Holmes and AD&D Weapon vs Armor Class

There is an interesting comment on this post over at Grognardia that points out that the 1e PH has a relatively simple set of rules for combat on pages 104-5. Since the Holmes Basic Set suggests Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as the "more complete rules," I found it very interesting that there are some significant differences between the way combat is presented in these two editions: initiative and the length of a combat round. 

Holmes bases initiative on Dexterity, the 1e PH has each side in a combat roll a d6. In Holmes, a combat round is 10 seconds, in the 1e PH the combat round is 1 minute.

Also interesting is the following quote about Weapon Factors:

You have already seen information regarding the damage each type of weapon does, how heavy each is, how long and how much space each needs, and each weapon's relative speed factor. The same charts also give relative efficiency against armor types. Your referee will use these factors in the determination of melee combats by relating them to his Attack Matrices.

I love how the war gaming roots of D&D can be seen in those last two italicized words. More interstingly, however, is the fact that all of this information about weapons don't really belong in the abstract 1 minute rounds of the 1e PH. On the other hand, the 10 second round of Holmes invites the kind of realism these Weapon Factors seem to want to emulate. 

Long time readers of this blog will know that I have a deep fascination with both Holmes and Weapon vs. Armor Class tables. Given the fact that Holmes states:

The combat tables used by D&D gamers are often extremely complicated. Full tables are given in Advanced Gungeons & Dragons. The tables below are deliberately simplified...

I began to wonder if it were possible to reconcile the "extremely complicated" combat tables from the 1e PH and the Holmes Basic Edition by assuming the Holmes was more correct than the 1e PH. The result was the following table:

A couple of notes before I begin explaining some of the implications of this table:

1. I interpreted Space Required as how many people could fit in a 10 foot square, with a maximum of 3 standing shoulder to shoulder.
2. I used the variable damage dice from the 1e PH rather than a universal 1d6
3. I only used those weapons listed in the equipment list of Holmes and their cost
   
4. I averaged all of the various factors of all the pole arms not explicitly named in Holmes to come up with stats for the generic "pole arm" listed in Holmes
5. I did the same for the generic "sword" listed in Holmes
6. I stuck to Melee weapons for the present, because Missile Combat in Holmes is a completely different phase of combat
7. I chose to use armor class ranges to represent Plate Mail, Chain-type Mail, Leather Armor, and Unarmored so as to make things easier when looking at Monster Stats
8. I used AC 3, 5, 8, and 10 in the 1e PH to represent the armor classes from Holmes 
9. Note: all of this is possible because Dexterity in Holmes does not affect Armor Class
   

Lets deal with Speed and Initiative first. Holmes has Dexterity = Initiative. Speed would subtract from a character's Dexterity Score to end up with a final Initiative. Thus, a Fighter with a Dex 11 using a Sword would have a 6 Initiative. 

The 1e PH describes surprise in terms of 6 second phases and states that a surprise attack can happen in that short amount of time. Given that a combat round in Holmes is 10 seconds, it suggests that a character with an Initiative of over 10 could attack twice in a round. Thus, anyone with a Dex 13+ could attack twice a round with a dagger and thus explain that most controversial statement by Holmes that daggers can be used twice per round. It also suggests that ending up with a negative Initiative means that a weapon is too unwieldy for the character to use.

This creates a problem when it comes to Pikes, which have a speed of 13; however, I would argue that with their extreme reach, they can engage targets while Missile Combat is still in effect. The huge speed indicates that a Pike in normal melee is too cumbersome for most characters to actually use.

Another implication of this table is that Plate Mail is better than advertised. Most weapons have a penalty to hit it. The real exception to this is the Two-Handed Sword; however, it has a 10 speed and only one person can wield it in a 10ft. corridor. I also find that the Morning Star is possibly the best weapon overall, rather than the ubiquitous Sword.

While this might all be fascinating, it does run up against a serious problem when trying to apply all of this to monsters. There are several of solutions here that I think would be fair:

1. Make use of all those detailed weapon % tables that the MM1 has for most of the humanoid monster entries
2. The average weapon speed of all the weapons above is 7. This can be universally applied to all monsters who use weapons. The 1e PH lists Fist, Unarmed with a Speed of 1. This can be applied to all monsters that don't use weapons.
3. One could use an Initiative system based on size: Small Creatures get 3d6, Medium get 2d6, and Large get 1d6 with no additions or subtractions.

