Attack Severity and Special Effects

Previously, I introduced the idea of a severity roll that can be integrated with Delta’s Target 20 System, a d20 roll-under system, or even standard D&D (with a little bit more math than the first two.) The basic idea is that any attack with a Severity rating of 4+ is a critical hit with a special effect.

Severity effects can be expanded into a table:

Rating	Severity	Detailed Explanation
0-1	Almost Missed	Attacker’s weapon is weakened if damage = 5+.
2-3	Solid Hit	No special effect, just deduct damage from hit points.
4-6	Critical Hit	Look up damage roll on Special Effect table.
7-8	Super Critical	As critical hit, but apply max damage to hit points.
9+	Ultra Critical	As critical hit, but add max damage to damage rolled.

All results assume the attack is successful, dealing standard damage at a minimum: 1d6 for most weapons, 2d6 for a spear when charging or setting spear for a charge, 3d6 for spear set for a charge against a fast and heavy monster, or other damage results for things like cannon or firearms. Always roll the damage, even if applying max damage to hit points. The damage roll is used in three ways:

1. As a deduction from hit points (Standard damage rules.)
2. As a test for whether a weapon is weakened (5 or more points of damage weakens weapon.)
3. As an index when looking up results on the Special Effect table. (Use the unmodified roll for this.)

Weakened Weapons and Armor

On an Almost Missed result, there is a chance the attacker’s weapon is weakened. This has no immediate effect, just note somewhere that it is a weakened weapon. You can disregard this result if the opponent is wearing light armor (leather, cloth, heavy furs) or is not wearing armor, unless the opponent used a shield to block or a weapon to parry. Any damage roll of 5 or more weakens the weapon.

Weapons and armor can also be weakened when struck by a ferocious blow. Check this the same way (damage of 5 or more = weakened,) but only if the attack is Super Critical or Ultra Critical. Again, you can ignore the weakened test for Light armor or if the attacker’s weapon is a soft, non-rigid material (bullwhip, bare fists, garrote.) If blocking or parrying, only the shield or weapon is tested, not the armor worn.

Any weapon or armor that is already weakened will break if weakened again. Or, to put it another way, it takes two Almost Missed results with damage 5+ to break a weapon, or two Super Critical/Ultra Critical results to break armor.

Cheap weapons and armor, if available for sale, count as weakened, as do rusty weapons and armor. A curse can also count as a weakened effect on either the cursed piece of equipment or on all equipment, if the curse is on the person or location. Weakened equipment can be repaired, but not cheap equipment.

Special Effects for Critical Hits

Consult this table for the base special effect caused by a critical, super critical, or ultra critical hit.

d6		Special Effect
1-2		Painful Blow, injured next action.
3-4		Injured for rest of combat.
5-6		Crippled until healed.
7+		Permanent Injury.

Being injured reduces Move to 3 and reduces effective level to 1 for the duration (next action, rest of combat, until healed, or permanently.) The reduction of level normally only applies to attacks, but if a blow is aimed, the injury will affect that body part. Injured limbs can affect physical skills, an injured head can affect mental skills or spell casting.

In addition to this base effect, each weapon may have a unique special effect based on form of attack.

• Slashing with Sharp Weapons causes bleeding (treat as a mild poison that does 1d6 additional damage every turn after combat unless bandaged.)
• Hacking with Sharp Weapons causes bleeding, but also any permanent injury means a body part is severed.
• Piercing with Sharp Points causes bleeding. If the attack was not aimed at a limb, permanent injury means immediate incapacitation and eventual death.
• Smashing with Heavy Weapons stuns weaker or smaller opponents for 1 to 4 rounds, knocking them prone on 5+. Also, on an Almost Missed result, an attacker using a heavy weapon can be pushed back or knocked prone if they themselves are weaker or smaller than their opponent.

Design Notes

This is basically a redesign of the weapon damage tables replacing multiple tables (one for each weapon type) with a unified Special Effects table and adding more variety via the severity levels. I should in the future revisit that material, especially the unarmed combat material, and update it to this format.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Severity of Attack

There’s a certain elegance in letting the attack roll also equal the severity of the blow. In other words, the higher the roll, the more likely that a successful attack is a critical hit. OD&D has this buried in the monster descriptions under Purple Worm:

Any hit which scores over 20% of the minimum total
required to hit, or 100% in any case, indicates the
Purple Worm has swallowed its victim.

