Monday, February 11, 2019

Review: Dungeon Module N2 The Forest Oracle

This module is listed as one of (if not the) worst module ever written. It was one of the first of the orange-top-border format modules along with I2 Tomb of the Lizard King, I3-I5 The Desert of Desolation trilogy, and the EX1-2 series of Wonderland modules. This time period of AD&D shows a decline not only in physical product quality, but in content as well. The modules written were either too generic to be useful, or overly specific, with little or no middle ground. The rules as written were ignored in favor of twisted plotlines and story. Suddenly, we went from witty one-liners and inside jokes in otherwise serious adventure modules to entire slapstick pun dungeons like WG7: Castle Greyhawk or boring melodramas like Dragonlance. AD&D had become a running joke! Unfortunately, this is the time period in which I was introduced to the game (1983-1984) and I've spent decades collecting the older material (which I consider to be superior in every way).

Module N2: The Forest Oracle seems to suffer from a lack of knowledge of the rules. In a time when AD&D was supposed to represent the tournament-level rules used by all players, this module decided to depart from the norm with strange rules on surprise chances and stats that made no sense. Character levels and casting abilities did not match. Stats that were obviously written for varying Hit Dice were suddenly combined into an attack routine. This was bad editing at its worst!

The numbering scheme of the modules usually indicates some connectivity - in this case, the module has no connection whatsoever with N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God or N3 Destiny of Kings. I believe the "N" designation stood for "Novice," so all these modules were written for low-level characters or new players. That seems to be the only common thread in the initial N-series of modules. So, those DMs hoping to get another gem like N1 were disappointed when this stinker of a module came out (and is probably the main reason why so many people despise this module).

The plot, although thin, could be beefed up by any DM worth his salt to fit into his or her own campaign. It would take some work to place this anywhere in the World of Greyhawk setting, but it would work well in a 1st edition version of the Forgotten Realms. The basic premise: a farming region known as The Downs has been cursed so that nothing grows and the animals are starving, and the party must find out why and reverse the effects. Simple enough on the surface. But the quest has the characters crossing wilderness at levels 2-4 (a most dangerous time to be encountering large parties of creatures or wilderness-type encounters) in search of Druids who will make everything right as rain. Seems like a pretty soft plotline already.

The encounters that comprise this module are like DUNGEON Magazine side treks that are simply all strung together in module form. It would not surprise me to learn that the author wrote all these little adventures as 1-page fillers and stuffed them in a drawer, then later arranged them on a desk and said, "Now I've got a module." It generally doesn't work out well when someone does that. Not only are these encounters disconnected from one another (except as quests performed to complete a quest), but there are so damn many of them! In a wilderness region with no safe refuge in sight for miles, a group of low-level characters will quickly be overwhelmed and begin dropping like flies when all their resources run dry.

Consider a party of 6-8 players characters (more likely to be 2-4 PCs plus henchmen, if available) getting involved in about 4 encounters in the wilderness. Sheer numbers and spent resources mean that they will have to rest frequently. Eventually they will run out of consumables and ammo. Their destination is still some distance away, and once they arrive they still will not be able to replenish some things (like arrows, bolts, sling bullets, oil flasks, holy water, etc.) which are vital to the continuation of the adventure. Then one has to consider all the treasure recovered by the party. Some of the hauls in the module list treasure in the thousands-of-coins; this is simply too much for a party to haul out by themselves and still be on the move.

The adventure itself has some leeway in how the players can proceed, but the obstacles (river crossings, mountain passes, underground tunnels, etc.) basically make this a linear plot, if not a railroaded plot, and we all know how much players like these. Well, experienced players hate them; new players might actually embrace a linear plot that hides its railroading nature! Not everyone new to the game knows what to do coming out of the chute, so it's helpful to give them a little push now and then while still making it seem like they are making the choice.

However, bad editing and railroaded plotlines aside, the adventure is long enough and detailed enough to provide a good DM with some interesting ideas and keep the players occupied for several sessions. Obviously, if an encounter makes no sense, or the DM doesn't like the tone or treasures therein, he or she can change or omit the content to suit his or her campaign. I don't want to give specific examples because I don't want to spoil the adventure. Let's just say that the Druid Oracle makes no sense whatsoever in terms of AD&D rules and the method given to enact the "cure" is lackluster at best.

