tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post4485666593645744784..comments2024-03-28T15:10:21.797-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Chartless CombatJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-18634343717094307522010-04-14T06:58:04.492-04:002010-04-14T06:58:04.492-04:00just compared this to the chart in labyrinth lord....just compared this to the chart in labyrinth lord. If you just add +1 on each tier it works great. A third level dwarf gets +2, while a third level cleric and magic user would get a plus one. They can add there str modifiers and I can easily add the monsters AC to that. NICE.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16841934354409819708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17215817183669119832010-01-31T15:53:04.973-05:002010-01-31T15:53:04.973-05:00Like Robert, I've found that brand new players...Like Robert, I've found that brand new players (sans preconceptions of how to "role-play") are often surprisingly creative about combat (and everything else), especially with a simpler system that doesn't have lots of moving parts. If there are lots of rules, I find the players tend to play to the rules rather than to the imaginative situation.<br /><br />d20+LVL+AC is an elegant little algorithm for descending AC. Is there a similar simple formula for ascending AC? I've never used ascending AC myself.Matthew Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343263539473683579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69618193520932696412010-01-31T08:30:10.930-05:002010-01-31T08:30:10.930-05:00In an ideal system, there would be an element of r...<i>In an ideal system, there would be an element of risk management so you could roleplay your character being rash or cautions,</i><br />I believe the new edition of <i>WFRP</i> does exactly this. <br /><br /><i>and perhaps try to infer your opponent's morale and training etc.</i><br />There's a mechanic very much like this in <i>D&D4</i>.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52599623091681255872010-01-30T12:00:31.627-05:002010-01-30T12:00:31.627-05:00Well, zornhau, I’m running three players (who hadn...Well, zornhau, I’m running three players (who hadn’t played an RPG before) through B2 using the (Moldvay) Basic Set. They do more than just roll dice once they’re in combat. They role-play and apply basic tactics. (Not to mention special tactics that spells and thief skills enable.)<br /><br />(When I ran my regular group through B4 a few years ago, they—of course—applied tactics as well. I’ve been really impressed, however, that these new players have done a decent job of it as well.)<br /><br />I do like the ideas you mention. They’re making me think of some possible house-rules. I’m, however, not seeing how the rules prevent decisions and risk management once combat starts.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22150306046145032672010-01-30T11:14:01.660-05:002010-01-30T11:14:01.660-05:00@JM
Most RPG combat is no more granular than a sk...@JM<br /><br />Most RPG combat is no more granular than a skirmish wargame, except that individual players control particular figures.<br /><br />So, you can choose who/what to fight, where, and what with, but once you're in combat, you're just rolling dice with no real control, and hence no opportunity to roleplay.<br /><br />It always struck me as odd, since combat is so important to most RPGs, and central to some character classes.<br /><br />In an ideal system, there would be an element of risk management so you could roleplay your character being rash or cautions, and perhaps try to infer your opponent's morale and training etc.<br /><br />Back in the day, my own homegrown system use multiple dice for fighting: you looked at your opponent's throw and decided how many dice to hold back for your own defence.<br /><br />(However, in the end, my solution was to exchange my polyhedral dice for real swords.)M Harold Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949772130509527838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49744250472377494182010-01-30T01:45:04.748-05:002010-01-30T01:45:04.748-05:00"In the 1st ed. DMG in one of the appendices ..."In the 1st ed. DMG in one of the appendices (the one with the monster stats listed) there is a column that lists a monsters: To Hit AC:0. It wasn't exactly a new concept back then."<br /><br />Of course. Nontheless, it's an extraneous concept that isn't in our OD&D books, adventures, MM listings, nor needed in the first place.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-70514297965399418372010-01-29T22:43:32.847-05:002010-01-29T22:43:32.847-05:00"Delta said...
