There are few spells in the modern version of the D&D game that are overly powerful as written. This is because, after years of play-testing in various previous incarnations, these spells have been "balanced" (a.k.a "nerfed") in order to make play "fair." Gygax had no intention of balancing magic except to make it nearly impossible for magic-users to survive long enough to become accomplished wizards. Some spells break the rules more than others. The 3rd level magic-user spell slow is one of those spells.
On the surface, the slow spell seems to be only a reverse of the haste spell. In essence, the spell halves the affected creatures' speed and number of attacks allowed for the round. But there are subtleties involved with this spell that one does not realize until they have done some research in the DMG. For one thing, unlike the haste spell, the slow spell can be cast multiple times on the same targets! The effects are cumulative. Thus, if a magic-user casts it twice on the same group, then their speed is quartered and they attack once every 4 rounds! Another bonus is that, per the DMG p. 67, under the title Special "To Hit" Bonuses, one can see that slowed targets are +4 to be hit! This just adds insult to injury as hasted characters are not harder to hit (although they should be!).
The magic-user in my campaign memorizes slow spells instead of fireballs because they are much easier to deal with and give everyone in the party a buff to hit while keeping the monsters from engaging properly in combat. It's a killer spell against giants, mainly because it has NO saving throw! The only downfall is that it has a 40' x 40' square area, and placement should be rather hard to accomplish without catching some of your party in the area of effect. However, in large caverns and spacious giant fortresses, this spell has been key to the party's success throughout the G-series of modules! In fact, the magic-user makes sure to replace the slow spell in the party ranger's ring of spell storing after each casting! This means that the group can go into up to 4 encounters knowing they will have the advantage (they have not encountered many magic resistant creatures or spell turning rings....yet).
My major gripe with the spell is the lack of a saving throw. The multiple-casting cumulative effect of the slow spell is also a bit much and breaks the rule of spell effects stacking from the same spell type. I find this spell to be a bit overwhelming, but it does allow a party to survive much longer than they might otherwise have a right to. I let them gloat in their victories knowing full well what awaits them on the 3rd dungeon level of the Halls of the Fire Giant King!
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
AD&D 1st Edition: Combat Basics
The singularly most confusing chapter in the AD&D 1E Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG) is also the most important for any DM to know. Of course, I'm speaking of the COMBAT chapter. Tucked away in the middle of this large tome of esoteric knowledge for the DM, it seems that its organization and cross-references leave the fledgling DM bewildered and dazed as to how to properly run a combat, be it by sword, spell, or missile.
It has taken me several years to appreciate the rules as presented in the DMG. At first, they are a confusing hodge-podge of seemingly trivial information, but eventually, after using the rules for many combats, one comes to appreciate certain fundamental time-savers and conventions that really allow one to streamline the game (so long as everyone is on board and paying attention to all that's going on in the combat).
The beginning of this chapter is basically an explanation of terms intrinsic to understanding what combat is and is not in AD&D. Gygax succintly points out that this is NOT a realistic combat simulator by any means - it is a system for use in a game to manage a large number of combatants easily and quickly. In my opinion, the ease and speed is sometimes compromised by fiddly rules that only crop up in certain circumstances, but it is definitely faster that later versions of the game or other systems with a plethora of hit-location charts or multiple rolls each round. Of course, this assumes that the players are on board and paying attention, have all their bonuses and penalties already calculated, and don't waste time or cause problems by being argumentative.
At it's heart, the combat system basically takes a round of time (1 minute) and breaks it down into actions and reactions. The side with the initiative acts; the side that lost initiative reacts. So, at the barest bones, the system can run with just a few dice rolls. This is further complicated by other actions that either "break the rules" (a.k.a. spells), or tweak the rules (advanced character abilities, magic items, combat options, etc.), depending on how in depth the combat gets. At it's very core, however, the combatants only need to know a few things: who has the initiative, the combatants' Armor Classes, and how many hit points they have, currently and in total.
Many people have a problem with hit points. Mostly, these same people are narrative/story enthusiasts and look for tragically long death scenes, wearing down opponents through exhaustion, or gaining other advantages through realistic simulation of events. Again, Gygax reminds us that that is not the case in a game where the goal is to keep the action moving and have fun without taking an inordinate amount of time or brainpower by constantly referring to charts, tables, and esoteric rules. Hit points represent more than simply health and stamina. They also represent luck, divine favor, skill, and other factors. A killing blow to a common man with only 2-7 hit points, would be more like a scratch or bruise to a 9th level fighter with 16 Constitution and 9d10+18 hit points. The increase in hit points means that the 9th level fighter can more easily survive a number of blows that would otherwise kill a man, but wearing down of hit points means that luck is running out, favor is failing, and exhaustion is setting in. Some balk at death at 0 hit points - this rule, although written into the Players Handbook, is actually changed in the DMG to be death at -10 hit points, but dying at 0 hit points and lower. Apparently, even Gygax thought that a character with only 1-4 hit points at 1st level had a much less chance of surviving past 1st level. Death at -10 hp actually allows a buffer between life and permanent death. If the party can extract themselves from a combat with a downed character, they can retreat to safety and, even though that character is "penalized" by wasting time recovering, they are not dead and may continue adventuring afterward. More importantly, they don't forfeit any experience gains up to that point (obviously, if using by-the-book rules for experience, that character will no longer gain XP during the rest of the adventure since they can no longer function at normal capacity).
Gygax also explains that Dexterity has little impact on striking blows in a combat, except as a modifier to Armor Class, due to the length of the combat round. He also states that weapon length and speed factors usually don't impact combat either (except in special circumstances like charging and tied initiative). In fact, it's important to note that most of the fiddly rules regarding initiative and some combat options are all exceptions to the rule, not the standard. I cannot stress that enough. The space that they are allotted in the rulebook overly inflates their importance, but they are the exceptions, not the norm.
