... now with 35% more arrogance!

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Dice-Neutral, Less Clutter

Man, I’m doing a lot of posts on basically just one table.
Thought of another change to the dice-neutral combat table and its two-column variant. The problem with the previous two-column version is that I want the process to involve only moving up/down (or left/right) and counting, no math, because focusing on math = focusing on system over the game world.

So this is not the final table, but gives some indication of what the final table would look like:

Combat Level Armor
Normal Man None Lite Med Hvy Very
Hero Lite Med Hvy Very
Champion Med Hvy Very
Lord Heavy Very
Grand Champ Very

As before, you look up the attacker’s combat level first. Then, move across to the actual armor type, keeping in the same row. Finally, move up that column to the Normal Man row, if not in that row already. The attack is equivalent to one by a normal man vs. that adjusted armor class.

Because of certain limitations to HTML tables, at least when using Markdown, this table is not as fancy or comprehensive as what the final table would be. I’d design the final table in LaTeX or Inkscape. The header row would span the 2nd column to the final column and would provide more information. The “Normal Man” row would act like a second header row. And I’d probably add headless columns between the first and second column for attacks that are better than the base attack (10+ on 1d20.)

There might be a simple subtable like this:

Dice Mechanic Roll High Roll Low
1d6 roll high 3 or more up to 4
2d6 roll high 6 or more up to 8
1d20 roll high 10 or more up to 11

… But another option would be subrows below the Normal Man row, with targets for multiple dice types. I can’t say I like the way that would look (too cluttered and confusing,) but it does eliminate using a second table and avoids any modifiers.

Creative Commons license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0

(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.


  1. This is more complicated. I have to look at it again.

    1. Hmmm... I was hoping it would be less complicated, since you don't have to add or subtract anything. Does it help to number or bullet point the steps?

      1. Find attacker's combat level
      2. Find defender's armor type in that row
      3. Top of that column is effective armor type

    2. No, I just have to look at it again. It seems to work as well. If I write it out by hand I will get it.

    3. Would it help if the target numbers were in rows at the top or bottom? Although that's getting dangerously close to the way combat tables already look.

    4. No, don’t change anything. I think it’s great. It’s my comprehension, not your design.