D&D Sling Damage vs. Large Targets

In many early editions of D&D, weapons were assigned two damage values: one for small/medium targets (i.e. man-sized) and one for large targets (giants and such).

On the whole, it more or less breaks down like this:

• large piercing/slashing weapons do more damage vs. large targets than they do vs. small/medium targets
• small piercing/slashing weapons do equal or less damage vs. large targets than they do vs. small/medium targets
• blunt force weapons of any size do equal or less damage vs. large targets than they do vs. small/medium targets

This general scheme makes sense to me. If you run a 4' sword through a human's 12" deep abdomen, the sword only rips through 12" of flesh. If that same sword is run through a giant's 24" deep abdomen, that sword rips through 24" of flesh, thereby doing more damage.

Conversely, a small piercing weapon, like an 8" dagger, in either case would only rip through 8" of flesh. For the human, this is 67% of the total depth of the abdomen, while for the giant this is only 33% of the abdomen's depth -- thereby doing proportionally less damage to the large target.

Similarly, a blunt force weapon should do, at most, the same damage to a small/medium or large target, and possibly less to a large target, since the force of the blow is the same in all cases, while the large target would theoretically have a thicker muscle wall protecting its organs and bones against anything that gets around the armor.

Here though, is the conundrum. All the old rules that I'm aware of (including Greyhawk, AD&D and clones like my favorite, Iron Falcon) that use this differentiation of damage between small/medium or large targets list sling projectiles (in AD&D specifically sling bullets) as doing more damage vs. large targets than they do vs. small/medium targets.

I can't get my head around this, since the sling projectile is a blunt force weapon, and a very small one at that. In theory it shouldn't really penetrate per se, and the normal principles of blunt force weapons should apply (i.e. it should do no more than equal damage vs. a large target, possibly less).

Even if I'm mistaken here and it does penetrate, perhaps due to its high speed, I don't see how a small, blunt projectile could possibly go deeper through the thicker hide, thicker muscle, and thicker bones of a large target than it would through those of a smaller target, when the force of impact from a given slinger will be the same in all cases. In short, I can't see any rationale for why the sling projectile would do more damage to the large target than it does to a small/medium one.

I'm inclined to think this is poetic license by Gary to replicate a Biblical David and Goliath situation. But before I house rule this to rectify what I see as a physics error, I am curious to see if anyone out there knows of a solid argument why a sling should do more damage to a large target than it does to a small/medium one. Maybe I'm completely wrong about slings.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Compound XP Bonuses: A Viable Alternative to "The Worthless 10"?

I noted in two previous posts that a 10% bonus to earned XP doesn't give you anything.
     See post 1 here.
     See post 2 here.

A follow-up thought I had was to try a compound XP bonus. This would simply be a matter of applying the XP bonus to your XP total each time XP are awarded, rather than only to the just-earned XP.

So it would work like this:

• Session 1: You earn 400 XP. Your XP total is 400. Apply your 10%. That gives you 440 XP.
• Session 2: You earn another 400 XP. Your new XP total is 840. Only now apply your 10% to that number (instead of to the 400 XP you just earned). That gives you 924 XP (instead of the 880 you would have had if you were applying the bonus only to the XP just earned).
• Sessions 3 and beyond: Just keep applying the 10% XP bonus to your total XP each time more XP are awarded.

Again, using the OD&D Fighter XP progression as a baseline, and assuming an increase of one level every five sessions for a character with no bonus, we'd get the chart below. I've included the numbers for "no bonus," the traditional "10% to earned xp" covered previously, and the "10% compound bonus" for comparison. The yellow cells are where a fighter would level up depending on the bonus applied. The word "lap" indicates that the character jumps a full level ahead of a no-bonus character.

What you get is the fighter with the compound bonus advances at an accelerated (perhaps too accelerated) pace relative to one without the bonus. The fighter with the compound bonus "laps" the no-bonus fighter at session 15, hitting level 5 at the same time the no-bonus fighter hits level 4. He then gradually increases his lead as he moves toward lapping the no-bonus fighter a second time at session 35. At the end of that session, the no-bonus fighter rises to level 8, while the compound-bonus fighter hits level 10.