This, of course, would need to be play tested, but I think this is the closest I have ever come to making a Weapon vs. Armor Class Table that I would actually use at the table.

SF + SWL Mash-Up Part 3

Crunch

Now that we have established the proto-skill system of AoEs, we need to have a means of determining what happens when Joe or Jane Player can’t quite convince the Referee that their Space Specialization should let them know if a local plant is poisonous.

Over at Delta’s D&D Hotspot you will find one of my favorite formulas for attack rolls:

d20+HD+AC ≥ 20

I want to incorporate the basic gist of this idea. When making any kind of roll involving what RPGs generally call a “skill,” including combat, a character succeeds when the player rolls a d20 adds their bonuses and arrives at a total of 20 or more.

This necessitates determining what a base success looks like. In SWL there are three places where we can start to get an idea of how often a player can expect to succeed: Combat, Turning Undead and Thief Skills.

• The average AAC of all the monsters in SWL is 13.
• A 1st level cleric needs a 10+ on 3d6 to Turn a Skeleton, a 13+ to Turn Ghouls & Zombies, a 15+ to Turn Shadows & Wights and a 17+ to Turn a Wraith.
• A Thief has a 1 in 6 chance for most skills, the exceptions being Hear Noise (3 in 6), Read Languages (4 in 6) and Climb Walls (5 in 6). Demi-human Thieves have some skills at 2 in 6. 

Thus, there is an average 40% chance to hit in combat, and average of 25% chance to Turn all undead and most Thief Skills have a 16.7% chance of success. The average of all of these is approximately 27%. Bump that up a little due to the various other Thief Skills and we are rather close to the 2 in 6 (32%) chance that feels very familiar to those who have played older versions of D&D.

Translating that into a d20 roll means a 14 or a 15 + bonuses to arrive at 20+ in our formula.

This means I have wiggle room to assign variable “Base Action Bonuses” to each class:

• Fighter +7
• Cleric +6
• Magic-user +5

This means that Fighters will be the “skill” class. I justify this because there really isn’t any justification for limiting clerics to blunt weapons or magic-users to staffs and daggers when weapons are described as laser, sonic and conventional as I plan to do. Thus all three classes will be able to use any weapon.

In addition, I am toying with the idea of allowing the spell-casters to use their spells multiple times per day with two different options:

• To use a spell immediately requires a successful roll.
• To use a spell that will automatically succeed requires 10 minutes to cast.

Therefore, Fighters get that extra bonus when trying to do the “impossible” stuff.

To sum up, everything in this SWL + SF mash-up will rely on the following formula:

Success = d20 + Base Action Bonus + Situational Bonuses/Penalties ≥ 20.

This also opens the door to this formula:

Critical Success =  d20 + Base Action Bonus + Situational Bonuses/Penalties ≥ 30.

Playing with Abstraction (5e and BX)

There is an interesting pattern that exists in the way 5e describes armor and the way that BX presents armor. 5e has three categories: Light, Medium and Heavy. BX has Leather, Chain and Plate. Although 5e does have variable Armor Classes to different types of armor within each category, I think it very useful to abstract armor in the way that 5e does for the purposes of hacking 5e ideas into BX.

If one replaces leather, chain and plate with Light, Medium and Heavy armor with the same corresponding AC, it frees players and referees to describe armor anyway that they want to. Traditional D&D (including BX) is largely driven by the martial traditions of medieval and renaissance Europe. Abstracting armor to the broad categories of 5e suddenly allows a very simple way for players to imagine their characters from radically different martial traditions. For example, in my own Lost Colonies campaign, Medium Armor is crafted from the scales of giant fish from the Endless River and Heavy Armor from the chitin of giant insects.

To a limited extent, 5e also suggests a similar abstraction with weapons in context of Monk weapons usable with the Martial Arts feature of that class. 5e doesn’t bother to list nunchaku or kama in their weapon list. Rather, they offer the following advice:

[Y]ou might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in chapter 5.