In other words, four points above the target number, or a natural 20, is a critical hit with a special effect (swallowed.) The Greyhawk supplement uses the same mechanic for the Sword of Sharpness, with a critical hit with the special effect “Sever Limb or Head”.

This is a kind of clunky mechanic, especially for either the THAC0 or d20 System approach, but a d20 roll-under system would simplify it:

1. Add Descending AC and either fighter level or monster hit dice together to get a target number.
2. Roll 1d20. If result <= target number, attack is a success.
3. Result rolled, if successful, is the severity.
4. Severity 4+ is a critical hit with a special effect.

Delta’s Target 20 System can also work, but the last digit of a successful result (20+) is the severity, with the understanding that any result of 30 or more is Severity 9. Again, Severity 4+ is a critical hit with a special effect.

But what are those special effects? That’s something I plan to expand on in a follow-up post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Non-Combat Actions and Open-Ended Rounds

There’s a well-known divide between people who want to abstract combat and those who want to simulate combat. In other words, long rounds vs. short rounds. When simulating combat, you break everything down action by action: one roll equals one swing of your sword, one hack with your ax, one stab with your spear. When abstracting combat (my preferred way,) you bundle multiple actions: one roll determines whether your actions that round were a success.

But one thing people sometimes complain about when talking about abstracted combat is what to do about non-combat actions during combat. If using simulated combat, you can just replace one attack with one action. What do you do when each round represents multiple actions?

For very quick, simple actions, like drawing a sword, dropping a torch, or any action that can be done while walking or running, they just happen simultaneously. They don’t interfere with combat unless there’s a whole lot of them. If you need a guideline for “how many actions is too many?” assume combatants get at least one action for every 3 points of Dex.

A longer, more complex action can’t be done while moving. Combatants get one such action in place of their movement for the round, but can still attack. If they take another action, roll a d6: on 5+, they can still make an attack or try another action. Otherwise, what they’ve done so far took the entire round and they have to wait until the next round. They still get to block, parry, dodge, duck, or take other defensive action for the rest of the round, as well as any simple actions as noted above.

This approach means that we can keep the length of a combat round open-ended. It’s about one minute, but could be shorter or longer… we don’t care about the exact length, only when each combatant gets to roll again.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Super Simple Attack Rolls

Some comments people made elsewhere about Chainmail and D&D got me thinking. I actually have no intention of learning/using Chainmail, but I have occasionally considered a pseudo-Chainmail-ian approach to large combats where it’s needed: 1d6 per combatant on a side, kill or incapacitate opponents for every die result that beats a target number based on armor class:

• No Armor = 3+
• Light Armor = 4+
• Medium Armor = 5+
• Medium Armor 6

But that’s not as simple as using 5+ success for everything, so I started thinking: how could I do that?

Roll 1d6 + {HD/2}d6 (round up) for the attacker, discard one die if opponent is wearing Light Armor, two dice for Medium, three for Heavy, four for Extreme. Every +1 on a magic weapon adds a d6, every +1 on magic armor discards an extra d6. As long as one die result of 5+ remains, the attack is successful.

A table to illustrate:

Attacker’s Dice	Dice to Roll
9+	6d6
7 to 8	5d6
5 to 6	4d6
3 to 4	3d6
1 to 2	2d6
less than 1 die	1d6
Ineffective	Auto Fail

On this table: Shift up 1 row for each magical +1 on a weapon, shift down 1 row for each degree of armor or each magical +1 on armor.
Unless I’ve miscoded something when using Anydice.com, the base level (2d6) gives a 1st level fighter about the same chance to hit an unarmored opponent as in the 1d20 alternative combat system, but wearing armor provides better protection than the standard. A 3rd level fighter has a much better chance to hit under this system, but the bonuses start to fall off at even higher levels. I’ve capped the attack dice at 6d6, but 7d6 or 8d6 really doesn’t provide much of a benefit except against magic armor.

