I spent the last three days reading the entirety of Dyson's Dodecahedron and I have to say it was worth it. I was about to load one of his maps into GIMP, slap "I read all of Dyson but I didn't even get a cookie!" over it and include it with this post, but frankly I am too tired now.
What got me started initially was simply trying to get my grubby little fingers on every single map he has posted, but then I found so many other fun things to read. Take, for example, his extended play report for The Temple of Illhan. I really wish he had been able to actually write the module with his then-DM, it sounds like so much fun! Or check out his design notes on the various levels of Dyson's Delve, quite inspirational for the dungeon stocker in me. Then there are the random tables covering everything from polearms to lost cities, all thoroughly enjoyable and most even useful.
So aside from singing Dyson's praises, why make a post about this? Well, now I wonder what I've been missing on other "famous" D&D-type blogs. Should I go ahead and schedule a few weeks to read all of Joe Bloch, Robert Conley, and Wayne Rossi? I probably won't get cookies from them either, will I? But what if I don't read them now and they disappear next month? If we're lucky the WayBack Machine has them archived forever in the way we got lucky with philotomy.com. But who's to say? I guess I am getting old and weird, worrying about preserving the collective genius out there. Does anyone else worry about the same thing?
Anyway, I am off to buy myself a cookie now...
Monday, December 8, 2014
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Hit points over time in B/X
I read a claim somewhere that high-level thieves are formidable warriors in B/X and I almost back-stabbed myself for not noticing this before. Then again I rarely play at high levels so at least I have that excuse. At level 3, thieves are still just as wimpy as magic-users of course (details):
An average of 7.5 versus the fighter's 13.5 hit points? Hardly a threat to anything but a lone kobold... Things get a bit more interesting at level 14 as the differences between the various classes become more pronounced (details):
The thief has now moved past the halfling and the magic-user and is closing in on the elf. Of course an average of 32.5 versus the fighter's 50.5 is still not going to promote the thief into the front ranks. By the time we reach level 25, however, all of that changes (details):
Now the thief is second only to the fighter having passed all the other characters on average. Only lucky dwarves could conceivably have more hit points than the thief now. This situation only solidifies by the time we get to level 36 of course (details):
At this point the role of the "backup fighter" has clearly shifted from the cleric to the thief, as long as we ignore armor class anyway. So thieves, while starting out at the bottom of the hit point food chain end up close to the top of it. I found that surprising enough to put together a post with lots of nice graphs for you.
Addendum: Just for kicks, how does B/X compare to AD&D for the core classes? Not surprisingly, AD&D characters at level 20 are quite a bit more hardy than B/X characters (details):
The B/X fighter lines up perfectly with the AD&D cleric and the B/X thief is way behind the AD&D thief. Even the AD&D magic-user, getting to roll until level 11, is slightly more beefy than the B/X magic-user.
 |
| Average hit points at level 3. |
An average of 7.5 versus the fighter's 13.5 hit points? Hardly a threat to anything but a lone kobold... Things get a bit more interesting at level 14 as the differences between the various classes become more pronounced (details):
 |
| Average hit points at level 14. |
The thief has now moved past the halfling and the magic-user and is closing in on the elf. Of course an average of 32.5 versus the fighter's 50.5 is still not going to promote the thief into the front ranks. By the time we reach level 25, however, all of that changes (details):
 |
| Average hit points at level 25. |
Now the thief is second only to the fighter having passed all the other characters on average. Only lucky dwarves could conceivably have more hit points than the thief now. This situation only solidifies by the time we get to level 36 of course (details):
 |
| Average hit points at level 36. |
At this point the role of the "backup fighter" has clearly shifted from the cleric to the thief, as long as we ignore armor class anyway. So thieves, while starting out at the bottom of the hit point food chain end up close to the top of it. I found that surprising enough to put together a post with lots of nice graphs for you.
Addendum: Just for kicks, how does B/X compare to AD&D for the core classes? Not surprisingly, AD&D characters at level 20 are quite a bit more hardy than B/X characters (details):
 |
| Average hit points at level 20 in B/X and AD&D. |
The B/X fighter lines up perfectly with the AD&D cleric and the B/X thief is way behind the AD&D thief. Even the AD&D magic-user, getting to roll until level 11, is slightly more beefy than the B/X magic-user.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
The "Strict" Reading of Spell Books in B/X
A few years back these posts over on Ode to Black Dougal pointed out that B/X spell books work differently than spell books in other D&D variants. In brief, B/X magic-users cannot add spells to their spell book from scrolls and the capacity of their spell books is limited to the number of spells they can actually cast. For example, a level 5 magic-user could have at most 2/2/1 spells in their spell book, that's it. Said magic-user could still memorize a spell multiple times of course, so if their book contained Read Magic and Sleep they could memorize either Read Magic/Read Magic or Read Magic/Sleep or Sleep/Sleep. What they cannot do is add another first-level spell to their spell book, that's that "sweet treat" reserved for magic-users of level 7 or higher.