In other words, use the stats for existing European martial weapons and re-imagine them as a weapon from another martial tradition.

This got me thinking about taking this abstraction to the level of the armor abstraction. In other words, have broad categories of weapons, which are modified by weapon properties in order to provide generic stats to describe whatever kind of weapon the player or referee wants.

5e provides three of these categories: simple weapons, martial weapons and the subclass in each of ranged weapons. Simple weapons can be categorized as weapons that can be made of wood and/or stone. For example: clubs, hand axes, daggers. Martial Weapons are those that require the use of metal. For example, swords, polearms and heavy crossbows.

Each category would then have a base cost, which would be modified by weapon properties. The least expensive simple weapon (the club) in BX costs 3 gp. The least expensive martial weapon (warhammer or short sword) costs 5 gp or 7 gp. The most expensive melee weapon is the two-handed sword at 15 gp. Bows range in price from 25 gp to 40 gp

From this one could abstract weapons in the following ways:

• Base price of a simple weapon = 3 gp
• Base price of a martial weapon = 6 gp
• Each additional property = 3 gp for simple weapons and 6 gp for martial weapons.
• Ranged weapons have a short range of 10 feet which is doubled for medium range and tripled for long range. Every 10 feet added to the short range costs an extra 5 gp. For example: a short bow has a short range of 50 feet in BX. That would be an extra 40 feet for (4 x 5 gp) 20 gp. Having no other properties and being a simple weapon a short bow would cost 23 gp, which is comparable to the 25 gp cost in BX.

This system creates a set of properties that describe abstract ideas about a weapon which then can be used to create any weapon that a player or referee desires to exist in their campaign world. Since all damage is based on class, this system doesn’t punish players for wanting an exotic (non-sword) weapon.

For example, there are weapons in my Lost Colonies campaign similar to the macahuitl from the Aztec martial tradition. It is a simple weapon, being made of wood and stone, and has the Versatile property being able to be wielded either one-handed or two-handed. Thus, it would cost 6 gp.

The only wrench in this abstraction is the sling. According to this system it would cost 18 gp (3 for being a simple weapon, 15 gp for having a base range of 40 feet). In BX they are the cheapest weapon at 2 gp. If one is willing to include training in the abstraction of a weapon’s cost (because using a military sling isn’t easy) than this still works overall.

In the end, I am willing to live with hiccups like the sling if it gives me the freedom to imagine all kinds of weapons and have a simple way to mechanically describe them and assign a monetary cost to them.

Playing with Weapon Properties (5e and BX)

For years, I have used universal damage dice at my table while playing BX or LL. This decision, however, is not a partisan one as I have explained here. In recent years, I have subscribed to a class-based version of the universal damage die where magic-users use d4, clerics & thieves use d6 and fighters use d8. Anyone who is really familiar with my musings, however, knows that I do have a soft spot for tactical choice in weapons used by PCs. Several times over the years, for example, I have tried (and failed) at making Weapon vs. AC tables where different weapons do better versus different types of armor.

During my musings on combining Holmes with Cook, I took a stab at attaching some tactical choices to weapon variable damage here and here. I have yet to use this particular system at the table, because the siren song of a universal damage die just works for me.

With its various weapon properties, however, 5e may just very well allow me to have my cake and eat it too. The categories in question are as follows:

• Light weapons can be used in the off hand for two weapon fighting
• Finesse weapons allow the DEX bonus in place of the STR bonus
• Thrown weapons may used as either melee or missile weapons
• Versatile weapons can be used as either a one-handed or two-handed weapons
• Heavy weapons can’t be used by Small Creatures without disadvantage
• Reach weapons have an extra 5 ft range
• Two-Handed weapons require two hands, but do more damage

These properties can be adjusted to affect a class-based universal damage die in BX or LL:

• Light = 2 attacks per round at half-die damage ea.
• Thrown = base die damage
• Two-Handed = next die up damage but automatically lose initiative
• Versatile = use either as one handed (base damage) or two-handed (next die up damage but lose initiative)
• Reach = base damage and automatically win initiative on round one, but automatically lose it on subsequent rounds.
• Heavy = Dwarves and Halflings can’t use these weapons.