It’s a very simple system, and as I said it has the benefit of making everything “5+ on 1d6”. It would even be easy to explain to 5e players: think of it as advantage and disadvantage.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Invisible Random Targets

In yesterday’s post about attacking invisible creatures, I suggested that I might rule out any attacks against invisible creatures at all unless players thought of some other way to decide where to aim. For example, if the ground is covered with dried leaves and twigs, players could say “Listen for crunching leaves or breaking twigs and aim there!” Or, if they have a bag of flour, they could empty it in the air and watch for swirls in the dust… or strew it on the floor and look for footprints.

But what if players say “I attack in random directions!” or something like that?

Turns out I wouldn’t be so harsh as I suggested. I’d use a variant of the same random target rule I talked about in the ranged attacks post and the post on random spell targets.

Roll 8d6, with one die being a different color. If the unique-colored die is the highest result or ties with the highest result, the attack is in the right direction. If not, the character swings at empty space.

Multiple characters attacking random empty space use the same procedure, which means more chances of scoring a lucky hit. If they are standing back to back, two characters each roll 4 dice + 1 different-colored die, three characters each roll 2 dice + 1 different-colored die, and four characters roll two dice of different colors.

If the creature is hit, then just like Chicagowiz’s example, everyone can make normal attacks without the random target roll until there’s a round where no one successfully hit the invisible opponent. After that round, attacks revert to the original random procedure.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Ranged Attacks with Bows: Possible House Rules

In a thread about missile ranges on the OD&D forums, I tossed out some ideas I’m considering to replace the bonus for short and medium range. The idea is to give a benefit without having to adjust the attack roll. I’m reproducing the rules here for commentary, and so that I don’t lose them. All of these rules assume an archer makes a single attack roll, but fires 1d6 arrows for that attack.

1. Short Range: Can aim at a single target for double damage. Otherwise, every opponent in the targeted area rolls 1d6. Highest roll is the target hit. If there is a tie, multiple targets are hit. The number of targets hit is the minimum number of arrows used.
2. Medium Range: Archer can target an individual or an area. There is no damage bonus for targeting an individual, but if aimed shots and hit location are being used, these are allowed at medium range. Targeted areas require all targets in the area to roll 1d6 as for short range.
3. Long Range Archer can’t target an individual or make aimed shots at a specific hit location. Effective level is halved. All targets in area must roll 1d6 as above to randomize the targets hit. Only fighters and their subclasses can make long-range shots.

There’s also an assumption that there are different levels of training. Fighters and any fighter subclass allowed to use missile weapons are the highest level and use the above rules.

Untrained archers are the lowest level of training and are capped at 1st level. This is a standard level cap for anyone using a weapon they have no training in. They are restricted to short range missile fire (can’t make medium or long range attacks) and always require everyone in the direction of fire, friend and foe, to roll 1d6 to randomize the target. They do not get a double damage bonus for aiming at a single target.

Trained archers are the medium level of training, between untrained and true fighters. Any class can pay for training in archery (or other weapons,) Trained archers have no level cap (use their full attack potential when firing arrows) and do not risk hitting allies except when firing into a melee. They are allowed to aim at a single target for double damage at short range. They are also able to make medium range attacks, but these are treated as long range (can’t target an individual or make aimed shots, effective attack level is halved.)

I also added special rules for firing in a Melee.

• If the archer is actually in melee (standing next to an opponent,) they can’t fire arrows because they are too busy parrying and dodging.
• If an archer can somehow step back from the melee and not be targeted (using invisibility, for example,) the attack is treated as long range (half effective attack level, no aiming at individual targets.) Untrained archers cannot do this.
• If the archer is firing into a melee, all characters in the melee, both friend and foe, must roll to see if they are targeted.

All of this deals specifically with using bow and arrow. I haven’t thought over sling missiles yet. Crossbows, however, are treated like bow and arrow, but a crossbow that’s already cocked and loaded can be fired once, even in a melee. It is still treated as a long range attack, as described above.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Shield Defense for Dice Neutral Attack Tables

Wednesday’s dice neutral combat table did not include shields, for a couple reasons. One being: There’s just too many ways shields get changed in house rules.