Would the compound bonus work? For a long campaign, I think I would not want to use it. For a short to mid-length campaign, perhaps going to only level 5 or 6 or so, I think it could be an interesting way to handle the XP bonus in a meaningful way. But even then, I don't think it would be a better way than the simple, flat 25-30% bonus to earned XP from my previous posts. I think the higher flat bonus to XP earned might be the cleaner way to achieve the end I'm seeking.

XP Bonuses Part Deux

A couple readers requested I do the table for 20% and 30% bonuses. So I've done those along with a 50% bonus and a 100% bonus (just to push things to extremes). I did these all with the assumption of a leveling pace of one level every five sessions for an unmodified fighter.

So here's what you get:

At a 20% bonus, the fighter with the bonus levels up consistently one session before the fighter with no bonus.

At a 30% bonus, the fighter with the bonus gets to level 2 one session earlier, then consistently levels up two sessions before the fighter with no bonus. In other words, the fighter with the bonus will be one level ahead of the fighter with no bonus roughly 40% of the time.

At a 50% bonus, the fighter with the bonus gets to level 2 one session earlier, then consistently levels up three sessions before the fighter with no bonus. In other words, the fighter with the bonus will be one level ahead of the fighter with no bonus roughly 60% of the time.

At a 100% bonus, the fighter with the bonus gets to level 2 two sessions earlier, then "laps" the fighter with no bonus on session five, and from that point on remains permanently one level ahead of the fighter with no bonus. Which of course makes sense, since the XP requirements double at each level.

My thought is that to make XP bonuses meaningful, you'd really need to do something like the 30% or 50% bonus, assuming an average progression pace in the ballpark of this model's one level per five sessions.

Regarding XP Bonuses: The Worthless 10%

I've often felt intuitively that a 10% bonus to earned XP doesn't give you much, if anything. I decided to look at some actual numbers to see whether that was true. It is.

I made a series of calculations, using the OD&D Fighter XP progression as a baseline:

Level 1: 0 XP
Level 2: 2,000 XP
Level 3: 4,000 XP
Level 4: 8,000 XP
Level 5: 16,000 XP
Level 6: 32,000 XP
Level 7: 64,000 XP
Level 8: 120,000 XP
Level 9: 240,000 XP

I did my calculations based on the pace (in terms of number of sessions) needed to level up.
I did this for three scenarios:

1) earning enough XP per session for an unmodified fighter to level up once every 20 sessions
2) earning enough XP per session for an unmodified fighter to level up once every 10 sessions
3) earning enough XP per session for an unmodified fighter to level up once every 5 sessions

I then plugged in the numbers for XP per session for a fighter with no XP bonus, and a fighter with a 10% bonus for each of those three scenarios.

This is what I came up with. The yellow cells are where each fighter (bonus and no bonus) levels up.

As you can see, the fighter with the 10% bonus gets no significant edge over the fighter with no bonus at all.

In a campaign with an extremely slow level progression (averaging 20 sessions per level),  the fighter with the 10% bonus starts to pull ahead around session 37 of the campaign – leveling up three sessions before the fighter with no bonus. But of course in this scenario, it's taking 40 (or 37) game sessions to hit level three.

In a campaign where PCs progress at twice that speed  (averaging 10 sessions per level), the fighter with the 10% bonus starts to pull ahead at session 19, but only levels up one session sooner than the fighter with no bonus. The fighter with the bonus stays exactly one session ahead for the next 20 sessions and for some time beyond (though the next scenario suggests he will widen the gap a bit more much later on).

In a campaign with relatively rapid level progression (averaging 5 sessions per level), the fighter with the 10% bonus pulls ahead only at session 35, and only by one session, and then only because the XP requirement to progress suddenly stops doubling. If the XP progression kept doubling, it appears the fighter with the 10% bonus would never pull ahead of the fighter with no bonus.

So it seems that unless a) you play with a really slow level progression or b) you get to higher level play where the XP requirements flatten out, a 10% XP bonus will have no appreciable effect on game play.