During my years as DM I found that players need a more tactical setup to reference during game play, specifically one set to scale (or close to it) in order for them to make informed decisions of what their characters can and cannot do. Without some physical, visual representation, it is hard for many players to visualize the size and shape of the combat area, where all the combatants are located, or even how many there are! Running some of the modules written for AD&D, especially the G-series, is a completely different experience when using physical representations of the combat area and miniatures than if running it completely using one's imagination. Some encounter areas are more congested than others, strewn about with rubble, furniture, or other obstacles only mentioned in the room description. Imagine a fighter trying to charge into a room dominated by tables and chairs of giant size, or several fire giants attempting to attack a halfling able to dodge around rubble or stalagmites in a cave setting. Casting a fireball is tricky enough without having to guess its placement because the player can't visualize an oddly shaped room or estimate the volume of a rough cave. Miniatures and a playing map, or even a computerized map program, are almost essential in these cases. Although part of the fun of AD&D was mapping the dungeon and exploring the area, combat encounter maps go a long way towards helping the players engage intelligently with the environment.
In general terms, the basics of combat boil down to the following steps and actions:
1. Determine if either or both parties are SURPRISED.
2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
3. If both parties are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine INITIATIVE for that round.
4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative.
A. Avoid engagement (flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if possible.
B. Attempt to parley.
C. Await action by other party.
D. Discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn undead.
E. Close to striking range, or charge.
F. Set weapons against possible opponent charge.
G. Strike blows with weapons, to kill or subdue.
H. Grapple or hold.
5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative (as per A. through H. above).
6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initiative, and actions until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue, or death of one or both parties.
In other versions of the game (namely Basic and Expert D&D), the above steps are divided into sub-steps that are intended to work like a flow chart. This system, however, is not a step by step procedure, and some of the above steps are skipped depending on circumstances. For example, if surprise is not a factor, and the distance is known, then the first two steps are unnecessary. Initiative should always be rolled for a round in which two sides are engaged in some sort of activity against one another (or where timing is important). It's the actions listed under step 4. that seem to confuse everyone. They are lettered, not numbered, thus they can occur in any order and do not have to follow a strict pattern as they do in Basic/Expert rules. They simply describe TYPES of actions. For example, action D. represents some sort of ranged attack, action E. represents movement, and action G. represents melee combat with hand-held weapons. One should not go down the list, A. through H., and perform each action in order - that's not the intention of this list. It is merely listing options that can be performed on one's initiative portion of the round. It's also important to realize that surprise can be an individual thing or a group thing. I say this because surprise can (and does) happen DURING a combat as well and should be considered whenever invisible combatants attempt to attack someone otherwise engaged in another activity and not aware of the invisible attacker.
So this then is the heart of the combat system, the basis upon which all the other rules rest. Discounting surprise and distance calculations, each round there is an initiative roll, followed by the winners performing their actions, then the losers, with all results being immediately applied for one side before moving on to the other (unless initiative is tied, of course). Combat only begins when both sides are willing to fight; it ends when there are no more combatants due to death, failed morale, or surrender/truce. Do not discount the importance of morale in a combat; it can save unnecessary loss of resources and permit a party to advance further during an expedition than they normally would. Also avoiding encounters is a smart way to bypass time- or resource-wasting situations, or simply allows the party to reach its goal faster and easier. That's not to say that AD&D should have no combat whatsoever, and killing monsters is still a good way to gain experience points (although not as good as gaining treasure). However, I should point out that low-level parties have a much harder time with large groups of monsters and should probably avoid unnecessary or deadly encounters whenever possible. AD&D is much more a thinking combatant's game, not a brainless romp through the dungeon kicking in doors, slaying every monster therein, and stealing away all the treasure. Good players take their time, weigh their options, and then decide to engage or avoid encounters based on their resources available.
It has taken me several years to appreciate the rules as presented in the DMG. At first, they are a confusing hodge-podge of seemingly trivial information, but eventually, after using the rules for many combats, one comes to appreciate certain fundamental time-savers and conventions that really allow one to streamline the game (so long as everyone is on board and paying attention to all that's going on in the combat).
The beginning of this chapter is basically an explanation of terms intrinsic to understanding what combat is and is not in AD&D. Gygax succintly points out that this is NOT a realistic combat simulator by any means - it is a system for use in a game to manage a large number of combatants easily and quickly. In my opinion, the ease and speed is sometimes compromised by fiddly rules that only crop up in certain circumstances, but it is definitely faster that later versions of the game or other systems with a plethora of hit-location charts or multiple rolls each round. Of course, this assumes that the players are on board and paying attention, have all their bonuses and penalties already calculated, and don't waste time or cause problems by being argumentative.
At it's heart, the combat system basically takes a round of time (1 minute) and breaks it down into actions and reactions. The side with the initiative acts; the side that lost initiative reacts. So, at the barest bones, the system can run with just a few dice rolls. This is further complicated by other actions that either "break the rules" (a.k.a. spells), or tweak the rules (advanced character abilities, magic items, combat options, etc.), depending on how in depth the combat gets. At it's very core, however, the combatants only need to know a few things: who has the initiative, the combatants' Armor Classes, and how many hit points they have, currently and in total.