In standard D&D, upgrading your body armor from leather to chain, or from chain to plate, effectively adds +2 to your defense. Keeping your current body armor but adding a shield is half as effective, adding +1 to defense. If a GM prefers the standard approach and is using a d20 (or 4d6 drop 6,) they can either add +1 to the target number or (my preference) subtract 1 from the attack roll to get the same result.

But that’s not the only way GMs handle shields in D&D. Some people think shields should be more effective, giving them a +2 defense. Or they add different tiers of shield. For the flat +2 approach, the GM can just shift right one column, so that adding a shield is just as effective as upgrading your body armor. For shield tiers, just subtract 1, 2, or 3 from the attack roll based on the type of shield.

Another idea for a shield houserule. If an attack roll hits exactly (roll = target number, not roll > target number,) roll 1d6. On 4+ the shield blocks the attack. A GM can also adapt this for shield tiers, with weaker shields only blocking on 5+, better shields blocking on 2+ or 3+. Or keep the target number static (5+) but use different dice types for different shields: 1d6 for bucklers, 1d8 for standard shields, 1d10 for tower shields.

Or another option: merge the idea of a shield roll with Shields Shall Be Splintered. Roll a 1d6 to block any successful attack. If the result is higher than the damage rolled, the attack is block, but if the result is 5+, the shield is splintered, whether it blocks the attack or not.

If the GM is not using 1d20 for attack rolls, but is using 1d6 or 2d6, then upgrading body armor is only “worth” 1 point of defense. If you modify the target number or the attack roll, this means that a shield will be just as effective as upgrading to a heavier class of body armor. If that’s not what you want, you should use one of the “shield roll” house rules, or use another houserule, like reducing damage.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Dice-Neutral Attack/Saving Throw Table, Adjusted

Almost immediately after I posted the Saving Throw table last Thursday, I realized I screwed up. Oh, sure, the table entries are correct and the table is usable – if you use the table a specific way. A non-intuitive way. But it can be improved.

The way I was expecting the table to be used:

1. Use the header to equate a saving throw category to an armor type, if necessary.
2. Find your dice rating or level title in the columns on the left.
3. Read across the row until you find the armor class you are attacking/saving against.
4. Move down the column to find the target number for the dice you are rolling.

This all works, but the headers are barely getting any use, and aren’t being used in the traditional way. Plus, you have to do some weird math adjustments if you are attacking a weaker armor class at higher levels. I made several attempts at explaining how to make the adjustments, but none of them sounded very clear, and I was not satisfied.

Simply reversing the entries on each row and changing the way you read the table fixes that. So, I made a new table. Here’s how to use it:

1. Look in the header for the column for your target armor type or saving throw category.
2. Move down the column to the row for your dice rating or level title.
3. Read the adjusted armor type (for example, Heroes attack opponents in Medium armor as if they were wearing Light armor.)
4. Find the adjusted armor type in the Suggested Dice Rolls section and use the listed target number.

If the adjusted armor type in Step 3 is blank, count how many columns you have to move to the right to get to an adjusted armor type of None. Subtract that from the target number for Armor Type None, if rolling 1d6 or 2d6. Double this modifier if rolling 1d20 or 4d6-4. This is easier to explain than the adjustments for the previous version of this table.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

The Secret of Descending AC

Screw it, I’m going to add two new armor types to the way I handle armor. But before I explain that, let’s take a detour and talk about descending armor class, since I have avoided it for a while.

There’s a little secret buried in the original AC system, one I’m not even sure Gygax and Arneson thought of. Gygax certainly seemed to have stepped away from the secret when he added negative ACs and a few other things. But it all stems from thinking about the AC numbers. Why does AC run from 2 to 9?

You can multiply AC by 10 to get a rough comparison of vulnerability.

A theoretical AC 10 would be 100% vulnerable. But 100% vulnerable sounds like “automatic hit” to me, and AC 10 definitely wouldn’t work that way in practice for the standard D&D combat system (chance to hit AC 9 is +1 compared to AC 8, +2 compared to AC 7, etc.) Same deal with AC 0, which would be “0% vulnerable” or completely impossible to hit.

It was this sort of thinking that lead me to abandon the modifiers “to hit” for things like cover or aimed blows and instead just divide the AC number by 2 or 3. For 50% cover, or aiming at someone’s arm or head, I’d use AC 5 or actual AC, whichever is better. For a smaller target, like the heart, I’d use AC 3. For a truly tiny target, it would be AC 1.