Apparently I am not the only one intruiged by this so-called "strict reading" of the magic rules in B/X: At least Alex Schroeder seems to agree, but undoubtedly there must be a few more of us? (Feel free to give a shout-out in the comments!) I am actually a recent convert to this approach, for the longest time I thought that BECMI and AD&D had it right instead. Truth be told, I didn't even realize that B/X was different until I saw those posts: The BECMI approach was so deeply ingrained that I couldn't read the B/X rules correctly!
So why do I like this "strict reading" of the magic rules? After all, it seems to significantly "nerf" the poor magic-user whereas more recent editions of D&D have done almost the exact opposite. Let me take you through it...
First and foremost I like that it makes learning a new spell feel more like a significant life choice and less like just adding another stamp to Ye Olde Collection. Under BECMI rules a character who finds two scrolls does not have to make a choice at all: They can simply add both spells to their spell book, case closed. Under AD&D rules there might be a choice, for magic-users with a low intelligence score anyway. On page 10 of the Player's Handbook we learn that magic-users with an intelligence of 9 have at most 6 spells per level in their spell books. However, those with an intelligence of 18 are allowed 18 spells per level and those with an intelligence of 19 have no limit whatsoever. Quickly, when was the last time you saw an AD&D magic-user with a low intelligence score? (Granted, Unearthed Arcana piles some rules about the capacity of spell books on top of that, but those really just turn high-level magic-users into caravans of wagons and guards, traveling libraries if you will. Or maybe into "portable hole aficionados" for that matter.) Ignoring for the moment that spells can't be copied from scrolls, the limits in B/X are much lower than the limits in AD&D: A level 14 magic-user only has "room" for 4/4/4/4/3/3 spells! So suddenly it's not clear anymore that they should really learn Fireball and Lightning Bolt. Or look at it the other way around: A magic-user who does learn both of these spells has obviously chosen the path of a "war wizard" of sorts.
A second reason for preferring the "strict reading" in B/X is that it encourages what I would consider "wizardly" behavior. You cannot just "hunt for scrolls" in monster lairs! Instead you have to either develop "good professional relationships" to potential teachers or you have to lock yourself away for weeks at a time doing "spell research" on your own. Of course there are also "darker" options like blackmailing a potential teacher or even a "demonic pact" of some sort. Whatever it is, there are more interesting choices to be made and more depth is added to the campaign: Cabals of wizards make more sense, a magic-user's reputation suddenly matters, potential teachers may have quests that need completing, etc.
The nature of spell scrolls provides a third and (for now) final reason. In all D&D variants, magic-users who have a scroll and have read it are able to cast the spell from the scroll, thereby erasing it. In AD&D we're told explicitly (see Player's Handbook, page 100) that casting from a scroll only requires speaking the magical incantation, it does not require somatic or material components. It stands to reason that the magic-user who scribed the scroll had to somehow "encode" those things into the scroll thus making them unnecessary for casting from the scroll. This is further coroborated (see Dungeon Master's Guide, page 13) when we're told that spells that normally age the caster actually age the magic-user scribing the scroll, not the magic-user casting from the scroll. In other words, scrolls somehow contain the magical energies of a partially cast spell, lacking only the verbal component (which functions as some kind of "trigger" for releasing those energies). This understanding of scrolls can be used to explain why scrolls cannot be scribed into spell books: The "actual" description of the spell must contain details about somatic and material components and since those are missing from the scroll the information required to cast the spell "from scratch" is incomplete. (Note that of course AD&D goes on to say that you can copy from a scroll into a spell book anyway, but luckily we're not trying to understand AD&D, we're just trying to understand B/X. AD&D actually makes things even worse by allowing magic-users to cast directly from their spell books, see Unearthed Arcana, page 80...) Needless to say I find this distinction between "partially cast spells" on scrolls and "complete spells" in spell books quite satisfying. Gary would probably scold me for trying to use some kind of "consistent reasoning" in a game that features dragons and spells in the first place, but I still prefer for things to "make sense" when they can.
So there you have it, my interpretation of and reasoning about the "strict reading" of the B/X magic system. But I am not quite done. I can never leave "good enough" alone. The strange compulsion to "house rule" drives me further.
Quick, in B/X D&D, what's the difference between a magic-user with intelligence 9 and a magic-user with intelligence 18? That's right, the difference is three more languages and an XP bonus of +10% (see Basic Rules, page B7). Being familiar with AD&D this has always bothered me about B/X, I felt like there should be some other mechanical effect to distinguish those two magic-users. However, things like "bonus spells" of the sort that AD&D gives to clerics for high wisdom scores never sat right with me. (For example it's strange that a high wisdom score only gives bonus spells of the first four levels (see Player's Handbook, page 11), but giving a certain number of bonus spells on each level seems too overpowered.)