I don't think this is the worst module ever written. It has some good points, but it takes some work and a good DM to make it worthwhile. A much worse adventure is WG9 Gargoyle, which is simply abysmal and not worth the paper it's printed on.

Saturday, February 2, 2019

AD&D: Weapon Statistics Used in Combat

For many long years, my AD&D group ran combat without a second thought to all the "useless" statistics listed in the Players Handbook. The combats were fast and easily resolved, but sometimes boring or repetitive. There seemed to be little reason to use one weapon over another, and all the characters simply chose the weapons that did the most "bang" for their buck. This led to most fighters wielding long swords with shields, and most other characters using maces, short swords, or staves as necessary.

And, of course, this is a fine way to play the game. However, at some point the characters or DM may cry foul when a weapon is used against them in a way in which it could not possibly be used if common sense is applied. Some examples: a group of characters in a 10' wide corridor all wielding polearms and two-handed swords; or a longbow wielding elf making a 110' shot in a narrow, low-ceilinged tunnel. These are unrealistic uses of weapons in AD&D.

The statistics listed in the Players Handbook on pages 37 and 38 are there for a reason. They differentiate the weapons in such a way as to make choice mean something. Some weapons are better at bypassing certain types of armor; others are much worse. Choice of armor is also important here, as is the choice of using a shield. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the rules presented in the PHB, I see the reason for having them. I am one of the very few who still uses the Weapon vs. Armor Class tables in combat. The only real problem I have with the charts is the minuscule amount of damage that crossbows cause (and we've since upgraded the damage as a house rule).

The rules as presented make sense. A Dungeon Master should have a good idea of why the rules are there before deciding to just randomly drop them. Some knowledge of how weapons are used in combat is also important. For example, although it is not stated in the rules, short swords are piercing weapons, not really meant for slashing. As such, they are better at penetrating some types of armor than others, and are used in a completely different manner than long swords. Thus, a gnome or halfling using a short sword simply because of size is not using a shorter form of long sword. This is an important concept to remember. Some weapons should be used two-handed due to their weight or size - typically the footman's weapons were wielded two-handed on the battle field and look much different than the horseman's variety which were one-handed and lighter by necessity. Consider the footman's flail at 4' length compared to the horseman's flail at 2' length. A footman's flail is designed to be used like a threshing flail (which it is based upon) using both hands (and thus precluding use of a shield), while a horseman's flail is more or less a ball and chain on a stick (or multiple such balls attached to the same stick) made to be used by a horseman with one hand. Looking at the table, one can see that the impact of the two-handed flail is much heavier (causing 2-7/2-8 damage) and easier to strike those with heavier armor, while those wearing no armor are harder to hit (likely due to the ability to dodge easier without armor, thus the -1 to hit AC 10). The other flail is much better at striking lightly armored foes, but not the heavier armored ones as the weapon is much lighter and easily turned by the thicker armor. Deciding to use a horseman's flail, however, frees up the other hand to use a shield, it is slightly quicker to use, and can be used in a closer combat situation. The footman's flail on the other hand requires 6' of space to swing effectively! This could be detrimental if the party is stuck in a 5' wide narrow tunnel underground...

Some weapons can be used to disarm a mounted horseman. Most of these are pole arms which would be otherwise hindering to their wielder in a confined dungeon setting. Many people prefer not to use pole arms because they can't pronounce their names, don't know what they look like, how they are used, or they don't cause as much damage as they hoped. However, these weapons are very versatile and can be used to make maneuvers not normally used by PCs in combat. For instance, who has ever attempted to disarm an opponent in AD&D? While wielding a spetum, one can do so by scoring a hit on an opponent vs. AC 8!  A glaive-guisarme wielded by a gnoll could be used to pull a paladin from his mount on a successful hit roll greater than that needed.

To give you some examples of how weapon choice impacts combat, let's look at some characters from my current campaign:

Hamlin, halfling 6th level fighter w/ short sword+ 1 of quickness, scale mail & shield.
Falim, human 9th level ranger with scimitar, chain mail &shield.
Gustav, dwarf 7th level fighter with battle axe and chain mail.

VS.