Super Simple Separation of Race and Class in OD&D

I think my favorite rules are OD&D and/or its clones. If you go with just the 3 LBBs or clones thereof, you essentially have race as class for demi-humans. I can take or leave race as class, but I know some people are not big fans of it. When I next run something with just the three core classes of Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, I might use something simple like this to avoid race as class for players who don't particularly like it: 

Dwarf Class Options:

• Single-Class Fighter (max level 6)
• Single-Class Cleric (max level 6)
• Dual-Classed Fighter/Cleric (max level 5/5)
• Upon reaching level 5 in a single class, switching to dual-classed is prohibited

Elf Class Options: 

• Single-Class Fighter (max. level 7)
• Single-Class Magic-User (max. level 9)
• Dual-Class Fighter/Magic-User (max. level 4/8)
• Upon reaching level 5 (fighter) or level 9 (magic-user) switching to dual-classed is prohibited

Halfling Class Options: 

• Single-Class Fighter (max. level 4)
• Dual-Class Fighter/Magic-User (max. level 3/2)
• Dual-Class Fighter/Cleric (max. level 3/3)
• Upon reaching level 4 (fighter) switching to dual-classed is prohibited.

Dual-Classing: Once a character becomes dual-classed, he is limited to the armor of the more restrictive class at all times. However, apart from the armor restriction, the character may use the better weapons and statistics of the two classes in all other cases. The player need not "declare" which type of character he is adventuring as in a given session. The XP earned are divided between the two classes as the player sees fit.

This way, every race has three class options of some sort. Basically, the new level limits come from the XP required to reach the existing level limits in the rules as written, just redistributed. The one exception is for the elven single-class magic-user, where the XP of a fourth-level fighter added to that of an eighth-level magic-user still only leaves the magic-user at eighth level. So that one I'd bump up to level 9 to justify single-classing.

Morale Musings

I've been thinking about the Ephemera campaign recently, and about the number of PCs and NPC followers therein. As of our last session, we had four PCs and eight NPCs (mostly charmed humanoids) in the group, for a total of twelve characters. Since that last session, we've added two new players to our gaming group, and I'm hoping they'll want to play in Ephemera too when next we decide to go there. Assuming they do, I'll probably have their characters come in each with a follower, which would make a total of sixteen characters.

Given the size of combats that I can see happening in the near future (sixteen or more PCs and followers vs. ten, twenty, or even thirty monsters at a time), it occurs to me that I should make a point of checking morale more regularly than I've normally done before, so that fights end when a group runs away, rather than dragging on until forty or fifty combatants have been reduced to the last man standing.

The Delving Deeper rules give the GM total discretion as to when to make morale checks for monsters and NPCs. I'll probably do something like this:

• make an individual morale check for a monster or NPC when it drops to half its maximum HP
• make a group morale check every time one member of the group is killed 

I'll likely define "group" as "all monsters of a given type" and "all followers of a given PC."

Failing a morale check will have consequences. Charmed NPCs or monsters who fail a morale check make a new saving throw to see if their charm is broken. If the charm breaks, the now un-charmed creature heads for the hills and keeps on running, never to return. Otherwise, fleeing NPCs and monsters, including charmed ones, are affected according to the actual score of the morale throw (a five or less on 2d6 being a morale failure in Delving Deeper):

In addition to normal morale modifiers, each consecutive check in a single combat will be at a cumulative -1 modifier per check previously taken in the fight. And in any case, a natural "2" will always be treated as a 2 regardless of modifiers. 

When monsters flee, their noisy, panicked flight will undoubtedly alert other monsters in the area to the PCs' presence, if they weren't alerted already by the noise of the fight.

Results will be adapted to circumstance; e.g. a group won't run if they have no escape path – they'll obviously cower in place or surrender instead. 

DELVING DEEPER: Another Rule Set I'm Keen On

Not a review but some thinking out loud. Another rule set I'm keen on is Delving Deeper. The reference documents from Immersive Ink – Adventurer's (Player's) Handbook, Referee's Guide, and Monster and Treasure Reference  –  are available for free. Delving Deeper is a clone of OD&D. The one thing I like about OD&D and clones is their inherent simplicity. I like simple.