Now, I’ve been using a system in my monster stat blocks and dungeon modules for a while now where I abandon AC numbers completely and use the descriptors No Armor, Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Heavy Armor instead, so people who use either descending or ascending AC, or another system entirely, can all use my materials. But I still think of them as AC 9/7/5/3 behind the scenes, so I’ve been mulling over whether to do something about AC 1 for a while. And as I worked on some new material recently, I finally went for it, and created a new armor type: Extreme. There’s no wearable armor equivalent. It’s reserved for enchanted, magical, or demonic creatures.

There’s one other armor type beyond that… not AC 0, technically, for the conceptual reasons I previously explained. It’s the armor type I’m calling Abstract, because it’s used for things like “attacking someone’s will to live”. I’ll be using it eventually when I tackle psychic combat. Base chance to hit is 1 in 20.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Contests of Strength and Size

Recent discussions about grappling on Noism’s blog and about ability scores on the OD&D forums got me thinking about the relation between hit dice, size, and strength. Now, I don’t like the approach of setting very high Strength scores based on size. The way I use Strength is: it’s relative to other beings of the same size. Average Strength for a giant is 10, same as the average for a human, but giants are stronger than humans, period, because of their size.

So, for contests of Strength, you compare hit dice, or better yet melee damage, since it’s based on hit dice in OD&D. For a direct contest, like a tug of war or arm wrestling, each side rolls their damage dice and the higher total wins. For something like grappling that is broken into moves and counter-moves, roll damage dice for only one side at a time and take the best die result plus any damage bonus, rather than the total of all dice. A 5+ means success for this round.

Example: Ogre pinning a human on the ground makes an attack roll to grab, then rolls 1+2 for damage. Because of the +2, a roll of 3 or higher succeeds. A pinned human can attempt to break free on the next round by rolling 5+ on 1d6.

Now, you might be using the rule “damage rolls for fighters are 1d6 for every four hit dice.” Or you might only use this rule for non-lethal damage rolls, like the grappling rolls I’m talking about. Either way, I’m thinking of adding this rule:

You can use either your hit dice or half your Strength score, whichever is higher, to calculate non-lethal damage dice for grappling and other contests of strength.

So, a character with a Strength of 18 is equivalent to a 9 HD monster (2+1 damage.) That gives them a fighting chance when grappling some giants, although they will still probably lose when facing storm giants or titans.

Note: For PCs, damage modifiers like the "+1" in "2+1" should only be used when actually rolling damage, not when using the damage dice as if they were a dice pool, as we're doing here. A PC's hit dice and possibly even their Strength score will change over time, and a PC's grapple chances will go up, then down, then up again erratically if you try to use the modifiers. For monsters, whose damage dice remain fixed, using the modifier is OK and won't cause problems.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Speedy Psionic Combat

A further thought on one specific thing that’s wrong with the OD&D/AD&D psionic combat system: the time it takes to resolve. I’m not complaining about how long it takes, but rather… how long it lasts.

Let me explain: There’s a long-running debate about one-minute melee rounds vs. shorter rounds of six seconds or less. One argument for one-minute rounds, put forward by Michael Mornard (Old Geezer/Gronan from the various forums) is that each round of OD&D combat takes about a minute to resolve, so using one-minute rounds makes combat practically real-time.

Psionic combat is supposed to be fast, over in the blink of an eye. It all happens in the first round before the first physical actions are resolved. I imagine part of the reason for not using die rolls for the psionic combat exchanges was to speed it up relative to melee combat. But the system really isn’t fast enough to reflect that.

If you really want psionic combat to be that quick, it should be a one-and-done system. During character creation, instead of recording a single psionic attack strength and defense strength, record one for each attack and defense mode. When psionic combat begins, the combatants secretly pick which modes to use, then reveal their attack and defense scores and compare. Side A can have an attack score that is higher than, lower than, or tied with Side B’s defense score, and can have a defense score that is higher than, lower than, or tied with Side B’s attack score, for a total of nine outcomes:

• High/High: Side A exhausted, Side B defeated.
• High/Tied: Side A dazed, Side B defeated.
• High/Low: Both sides defeated.
• Tied/High: Side A exhausted, Side B dazed.
• Tied/Tied: Both sides dazed.
• Tied/Low: Side A defeated, Side B dazed.
• Low/High: Both sides exhausted.
• Low/Tied: Side A dazed, Side B exhausted.
• Low/Low: Side A defeated, Side B exhausted.