Thus, if a battleaxe were to be given the Versatile property as it is in 5e, then a magic-user would be able to do d4 damage normally or d6 damage as a two-handed weapon (and automatically lose initiative). A cleric or thief would do d6/d8 damage and a fighter would do d8/d10 damage.

A Light weapon, such as a dagger, would allow a magic user to attack twice in the same round doing 1d2 with each attack. A cleric or a thief would do 1d3 damage and a fighter d4. This property would only apply to melee combat. Thus, if a dagger were thrown, only one could be thrown in a round and would do d4/d6/d8 damage.

Bows would do normal damage (d4/d6/d8), slings would have the Versatile property and Crossbows would have the Two-Handed property.

Finesse weapons would work exactly like they do in 5e (allow DEX instead of STR if the player so chose).

Thus, there still exists a universal damage die based on class, but each class has a variety of tactical choices when it comes to the weapons they want to use. Given that no one weapon is universally better than every other weapon (as swords are in AD&D), this still allows players to use a wide variety of weapons without being punished for wanting something for purely aesthetic reasons.

Old School Feats Revisited

A little less than a year ago, I mused about a way to utilize feats in context of old-school rules. I gave an example of how such a system might work with the magic-user class, but I never went further. Since I have been in the midst of going over all the material I have produced over the years and finishing ideas, I thought it apropos to “finish” this post by providing a full set of feats for all four base classes.

In the original post, I noted that any implementation of the system could (and probably should) be customized for a particular campaign. Thus, what follows makes the following assumptions:

1. Building upon a post I made on Charisma and Wisdom, Charisma is the Prime Requisite for Clerics, Wisdom has been replaced with Awareness and the latter is the Prime Requisite for Thieves.
2. The range of bonuses is going to be in the 0e/Holmes/S&W/LL+OEC range of ±1.
3. The initiative system is individual, specifically a Holmesian variation where Awareness determines initiative order rather than Dexterity.
4. Characteristics will be rolled with 3d6 in order.
5. There is a combat bonus associated with each characteristic.

The bonuses for each characteristic are as follows:

• Strength (S) = to-hit melee
• Dexterity (D) = to hit ranged
• Constitution (C) = hit points
• Intelligence (I) = damage
• Awareness (A) = initiative
• Charisma (CH) = armor class

Every class has a Prime Characteristic and characters have an Ancillary Characteristic. If these characteristics are 13-14 they may choose to have a +5% XP bonus (cumulative). If they are 15+ they may choose a 10% bonus (cumulative). This can result in up to a +20% XP bonus. Alternatively, the player may choose to have the feats associated with either or both the Prime Characteristic and Ancillary Characteristic:

Cleric

S = Improved Turning (Turn at one level higher)
D = Empower Spell (Maximize the variable on one spell per day)
C = Extend Spell (Double the duration of one spell per day)
I = Weapon Proficiency (Choose one weapon not allowed by class at character creation)
A = Divine Protection (+1 on saves vs. spells or spell-like devices)
CH = Bonus Spell (Gain one random 1st level spell per day)

Fighter

S = Power Attack (Take up to a -3 penalty on a to-hit roll for an equivalent bonus on any damage roll that results)
D = Cleave (When a target is reduced to 0 hp, gain an extra attck)
C = Fortitude (+1 on saves vs. poison and death)
I = Shield Bash (May use a Shield Bash as an attack. The damage is 1d3 and the target automatically drops to the bottom of the initiative order the next round).
A = Weapon Focus (Gain a +1 to hit and damage with one weapon chosen at character creation)
CH = Expertise (Take up to a -3 penalty on a to-hit roll for an equivalent bonus to AC until next attack)

Magic User

S = Armor Proficiency (May wear leather armor without penalty)
D = Empower Spell (Maximize the variable on one spell per day)
C = Extend Spell (Double the duration of one spell per day)
I = Weapon Proficiency (Choose one weapon not allowed by class at character creation)
A = Iron Will (+1 save vs. Petrify or Paralyze)
CH = Store Spell (Store one spell which can be spontaneously cast in place of another prepared spell of equal or greater spell level).