Delving Deeper has some features I like a lot including:

• Simplicity.
• A thief class.
• A thief class that doesn't suck at low levels – all thief skills have a 4 in 6 chance of success, for the duration of the thief's career.
• A very clear, organized layout, IMO.
• One-minute combat rounds – believe it or not, I like this kind of abstracted combat. With rounds this long, 1d6 damage for all weapons arguably makes sense.
• More "complete," IMO, than S&W White Box (my other favored OD&D clone) – I ran White Box for a year and a half and really enjoyed it (a lot!), but it really felt like it needed to be house ruled. Delving Deeper feels to me more like it can be house ruled, and quite easily, but doesn't need to be.
• Very low verbiage. The text says what it needs to say – in a clear and thorough way – then shuts up and lets you play. 
• Did I mention simplicity? 

Thinking about where I'm going next, in terms of running something, it will likely be a one-shot or very short campaign. An ultra simple rule set has a lot of merit in that context.

Yes, I'm still mulling – and working on a short adventure.

Simon Washbourne's Tombs and Terrors

I normally don't write reviews of anything since I'm generally slower than most bloggers when it comes to spotting rules and other products as they come out. However, there doesn't seem to have been much talk in the blogosphere about Simon Washbourne's Tombs and Terrors, published by Beyond Belief Games.* Many blogs have talked about Washbourne's Barbarians of Lemuria, and Go Fer Yer Gun, so I was a bit surprised that Tombs and Terrors didn't get more press. I picked it up recently and, after a read-through – I haven't played it yet – I'm thinking it has a really good chance of being the next game I run.

Tombs and Terrors is an old-school-style fantasy RPG with a lot of the usual mechanics: six 3d6 attributes, the standard four core classes (along with optional barbarian and troubadour), most of the usual races (except that halflings are out and giant-kin are in), typical combat rules, etc. Strictly in terms of "weight" the rules have a relatively light feel to them, I'd say on par with the various "B/X" editions and clones (that's "weight" of rules, not necessarily flavor or style). The actual length of the rule book is 99 pages.

The Tombs and Terrors rule book offers a number of features that I like a lot, such as:

• An attribute check mechanic based on primary, secondary, and tertiary attributes. Primary attributes are determined by class and race, secondary are chosen by the player, tertiary are what's left over. Primary have a base target number of 12, secondary 15, tertiary 18. Roll d20 and add your attribute modifier (and skill modifier if applicable) to succeed.
• PCs gain an attribute point once every four levels.
• Relatively few race/class/level restrictions. Each race except human has a favored class (automatic 200 xp bonus to start), and a restricted class (max level 8). Otherwise any race can be any class without restriction.
• 0-level spells for the cleric, mage and the troubadour.
• An easy skill system: you get a certain number of skills to start (based on class and INT), and an additional one at levels 3, 6, 9 and 12. Skills add your class level as a bonus to attribute checks where they would apply. You can even take skills not on your class list by announcing you wish to do so one level prior (which implies you are seeking out special training for it).
• Saving throws that are basically treated as attribute checks, using the same mechanic.
• Encumbrance that affects not only movement but also AC (I very much like the latter as it makes encumbrance far more meaningful).

Though my impressions are based solely on a read-through and not on actual play, my sense is that the added features would not present any sort of learning-curve obstacle for anyone already familiar with old-school game mechanics. It all has a very intuitive "well-that-makes-sense" feel to me.