The idea is that each side will finish in one of three states: mentally exhausted, dazed, or defeated.

• An exhausted psychic can’t use psionics until they rest, but are able to take other actions, like melee combat.
• A dazed psychic can’t take any action for at least a round (perhaps there is a die roll based on attack mode?)
• A defeated psychic takes the full effect of the attack mode used against them.

So, after this quick comparison of scores, one or both psychic combatants stumbles and there is a clear winner. Then, the GM rolls either for the length of time dazed or the exact effect of a successful attack and makes it clear what happened as the melee combat begins.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Combat Table in Two Columns

I really wanted the dice-neutral combat table in the previous post to be even simpler, just two columns. Because, you see, shifting right one column is equivalent to shifting up one row. It seems like a waste to have so many columns. But I couldn’t quite get a format that was easy to read and use that way. What I was thinking was something more like this:

Combat Level	Treats This Armor As If No Armor
Normal Man	No Armor
Hero	Light Armor (Leather)
Champion	Medium Armor (Chain/Metal)
Lord	Heavy Armor (Plate)
Grand Champion	Very Heavy Armor

The way you’d use this would be to look up the attacker’s combat level first, then move across to the armor column, then move up or down to the actual armor type, counting the number of rows shifted up or down. That’s the modifier to the base target number. Again, the base number and modifier size depends on the dice rolled:

Dice Mechanic	Target #	Modifier per Shift Up/Down
1d6 roll high	3 or more	+/- 1 point
2d6 roll high	6 or more	+/- 1 point
1d20 roll high	10+	+/- 2 points

For roll under, the target numbers are different and modifiers need to be added to the target number rather than the roll:

Dice Mechanic	Target #	Modifier per Shift Up/Down
1d6 roll low	up to 4	+/- 1 point to target
2d6 roll low	up to 8	+/- 1 point to target
1d20 roll low	up to 11	+/- 2 points to target

Does this seem less confusing, or more confusing? Can it be fixed just with better wording, or is it not worth it?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Dice-Neutral Combat Table

I’ve tinkered with simplifying the combat tables as much as possible. Here’s something I’ve considered before: a dice-neutral table.

Defense	Normal	Hero	Champion
No Armor	N	N+	N++
Light	L	N	N+
Medium	M	L	N
Heavy	H	M	L
V Heavy	V	H	M

Rather than carry on the debate about descending vs. ascending AC, this table focuses on armor descriptions. Similarly, rather than using numeric levels, it uses level titles. You only need to know two numbers to use this table: the value of N (target number to hit No Armor) and the shift modifier appropriate for the dice used. Shifting down a row applies a penalty. Shifting up a row adds a bonus. The same applies to shifting left or right one column.

The letters in the body of the table are abbreviations for the armor types in the leftmost column: a Hero attacking a Medium armor opponent has the same chance of hitting as a normal man attacking a Light armor opponent.

For standard 1d20 OD&D combat, N is 10+. The penalty or bonus for one row or column shift is +/-2 points.

For 1d6 roll high combat, N is 3+. The shift modifier is +/-1 point. This can be used for a crude mass combat system, for example.

For 2d6 roll high, N is 6+, with a shift modifier of +/-1 point.

The main armor types are Light (Leather or Padded armor, or other “soft” armors,) Medium (Chain and other metal/“hard” armors,) and Heavy (Plate and better quality “hard” armors.) Very Heavy is an extra category, useful for higher-tech plate armors, for example. It’s also useful for aimed blows at small targets (stabbing someone in the eye.) Most other aimed blows are treated as an attack against Medium armor, unless the target is wearing a better armor type.

I’m considering adding one other column, for Untrained. This would mainly be for attacks with improvised or out-of-class weapons, or when the attacker is crippled or otherwise seriously penalized.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Reaction Table Combat

Over on Reddit’s OSR forum, I joked that I should have done a revised combat system based on the reaction roll table. For all I know, I may have done it, but I can’t find any post on that.