Many people have a problem with hit points. Mostly, these same people are narrative/story enthusiasts and look for tragically long death scenes, wearing down opponents through exhaustion, or gaining other advantages through realistic simulation of events. Again, Gygax reminds us that that is not the case in a game where the goal is to keep the action moving and have fun without taking an inordinate amount of time or brainpower by constantly referring to charts, tables, and esoteric rules. Hit points represent more than simply health and stamina. They also represent luck, divine favor, skill, and other factors. A killing blow to a common man with only 2-7 hit points, would be more like a scratch or bruise to a 9th level fighter with 16 Constitution and 9d10+18 hit points. The increase in hit points means that the 9th level fighter can more easily survive a number of blows that would otherwise kill a man, but wearing down of hit points means that luck is running out, favor is failing, and exhaustion is setting in. Some balk at death at 0 hit points - this rule, although written into the Players Handbook, is actually changed in the DMG to be death at -10 hit points, but dying at 0 hit points and lower. Apparently, even Gygax thought that a character with only 1-4 hit points at 1st level had a much less chance of surviving past 1st level. Death at -10 hp actually allows a buffer between life and permanent death. If the party can extract themselves from a combat with a downed character, they can retreat to safety and, even though that character is "penalized" by wasting time recovering, they are not dead and may continue adventuring afterward. More importantly, they don't forfeit any experience gains up to that point (obviously, if using by-the-book rules for experience, that character will no longer gain XP during the rest of the adventure since they can no longer function at normal capacity).
Gygax also explains that Dexterity has little impact on striking blows in a combat, except as a modifier to Armor Class, due to the length of the combat round. He also states that weapon length and speed factors usually don't impact combat either (except in special circumstances like charging and tied initiative). In fact, it's important to note that most of the fiddly rules regarding initiative and some combat options are all exceptions to the rule, not the standard. I cannot stress that enough. The space that they are allotted in the rulebook overly inflates their importance, but they are the exceptions, not the norm.
During my years as DM I found that players need a more tactical setup to reference during game play, specifically one set to scale (or close to it) in order for them to make informed decisions of what their characters can and cannot do. Without some physical, visual representation, it is hard for many players to visualize the size and shape of the combat area, where all the combatants are located, or even how many there are! Running some of the modules written for AD&D, especially the G-series, is a completely different experience when using physical representations of the combat area and miniatures than if running it completely using one's imagination. Some encounter areas are more congested than others, strewn about with rubble, furniture, or other obstacles only mentioned in the room description. Imagine a fighter trying to charge into a room dominated by tables and chairs of giant size, or several fire giants attempting to attack a halfling able to dodge around rubble or stalagmites in a cave setting. Casting a fireball is tricky enough without having to guess its placement because the player can't visualize an oddly shaped room or estimate the volume of a rough cave. Miniatures and a playing map, or even a computerized map program, are almost essential in these cases. Although part of the fun of AD&D was mapping the dungeon and exploring the area, combat encounter maps go a long way towards helping the players engage intelligently with the environment.
In general terms, the basics of combat boil down to the following steps and actions:
1. Determine if either or both parties are SURPRISED.
2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
3. If both parties are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine INITIATIVE for that round.
4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative.
A. Avoid engagement (flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if possible.
B. Attempt to parley.
C. Await action by other party.
D. Discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn undead.
E. Close to striking range, or charge.
F. Set weapons against possible opponent charge.
G. Strike blows with weapons, to kill or subdue.
H. Grapple or hold.
5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party which lost the initiative (as per A. through H. above).
6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initiative, and actions until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue, or death of one or both parties.
In other versions of the game (namely Basic and Expert D&D), the above steps are divided into sub-steps that are intended to work like a flow chart. This system, however, is not a step by step procedure, and some of the above steps are skipped depending on circumstances. For example, if surprise is not a factor, and the distance is known, then the first two steps are unnecessary. Initiative should always be rolled for a round in which two sides are engaged in some sort of activity against one another (or where timing is important). It's the actions listed under step 4. that seem to confuse everyone. They are lettered, not numbered, thus they can occur in any order and do not have to follow a strict pattern as they do in Basic/Expert rules. They simply describe TYPES of actions. For example, action D. represents some sort of ranged attack, action E. represents movement, and action G. represents melee combat with hand-held weapons. One should not go down the list, A. through H., and perform each action in order - that's not the intention of this list. It is merely listing options that can be performed on one's initiative portion of the round. It's also important to realize that surprise can be an individual thing or a group thing. I say this because surprise can (and does) happen DURING a combat as well and should be considered whenever invisible combatants attempt to attack someone otherwise engaged in another activity and not aware of the invisible attacker.
So this then is the heart of the combat system, the basis upon which all the other rules rest. Discounting surprise and distance calculations, each round there is an initiative roll, followed by the winners performing their actions, then the losers, with all results being immediately applied for one side before moving on to the other (unless initiative is tied, of course). Combat only begins when both sides are willing to fight; it ends when there are no more combatants due to death, failed morale, or surrender/truce. Do not discount the importance of morale in a combat; it can save unnecessary loss of resources and permit a party to advance further during an expedition than they normally would. Also avoiding encounters is a smart way to bypass time- or resource-wasting situations, or simply allows the party to reach its goal faster and easier. That's not to say that AD&D should have no combat whatsoever, and killing monsters is still a good way to gain experience points (although not as good as gaining treasure). However, I should point out that low-level parties have a much harder time with large groups of monsters and should probably avoid unnecessary or deadly encounters whenever possible. AD&D is much more a thinking combatant's game, not a brainless romp through the dungeon kicking in doors, slaying every monster therein, and stealing away all the treasure. Good players take their time, weigh their options, and then decide to engage or avoid encounters based on their resources available.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
AD&D: Regenerating Trolls
Well, after 19+ years of running my current campaign, the party finally had to tackle a group of trolls. Up to now, trolls were something encountered as a boogie man, something to frighten them into doing something or avoiding something. They rarely came face to face with more than one troll (or ogre mage) at a time, and avoided encounters with more than one using spells or simply walking away. Well, they could NOT avoid a group of trolls coming at them down the hall to investigate the combat occurring in the drow priestesses' chambers! This time we would see how well they fought trolls, especially without all their fire spells!
