (even in a wide chamber, you're often dealing with a low ceiling, precluding the full range of motion...poleaxes and two-handed swords inflict their greatest damage when being swung downwards on an opponent). Personally, I would probably model this with a -2 penalty to both attack and maximum damage...but in an open space/chamber, these weapons could prove devastating).

Here we see the damage range of all weapons is enough to slay an adult human at least 50% of the time with anything bigger than a dagger, stick, or rock (these "lesser" weapons can still inflict death on a healthy adult person with a perfect strike of "4 over"). A perfect blow with a one-handed weapon will slay even a trained warrior ("6 over") and a perfect strike from a two-handed weapon will slay even an elite fighting man ("8 over").

The "Big Boys" (two-handed swords and pole arms) have the potential to deliver significant "over-damage," but rather than giving them a ten point damage range, this might be better modeled by having them decrease the effectiveness of armor by 2 (a +2 bonus to attack individuals wearing armor) and leaving their maximum damage at 8. Remember, wearing armor not only makes it more difficult for your opponent to inflict damage but reduces your opponent's ability to inflict significant damage (because the "roll over" target is higher). A +2 bonus to attack armor reduces armor's effectiveness, and increases the chance of doing good (i.e. "killing") damage.

Okay, that's about it for this series...though there might be a slight addendum tomorrow.

Revising B/X Combat (for, like, the Upteenth time)

Actually, I might as well call this "revising B/X period," but whatever. Here's a look behind the curtain of something I'm currently working on.

It is a sad state of affairs that when you start to tweak one thing, you end up needing to tweak another and another and another until pretty soon you're game only superficially (or thematically) resembles the one you used to be playing. For examples, check out D&D 3E forward, and perhaps games like, oh, Palladium Fantasy, or any other number of "fantasy heartbreakers" marketed as "new, innovative" entries into the RPG market. What starts out as a tweak or two ends up snowballing into a giant ball of house rules that might as well be (well, pretty much is) its Very Own Thing.

This is the way hack game designers (like myself) are created.

So, as usual, the original idea for a game I'm building "from the ground up" comes (in part) from some "fixes" I was making to the B/X D&D game. It's unfortunate that so much had to be revised, but c'est la vie. You've got an idea, or thought, or philosophy, and sometimes it's implantation requires redesign. In this particular instance, we're talking about a shift in paradigm with regard to variable weapon damage in small scale encounters.

In Five Ancient Kingdoms, my combat system is very, very different from what you find in B/X because it is based in the root combat system of D&D, namely the Chainmail wargame system. For those who haven't been following the blog too closely (or for those who have gotten completely lost in the meandering of my rambling thoughts on football and whatnot), I'll try to sum up quickly:

- the current system of D&D combat (D20 attack vs. armor class, roll damage, subtract from hit points) is based on an ALTERNATIVE combat system presented in the OD&D books. It went from being an "alternative" to being de facto in part because (as Arneson wrote in Blackmoor) players didn't like getting one-shotted in combat.

[I'm paraphrasing]

- Chainmail did not allow for heroic staying power in PCs...you were wounded (and out o action) or not. Large monsters (like ogres) could sustain more wounds (i.e. had more hit dice) than a human. You'd have to wound the ogre four times to kill it (unless your character was of an especially heroic type or using a magic weapon). Makes for short, sweet combats.

- What I did with 5AK was to make hit points a part of being an adventurer (PC type) only...PCs take HP damage (rolled randomly) from monsters, but monsters just take wounds. In other words, I took the same approach to my "monster manual" as was the case in early editions of D&D: a monster's profile is just plain different from a player characters (this is not the case with 3E/Pathfinder where monsters have ability scores, feats, skills, etc.). If monsters exist as challenges to be overcome (however one chooses to do that) then why the hell do they need to be all statted up? A ridiculous excess, in my opinion.

The added bonus here is that, being based on a war game (Chainmail) the 5AK combat system is easily extrapolated to mass combat situations (if you want your Arabian horde to go to battle against the northern barbarians or whatever). Small scale and large scale combat can both be handled easily.

But, okay, not everyone is interested in playing out epic sagas on the sand-swept plains surrounding Baghdad. Some people just want to go down into dungeons, yo.

SO...I began writing a new heartbreaker of a game, one with a specific objective (because, you know, objectives are good for games) but whose objective requires the plunging into the depths of the earth with small bands of adventurers. A more basic fantasy adventure game, if you will. And one that uses all sorts of dice, not just six-sided ones (maybe I'm tired of writing up all those D66 random tables).