Gnoll archer with AC 5 (assumed chain mail) and longbow.
Gnoll leader with AC 4 (assumed chain mail and shield) and battle axe (used one-handed due to size)
Gnoll warrior with AC 5 (assumed chain mail) and glaive.


There is no surprise and the parties begin in the wilderness about 130 yards away. The gnolls spotted the party as they crested a ridge and the party saw the gnolls on a rocky rise along the roadside. The party is mounted - with Falim on a light warhorse and Gustav and Hamlin on war ponies. The gnolls are on foot. The first round of combat the party will close the distance to 30 yards and dismount while the gnoll archer looks to plug away at them with arrows. Looking on the charts, the gnoll archer gains 2 attacks with a longbow each round. Since he is using the same weapon, this means (according to strict reading of the DMG and not using my house rules) that he fires at the beginning of the round and the end of the round. Random determination shows that the first shot is aimed at Gustav (AC type 5). A longbow at 130 yards is considered at Medium range (-2 to hit; see PHB bottom of page 38), and the gnoll gets +1 to hit AC type 5, so his roll is adjusted by a total of -1. The gnoll normally needs an 11 to hit; the DM rolls a 2 and misses. The party concludes its crossing while the other gnolls cautiously move up 10 yards to engage. At the end of the round, the gnoll takes another shot while the party is at 30 yards. Since they are not yet engaged in melee, he rolls randomly for a target, this time setting his sights on Falim. Falim is an accomplished Ylari horseman and has dismounted at the end of his movement, but has not yet drawn his weapon or readied his shield. The DM decides to grant partial cover from his horse, thus causing a -2 penalty to hit. The gnoll archer is now at short range (no penalty) and also gains +1 to hit AC type 5 as before. He needs the same 11 to hit Falim and scores a 10. Normally this would have hit Falim, but the arrow instead hits his horse causing 5 points of damage!

With the first round ended. The party is now 30 yards away from the gnoll archer and 20 yards from the other gnolls. The gnoll leader and warrior declare a charge while Hamlin and Gustav dismount and arm themselves with weapon and shield. Falim declares a charge as well. The dice are rolled and the initiative goes to the party. However, the gnoll archer gets to fire first! His randomly rolled target is Hamlin, within short range but before he is able to equip his shield (thus AC type 6). The gnoll fires at +2 to hit his armor type. The DM rolls a 14 and easily hits the halfling for 5 points of damage! Falim and the gnolls charge at a bonus of +3" to movement rate (see charging outdoors, DMG page 66), thus they are all moving at 12 yards per segment and will clash on the first segment. Falim engages the gnoll leader while the other gnoll charges on to engage Hamlin on the second segment. Falim's scimitar is only 3' long; the gnoll leader's battle axe is 4' long, and thus the gnoll leader strikes first! Charging grants +2 to hit and Falim will be penalized +1 to his AC (because he has no Dex bonus to take away). Falim's AC Type is now AC 4 with his shield so the gnoll leader suffers a -1 penalty with his axe. His HD are considered to be 3, but this is the same column on the "to hit" chart as a normal 2 HD gnoll. He therefore needs a base of 12 to hit AC 4. The roll is an 18! The gnoll causes 7 points of damage to Falim (6 damage rolled +1 from 16 strength[see DMG page 15 under Strength]). Falim survives the hit and returns an attack on the gnoll. Falim is a 9th level ranger and strikes the gnoll at +2 for charge, -2 for AC type 4, +1 from Dex penalty to gnoll's charging AC, and +1 to hit from his 17 Strength. He only needs a base roll of 8 to succeed. He rolls a 17 and hits the gnoll for (6 points rolled + 1 Strength +9 ranger vs. humanoid) 16 points of damage, killing him with one strike! Falim smiles slightly as the gnoll collapses from his expert swordsmanship; a strike of vengeance in the name of Al-Kalim for the injuring of his noble steed! Then the gnoll warrior arrives at Hamlin who is able to have his shield and weapon at the ready (the party won initiative after all). The gnoll warrior is the only one able to strike because he charged; Hamlin would have had to have crossed to engage, so he will not be able to return an attack this round. The gnoll is gaining +2 to hit due to the charge, and is using a (two-handed) glaive vs. armor type 5 (scale + shield) without any adjustments. He needs a base 12 to hit the halfling (who gains a -1 defense adj. from Dex). The DM rolls a 10 + 2 = 12! The gnoll hits the halfling for 2 points of damage (1 rolled + 1 for strength), and Hamlin sneers at the gnoll. At the end of the round, Gustav is armed and ready to move into combat, but the archer takes another shot, aiming at the dwarf who is the only one not in melee combat. The dwarf is much smaller and his pony probably grants him a -4 cover bonus to AC against the gnoll archer. The gnoll has +1 to hit his AC type and is at short range (no penalty), so he is effectively attacking at -3 to hit. The DM rolls a 5 and misses the dwarf and his pony!