I don’t mean a 2d6-based attack roll. I believe I mentioned the idea of 2d6 roll under descending AC as a quick & dirty approach. No, I really do mean using the reaction table. That means that, instead of a binary hit/no hit result, you get five possible results (Very Good, Good, Normal, Bad, Very Bad.)

Here’s a quick reaction table hack:

Roll	Result	Result Details
2 or less	Very Bad	Weapon Damaged (Broken, if already damaged)
3-5	Bad	Drop Weapon if damage roll > AC, vulnerable to Counterattack
6-8	Normal	Attack ineffective unless either Dex > 2 x Move or opponent’s armor is damaged
9-11	Good	Success! Attack does standard damage
12	Very Good	Max damage, Opponent’s Armor Damaged

Add +1 to the roll if attacker’s level > defender’s level, +2 if it’s twice defender’s level. Optionally, you can give higher bonuses for higher multiples.

Armor subtracts 1, 2, or 3 from the roll (Light/Leather, Medium/Metal, Heavy/Full Plate)

Shield also subtracts 1 from the roll, but only against melee attacks from the front, or ranged attacks from a specific direction. Other attacks must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Weapon Damaged and Armor Damaged are “tags” that have no mechanical effect except to make weapons and armor vulnerable to future bad results. If attacking barehanded, take 1 point of damage on first Very Bad result, break hand on second, rendering hand unusable.

Drop Weapon results only happen if the weapon’s damage roll exceeds the (descending) AC of the defender. For standard “all weapons do 1d6 damage”, this means that it only happens 1/6th of the time when attacking an opponent in chainmail, 2/3rds of the time when attacking an opponent in plate + shield.

Counterattack is an extra attack by an opponent if their Dex (or 2 x Move) is greater than the attacker’s Dex. The opponent must still roll, however.

Note that a Normal result means the defender takes no damage or other ill effect unless the attacker’s Dex is higher than twice the defender’s Move. It’s a probable “miss”, rather than a definite miss. If the defender’s armor is damaged, they are also vulnerable to Normal attacks.

Multiple Attacks for Fighters

I really need to get back into the flow of posting here again. So here's a topic to start with: how many attacks per round should a fighter get in OD&D? Not talking about attacks against enemies of 1 hit die or less, but house-rules similar to AD&D's "3 attacks every 2 rounds" for 7th level fighters.

Attacks per round is an abstraction, of course, when using one-minute rounds. There are actually many attacks in one minute -- but we only roll once. If high-level fighters get multiple rolls, it's not because they make more attacks per round, but because they have a chance for more significant attacks per round.

I don't like the AD&D system, but I'm thinking of two other options:

1. Keep it as just one roll, but increase the damage: 1+1 dice of damage at level 4, 2 dice at level 8, plus another die of damage every 4 levels.
2. Fighters facing opponents of 2 dice or more get an extra attack roll if their level is twice that of their opponent, or two extra attack rolls if it's three times the opponent's level or hit dice.

Thoughts?

Helm Rule

When I wrote up the new rule for shields, I considered including helmets as well. But I had mixed feelings about that. I already use Shields Shall Be Splintered with helmets, and didn't want shields and helmets to be too much alike. There's also the matter that a shield can be moved to block blows aimed at any location, but realistically, helms should only affect blows aimed at the head, or generic, unaimed blows that could hit the head by accident. In a commment, porphyre77 suggested combining this with the "1 attack in 6 is aimed at the head" rule from AD&D, but I prefer avoiding the extra die roll for that.

In addition, my new priority is trying to eliminate as much "modifier math" as possible. That's part of the underlying motivation of writing the shield rule the way I did. The problem with allowing helmets to use the same rule as shields is: what do you do if you have both a shield and a helmet? I don't want to add the two effects and block all damage rolls of 2 or less. So what I think I would go with for helmets is the following:

Targets wearing helmets ignore any damage roll of 1, as for shields, unless the attacker is aiming for something other than the head. This does not stack with the shield bonus, but does work against backstabbing or other attacks that ignore shields.