Anyway: here's the philosophy I wanted to instill in the game design (which required tweaking of the "basic" system/chassis I was using):

1. Combat should be fast. The game is not solely about combat and should not take hours to resolve.
2. Damage should be variable. In small scale (skirmish level) conflict, some blows are more telling than others (this gets into a change in philosophy with ability scores, but that's a separate post), and players should experience both the agony of inflicting "only a flesh wound" or the rapture of carving out a big chunk from their opponent.
3. Randomness should be minimal. We want to cut down on the number of dice rolled...ideally, one die roll per player per round of combat (with the exception of possible "resistance" rolls, i.e. saving throw).

[the game is not narrative based, so "scene resolution" is not what I'm going for here...I want to play the back-n-forth of combat, even if it's still quicker than your average 3E throwdown]

In order to accomplish all this, I needed to find a way to combine the attack roll with the damage roll. Or (more specifically) make the attack roll the measure of how much damage is inflicted (rather than an additional, random throw of the die, which I hate).

What exactly is an attack roll? Well, it's a fortune (random) method of determining whether or not an attempt to hurt one's opponent succeeds. The target number (and, thus, the percentage chance of success) is based on two factors:

- the opponent's defense (how hard is it to damage this dude?)

- the attacker's skill (how easily can I inflict punishment?)

In D&D, the first factor is boiled down into one short hand called "armor class" which includes not only armor but magical protection, shield use, agility ("dexterity"), and other assorted bonuses. The second factor is determined by class/experience (one's "attack bonus"), certain enchantments, ability bonuses (depending on edition and type of attack), and perhaps a couple other random bonuses.

This final target number is the minimum number an attacker must roll to succeed...that is, the minimum number needed to successfully inflict damage on an opponent. If I roll under that target number, I fail (i.e. do not inflict damage), whether I miss it by one pip or 20. If I roll the number exactly, I have (just) managed to succeed in inflicting damage. If I roll in excess of the number, I have managed to...well, in normal D&D you haven't managed anything more than the bare success of rolling the target number exactly.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Here's the new way of looking at combat: if you roll your target number exactly, you inflict 1 point of damage on your opponent...the bare minimum damage for a bare minimum attack roll. For every point over your target number, you inflict one additional point of damage up to the maximum damage that a weapon is capable of inflicting. If I need a 14 to hit and I roll a 20, I've inflicted one + six (since 20 is six more than 14) for a total of seven points of damage. This is, of course, assuming that I'm using a weapon capable of inflicting seven points of damage.

"Ooo...that was a good roll!"

In my game, one's Strength score increases the maximum damage a weapon may inflict (you still have to roll a good hit to inflict that massive damage, though).

In my game, a magic weapon both increases the maximum damage a weapon may inflict, and reduces the target number (thus making it more likely to inflict said extra damage).

Creatures with a higher AC are harder to damage. Creatures with a lower AC are easier to damage. Fighters (with a better chance to hit) inflict more damage in combat. Other classes (with a lower chance to hit) inflict less damage in combat. That all seems to make sense to me.

Of course, PCs are heroic in my game so the way monsters dish damage is a little different from how they take it: no PC hero should go down just because the DM rolls a 20 in combat and is only wearing leather armor. However, a split between the way monsters fight and the way PCs fight is nothing new (neither to me, nor to the basic editions of D&D), and only the DM is responsible for learning both types of combat so, you know, no big deal.

All right, that's enough for now. Perhaps I'll talk about my changes to ability scores tomorrow.

; )

Let's Try Reality!

[AKA Going with the Madness Part 2]

I'm done talking about Basic D&D for the foreseeable future...and thank God for that. As a means to "clear my head" a bit, I've decided to dive into the deeper end of the pool by involving my brain in Alexis's recent hit point shenanigans (those who haven't been following might consider reading his posts from July 7th till today). The gist? Monsters found in the wild, especially organized humanoid warriors (i.e. your classic orc or dwarf or whatever "soldier") should, generally, have a higher hit point per hit die than the straight 1 to 8 range...like 7 to 8 instead with the occasional 5 or 6 thrown in. Why? To reflect the fact that most of the "runts" of their species would have been weeded out in earlier battles, even assuming they'd been deemed fit for combat...and soldiers don't voluntarily send their sickly and wounded out on raids or into battles.