Luckily the "strict reading" provides a new option: Have intelligence affect the number of spells/level a magic-user can have in their spell book! Since B/X (strictly speaking) doesn't have standardized modifiers (they are a BECMI invention) we use the number of additional languages and reinterpret it as "number of additional spells per level" that can be written into the spell book. So our level 5 magic-user from above can still cast at most 2/2/1 spells per day, but if he or she has an intelligence of 16 they could have 4/4/3 spells in their spell book (instead of just 2/2/1). The effect of intelligence on "Maximum Number of Spells/Level" from AD&D actually provides a precendent for this and the rule is simpler than what ACKS does with "repertoires" and the intelligence bonus for those (see Adventurer Conqueror King, page 66+). I don't think it's overpowered either, after all a level 14 magic-user with INT 18 could have only 7/7/7/7/6/6 in their spell book, a far cry from the 12/12/12/12/12/12 actually available in B/X.
Total win in my book.
Addendum: While writing all of this up I noticed that B/X interprets low intelligence scores as a limited ability to speak/read/write. However, magic-users are not required to have a minimum intelligence score. This either implies magic-users who can be almost braindead yet cast Fireball or a missing minimum requirement. I am about to house-rule that magic-users need a minimum intelligence of 9 just like elves. Whether I will allow elves to have additional spells in their spell books for high intelligence also remains to be seen.
Update 2014/12/11: I just noticed that my friend Delta had already been over the "Where are the somatic components?" territory a few years ago, albeit in a slightly different context. Then again, Dan has written about everything D&D already, so maybe I don't have to feel too horribly bad...
Apparently I am not the only one intruiged by this so-called "strict reading" of the magic rules in B/X: At least Alex Schroeder seems to agree, but undoubtedly there must be a few more of us? (Feel free to give a shout-out in the comments!) I am actually a recent convert to this approach, for the longest time I thought that BECMI and AD&D had it right instead. Truth be told, I didn't even realize that B/X was different until I saw those posts: The BECMI approach was so deeply ingrained that I couldn't read the B/X rules correctly!
So why do I like this "strict reading" of the magic rules? After all, it seems to significantly "nerf" the poor magic-user whereas more recent editions of D&D have done almost the exact opposite. Let me take you through it...
First and foremost I like that it makes learning a new spell feel more like a significant life choice and less like just adding another stamp to Ye Olde Collection. Under BECMI rules a character who finds two scrolls does not have to make a choice at all: They can simply add both spells to their spell book, case closed. Under AD&D rules there might be a choice, for magic-users with a low intelligence score anyway. On page 10 of the Player's Handbook we learn that magic-users with an intelligence of 9 have at most 6 spells per level in their spell books. However, those with an intelligence of 18 are allowed 18 spells per level and those with an intelligence of 19 have no limit whatsoever. Quickly, when was the last time you saw an AD&D magic-user with a low intelligence score? (Granted, Unearthed Arcana piles some rules about the capacity of spell books on top of that, but those really just turn high-level magic-users into caravans of wagons and guards, traveling libraries if you will. Or maybe into "portable hole aficionados" for that matter.) Ignoring for the moment that spells can't be copied from scrolls, the limits in B/X are much lower than the limits in AD&D: A level 14 magic-user only has "room" for 4/4/4/4/3/3 spells! So suddenly it's not clear anymore that they should really learn Fireball and Lightning Bolt. Or look at it the other way around: A magic-user who does learn both of these spells has obviously chosen the path of a "war wizard" of sorts.
A second reason for preferring the "strict reading" in B/X is that it encourages what I would consider "wizardly" behavior. You cannot just "hunt for scrolls" in monster lairs! Instead you have to either develop "good professional relationships" to potential teachers or you have to lock yourself away for weeks at a time doing "spell research" on your own. Of course there are also "darker" options like blackmailing a potential teacher or even a "demonic pact" of some sort. Whatever it is, there are more interesting choices to be made and more depth is added to the campaign: Cabals of wizards make more sense, a magic-user's reputation suddenly matters, potential teachers may have quests that need completing, etc.
The nature of spell scrolls provides a third and (for now) final reason. In all D&D variants, magic-users who have a scroll and have read it are able to cast the spell from the scroll, thereby erasing it. In AD&D we're told explicitly (see Player's Handbook, page 100) that casting from a scroll only requires speaking the magical incantation, it does not require somatic or material components. It stands to reason that the magic-user who scribed the scroll had to somehow "encode" those things into the scroll thus making them unnecessary for casting from the scroll. This is further coroborated (see Dungeon Master's Guide, page 13) when we're told that spells that normally age the caster actually age the magic-user scribing the scroll, not the magic-user casting from the scroll. In other words, scrolls somehow contain the magical energies of a partially cast spell, lacking only the verbal component (which functions as some kind of "trigger" for releasing those energies). This understanding of scrolls can be used to explain why scrolls cannot be scribed into spell books: The "actual" description of the spell must contain details about somatic and material components and since those are missing from the scroll the information required to cast the spell "from scratch" is incomplete. (Note that of course AD&D goes on to say that you can copy from a scroll into a spell book anyway, but luckily we're not trying to understand AD&D, we're just trying to understand B/X. AD&D actually makes things even worse by allowing magic-users to cast directly from their spell books, see Unearthed Arcana, page 80...) Needless to say I find this distinction between "partially cast spells" on scrolls and "complete spells" in spell books quite satisfying. Gary would probably scold me for trying to use some kind of "consistent reasoning" in a game that features dragons and spells in the first place, but I still prefer for things to "make sense" when they can.