Thief

S = Armor Proficiency (May wear Chain Mail without penalty)
D = Weapon Finesse (May use the Dexterity Bonus for melee instead of the Strength Bonus)
C = Toughness (Gain +3 hit points)
I = Sneak Attack (do an extra 1d6 in damage on attack from the rear or from the flank)
A = Lightning Reflexes (+1 save vs. Breath Weapons)
CH = Magical Aptitude (Choose one first level spell that can be cast once per day)

For example:
A player rolls a Strength of 16, an Awareness of 13 and average or below on all other characteristics. She decides to have a fighter (Prime Characteristic = Strength) and chooses Awareness as the Ancillary Characteristic. She may have either a 10% XP bonus or Power Attack from Strength and either a 5% XP bonus or Cleave from Awareness. Therefore she has the following options:

1. Power Attack and Cleave
2. Power Attack and 5% XP bonus
3. 10% XP bonus and Cleave
4. 15% XP bonus.

There are a few interesting ways to implement this system:

• So as not to punish players who do not have two characteristics at 13 or more (as in the example above), but still put some limitations on availability, feats can be available for characteristics of 9 or more.
• For those who don’t like level limits, one can balance out the racial advantages of the various demi-humans by only allowing humans to take advantage of the above system.
• For those who like being more strict, the feats can be only available at 13+ and unavailable to demi-humans (who function as a means to give cool powers to "hopeless" characters)

There are also some interesting implications about this system (especially if one ignores experience point bonuses). These all basically become class abilities:

• Cleric = Bonus Spell
• Fighter = Power Attack
• Magic User = Weapon Proficiency
• Thief = Lightening Reflexes

To my mind all of these make some sense. Clerics normally expect bonus spells. Fighters should have a tactical choice for a chance to do more damage. Gandalf can now wield his sword. Thieves should be a little more lucky when trying to get away with a dragon’s treasure.

Saintly Saturday: St. Thomas

Today is the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle. Of the Twelve, St. Thomas may very well be my personal favorite. While he is most popularly known by the moniker “Doubting Thomas,” I believe this is a bit unfair. While he does declare that he would not believe in the resurrection before he put his hand in the mark of nails and in the Lord’s side, note his words upon seeing the resurrected Christ:

My Lord and my God! — John 20:28

This is not only a tremendous statement of faith, but St. Thomas is the only person in any of the four Gospel accounts to explicitly call Christ God.

This faith also led Thomas to go to similar extremes as St. Paul to preach the Gospel. According to tradition, he founded churches in Palestine, Mesopotamia, Parthia, Ethiopia and India. It was in the latter where he was martyred in the city of Meliapur when he was pierced by five spears.

Today, there is still a Christian presence on the southwest coast of India in the state of Kerala. Therein is enough inspiration for an entire campaign far removed from a lot of our normal FRPG tropes.

The region of Kerala provides a fantastic geography, quite similar to that found in the classic Known World map of the Expert Edition. It is a plain surrounded by mountains with a couple valleys that connect it to the rest of the world. There is an ancient paleolithic culture that has left ruins. There is religious diversity — predominately Hindu with sizable Islamic and Christian minorities. With the hagiography of St. Thomas, there is also a tie-in for five major relics — the spears that martyred the saint.

Possibly the most attractive aspect of this camping setting, however, is the fact that Kerala is the home to Kalaripayattu — a native martial art style. It comes in a variety of flavors and there is even a version practiced by Christians. In other words, not only is there is a perfectly legitimate reason for monks and other martial artists to be a base character class, but entire factions within the campaign world can be built around a particular style.

Another intriguing aspect of this setting is the weapons associated with both Kalaripayattu and the region. Some are typical D&D weapons:

• Val = Sword
• Shareervadi = Staff
• Kuntham = Spear
• Gada = Mace
• Churika = Short Sword
• Kattari = Dagger

However, there are a couple of atypical weapons:

• Maduvu = deer-horn dagger
• Otta = curved stick
• Kuruvadi = short stick
• Urumi = flexible sword

It is this last that most intrigues me, and would beg for variable weapon damage so that it could do less damage than a normal sword, but be able to ignore shields.

Finally, it would give an excuse for using this alphabet:

It is called Malayalam for those who are interested. Beautiful, isn’t it?