The curious thing about trolls is that regeneration is not well-defined in AD&D 1st edition. Trolls are also peculiar in that they don't start to regenerate until 3 rounds have elapsed since they were first damaged. Thereafter they regenerate damage at the rate of 3 hit points per round. It is assumed that death by normal blows (i.e. reduction to 0 hit points) does not kill a troll. The -10 rule for death introduced in the DMG should probably apply to them, but it just makes the math screwy when trying to deal with multiple trolls in a large encounter.
In the past, I've had any damage done to a troll reduce it as far as -10 hit points then stop. So long as the characters kept hitting them, they would thus remain down and unable to retaliate as oil was poured on them and lit. However, I don't believe that this was intended to be this way. Since 0 hit points was defined as death in the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual was written even before that, I assume that trolls should be brought no lower than 0 hit points. If you are able to reduce them that low in the initial first 3 rounds, then yes, you have a window of opportunity to soak them in oil (if handy) and light them up! Otherwise, they will revive each round thereafter until they can stand up from prone and kick your ass!
Now, the curious thing about fire and acid with trolls is that they cannot regenerate damage from those types. Does this mean that they take damage to their current AND full hit points? I think not. The act of burning a troll is meant to keep them dead. Hit points removed prior to the burning should not be counted. Thus if you get a troll to 0 hit points, then set them on fire, you are essentially keeping them from regenerating as you consume the body in flames. Otherwise you have to keep separate totals for each troll for normal damage vs. fire/acid damage. Now this can be done (it's a nightmare, but it can be tracked), but it seems that it would be impossible to do based on the rules for burning oil. According to the DMG, a single flask of oil burns for 2 rounds when used as a missile weapon. This causes 2d6 damage the first round, 1d6 damage the second round, and burns out by the third round. This seems fair for missile use, since there is a splash effect which disperses oil in a radius around the creature. Assuming that half the volume is thus lost in this manner, then pouring a flask of oil on the creature directly should allow it to burn for 4 rounds time instead of 2. Thus the troll above would be taking 2d6 damage the first round, and 1d6 damage for 3 rounds thereafter, for a total of 5d6 (or 5-30) points of damage. Now a troll has 6+6 Hit Dice. That's 6d8+6 hit points (or 12-54). As you can see, the average damage from fire (about 17 points) has no chance of fully destroying a troll (with average hp of 33). A DM could simply state that 2 oil flasks are required for each troll (dealing with averages only). However, I propose that a burning troll is prevented from regenerating once it is burned. So long as the oil is applied "post mortem" (aka at 0 hit points), then a single flask will consume the troll once it has taken 10 points of damage total (thus reducing it to -10 hit points and permanent death).
Rarely would a troll escape an encounter alive. However, in the situation my party found themselves in, they faced 7 trolls without fire spells (they're in the fire giant lair right now) or magic items (the magic-user burned out her wand of fire in the frost giant lair), and they came in with minimal oil for fear of being ignited by fire-using creatures (oh, Gary Gygax, you were an evil genius). Those trolls could have been much more since they were not encountered as a random encounter, but rather were fetched by the drow's accomplice in my plot as he escaped the initial death and mayhem meted out to the drow disciples of the priestess. The party only had enough oil with them to kill 5 of the trolls, the other 2 trolls left the scene after they witnessed the party burning their relatives alive! The party then left as quickly as they could, but even so they are far from civilization and are unable to get more oil flasks at this time. No doubt they will waste some of their spell selections on the next day with fire spells (and if I have anything to say about it, they would encounter only fire resistant fire giants and other monsters....).
The other strange thing about trolls is the fact that severed pieces will slither back together or continue to attack, if able, on their own. A funny picture in the original modules shows a dismembered troll hanging on with claws and fangs to a fighter trying to hack at it with a sword. Now this usually will not occur in AD&D. There are no hit location charts and damage is generic, not specific. The concept of the troll breaking into pieces with each hit probably stemmed from someone with a sword of sharpness or vorpal blade in the original dungeons run by Gygax. Without those two types of specific magic items, severing a troll's limbs cannot occur in normal combat! This is another case of one specific instance being applied universally in a confusing manner which makes it seem that it occurs more frequently than it does. One DM I ran with in the past assumed that troll parts separated from the whole will grow a whole new troll! Actually, the parts always seek to recombine with the original creature, so trolls cannot reproduce asexually in this manner. (This DM came up with a literal meat grinder for trolls.... a whole chamber was literally filled with regenerating troll parts...)
Also, trolls are not made of flash paper - simply touching a torch to a troll does not set it on fire any more than passing a finger through a candle flame would set a human on fire. Specific spells that state that they set things on fire are needed (such as burning hands, produce fire, flame strike or fireball). A good point to remember is that damage can be caused by fire without actually BEING on fire (skin blisters or ruptures), and is represented by a successful saving throw (if applicable). If a spell says it sets things on fire, and there is no saving throw, then you are on fire! Item saving throws are used to see if items carried are destroyed by the fire or are still salvageable.
So, regenerating trolls are confusing as hell! Having never dealt with by-the-book rules on regeneration and oil use before, this was sort of an eye opener for me. It took 3 weeks in the same 2 rooms for these "house rules" to be developed - once I saw how little damage burning oil did and the nature of troll hit points, I had to come up with a solution or the party would never get out of there!
The curious thing about trolls is that regeneration is not well-defined in AD&D 1st edition. Trolls are also peculiar in that they don't start to regenerate until 3 rounds have elapsed since they were first damaged. Thereafter they regenerate damage at the rate of 3 hit points per round. It is assumed that death by normal blows (i.e. reduction to 0 hit points) does not kill a troll. The -10 rule for death introduced in the DMG should probably apply to them, but it just makes the math screwy when trying to deal with multiple trolls in a large encounter.