So there you have it, my interpretation of and reasoning about the "strict reading" of the B/X magic system. But I am not quite done. I can never leave "good enough" alone. The strange compulsion to "house rule" drives me further.
Quick, in B/X D&D, what's the difference between a magic-user with intelligence 9 and a magic-user with intelligence 18? That's right, the difference is three more languages and an XP bonus of +10% (see Basic Rules, page B7). Being familiar with AD&D this has always bothered me about B/X, I felt like there should be some other mechanical effect to distinguish those two magic-users. However, things like "bonus spells" of the sort that AD&D gives to clerics for high wisdom scores never sat right with me. (For example it's strange that a high wisdom score only gives bonus spells of the first four levels (see Player's Handbook, page 11), but giving a certain number of bonus spells on each level seems too overpowered.)
Luckily the "strict reading" provides a new option: Have intelligence affect the number of spells/level a magic-user can have in their spell book! Since B/X (strictly speaking) doesn't have standardized modifiers (they are a BECMI invention) we use the number of additional languages and reinterpret it as "number of additional spells per level" that can be written into the spell book. So our level 5 magic-user from above can still cast at most 2/2/1 spells per day, but if he or she has an intelligence of 16 they could have 4/4/3 spells in their spell book (instead of just 2/2/1). The effect of intelligence on "Maximum Number of Spells/Level" from AD&D actually provides a precendent for this and the rule is simpler than what ACKS does with "repertoires" and the intelligence bonus for those (see Adventurer Conqueror King, page 66+). I don't think it's overpowered either, after all a level 14 magic-user with INT 18 could have only 7/7/7/7/6/6 in their spell book, a far cry from the 12/12/12/12/12/12 actually available in B/X.
Total win in my book.
Addendum: While writing all of this up I noticed that B/X interprets low intelligence scores as a limited ability to speak/read/write. However, magic-users are not required to have a minimum intelligence score. This either implies magic-users who can be almost braindead yet cast Fireball or a missing minimum requirement. I am about to house-rule that magic-users need a minimum intelligence of 9 just like elves. Whether I will allow elves to have additional spells in their spell books for high intelligence also remains to be seen.
Update 2014/12/11: I just noticed that my friend Delta had already been over the "Where are the somatic components?" territory a few years ago, albeit in a slightly different context. Then again, Dan has written about everything D&D already, so maybe I don't have to feel too horribly bad...
Monday, November 24, 2014
The "Evolve Rules" Table
Hidden in a secret cobweb-filled vault under TSR's former Lake Geneva headquarters we found a curious stone tablet of eldritch origin that had been laboriously inscribed with the following:
Apparently an (incomplete!) copy of the tablet was made by certain WotC delvers when they first explored the ruins of TSR after acquiring a deed to their holdings. It's unclear what mistakes they made in their transcription, but they must have made some...
To produce a new edition of the rules, start with the current edition, roll on this table 3 times (re-rolling duplicates), and find new artists.
d8 Change 1 Add a new playable race, roll on any of the current edition's random encounter table for race. 2 Remove a playable race without explanation OR re-roll level limits for each class using 2d6+2. 3 Change monster hit dice from d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d6 as compared with the current edition. 4 Add or remove specialist magic-users, depending on whether or not the current edition has them. 5 Change how rangers pick their favored enemy; if there currently are no rangers, introduce them. 6 Roll d6: 1-3 combat is Theatre of the Mind; 4-5 combat is on square grids; 6 combat is on hex grids. 7 Number of books/boxed sets to spread new edition rules out over: 3d20-2, reroll 1s. 8 Add only 0.5 to edition, not 1.
Apparently an (incomplete!) copy of the tablet was made by certain WotC delvers when they first explored the ruins of TSR after acquiring a deed to their holdings. It's unclear what mistakes they made in their transcription, but they must have made some...