Holmes & Cook: Combat

The more time I spend with Dr. Holmes and his Basic Edition, the more fascinated I become and, frankly, more surprised. I find that I am having to leave my own preconceived notions and prejudices at the door, because Holmes is constantly challenging them. This is no less true of the way he seems to envision combat.

As a point of departure, let us look at the Combat Sequence as it is found in Cook:

Each side rolls initiative (1d6)
The side with initiative acts first:

1. Morale checks, if necessary
2. Movement
3. Missile fire combat
4. Magic Spells
5. Melee combat

Each remaining side them completes the above actions in order.

Initiative

In Holmes, combat initiative is determined individually by Dexterity. Where Dexterity scores are relatively similar (within 1 or 2 points) a d6 is rolled to see who goes first. Dexterity of monsters is rolled on the spot. This order is static.

Interestingly, this style of initiative actually plays very nicely into the Variable Weapon Damage table I came up with by melding concepts from both Holmes and Cook. Characters with low Dexterity are incentivized to use bigger, slower weapons. If they are going to be going last in combat anyway (due to a low Dex), why not go with the slower weapons and do more damage? It also makes pole-arms (which automatically win initiative on round one) very valuable.

Morale

Though morale is mentioned by Holmes, there is no codified rules for them. He mentions henchmen loyalty in his explanation of Charisma. He also mentions in his description of Hobgoblins that they have a +1 to their morale. Interestingly, he equates this with a saving throw vs. fear. Does this mean Charisma measures some kind of magical aura that inspires people to loyalty or fear? It would be interesting to see what would happen if a morale check was actually a save vs. spell/death ray, etc. (Which one do you use?) I must admit, however, that having successfully used the morale rules from B/X for years (and given that they are very clearly laid out in Cook), I am very much inclined to use them rather than the nebulous saving throw that Holmes seems to suggest.

Movement

Holmes describes movement in a combat round this way:

Movement (if any) is usually at a sprint; an unarmored man can move 20 feet per melee round, a fully armored man only 10 feet.

This is radically different from the 60/90/120 feet implied in Cook (and what I am far more familiar with). The reason for this departure is that Holmes understands combat as a unique sub-system of time and movement:

There are ten "rounds" of combat per turn. Each round is ten seconds, so a combat turn is shorter than a regular turn

Indeed, rather than combat being an abstract representation of a flurry of blows, each round reflects single blows by each person participating in combat:

Melee is the most exciting part of the game, but it must be imagined as if it were occuring in slow motion so that the effect of each blow can be worked out.

Since combat is less abstract, movement and position become far more important. Indeed, Holmes suggests that

the Dungeon Master should be guided by the actual placement of the figures on a paper sketch or on the table in deciding how many opponents can engage as melee starts, always keeping in mind the dimensions of the dungeon itself.

Missile combat

This placement becomes critical when it comes to missile fire because Holmes limits the use of missile fire in a couple of significant ways. Firstly, he states:

unless in a very high roofed area, all slinging, as well as long range fire, is not possible.

Secondly, he states several times that missile fire is not possible once melee begins:

Once the party is engaged in melee, arrows can not be fired into the fight because of the probability of hitting friendly characters.

[When] melee is joined, after which no missile fire is permitted because of the danger of hitting friendly forces.

Remember that spells and missiles fired into a melee should be considered to strike members of one's own party as well as the enemy.

Two things, then, are going on. Firstly, movement is limited, not only because combat rounds are so short, but to allow for missile fire to be part of the game. Wandering monsters will represent a large number of combats, and these encounters happen at a distance. Since missile fire ends once the sides are engaged in melee, small movement rates necessitate tactics and resource management when closing with a group of wandering monsters.

Secondly, Holmes appears to envision missile fire in terms of volleys rather than in uber-accurate shots made by marksmen. When firing in a volley, archers aim in arcs — and this is especially true of slingers. This is how they get distance. Thus, when in a confined space, long range is not possible. Though Holmes does state that missile fire is not possible once melee is engaged, he does hint at the possibility — as long as you are willing to chance hitting your own party. This is exactly what would happen if a volley rained down on a melee.

In other words, combat according to Holmes is more war-game than RPG. Personally, I do not see that as a problem, given that Holmes still errs on the side of simplicity. However, it does bring with it an interesting pre-supposition.