In the past, I've had any damage done to a troll reduce it as far as -10 hit points then stop. So long as the characters kept hitting them, they would thus remain down and unable to retaliate as oil was poured on them and lit. However, I don't believe that this was intended to be this way. Since 0 hit points was defined as death in the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual was written even before that, I assume that trolls should be brought no lower than 0 hit points. If you are able to reduce them that low in the initial first 3 rounds, then yes, you have a window of opportunity to soak them in oil (if handy) and light them up! Otherwise, they will revive each round thereafter until they can stand up from prone and kick your ass!
Now, the curious thing about fire and acid with trolls is that they cannot regenerate damage from those types. Does this mean that they take damage to their current AND full hit points? I think not. The act of burning a troll is meant to keep them dead. Hit points removed prior to the burning should not be counted. Thus if you get a troll to 0 hit points, then set them on fire, you are essentially keeping them from regenerating as you consume the body in flames. Otherwise you have to keep separate totals for each troll for normal damage vs. fire/acid damage. Now this can be done (it's a nightmare, but it can be tracked), but it seems that it would be impossible to do based on the rules for burning oil. According to the DMG, a single flask of oil burns for 2 rounds when used as a missile weapon. This causes 2d6 damage the first round, 1d6 damage the second round, and burns out by the third round. This seems fair for missile use, since there is a splash effect which disperses oil in a radius around the creature. Assuming that half the volume is thus lost in this manner, then pouring a flask of oil on the creature directly should allow it to burn for 4 rounds time instead of 2. Thus the troll above would be taking 2d6 damage the first round, and 1d6 damage for 3 rounds thereafter, for a total of 5d6 (or 5-30) points of damage. Now a troll has 6+6 Hit Dice. That's 6d8+6 hit points (or 12-54). As you can see, the average damage from fire (about 17 points) has no chance of fully destroying a troll (with average hp of 33). A DM could simply state that 2 oil flasks are required for each troll (dealing with averages only). However, I propose that a burning troll is prevented from regenerating once it is burned. So long as the oil is applied "post mortem" (aka at 0 hit points), then a single flask will consume the troll once it has taken 10 points of damage total (thus reducing it to -10 hit points and permanent death).
Rarely would a troll escape an encounter alive. However, in the situation my party found themselves in, they faced 7 trolls without fire spells (they're in the fire giant lair right now) or magic items (the magic-user burned out her wand of fire in the frost giant lair), and they came in with minimal oil for fear of being ignited by fire-using creatures (oh, Gary Gygax, you were an evil genius). Those trolls could have been much more since they were not encountered as a random encounter, but rather were fetched by the drow's accomplice in my plot as he escaped the initial death and mayhem meted out to the drow disciples of the priestess. The party only had enough oil with them to kill 5 of the trolls, the other 2 trolls left the scene after they witnessed the party burning their relatives alive! The party then left as quickly as they could, but even so they are far from civilization and are unable to get more oil flasks at this time. No doubt they will waste some of their spell selections on the next day with fire spells (and if I have anything to say about it, they would encounter only fire resistant fire giants and other monsters....).
The other strange thing about trolls is the fact that severed pieces will slither back together or continue to attack, if able, on their own. A funny picture in the original modules shows a dismembered troll hanging on with claws and fangs to a fighter trying to hack at it with a sword. Now this usually will not occur in AD&D. There are no hit location charts and damage is generic, not specific. The concept of the troll breaking into pieces with each hit probably stemmed from someone with a sword of sharpness or vorpal blade in the original dungeons run by Gygax. Without those two types of specific magic items, severing a troll's limbs cannot occur in normal combat! This is another case of one specific instance being applied universally in a confusing manner which makes it seem that it occurs more frequently than it does. One DM I ran with in the past assumed that troll parts separated from the whole will grow a whole new troll! Actually, the parts always seek to recombine with the original creature, so trolls cannot reproduce asexually in this manner. (This DM came up with a literal meat grinder for trolls.... a whole chamber was literally filled with regenerating troll parts...)
Also, trolls are not made of flash paper - simply touching a torch to a troll does not set it on fire any more than passing a finger through a candle flame would set a human on fire. Specific spells that state that they set things on fire are needed (such as burning hands, produce fire, flame strike or fireball). A good point to remember is that damage can be caused by fire without actually BEING on fire (skin blisters or ruptures), and is represented by a successful saving throw (if applicable). If a spell says it sets things on fire, and there is no saving throw, then you are on fire! Item saving throws are used to see if items carried are destroyed by the fire or are still salvageable.
So, regenerating trolls are confusing as hell! Having never dealt with by-the-book rules on regeneration and oil use before, this was sort of an eye opener for me. It took 3 weeks in the same 2 rooms for these "house rules" to be developed - once I saw how little damage burning oil did and the nature of troll hit points, I had to come up with a solution or the party would never get out of there!
Monday, February 11, 2019
Review: Dungeon Module N2 The Forest Oracle
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:
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!
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!
Thursday, November 8, 2018
AD&D: Of Humanoids and Weapon Damage
The Monster Manual was NOT written for AD&D...at least not the AD&D we know now. It has long been established by others more learned than myself that the Monster Manual was more or less a cleaner compilation of the monsters of OD&D. Somewhere along the line, new monsters were added into the mix and all these were mixed together to make the Monster Manual. It was the first of the new AD&D books published (1977) and therefore existed before the other rules to be used in AD&D (added in the following years in the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide). This is important to remember since this publication essentially bridges the gap between the wargaming roots of OD&D and the later rules of AD&D.
The system could accommodate BOTH wargaming AND role-playing, depending on how you wanted to use it. This is epitomized by the humanoid entries. Looking at the encounter numbers in the NO. APPEARING for creatures like orcs and goblins reveals that these were meant to be fighting forces on a battlefield, not numbers encountered on level 1 of the local dungeon. Everything in the entry suggests a wargame approach, from the numbers of leaders to the weapon breakdowns, to their racial abilities.