Riffing on 2d6: Reaction Rolls
I've started to take a real liking to 2d6 as a dice mechanic. For the longest time I didn't actually care for it, I was a fan of rolling a d20 for almost everything. But I've spent a lot of time thinking about the classic reaction roll in D&D (inspired in part by this post) and the longer it sat around in my brain, so more useful the probabilities created by 2d6 seemed to get. Here's how that reaction roll works abstractly, at least in most D&D-variants (B/X D&D, page B24 for example):
This has some nice properties. Obviously the "neutral" outcome is most likely which is probably just as well. After all, this is meant for a confrontation with a random pack of monsters who just popped around a corner. If both sides indeed "try to chat" that should probably lead to a temporary stalemate more often than not. Then there's a pretty decent chance for making "progress" in one direction or the other. I think that fits the "random negotiation" model again where both parties can usually feel that things are starting to slip before any actual stabbing occurs. Finally there's a pretty slim chance that things lead to immediate hostilities or immediate friendship. Neither of these should be very likely when you turn a corner and suddenly face a dozen kobolds: your side may be worried about being outnumbered, but their side should be worried about your big swords. So to me, this is just about perfect for monster reactions.
It's strange that Gary Gygax decided to mess with this for AD&D where reaction rolls are suddenly percentile-based. Here's what he (unenthusiastically in my opinion) proposes in the Dungeon Master's Guide (page 63), again abstracted a bit:
What exactly are three versions of "neutral" good for except to complicate the table and to force the poor referee to be prepared for seven different outcomes to portray? Five different outcomes already enough of a workload! Also we get slightly increased chances for "really bad" and "really good" at the price of upping the total chance for "not sure yet" to 50% instead of 44.45%. That really only seems to lengthen the average time spent on the mechanic (negotiations take longer to conclude). As far as I am concerned, this is one of several cases where Gary was trying too hard to be "advanced" as it were.
If the point was to make the extreme outcomes more likely, he could have achieved a similar effect just by using different bins:
I am not sure if I am the first person to propose this? Maybe Gary even tried it but decided that 8.34% is too much? Who knows with these things...
Interestingly the reaction roll comes in two variants in OD&D. The "monster reaction" variant was actually an even simpler 2d6 roll with only three possible outcomes (Vol 3, page 12):
This variant is also used in the Confusion spell (Vol 1, page 27). The variant with 5 outcomes (as above from B/X) was used only when recruiting monsters (Vol 1, page 12), not when encountering them.
Using the simpler OD&D table with three outcomes, there's yet another variant we could construct by attaching "special meaning" to rolling doubles. For each of the three outcomes there are two ways of rolling doubles: 1-1 and 2-2 for "really bad", 3-3 and 4-4 for "really neutral", 5-5 and 6-6 for "really good" as it were. It's easy to interpret "really bad" as "monsters attack" and "really good" as "monsters help" but what the heck does "really neutral" mean? Maybe that negotiations end right there and the monsters just decide to leave? Seems reasonable I guess. Opinions?
In terms of probabilities we now get something a bit more complicated to figure out, but it's not impossible. It is, however, a pain to put into a table because the "special outcomes" are not a contiguous range:
So for the "non-neutral" outcomes, that's also close to what Gary did with his AD&D reaction roll. On top of that it's pretty cute to make doubles meaningful, at least I find it fun.
I don't know if this turns anybody else on to 2d6 but I sure had fun writing it all up. There's more in my brain regarding 2d6, at least the "turn undead" mechanic and using 2d6 for skill checks. We'll see when I have the time to write them up. In the meantime, I'd love to hear your take on 2d6 in general and reaction rolls in particular.
Update 2014/12/11: Who would have thunk it, there are still more variants on the reaction roll! I noticed this earlier today when reading this post over at DHBoggs' fascinating blog. The version he gives comes from the "New Easy-to-Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" but it's also in the Rules Cyclopedia (page 93). Here's my reproduction with percentages inserted as I've done for the other versions above:
Given the historical precedent discussed above, those asymmetric ranges are certainly strange: Monsters are now more likely to attack than to be cooperative! (Maybe that's just as well, after all the later versions of the game seem to encourage combat more anyway.) The AD&D idea of "bias" is back again, so there's a good chance (a 47.22% chance in fact!) that you'll roll on this table at least twice before getting a result (the rules recommend stopping after three such rolls). Note, however, that there's no longer a "good" and "bad" category, only the extreme outcomes are actually possible.
Now if you think this is a bad table for the reaction roll, think again. Think hard! Because I am about to show you an even worse one. If my brain is any indication, we simply repress things we find horrible even if we grow up with them. Case in point, I played a long-ish campaign using the Rules Cyclopedia back when it came out. I thought I knew those rules pretty well. But when I first wrote this post, I couldn't remember this whacky reaction roll table at all. I must have repressed it!