Also, since I allow critical hits to cripple the head, I'd allow a helmet to reduce or prevent the added injury. You won't automatically get your head smashed in on a high damage roll to the head if you are wearing a helmet.

Shield Rule

I know I've been off-blog for quite some time, but I haven't forgotten. I've been distracted by some other things... but I've still been thinking about a lot of D&D-related matters, including the PDFs I've promised. Just need to work things out.

Here's one small rule I've been considering:

When using a shield, ignore any damage roll of 1. Damage is not otherwise reduced.

Note that this is in addition to the standard 1 point bonus to defense. It is also in addition to Shields Shall Be Splintered, if that is being used. Off-hand weapons do not get the same bonus. This rule should work with many of the retroclones, but in particular it's meant to compliment some changes I've been contemplating for the combat table.

Background: Although I don't completely buy the argument that shields are underpowered, this seems like a simple way to make them more important without lots of fiddly bonuses. I don't like DR systems you'd see in GURPS or The Fantasy Trip, and more and more, I prefer avoiding subtracting modifiers entirely. Ignoring low results is quick and simple.

I thought about changing it to "ignore any damage roll of 1 or 2", but that might be too much. Plus, it gives the option of using that variant for shield walls or very large shields.

Part of the reasoning behind it is that I treat the damage roll as rating for the attack instead of a measure of physical destruction. Rolling a 1 means you're still doing a potentially deadly attack, but not the best you could do. Rolling a 6 means you've done the best attack possible with ordinary one-hand melee weapons, killing even the luckiest ordinary human.

More or Less Deadly

Here's something I'e been thinking about for a while: using hit point bonuses for monsters as combat bonuses. There's a hint of this in Monster & Treasure: "Attack/Defense  capabilities  versus  normal  men  are  simply  a  matter  of  allowing one  roll  as  a  man-type  for  every  hit  die,  with  any  bonuses  being  given  to  only  one of  the  attacks,  i.e.  a  Troll  would  attack  six  times,  once  with  a  +3  added  to  the  die roll." This seems to have fallen by the wayside, and those trolls with 6+3 hit dice were later reduced to using the 6-8 HD" column on the monsters attacking combat matrix.

But there's a seeming survivor: the water weird. It attacks as a 6 HD monster, but has lower hit dice. Today's post  on the Save or Die blog reminded me, though, that the water weird's hit dice listed in the AD&D Monster Manual are specifically 3+3. Perhaps it's a coincidence that the HD and hp bonus added together equal the effective hit dice, but I'm thinking it shouldn't be, especially when using the older one attack roll per combat turn approach of the LBBs.

My possible new rule: a monster's effective hit dice for attacks equals the total of its actual hit dice plus any hp modifier. This allows us to easily describe monsters that are easy to kill but dangerous for their size: a 2+7 HD creature would have no more than 19 hit points, but would attack as a 9 HD monster, which would normally average 31 hit points. It also allows us to describe monsters that are weak in combat  but hard to kill: a 9-7 HD creature would have an average of 24 hit points and as many as 47, but would attack as a 2 HD monster.

I'd also like to keep my house rule of modifying morale rolls with the hp bonus. That 2+7 HD creature is likely to fight to the death, while the 9-7 HD creature may bolt at the first opportunity.

No Initiative Redux

I thought some more about not using initiative at all, as described in this post. Whether or not I decide to give in and dump d6-only weapons (probably won't,) I do think I've refined it even more.

(1) The side that attacks first announces actions first. If that side also surprised the other, they get to attack, then announce their next attack. If there's a tie (both sides charge, for example,) players get to choose whether to announce first or last. This order stays the same for the rest of the combat.
(2) Hasted actions all go first, then normal actions, then slowed.
(3) Actions are otherwise more or less simultaneous, even though one side announces first. If there is ever a question about interrupted actions, lowest damage goes first. If comparing damaging attacks to actions that don't do damage, roll a d6 for the action's pseudo-damage. If doing this for a spell, the pseudo-damage can't be higher than the spell's level.

There, sorted. Don't really have to bother with extra rolls or comparing Dex or anything else. I've dropped weapon length, although on a charge I would probably still resolve pole weapons first. Otherwise, all weapon length would do is allow a special action, "Move out of Reach". But that's worth a separate post.