The one part of these statistics that has caused me fits in the past is the DAMAGE/ATTACK entry. For example, under ORC it lists the damage as "1-8 or by weapon type." It has taken me many years to realize that this is referring back to the rules in the OD&D rulebooks (later carried into Basic D&D) about two separate systems of damage. In OD&D, all attacks made by player characters did 1-6 points of damage, regardless of the weapon type used. An alternate rule in the Greyhawk Supplement allowed you to cause damage based on the weapon type, with larger, heavier weapons causing more damage than smaller, lighter weapons. In essence, the straight die roll per creature type was meant to be used in wargaming with large numbers of creatures, while the weapon damage alternative was meant to be used in the dungeon setting of AD&D role-playing. This is why, for example, kobolds cause 1-4 points of damage when they obviously normally wield weapons that cause 1-6 points of damage (short swords, javelins, spears, etc.), while ogres cause 1-10 points of damage when they typically use weapons that only cause 1-6 points of damage (clubs, spears, etc.).
I believe that Gygax was working towards revamping the original Monster Manual before he was ousted in 1985(?). The modules he wrote in the early 1980s seemed to be heading in a direction different than the statistics listed in the original Monster Manual. Just look at the monster listings in T1: The Village of Hommlet for specifics on how he was changing the system on the fly (in particular, the zombies in the crypt and the ogre in the dungeon level). I believe he was leaving the wargaming rules behind and heading towards a more unified damage approach that used the variable weapon damage for ALL creatures that used them (specifically humanoids). It's obvious in the Players Handbook that he was already of a mindset of moving away from generic damage values base on creature type (nowhere does it state that the weapon damage ratings are optional).
So, it seems you can use one system or the other, so long as you are consistent. I can't imagine any player agreeing to using a d6 for both a dagger and a two-handed sword, but if you don't use that system, then the monsters also should be ranked according to strength scores and do damage accordingly. This makes ogres a much more formidable opponent! It also makes giants a little less intimidating, unless you double or triple the dice of damage for their weapons based on size. A hill or stone giant might be double base damage plus strength bonus; a frost and fire giant might be triple base die damage plus strength bonus; and a cloud or storm giant would be quadruple base die damage plus strength bonus. This is very similar to how it was done for AD&D 2E. Perhaps some of the 2nd Edition material was stuff that had already been proposed by Gygax after all. We did see some of this development in the DMG, page 15 under the Strength ability description, and in the Strength charts in the front of Deities & Demigods (which enumerated stats for giants with 19+ Strength).
For another example, lets take a typical ogre with 18 Strength. Such an ogre in the old system causes only 1-10 points of damage normally (regardless of weapon). If using a weapon, like a spear, it should attack at +1 to hit and cause 1d6+2 (3-8) points of damage. Note that the minimum and maximum damage were modified by 2 points on the low and high end, giving a greater chance for a median amount of damage. But, if the ogre is instead wielding a two-handed sword, he causes 1d10+2 damage, or 3-12. Now what about a stronger leader ogre with, say, 18/85% strength wielding a bardiche? Such an ogre would attack at +2 to hit and cause 2d4+4 points of damage, or a range of 6-12. Such a creature would likely slay any 1st level character with a single blow!
A typical club-wielding hill giant normally causes 2-16 points of damage in the Monster Manual. Using the system above, that giant would strike at +3 to hit and cause 2d6+7 (9-19) points of damage. As you can see, the average damage value increases dramatically, from 9 points to 14 points! But one must remember that what is good for the players is also good for the monsters if the DM is to remain fair. Otherwise, the DM can tell his players that they will all cause only 1-6 points of damage from now on, regardless of weapon type, modified only by strength and magic! In fact, there is little reason to even have weapon charts in this case, as most people ignore the secondary characteristics of speed factors, length, modifiers versus armor types, etc. (I don't, but I know many that do).
The system could accommodate BOTH wargaming AND role-playing, depending on how you wanted to use it. This is epitomized by the humanoid entries. Looking at the encounter numbers in the NO. APPEARING for creatures like orcs and goblins reveals that these were meant to be fighting forces on a battlefield, not numbers encountered on level 1 of the local dungeon. Everything in the entry suggests a wargame approach, from the numbers of leaders to the weapon breakdowns, to their racial abilities.
The one part of these statistics that has caused me fits in the past is the DAMAGE/ATTACK entry. For example, under ORC it lists the damage as "1-8 or by weapon type." It has taken me many years to realize that this is referring back to the rules in the OD&D rulebooks (later carried into Basic D&D) about two separate systems of damage. In OD&D, all attacks made by player characters did 1-6 points of damage, regardless of the weapon type used. An alternate rule in the Greyhawk Supplement allowed you to cause damage based on the weapon type, with larger, heavier weapons causing more damage than smaller, lighter weapons. In essence, the straight die roll per creature type was meant to be used in wargaming with large numbers of creatures, while the weapon damage alternative was meant to be used in the dungeon setting of AD&D role-playing. This is why, for example, kobolds cause 1-4 points of damage when they obviously normally wield weapons that cause 1-6 points of damage (short swords, javelins, spears, etc.), while ogres cause 1-10 points of damage when they typically use weapons that only cause 1-6 points of damage (clubs, spears, etc.).
I believe that Gygax was working towards revamping the original Monster Manual before he was ousted in 1985(?). The modules he wrote in the early 1980s seemed to be heading in a direction different than the statistics listed in the original Monster Manual. Just look at the monster listings in T1: The Village of Hommlet for specifics on how he was changing the system on the fly (in particular, the zombies in the crypt and the ogre in the dungeon level). I believe he was leaving the wargaming rules behind and heading towards a more unified damage approach that used the variable weapon damage for ALL creatures that used them (specifically humanoids). It's obvious in the Players Handbook that he was already of a mindset of moving away from generic damage values base on creature type (nowhere does it state that the weapon damage ratings are optional).