But now open your 1983 Mentzer Basic Set, Dungeon Masters Rulebook, and turn to page 22. Yes, look at that triply-nested monstrosity. I won't even type it up, I'll just use a scan:
I know I certainly repressed that one. There's literally no record of this anywhere in my brain. And yet that's the D&D I grew up with, the D&D I played forever and ever before getting the Rules Cyclopedia. Did you repress it too? In protest, I'll leave the analysis of this table to someone else.
| 2d6 | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | really bad | 2.78% |
| 3-5 | bad | 25% |
| 6-8 | neutral | 44.45% |
| 9-11 | good | 25% |
| 12 | really good | 2.78% |
This has some nice properties. Obviously the "neutral" outcome is most likely which is probably just as well. After all, this is meant for a confrontation with a random pack of monsters who just popped around a corner. If both sides indeed "try to chat" that should probably lead to a temporary stalemate more often than not. Then there's a pretty decent chance for making "progress" in one direction or the other. I think that fits the "random negotiation" model again where both parties can usually feel that things are starting to slip before any actual stabbing occurs. Finally there's a pretty slim chance that things lead to immediate hostilities or immediate friendship. Neither of these should be very likely when you turn a corner and suddenly face a dozen kobolds: your side may be worried about being outnumbered, but their side should be worried about your big swords. So to me, this is just about perfect for monster reactions.
It's strange that Gary Gygax decided to mess with this for AD&D where reaction rolls are suddenly percentile-based. Here's what he (unenthusiastically in my opinion) proposes in the Dungeon Master's Guide (page 63), again abstracted a bit:
| d% | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 1-5 | really bad | 5% |
| 6-25 | bad | 20% |
| 26-45 | neutral, negative bias | 20% |
| 46-55 | neutral | 10% |
| 56-75 | neutral, positive bias | 20% |
| 76-95 | good | 20% |
| 96-100 | really good | 5% |
What exactly are three versions of "neutral" good for except to complicate the table and to force the poor referee to be prepared for seven different outcomes to portray? Five different outcomes already enough of a workload! Also we get slightly increased chances for "really bad" and "really good" at the price of upping the total chance for "not sure yet" to 50% instead of 44.45%. That really only seems to lengthen the average time spent on the mechanic (negotiations take longer to conclude). As far as I am concerned, this is one of several cases where Gary was trying too hard to be "advanced" as it were.
If the point was to make the extreme outcomes more likely, he could have achieved a similar effect just by using different bins:
| 2d6 | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2-3 | really bad | 8.34% |
| 4-5 | bad | 19.44% |
| 6-8 | neutral | 44.45% |
| 9-10 | good | 19.44% |
| 11-12 | really good | 8.34% |
I am not sure if I am the first person to propose this? Maybe Gary even tried it but decided that 8.34% is too much? Who knows with these things...
Interestingly the reaction roll comes in two variants in OD&D. The "monster reaction" variant was actually an even simpler 2d6 roll with only three possible outcomes (Vol 3, page 12):
| 2d6 | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2-5 | bad | 27.78% |
| 6-8 | neutral | 44.45% |
| 9-12 | good | 27.78% |
This variant is also used in the Confusion spell (Vol 1, page 27). The variant with 5 outcomes (as above from B/X) was used only when recruiting monsters (Vol 1, page 12), not when encountering them.
Using the simpler OD&D table with three outcomes, there's yet another variant we could construct by attaching "special meaning" to rolling doubles. For each of the three outcomes there are two ways of rolling doubles: 1-1 and 2-2 for "really bad", 3-3 and 4-4 for "really neutral", 5-5 and 6-6 for "really good" as it were. It's easy to interpret "really bad" as "monsters attack" and "really good" as "monsters help" but what the heck does "really neutral" mean? Maybe that negotiations end right there and the monsters just decide to leave? Seems reasonable I guess. Opinions?
In terms of probabilities we now get something a bit more complicated to figure out, but it's not impossible. It is, however, a pain to put into a table because the "special outcomes" are not a contiguous range:
| 2d6 | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2-5 | really bad | 5.56% |
| 2-5 | bad | 22.22% |
| 6-8 | really neutral | 5.56% |
| 6-8 | neutral | 38.89% |
| 9-12 | really good | 5.56% |
| 9-12 | good | 22.22% |
So for the "non-neutral" outcomes, that's also close to what Gary did with his AD&D reaction roll. On top of that it's pretty cute to make doubles meaningful, at least I find it fun.
I don't know if this turns anybody else on to 2d6 but I sure had fun writing it all up. There's more in my brain regarding 2d6, at least the "turn undead" mechanic and using 2d6 for skill checks. We'll see when I have the time to write them up. In the meantime, I'd love to hear your take on 2d6 in general and reaction rolls in particular.
Update 2014/12/11: Who would have thunk it, there are still more variants on the reaction roll! I noticed this earlier today when reading this post over at DHBoggs' fascinating blog. The version he gives comes from the "New Easy-to-Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" but it's also in the Rules Cyclopedia (page 93). Here's my reproduction with percentages inserted as I've done for the other versions above:
| 2d6 | Outcome | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2-3 | really bad | 8.34% |
| 4-6 | neutral, negative bias | 33.33% |
| 7-9 | neutral | 41.67% |
| 10-11 | neutral, positive bias | 13.89% |
| 12 | really good | 2.78% |
Given the historical precedent discussed above, those asymmetric ranges are certainly strange: Monsters are now more likely to attack than to be cooperative! (Maybe that's just as well, after all the later versions of the game seem to encourage combat more anyway.) The AD&D idea of "bias" is back again, so there's a good chance (a 47.22% chance in fact!) that you'll roll on this table at least twice before getting a result (the rules recommend stopping after three such rolls). Note, however, that there's no longer a "good" and "bad" category, only the extreme outcomes are actually possible.