The pdf version of the Tombs and Terrors rule book is available for FREE** at RPGnow:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/84759/Tombs-%26-Terrors-Fantasy-Role-Playing

As is the supplemental Book of Classes:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/85360/Book-of-Classes-for-Tombs-%26-Terrors?src=s_pi

The rule book (but not the Book of Classes) is also available for sale in hardback at Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/simon-washbourne/tombs-terrors-old-school-fantasy-role-playing-game/hardcover/product-13234633.html

As well as in paperback:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/simon-washbourne/tombs-terrors-old-school-fantasy-role-playing-game/paperback/product-13234646.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notes:

*My web search turned up only two [edit] three other blogs that talk about Tombs and Terrors:

http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2011/01/mini-review-tombs-and-terrors.html

http://flynnwd.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-tombs-terrors.html

http://adventuresandshopping.blogspot.com/2011/08/tombs-terrors-rpg.html

**As of the writing of this post.

How 'Bout that Thief?

As I mentioned a post or two ago, I'm working toward running some online chat one-shots and ultimately toward a come-and-go-as-you please megadungeon, and I'm pretty sure I want to run them with Labyrinth Lord. Partly, the choice is based on nostalgia for my favorite version of the game back in the day (triggered by the pdf release of B/X), partly the choice is based on why it's still my favorite version – if I made a list of things from any rules set that I would tweak, delete, or add, LL (or B/X) has the shortest list.

One of the things I would change (from just about any version of early D&D or clone) is the thief. I like the thief concept a lot, but I don't like how useless they feel to me at early levels. For example, at first level, the thief has a 23% chance to move silently and a 13% chance to hide in shadows – both of which are required to backstab in LL (p. 12), giving the first-level thief less than a 3% chance to even have the opportunity to execute a backstab. That's less than one combat in thirty. Similarly with a 14% chance to find a trap and then again a 14% chance to actually remove it, the first-level thief has less than a 2% chance to find and remove any given trap. I've often felt that the early edition thief, at low levels, is just a weak fighter with poor armor.

On the one hand I think the Delving Deeper approach to the thief is a good one. In DD, the thief  succeeds in thiefly skills on a d6 roll of 3-6, or 67% of the time, irrespective of level. This lets him actually do stuff early in his career. On the other hand, he never gets better at thieving, and I'd like to keep the possibility of the thief actually improving his skills as he advances.

So I've reworked the actual LL "Thief Skills Table" to look like this (click to enlarge):

With this table, that same first-level thief has a 65% chance (similar to DD) each for finding and removing traps, giving a 42% chance of finding and removing any given trap. He's still going to miss that trap – or fail to disarm it – over 50% of the time, but he at least has a fighting chance. It beats the heck out of a 2% chance to find and remove a trap. The same applies to the backstab – the thief will successfully move into position again 42% of the time. While this may seem a bit on the high end for backstabbing opportunities, the thief will still fail to move undetected into back-stabbing position more than 50% of the time. And of course as soon as the thief gets his stab in, against one adversary, the remainder of the enemy will be alerted to his presence, and he'll be stuck alone behind enemy lines – so he will still have to use the skill jucidiously.

I'm going to think about this some more, maybe tweak the numbers (65% may be a hair high for first level), but I do plan to boost the thief's abilities in any event. 

Has anyone else out there tweaked the thief ability rules? If so, how did you do it, and how did it work for you?

Chronicles of Blood: First Impressions

Solo Nexus recently reported the release of the Shane Garvey's Chronicles of Blood solo fantasy wargame rules, published by Crystal Star Games and available at Drive Thru RPG.

I have not yet played with these rules but, after a first reading, I find them full of potential, and I'm eager to give them a go in the near future. The rules have a number of features I like:

• Designed specifically for solo play
• Straightforward simplicity – nothing fiddly
• Relatively small playing surface required
• No requirement to use any particular manufacturer's miniatures
• Little book keeping – just keeping track of hits each unit has taken
• FREE core rules with future $1 supplements planned (as was done for their earlier solo adventure game, Chronicles of Arax)

One other thing that I like about the rules is that while they are written for regiment-sized units, they look like they could very easily be played at other unit levels. For example, instead of saying an Elven Archer Regiment rolls d8 to attack with a range of 60 cm and a move of 15 cm etc., you could just give those same stats to a single soldier and make it a skirmish game. There's nothing inherent in the rules as far as I can see in my first reading that makes them have to be for regiments. I think you could play them without adaptation at pretty much any unit scale you'd like.