So, it seems you can use one system or the other, so long as you are consistent. I can't imagine any player agreeing to using a d6 for both a dagger and a two-handed sword, but if you don't use that system, then the monsters also should be ranked according to strength scores and do damage accordingly. This makes ogres a much more formidable opponent! It also makes giants a little less intimidating, unless you double or triple the dice of damage for their weapons based on size. A hill or stone giant might be double base damage plus strength bonus; a frost and fire giant might be triple base die damage plus strength bonus; and a cloud or storm giant would be quadruple base die damage plus strength bonus. This is very similar to how it was done for AD&D 2E. Perhaps some of the 2nd Edition material was stuff that had already been proposed by Gygax after all. We did see some of this development in the DMG, page 15 under the Strength ability description, and in the Strength charts in the front of Deities & Demigods (which enumerated stats for giants with 19+ Strength).
- kobolds = 9 STR
- goblins = 10 STR
- orcs = 12 STR
- hobgoblins = 15 STR
- gnolls = 16 STR (+1 dmg)
- bugbears = 17 STR (+1 to hit/+1 dmg)
- ogres = 18 STR (+1 to hit/+2 dmg)
- trolls = 18+ STR (varies from +1/+3 to +3/+6)
- hill giant = 19 STR (+3/+7)
- stone giant = 20 STR (+3/+8)
- frost giant = 21 STR (+4/+9)
- fire giant = 22 STR (+4/+10)
- cloud giant = 23 STR (+5/+11)
- storm giant = 24 STR (+6/+12)
For another example, lets take a typical ogre with 18 Strength. Such an ogre in the old system causes only 1-10 points of damage normally (regardless of weapon). If using a weapon, like a spear, it should attack at +1 to hit and cause 1d6+2 (3-8) points of damage. Note that the minimum and maximum damage were modified by 2 points on the low and high end, giving a greater chance for a median amount of damage. But, if the ogre is instead wielding a two-handed sword, he causes 1d10+2 damage, or 3-12. Now what about a stronger leader ogre with, say, 18/85% strength wielding a bardiche? Such an ogre would attack at +2 to hit and cause 2d4+4 points of damage, or a range of 6-12. Such a creature would likely slay any 1st level character with a single blow!
A typical club-wielding hill giant normally causes 2-16 points of damage in the Monster Manual. Using the system above, that giant would strike at +3 to hit and cause 2d6+7 (9-19) points of damage. As you can see, the average damage value increases dramatically, from 9 points to 14 points! But one must remember that what is good for the players is also good for the monsters if the DM is to remain fair. Otherwise, the DM can tell his players that they will all cause only 1-6 points of damage from now on, regardless of weapon type, modified only by strength and magic! In fact, there is little reason to even have weapon charts in this case, as most people ignore the secondary characteristics of speed factors, length, modifiers versus armor types, etc. (I don't, but I know many that do).
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
AD&D: G3 Halls of the Fire Giant King with Spoilers
Well, after 30 years of playing AD&D with the same people, I have come to the conclusion that they are a strike force to be reckoned with! We've been running module G3 for a few months now and they are STILL no further than 3 rooms in to the 1st level....
I've been trying to play up the danger of the scenario - the hostile environment, the danger of fire, the remoteness of the location, etc. - while keeping them in suspense and entertained. They have done well thus far, only losing about 6 of their dwarven soldiers (1st level fighters all), and several of them have made levels since entering the place (some more than once, since they are new henchmen getting XP for giants, which even halved is amazingly high).
The party set up a safe base located 3 miles from the Halls to the east. The base is hidden from the air, as it is a fissure opened in the earth revealing a section of old dwarven construction destroyed by the volcano erupting decades ago. They secure it daily by casting hallucinatory terrain over the place. The dwarves have taken one side of the fissure for their own. This section also houses the mules (8 dwarven mules + 4 party mules). They have a huge party - three PCs (half-elf druid 12, human magic-user 11, human ranger 10), six henchmen (halfling fighter 6, dwarf fighter 8, human fighter 7, human thief 9, human magic-user 3, human cleric 9), 5 followers (3 druids 2nd level, 2 gnome fighters 3rd level), 2 dwarven sergeants (2nd level fighters), a dwarven healer (fighter/cleric), and 14 dwarven crossbowmen (all 1st level fighters). The dwarves are soldiers from Rockhome sent by the clans to help with the mission to defeat the fire giant king once and for all.
Due to the small folk in the party, their movement rate is 6". With the harsh volcanic terrain, I halved that, so the party is only moving 3" outdoors. This means that their base, 3 miles away, takes about 6 hours to reach on foot. They have set up a forward base at a volcanic ejecta crater about 1 mile north of the halls, which they use when they are readying to enter the dungeons. This provides them enough time to enter the place after prepping spells. Since they cast Leomund's secure shelter as their campsite, they fear little in the night. After a 2 hour trip to the Halls they can merrily enter and slay to their heart's content all day if desired.
They entered the first time and easily took out the fire giant guard behind the tapestry and handled the two ettins without a problem. They approached the throne and handily took down the kings guards and hell hounds, even with reinforcements arriving after the guard at area #1 blew his horn. It was a huge battle taking multiple sessions, but the king escaped through his secret door behind the throne (completely unnoticed by the party who were otherwise engaged in a fight for their lives). They searched around and found nothing, so they pried three gems off the throne and left to recover hit points and spells.