Now if you think this is a bad table for the reaction roll, think again. Think hard! Because I am about to show you an even worse one. If my brain is any indication, we simply repress things we find horrible even if we grow up with them. Case in point, I played a long-ish campaign using the Rules Cyclopedia back when it came out. I thought I knew those rules pretty well. But when I first wrote this post, I couldn't remember this whacky reaction roll table at all. I must have repressed it!
But now open your 1983 Mentzer Basic Set, Dungeon Masters Rulebook, and turn to page 22. Yes, look at that triply-nested monstrosity. I won't even type it up, I'll just use a scan:
I know I certainly repressed that one. There's literally no record of this anywhere in my brain. And yet that's the D&D I grew up with, the D&D I played forever and ever before getting the Rules Cyclopedia. Did you repress it too? In protest, I'll leave the analysis of this table to someone else.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
The Trouble with Movement Rates
I am not sure why I suddenly had an urge to figure out how various editions of D&D handled movement rates for various creatures, but here's the result of my very brief study. I chose to focus on creatures that seem "familiar enough" to allow an "informed guess" of sorts, in other words I chose creatures I cared about for one reason or another. Here we go:
At first everything looks great, a wonderful consistency seems to rule across the entire 1970s and early 1980s. Then, however, the mischief becomes more obvious. Halflings used to be just a fast as elves in Chainmail, but their feet move a lot slower in AD&D and B/X; curiously neither OD&D or Holmes bother with Halflings, one would hope that maybe the "regular" movement (of 12" or 120') for player characters might be called for?
Kobolds are apparently under the influence of a Haste spell for Holmes, everybody else agreed that they are too short to move fast? Orcs, on the other hand, are given Formula-1 treatment only by B/X. Skeletons and Treants get the Haste spell by Gary Gygax himself in AD&D. The slow Trolls in Chainmail might be forgivable because there the category is actually "Trolls, Ogres" for whatever reason. Finally my favorite pet-peeve: Zombies, described as particularly slow in all editions that have them, suddenly run circles around everybody else in Holmes and B/X.
Looking at this, I find it difficult to determine who was smoking what when they put the monsters for their game together. Slowing down Halflings to somewhere between Elves and Dwarves? Maybe. Speeding up Skeletons and Zombies? What? Am I the only person in the world for whom "Zombie" always meant "Romero Zombie" while Ghoul was closer to "28 Days Later Zombie"? Maybe the size of a Treant (long legs) justifies giving them the same movement rate that Giants (almost) consistently get? But what about Tolkien's take on Ents and their rather slow habits?
I didn't spend the time to check what more recent retro-clones do with these movement rates. Well, I briefly checked on Delving Deeper and found that Simon has a much more rational set of movement rates. But I do wonder how many have copied "Zombie 120'/turn" without thinking twice about it...
Anyone else want to share their pet-peeves about movement rates?
Update 2014/11/23: Alright, I couldn't contain my curiousity so I checked a few retro clones regarding these monsters. Here's what I found:
Fascinating, isn't it? Delving Deeper's slightly faster Dwarves I can get behind, but that might be because I play a dwarf in my weekly game and I hate that without my boots of flying almost every monster can run away from my axe. Swords & Wizardry once again forgets Halflings in the monster section (just like Holmes), but at least everybody else seems to agree on their movement rate. But aside from Kobolds and Trolls, the remaining monsters are all over the place again, nobody can agree. And Labyrinth Lord is officially the least "thoughtful" clone because Dan copied both the fast movement and the slow description, just like predicted...
| Creature | B/X | AD&D | Chainmail | OD&D | Holmes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwarf | 60' | 6" | 6" | 6" | 60' |
| Elf | 120' | 12" | 12" | 12" | 120' |
| Ghoul | 90' | 9" | - | 9" | 90' |
| Goblin | 60' | 6" | 6" | 6" | 60' |
| Halfling | 90' | 9" | 12" | - | - |
| Kobold | 60' | 6" | 6" | 6" | 120' |
| Orc | 120' | 9" | 9" | 9" | 90' |
| Skeleton | 60' | 12" | - | 6" | 60' |
| Treant | 60' | 12" | 6" | 6" | - |
| Troll | 120' | 12" | 9" | 12" | 120' |
| Zombie | 120' | 6 | - | 6 | 120' |
At first everything looks great, a wonderful consistency seems to rule across the entire 1970s and early 1980s. Then, however, the mischief becomes more obvious. Halflings used to be just a fast as elves in Chainmail, but their feet move a lot slower in AD&D and B/X; curiously neither OD&D or Holmes bother with Halflings, one would hope that maybe the "regular" movement (of 12" or 120') for player characters might be called for?