'I thought THACO resolved ..."Delta said...<br />'I thought THACO resolved this sort of thing?'<br /><br />Why record another statistic when d20+HD+AC does the job? (Also, addition is easier for people than THACO's required subtraction.)"<br /><br />I only mentioned THACO because James M. is clearly in favor of descending armor classes. I play a later edition of D&D myself but those editions aren't the subject of the blog. <br /><br />In the 1st ed. DMG in one of the appendices (the one with the monster stats listed) there is a column that lists a monsters: To Hit AC:0. It wasn't exactly a new concept back then.By The Swordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16799389743529116360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75391785994294863962010-01-29T20:26:22.162-05:002010-01-29T20:26:22.162-05:00I used the tables in the DMG when playing AD&D...I used the tables in the DMG when playing AD&D back in the day, but having played 3.5 for a year, I really prefer ascending AC. When I switched to Labyrinth Lord early last year, I took ascending AC with me.Kiltedyaksmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03462341093016199620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3621443803357769662010-01-29T14:19:18.080-05:002010-01-29T14:19:18.080-05:00"...though for some strange reason, in the DM..."...though for some strange reason, in the DMG table it actually jumps up +2/two levels."<br /><br />It's really just a page-space issue. See the "Special Note" at the bottom of that page: "This table is designed to allow fighters to advance by 5% per level of experience attained, rather than 10% every 2 levels, if you believe that such will be helpful in your particular campaign."Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-41177833598167327482010-01-29T14:15:35.864-05:002010-01-29T14:15:35.864-05:00@Delta
"The AD&D DMG is set up that way&q...@Delta<br />"The AD&D DMG is set up that way"<br /><br />I just took a closer look at fighter's combat table in the 1E DMG. You're right about the average increase of +1/LVL for fighters -- though for some strange reason, in the DMG table it actually jumps up +2/two levels. I kinda like the smoother progression of Target20, with a small increase in skill every level rather than a sudden jump every other level. Though I suppose someone could make an argument for the "staggered" DMG approach.Matthew Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343263539473683579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-90609978126850636032010-01-29T10:42:19.664-05:002010-01-29T10:42:19.664-05:00"That Target20 system seems very elegant. But..."That Target20 system seems very elegant. But doesn't the linear formula d20+LVL+AC make fighting men awfully powerful awfully fast (a fighter would get +4 at 4th level...)"<br /><br />If you played strictly by the LBB's the number at 4th level "should" be +3 (4th level hits plate & shield on roll of 15+3+2 = 20). As I say, the system is on average off by only 1 point.<br /><br />Lots of people play with a 1-point-per-level bonus for fighters. The AD&D DMG is set up that way, so I say "close enough".Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-13194371914068374732010-01-29T09:09:16.036-05:002010-01-29T09:09:16.036-05:00The problem I always had with RPG combat like this...<i>The problem I always had with RPG combat like this is that the player doesn't really get to make any decisions once the fighting starts.</i><br /><br>What do you mean?James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-24302276376338228072010-01-29T09:03:43.528-05:002010-01-29T09:03:43.528-05:00The problem I always had with RPG combat like this...The problem I always had with RPG combat like this is that the player doesn't really get to make any decisions once the fighting starts.M Harold Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949772130509527838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66224277197147701832010-01-29T04:47:50.093-05:002010-01-29T04:47:50.093-05:00@Delta
That Target20 system seems very elegant. ...@Delta<br /><br />That Target20 system seems very elegant. But doesn't the linear formula d20+LVL+AC make fighting men awfully powerful awfully fast (a fighter would get +4 at 4th level, +5 at 5th, etc. vs James' more slowly progressing system where a fighter would be +0 at 1st-2nd level, +2 at 4th, etc.) Or perhaps I'm missing something here?Matthew Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343263539473683579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58300565142974571642010-01-29T03:12:45.009-05:002010-01-29T03:12:45.009-05:00For a 2E fighter, THAC0 = 21 - level_fighter (*).