The second foray, they faced the ballista trap, but the cautious PCs knew something was up when the doors were left open. The druid had scouted the place in falcon form and spotted the trip wire. On their return trip, he alerted his thief henchman to disarm the trap while the others waited outside. The attempt failed, but the ballista missiles harmlessly passed overhead and out the front door. They found within more giant guards and a chimera led to the front on a heavy chain. These were slain, as were the replacement guards defending the king. THe king got involved this time, and destroyed the druid's summoned earth elemental, but he could only watch as the party cleaned up the other guards while hedging him out behind a wall of force.
During their recovery period, some of the party went off to train. The magic-user used a crystal ball with clairaudience to keep tabs on the king who was healing thanks to a dark-clothed female cleric of man-size. They assumed that this was one of the Dark Ones they had already encountered elsewhere (drow), and now assumed that he had a pocket cleric casting spells for him (little do they know). The magic-user also saw the details of the king's bedchamber and the Queen consoling him. The druid, cleric, magic-user, and one remaining fighter went on a mission to cause havoc, releasing a polymorphed bulette against the giants' defenses, followed up by a creeping doom spell, before retreating. (See the previous post.)
The next few sessions dealt with the training time and the actions of the others as they defended the safe base from patrols of giants, hell hounds, and armored trolls sent to find them. They remain undetected by the main force, as they have handily eliminated all invaders to their safe base. Recently, they went in for a fourth assault (keep in mind that they have not ventured past the Great Hall very far yet). I had the drow cleric set glyphs of warding in random locations in the front corridor. The players, being suspicious, used a wand of trap detection to locate the presence of the traps, then the druid cast detect magic to sense their location (despite being invisible). He led the party through the glyph mine field and back into the Great Hall which was empty. The party went to the south tapestry and encountered a group of giant guards, both male and female. We did not finish the combat yet, but you can already see that fooling these characters is really hard given the resources at their disposal!
I've been trying to play up the danger of the scenario - the hostile environment, the danger of fire, the remoteness of the location, etc. - while keeping them in suspense and entertained. They have done well thus far, only losing about 6 of their dwarven soldiers (1st level fighters all), and several of them have made levels since entering the place (some more than once, since they are new henchmen getting XP for giants, which even halved is amazingly high).
The party set up a safe base located 3 miles from the Halls to the east. The base is hidden from the air, as it is a fissure opened in the earth revealing a section of old dwarven construction destroyed by the volcano erupting decades ago. They secure it daily by casting hallucinatory terrain over the place. The dwarves have taken one side of the fissure for their own. This section also houses the mules (8 dwarven mules + 4 party mules). They have a huge party - three PCs (half-elf druid 12, human magic-user 11, human ranger 10), six henchmen (halfling fighter 6, dwarf fighter 8, human fighter 7, human thief 9, human magic-user 3, human cleric 9), 5 followers (3 druids 2nd level, 2 gnome fighters 3rd level), 2 dwarven sergeants (2nd level fighters), a dwarven healer (fighter/cleric), and 14 dwarven crossbowmen (all 1st level fighters). The dwarves are soldiers from Rockhome sent by the clans to help with the mission to defeat the fire giant king once and for all.
Due to the small folk in the party, their movement rate is 6". With the harsh volcanic terrain, I halved that, so the party is only moving 3" outdoors. This means that their base, 3 miles away, takes about 6 hours to reach on foot. They have set up a forward base at a volcanic ejecta crater about 1 mile north of the halls, which they use when they are readying to enter the dungeons. This provides them enough time to enter the place after prepping spells. Since they cast Leomund's secure shelter as their campsite, they fear little in the night. After a 2 hour trip to the Halls they can merrily enter and slay to their heart's content all day if desired.
They entered the first time and easily took out the fire giant guard behind the tapestry and handled the two ettins without a problem. They approached the throne and handily took down the kings guards and hell hounds, even with reinforcements arriving after the guard at area #1 blew his horn. It was a huge battle taking multiple sessions, but the king escaped through his secret door behind the throne (completely unnoticed by the party who were otherwise engaged in a fight for their lives). They searched around and found nothing, so they pried three gems off the throne and left to recover hit points and spells.
The second foray, they faced the ballista trap, but the cautious PCs knew something was up when the doors were left open. The druid had scouted the place in falcon form and spotted the trip wire. On their return trip, he alerted his thief henchman to disarm the trap while the others waited outside. The attempt failed, but the ballista missiles harmlessly passed overhead and out the front door. They found within more giant guards and a chimera led to the front on a heavy chain. These were slain, as were the replacement guards defending the king. THe king got involved this time, and destroyed the druid's summoned earth elemental, but he could only watch as the party cleaned up the other guards while hedging him out behind a wall of force.
During their recovery period, some of the party went off to train. The magic-user used a crystal ball with clairaudience to keep tabs on the king who was healing thanks to a dark-clothed female cleric of man-size. They assumed that this was one of the Dark Ones they had already encountered elsewhere (drow), and now assumed that he had a pocket cleric casting spells for him (little do they know). The magic-user also saw the details of the king's bedchamber and the Queen consoling him. The druid, cleric, magic-user, and one remaining fighter went on a mission to cause havoc, releasing a polymorphed bulette against the giants' defenses, followed up by a creeping doom spell, before retreating. (See the previous post.)
The next few sessions dealt with the training time and the actions of the others as they defended the safe base from patrols of giants, hell hounds, and armored trolls sent to find them. They remain undetected by the main force, as they have handily eliminated all invaders to their safe base. Recently, they went in for a fourth assault (keep in mind that they have not ventured past the Great Hall very far yet). I had the drow cleric set glyphs of warding in random locations in the front corridor. The players, being suspicious, used a wand of trap detection to locate the presence of the traps, then the druid cast detect magic to sense their location (despite being invisible). He led the party through the glyph mine field and back into the Great Hall which was empty. The party went to the south tapestry and encountered a group of giant guards, both male and female. We did not finish the combat yet, but you can already see that fooling these characters is really hard given the resources at their disposal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)