Kobolds are apparently under the influence of a Haste spell for Holmes, everybody else agreed that they are too short to move fast? Orcs, on the other hand, are given Formula-1 treatment only by B/X. Skeletons and Treants get the Haste spell by Gary Gygax himself in AD&D. The slow Trolls in Chainmail might be forgivable because there the category is actually "Trolls, Ogres" for whatever reason. Finally my favorite pet-peeve: Zombies, described as particularly slow in all editions that have them, suddenly run circles around everybody else in Holmes and B/X.
Looking at this, I find it difficult to determine who was smoking what when they put the monsters for their game together. Slowing down Halflings to somewhere between Elves and Dwarves? Maybe. Speeding up Skeletons and Zombies? What? Am I the only person in the world for whom "Zombie" always meant "Romero Zombie" while Ghoul was closer to "28 Days Later Zombie"? Maybe the size of a Treant (long legs) justifies giving them the same movement rate that Giants (almost) consistently get? But what about Tolkien's take on Ents and their rather slow habits?
I didn't spend the time to check what more recent retro-clones do with these movement rates. Well, I briefly checked on Delving Deeper and found that Simon has a much more rational set of movement rates. But I do wonder how many have copied "Zombie 120'/turn" without thinking twice about it...
Anyone else want to share their pet-peeves about movement rates?
Update 2014/11/23: Alright, I couldn't contain my curiousity so I checked a few retro clones regarding these monsters. Here's what I found:
| Creature | OSRIC | LL | S&W | DD | ACKS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwarf | 60' | 60' | 6 | 9 | 60' |
| Elf | 120' | 120' | 12 | 12 | 120' |
| Ghoul | 90' | 90' | 9 | 9 | 90' |
| Goblin | 60' | 60' | 9 | 9 | 60' |
| Halfling | 90' | 90' | - | 9 | 90' |
| Kobold | 60' | 60' | 6 | 6 | 60' |
| Orc | 90' | 120' | 12 | 9 | 120' |
| Skeleton | 120' | 60' | 12 | 6 | 120' |
| Treant | 120' | 60' | 12 | 6 | 60' |
| Troll | 120' | 120' | 12 | 12 | 120' |
| Zombie | 60' | 120' | 6 | 6 | 60' |
Fascinating, isn't it? Delving Deeper's slightly faster Dwarves I can get behind, but that might be because I play a dwarf in my weekly game and I hate that without my boots of flying almost every monster can run away from my axe. Swords & Wizardry once again forgets Halflings in the monster section (just like Holmes), but at least everybody else seems to agree on their movement rate. But aside from Kobolds and Trolls, the remaining monsters are all over the place again, nobody can agree. And Labyrinth Lord is officially the least "thoughtful" clone because Dan copied both the fast movement and the slow description, just like predicted...
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Saving Throws in Mentzer Expert Set
I am working on a general comparison of the B/X and BECMI rulesets and as part of that project I had to compare saving throws. That's when I noticed that the BECMI Expert Set has something of a problem: Inconsistent saving throw tables. The saving throw tables are printed twice, once with each character class description and once as part of the combat tables. Sadly those saving throw tables don't agree. Take, for example, the saving throws for halflings. On page 19 we find the following table:
| 1-3 | 4-6 | 7-8 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Death/Poison | 8 | 6 | 4 |
| Magic Wands | 9 | 7 | 5 |
| Paralysis/Stone | 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Dragon Breath | 13 | 10 | 7 |
| Rod/Staff/Spell | 12 | 10 | 8 |
But then on page 29 we find the following table:
| 1-3 | 4-6 | 7-8 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Death/Poison | 8 | 5 | 2 |
| Magic Wands | 9 | 6 | 3 |
| Paralysis/Stone | 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Breath Attack | 13 | 8 | 5 |
| Rod/Staff/Spell | 12 | 9 | 4 |
It doesn't end there, in fact most of the saving throw tables are different between those two locations in the book. As far as I can tell only those for thieves are the same between the class description and the combat tables.
I am still trying for figure this out. There are simply too many differences to treat this as "just a typo" which was my first suspicion. It seems more likely that one set of tables comes from an earlier version of the manuscript. Overall the tables printed with the class descriptions seem more sane, so I would assume that the tables on page 29 are "wrong" and from an earlier draft. Just a guess of course. Opinions anyone?
Update 2014/05/07: Apparently later printings of the Expert Set correct this inconsistency by using the saving throw tables from page 29 everywhere. But the Rules Cyclopedia is actually different again! For example the "Halfling 4-6" saving throws are 5/6/7/9/8 in that edition. That's a more consistent pattern again, but it's also the third variation of this mess. Makes one wonder how modules could possibly be "tuned" to a certain power level at all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)