When I test them out, I'll use them for skirmish-level fights, probably in my Mithril Wars campaign in place of SBH for a game or two just to see how they work.

Giving STEEL AND GLORY a Try

After watching a series of videos by NEUICON on youtube (video 1, video 2, video 3), I've decided to give Avalon Games' Steel and Glory a try.

 

The basic rules are fairly short (about 14 pages in a very reasonable font) and seem intuitive, with no unnecessarily "fiddly" elements as far as I can tell after a first reading. Characters have basic attributes of attack and defense, health and a few other numbers like speed, which determines initiative, and "adrenal," which determines the number and power of special abilities the character can use in the game. Special abilities can be attack and defense options, or other things like fast movement or leadership abilities, and each has a cost in adrenal points. Most characters are divided into factions (Barony, Undead, Barbarians, Elves, Orcs, Dwarves) though there are special "solo" monsters as well that can be bought by any faction.

 

The scenarios range from one-on-one fights to skirmishes with 40 points or 75 points worth of characters on a side. Since most characters are worth about 10-15 points, these would typically break down roughly to one-on-one, four-on-four and seven-on-seven skirmishes. The playing areas range from 6" x 12" to 12" x 18".

All of the above are very positive features of the game for me, as I like relative simplicity of mechanics coupled with individuality of characters, and I like games designed specifically with small numbers of figures and a small playing area in mind.

My only negative impressions are extremely minor nit-picks. First, the character cards have a small font that other forty-plus-year-olds like me may have trouble reading. I remedied this by copy-pasting details of characters I wanted to use into a Word document and made my own half-sheet-sized cards with a larger font – problem solved. Also, there is a consistent typographical error throughout the document (the word "than" appears as "then"), which is mildly distracting.  But, as I say, this is an extremely minor nit-pick, and does not at all impact the content.

Additionally on the plus side, the basic rules are available for FREE at RPGNow and some other places. They come with four character cards (two fantasy and two superhero characters) so you can give the game a try.  To get pdfs of other character cards, you need to buy one or more expansion sets (each no more than $5.99, some as low as $2.99) or make your own using the Advanced Rules (which also sell for $5.99) – the prices seem very reasonable IMO. Each of the expansion sets comes with the printable counters and terrain tiles for use with that set, or you can just as easily play with miniatures, as I plan to do.

I haven't yet had a chance to play with these yet, but after a first read I think they look very, very promising. I can't wait to get in a test game in the near future.

Smaller War Bands with SONG OF BLADES AND HEROES

Reading Leutenant Brittan's Song of Blades and Heroes battle report over at his LEVIATHAN BLOG  made me think that maybe SBH could work better for smaller-scale "heroic" skirmishes than I originally thought. To test this out, I've drawn up some war bands for existing figures in my collection, using the War Band Builder accessible through the "downloads" link at the Ganesha Games site.

Here are the first two that I hope to use in a test battle in the near future.

The Orcs are from Reaper; Krug is a pre-painted Heroscape mini.

 

Barbarians, all from Reaper.

The rock formations in both photos came from the Wal-Mart aquarium aisle.

The big question for me is what the higher-than-average stats for all figures involved will do to the game (if anything).

Game Rules: Planning to Give ARES a Try

I've been hunting for new game rules lately, searching for something that works well with really small numbers of figures (a handful per side at most). I really enjoy Song of Blades and Heroes for warband-size skirmishes. But I'd like to find a rule set to use when I want something more individualized and "heroic," where each character is a hero or villain with his/her own personalized traits. Having looked high and low for a while now, I've narrowed the field to about three sets I'd like to try: Broadsword Adventures (Rattrap Productions), Warrior Heroes: Armies and Adventures (Two-Hour Wargames) and Ares (Majestic Twelve Games). All three look promising. At the moment, I'm leaning a bit toward trying out Ares first, since it appears (at least after a first reading) to have a level of individualized detail and rule mechanism simplicity that both fall right into the range I'm looking for.

 

I'm in the process now of painting up some new figures from Reaper minis, and in the meantime I plan to start statting up some of my existing ones for Ares.