It's sound reasoning, and echoes Gygax's own thoughts...at least according to this post I read regarding EGG's (never realized) plans for the 2nd Edition AD&D:

"...As a matter of fact, adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaign -- have been given the same in what I have designed for the [Castles & Crusades] game system. Also, with increase in damage due to Strength, all large and powerful monsters, including ogres and giants, gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD...

"...As too often "weak" monsters were randomly generated, I also planned to have robust adults possess HP totals something over 50% of the possible maximum by using a HP generation system such as 3-4, 4-6, 6-10, 7-12 using the appropriate die to determine the actual number generated -- d2, d3, d4, d5, d6. Non-robust -- immature, old, sick, injured, or even non-physically active sorts such as spell caster -- monsters would have the obverse HP range using the same type of die without addition."

Needless to say, if it makes sense to Gary, shouldn't it make sense to every Old Schooler?
; )

Now clearly, I'm not one for naturalism (Gygaxian or otherwise) or trying to seriously model "reality" in my games. "Abstract" gaming that still models a particular style (and allows for engagement in "tactics") is what I strive for. For example, in Five Ancient Kingdoms a properly equipped fighter achieves a bonus from fighting on horseback...on the other hand, I've done away with hit points for monsters, instead simply counting "wounds" inflicted against a monster's Hit Dice.

[which means, for example, that a 4HD ogre would only be felled after sustaining four wounds...one "wound" being the measurement of the amount of damage needed to down a normal human. This is a throwback to the Chainmail system and what "hit dice" in monsters originally represented, BTW]

I don't try to model the nuts-and-bolts of reality...probably because (in my experience) worrying too much about the little things detract from game play. Even when one is incredibly proficient at using the AD&D books (which I once was), it can change the focus of the game, in a way that I don't find terribly fun...or rather, not as fun as my current laissez-faire attitude towards such things.

[note how I liked the whole abstract Advantage-Disadvantage thing in Basic D&D?]

That being said, there's a part of me that still enjoys the complex and occult nature of AD&D (1st edition only, thanks), and many of his modifications, such as the aforementioned HP modification as well as giving players and monsters base hit points according to mass, are sensible for this style of play. I mean, you really can't kill a whale with a sword...why not just roll with the madness?

Alexis's current system of determining HPs is: random HPs based on mass PLUS full HPs (at 1st level) for class PLUS Constitution bonus (if any) EQUALS starting hit points. Based on his table, this gives humans and dwarves an extra D8, elves an extra D6, and halflings an extra D4 HPs for mass.

[I'm using the average weights from the Basic D&D Rules, since I don't have my AD&D books with me in Paraguay. I should note humans top out at 270# which can put them in the D10 range...but that still doesn't account for folks like Andre the Giant (520#) and "Thor" Bjornsson (440#), darn it!]

440 pounds of rape and pillage.

I asked Alexis why he didn't assign a flat HP bonus based on specific mass and make the class roll random to represent the "vagaries" of how well a character might have "trained" in their adventuring profession. Welp, he feels that "mass" only provides a range of possible hit points, but the real vagaries are in how that mass is put together: body construction, overall health, and fitness.

But, hey: can't we model that with a character's ability scores?

Let's add together Strength, Dex, and Constitution to provide a human range of "fitness," and to be fair we'll give extra weight to Strength (add it twice) as it really models how developed the muscles of the body are (as opposed to Dex - which measures limberness, flexibility, and coordination - and Con, which measures fortitude and "system health"). This gives a human fitness range of 12-72, which is easy enough to divide over those eight "mass" points:
12-18 = 1 hps
19-26 = 2 hps
27-33 = 3 hps
34-41 = 4 hps
42-49 = 5 hps
50-57 = 6 hps
58-64 = 7 hps
65-72 = 8 hps

[please note: this does not account for "exceptional strength," that special province of the fighter; this would already be considered in the fighter's training, i.e. his/her extra HPs per level. Here we are only looking at "base mass" available to all humans]

[note also that there would still be a bell curve to the "mass index" as people would tend towards "average" fitness levels based on average (10.5) ability scores; it's still the extra (class) training that makes the difference for PCs]

Similar tables for the other humanoids can be easily whipped up in an Excel spread sheet. You'll have to take into account the actual range of ability scores for elves and dwarves, etc. to devise similar spreads for their "mass type die" (again, I don't have my old PHB with me, so I can't do it for you...sorry).