The following round, Gustav declares a charge against the gnoll archer while Falim crosses to assist Hamlin. Hamlin has a short sword +1 of quickness which allows him a hasted attack before all others in the round as well as his normal attack as a 6th level fighter. The only caveat is that he must begin his round in melee range to make the hasted attack (which he is, thanks to the gnoll's charge). Initiative is rolled; Party gets a 2 but the gnolls got a 6! Gustav speeds off towards the gnoll archer but the archer gets a first attack on the dwarf. Gustav's AC is worse by +1 due to his charge. The gnoll archer scores an 18 and hits the dwarf for 2 points of damage. Gustav grunts and continues to run forward. Hamlin then strikes quickly at the gnoll warrior with his short sword (+1 for enchanted blade, +0 for armor type) and scores a 15 total, more than enough to hit the gnoll. The gnoll is size Large and the sword thus does 9 points of damage to it (8 points rolled + 1 for magic blade). The gnoll had only 9 points and drops dead from the stabbing blow of the halfling. Falim, on his way to help, stops and nods at the halfling, then turns towards the gnoll archer. Gustav arrives at the gnoll archer by the middle of the round and strikes at him with his two-handed battle axe (note that the length of the battle axe is about the same as the dwarf's height, hence it MUST be two-handed for him to use). He is striking at +2 to hit from the charge, with a modifier of -1 vs. armor type, +1 from 17 strength). Gustav rolls an 18 modified to a 20 and scores a hit, causing 5 points of damage (4 points rolled + 1 from strength). The gnoll archer is wounded but still alive. Since the dwarf is now within melee range, the gnoll's longbow is useless. With Falim heading his way and both his comrades dead, the gnoll seeks to flee from the combat. However, since he has already taken a shot this round, the DM determines that fleeing will occur next round.

The party rolls initiative (as no one can charge except the halfling, who is unlikely to catch up to a fleeing gnoll anyway). The party scores a 3 and the gnoll a 2. Gustav will get his parting shot on the fleeing gnoll, striking him as if a rear attack on a stunned opponent (no Dex or Shield, +4 to hit). Gustav strikes with a roll of 15 which is more than sufficient to hit with all his bonuses and scores another 5 points of damage, killing the wounded gnoll!

As you can see, the stats of the weapons came into play quite a bit during that battle. The weapon vs. armor type was referenced during every exchange, the length of the weapons came into play with the charging rules for first strike determination, and it could be seen that a long bow is very effective against targets in light or medium armor. The outdoors allow larger weapons to be used effectively (as they were designed) and the longbow is a weapon that needs to arc the arrow high in order to hit its target (almost like aiming a catapult). The closer the target, the steeper the arc needs to be. Proficiency with a weapon allows the user to make the necessary calculations in their heads before the shot is made. The non-proficiency penalty here would likely make the missile miss the target since the calculations are hard to make when you're not used to the weapon's range.

If the combatants tied their initiative at any point during the combat, then speed factors would come into play to see who struck first or how many times they could strike! For example, Hamlin wields a short sword with Speed Factor 3 (a quick weapon) and was fighting a gnoll with a glaive (Speed Factor 8). According to the rules on page 66 under Weapon Speed Factor, Hamlin's comparative weapon speed is 5 factors different, thus he would gain two attacks prior to the slower weapon wielder. Adding in the weapon's quickness ability, that means that the halfling could have struck the gnoll 3 times before the gnoll even got a single swing on a tied initiative! If Falim were disarmed somehow and was wielding his jambiya instead (Ylari curved dagger) and initiative was tied against the gnoll leader (battle axe = speed factor 7) then he too would have 2 attacks before the axe was even swung, not counting the fact that Falim has 3/2 attacks during combat! On a round in which he gained 2 attacks, he would strike first and last (just as the gnoll archer did above). If the tied initiative with the jambiya occurred on such a round, he would strike first, then once more before the gnoll, then last in the round as well! Speed Factors are also important in weapon vs. spell combat to see who strikes first.