...For a 2E fighter, THAC0 = 21 - level_fighter (*).<br /><br />For a hit, <br /><br />d20 + bonuses >= THAC0 - AC_monster (**)<br /><br />Substituting (*) in (**) and doing some algebra, we get<br /><br />d20 + bonuses + level_fighter + AC_monster >= 21 (***)<br /><br />for a hit.<br /><br />Taking into account the difference between AC in 2E AD&D and OD&D, the 21 in (***) becomes a 20.<br /><br />So James, your to-hit formula is identical to the THAC0 method for a fighter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-64819630253252517672010-01-29T02:47:27.552-05:002010-01-29T02:47:27.552-05:00It's certainly easier to my mind than THAC0 ev...It's certainly easier to my mind than THAC0 ever was.<br /><br />How easy is this to translate to <i>Labyrinth Lord</i>? The three "core" classes are covered by Target20, but how would I model a dwarf, elf, thief, or halfling?thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58774902302498549782010-01-29T00:55:29.173-05:002010-01-29T00:55:29.173-05:00"I thought THACO resolved this sort of thing?..."I thought THACO resolved this sort of thing?"<br /><br />Why record another statistic when d20+HD+AC does the job? (Also, addition is easier for people than THACO's required subtraction.)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-954599927346018392010-01-28T23:15:29.896-05:002010-01-28T23:15:29.896-05:00I thought THACO resolved this sort of thing?I thought THACO resolved this sort of thing?By The Swordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16799389743529116360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52997002202226405722010-01-28T15:25:02.145-05:002010-01-28T15:25:02.145-05:00Kevin: The way I do it, the answer is "close ...Kevin: The way I do it, the answer is "close enough", usually within 1 point of the values in the charts (to put it briefly: average absolute deviation 1.04).Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-84008734531840459252010-01-28T14:35:01.565-05:002010-01-28T14:35:01.565-05:00Kelvin,
It's a tough question to answer, sinc...Kelvin,<br /><br />It's a tough question to answer, since there's no single combat matrix used in every edition of OD&D and its clones. This replicates the results found in the charts I had been using in my campaign, but it differs slightly from those found in others, no doubt.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-44345835729629555662010-01-28T14:29:57.598-05:002010-01-28T14:29:57.598-05:00I don't have much of a head for maths, so forg...I don't have much of a head for maths, so forgive me for asking if this replicates exactly the results of the to-hit charts, or if it's more of a "close enough" thing?thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12892572440989662382010-01-28T14:11:43.261-05:002010-01-28T14:11:43.261-05:00If you're using the old HD progression (fighte...If you're using the old HD progression (fighters advance 1d6 every level, magic-users advance 1d6 every other level) and if you're not too worried about duplicating the old combat progression exactly, you can just add the hit dice to a PC's attack roll, same as for monsters, and it's not too far off. In fact, if you're using the old "maximum spell level is 6" rule, the maximum spell level a magic-user can use is equal to their hit dice under the old HD progression, which means you can practically eliminate the word "level".<br /><br />I've also got a slightly weird refactoring of the Target 20 algorithm in the works.Talysmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61255948006178405032010-01-28T14:05:09.031-05:002010-01-28T14:05:09.031-05:00Huh. Neat. I still don't understand the prefer...Huh. Neat. I still don't understand the preference for descending ACs, but I suspect that it's just a generational thing that I only don't understand because I didn't grow up using them.Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-17625356065436725982010-01-28T14:04:21.659-05:002010-01-28T14:04:21.659-05:00I used charts back in the day, of course, and late...I used charts back in the day, of course, and later used THAC0, which I'd actually never looked into initially. Used it for years, until recently. I consider myself an old-school gamer at heart, but the ascending Armor Class system proved too good and eficient to pass up. I modified it and things have been running smoother for me.Ed Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069918557904273756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49011894827559366632010-01-28T13:54:54.988-05:002010-01-28T13:54:54.988-05:00Nice!
A big reason why I love Tunnels & Troll...Nice!<br /><br />A big reason why I love Tunnels & Trolls is because there's no need for charts. All you need is the Monster Rating.Chad Thorsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15084711824869449643noreply@blogger.com