Now, while I can see the logic in doing HPs by "mass plus class" (can I just call this "MPC?"), and the sound reasoning of having humanoid warriors at the upper end of the HP spectrum (7-8 per die with the occasional 5 and 6), one part of Alexis's campaign that did NOT jibe with me was the randomness of weapon damage. If we are trying to make the random vagaries of fate (which exist) more consistent with reality as we know it, shouldn't something be done about this 1D8 strike from my trusty battle axe? I am truly tired of my 4th level fighter rolling an 18 to hit and then only doing "1" point of damage. And as a DM, this kind of crap already makes my combats too long to work out (and that was back before I decided to give all the orcs a boost to their HPs!).

I brought this up to Alexis as well, but he feels the potential gain from trying to model something here is outweighed by the reality of implementation (i.e. it will slow play down too much to have extra tables for weapons, which are used often, as opposed to HP determination, which is only done at character creation or upon infrequent "leveling up"). Well, perhaps here I can call upon my abstract design principles to help out!

Assuming we are using variable weapon damage (this is AD&D, right?), there's a reason why the weapons have varying die types for damage: namely, the "naturalism" of the game assumes a range of damage can be inflicted that is limited by the form of the weapon. A dagger does 1D4 and not 1D6 because its maximum damage potential is 4...that is the extent of the wound a successful attack with a dagger can inflict. A properly wielded broadsword (2D4) does at least 2 points of damage due to his weight and heft with a maximum of 8 points for a "perfect stroke." The minimum amount of damage a longsword can do is 1 (a small cut/laceration) with a maximum of 12 if plunged deep into the vitals of a large-sized creature (presumably, the longsword's maximum of 8 against man-sized creatures means the "extra" goes out the back...note that 8 is also the maximum hit points for an average massed human with no adventurer training; this is thus a "mortal blow" to even the hardiest untrained individual).

So assuming that the designers knew what they were doing when statting up these weapons (and as they were hardcore grognards and ancient weapon researchers, why shouldn't we?), we'll figure these are accurate ranges. Now we just need to minimize the variables for more consistent (*ahem* "realistic") outcomes.

We'll discard the idea of basing damage off the result of the D20 attack roll. The attack roll is already a necessary evil of abstraction in order to speed game play. Alexis has already incorporated random "crits" and "fumbles" (drops/broken weapons) into the attack roll...let's not burden the poor mechanic anymore.

Instead, we look to class and level.  In AD&D, you must choose the weapons in which you are proficient (choices being limited by class). It can be assumed that choosing a weapon proficiency means choosing to make its use part of your "adventuring repertoire" and a subject of your ongoing training; over time, with experience and practice, you familiarize yourself with the best way to use the weapon, its best techniques and maneuvers, and work to perfect your attacks and counterattacks. You LIMIT the randomness of the damage, based on your ongoing dedication to your weapon. How do we translate that? As a bonus to the weapon damage roll.

No, this is not specialization; that's something different. This bonus simply maximizes the potential of the weapon...it does not increase the range of damage, but instead allows you to make the perfect attack. When you make a successful attack roll, you add your bonus to the damage roll, but the maximum damage possible (adjusted for strength and enchantment) cannot be exceeded!

For example, if my fighter receives a +3 to his longsword and rolls a 5, he turns that middling stroke into a killing blow (8). If he rolls an 8, he has already achieved the "master blow," and so no additional damage is done (unless modified for Strength or the weapon's +2 nature).

Class and level provides the means for determining the damage bonus (with the understanding that this bonus only applies to weapons in which the character is proficient). Personally, I would base it on the same rate of advancement as the AD&D combat tables:

Clerics: +1 for every three levels
Fighters: +1 for every two levels
Magic-Users: +1 for every five levels
Thieves: +1 for every four levels

I would also consider awarding the bonus for weapons from 1st level, at least for the fighter class; in other words, a fighter would receive a +1 damage bonus with all proficient weapons at 1st level, +2 at 3rd level, +3 at 5th level, +4 at 7th level, etc. (the other classes have too much else "on their plate" at 1st level, but their weapon training would proceed thereafter). Note: this has the built-in effect of making the more complex weapons more challenging to learn. A person can become a deadly knife-fighter long before they master the sword.

Ahhh. Sweet reality.
: )