Ranges are critical to determine if a target CAN be hit, and if so, at what penalty (if any). Targets within short range are at normal chances to hit. Those targets between short and medium ranges are struck at -2 to hit. Those targets between medium and long range are struck at -5 to hit. Ranges are in scale inches; thus, a range of 1/2/3 equates to 10'/20'/30' indoors and 10 yds./20 yds./30 yds. outdoors. Thus, a hurled axe goes further outdoors than indoors, mainly because there's more open space to throw and combats are less congested. Missiles are basically useless within 1" unless they are thrown (or one uses the point blank range for specialists in the Unearthed Arcana). Thus, hand-held thrown missiles can be used effectively in melee combat against any targets within range. Ranged weapons such as bows and crossbows are useless when engaged in melee, although they could probably be used as clubs with a non-proficiency penalty if necessary. The greatest strength of a crossbow is its ability to penetrate light and medium armor types. If the weapon vs. armor type charts are not used, then it becomes a much weaker weapon in combat. (As an aside, we have house-ruled hand crossbows to cause 1-4 damage, light crossbows to cause 2-8 damage, and heavy crossbows to cause 3-12 damage in order to make up for the under-powered damage of these weapons in the PHB).

Remember that armor and weapons wielded by opponents also gain the same adjustments. Thus a fire giant wielding a two-handed sword against a target in plate mail armor and shield has a +2 to hit that target! Length of the weapon would likely be double normal (so 12' for the giant) but the speed factor would remain the same since the sword is scaled to the user. Obviously, the space required would also increase to 12', thus limiting the number of fire giants that could engage in a given area. Tactically, this means that intelligent characters would seek to engage fire giants in doorways or narrow corridors to limit the number they faced at a time! Keep in mind that intelligent monsters would also use tactics and might seek to draw out bunkered targets from a tight space using boulders or flaming casks of oil that explode upon impact and spatter walls, floor, and targets with flaming oil! Small opponents like kobolds would use small stabbing weapons in confined tunnels to greatest effect. More kobolds around a single target increases their chances of hitting and allows them to attack and defend as normal.

Although there are no rules for sizing weapons in AD&D, it makes sense that halflings and gnomes could wield "long" swords specifically made for their size, thus wielding slashing weapons, instead of poking short swords. All the weapons in the PHB are assumed to be sized for humans, but demi-humans of shorter stature make weapons scaled to their own size. How much damage such weapons would cause is up to the individual DM - however, remember that size affects not only damage done but heft of the weapon as well. Some weapons cause damage because they are heavy; scaling them down might drastically reduce the damage caused by half. Otherwise, I suggest simply reducing the die type by one and removing any bonus points. Thus, a halfling-sized footman's mace would be about 1' in length, require 2' to swing, still have a speed factor of 7 for being appropriately scaled, and still possess the same weapon vs. armor type modifiers. However, the damage should be reduced from 2-7 (1d6+1) to 1d4 for small or medium targets, and from 1-6 to 1-3 for large targets. A mace's impact comes from the weight of the weapon; reducing the size seriously compromises the damage it can cause to a larger creature. Surely, the weapon will hurt, but not as much as it would to an appropriately scaled creature. Thus the mace would be reduced one die type for size S-M and halved against size L.

Don't forget also to use the armor rules in the DMG, pages 27-28. Remember that shield types are all different too. The smaller the shield, the fewer attacks it can defend against. This came into play with my current campaign when the party started tackling drow using bucklers. That buckler is only good against ONE attack each round - and at the party's current levels, they mostly get multiple attacks for the fighters! The advantage of being unarmored or in light armor is more mobility - this is reflected in base movement as well as possible initiative bonuses or penalties (as shown in the PHB, pages 101-102 under ENCUMBRANCE). Don't skimp on this rule - it could mean the lives of the thieves and magic-users in the party!

D&D Premises: Heroes vs. Villagers

 I find that most D&D players are firmly entrenched in two different camps when it comes to adventurers: you either believe that adventu...