Proficiency with a missile weapon does not equate to marksmanship. It means you are able to launch a missile at a general area, not necessarily a specific target. An interesting implication is that when firing at a group, targets ought to be determined randomly. This is an easy way to simulate the possibility of hitting your own party members when in melee.

Given that Holmes leaves the door open to both firing into melee (risking damage to your own) and to classes far beyond the four archetypes, here we see the suggestive shape of a marksman-type character. Since he mentions the ranger sub-class, it follows that by limiting weapon & armor choice, the ranger could target specific opponents, choose to fire into melee without doing damage to his own party and have the ability to fire at long range indoors.

As an aside, I wouldn't so severely limit the sling. Having seen these things in use, I believe it would be possible to fire indoors at closer ranges.

Magic

Holmes allows spells to be cast prior to missile combat:

When there is time, or when a magic-user says he is getting a spell ready, magic spells go off first. This is followed by any missile fire…

I think this is fair. Note what Holmes says about casting spells while engaged in melee:

If he [the magic user] is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic but must draw his dagger and defend his skin!

Thus, if spells came after missile fire, a spell caster might never be able to cast any spells (where getting hit by a missile interrupts the casting).

Interestingly, Holmes allows magic users to use magical staves and wands as melee weapons — despite the fact that, as far as normal weapons are concerned, they can only use daggers.

Magic does raise an interesting problem not addressed by Holmes. Since turns inside and outside of combat are radically different (100 seconds vs. 10 minutes), what relationship do they have to spell duration? Since Holmes describes combat turns as resulting "in at least as much muscular fatigue" I think that the answer to spell duration depends on when the spell is cast. If cast outside of combat, normal turns apply. Inside combat, combat turns apply. This should encourage planning ahead…

Melee

There are few interesting quirks here as well. Holmes allows for up to three abreast in a 10 ft. wide corridor:

One would not expect to get more than two or three figures fighting side by side in a ten foot corridor, for example.

Attacking from behind only garners a +2 to hit (but the target does not get to use a shield). There is also the ability to Parry. This has to be done prior to the attack. Doing so subtracts 2 from the attackers die; however, if the attack succeeds by rolling the exact target number, the parrying weapon breaks!

Finally, there is this juicy little blurb:

If an opposing figure is killed or withdraws, the attacker may advance or pursue immediately — if the player desires — or he may take some other action.

I am sorely tempted to interpret "some other action" to include another attack against someone in melee range. The question becomes, is this choice available to everyone, or just fighting men? Personally, I am leaning towards the latter.

All-in-all, I find myself truly intrigued by Holmesian combat and am itching to try it out…

Holmes & Cook: Magic Items

One of the fun parts about my thought experiment of creating a hypothetical home-brew amalgam of Holmes Basic and Cook Expert D&D is finding and then trying to figure out a way to reconcile discrepancies between the editions. The variable weapon damage table I came up with is an example. It is its own animal, but it definitely pays homage to both editions. One area where there is quite a bit of overlap (and therefore opportunities for discrepancy) is in the area of Magic Items.

Magic Swords

The first big discrepancy between Holmes and Cook in magic items is with magic swords. For Holmes:

Weapons with a plus after them are magical and the user adds the plus to his die roll for a hit.

That is not to damage (I find it intriguing that 3rd edition revives this concept with Master Work weapons, knowingly or unknowingly paying homage to this conception of magic weapons). In addition:

Any sword that is +2 or +3 against particular opponents (trolls, undead, etc.) does the indicated additional damage.

Thus a Sword +1, +2 vs. Spell Casters would be +1 to hit, and any time it did so against a Spell Caster, 2 would be added to damage. For Cook:

All magic swords are listed with a plus or minus. The number is the amount added to or subtracted from the result of the "to hit" roll and to the damage done.

Although Holmes curiously has most non-sword magic weapons behave like Cook's magic swords, this is a major discrepancy that must be dealt with. I could spend a lot of time arguing the merits of each approach and choose one over the other; however, I am not going to do that. This is an amalgam and an opportunity to solve problems not by going either/or but by choosing both/and.

There are clearly three types of magical weapons:

1. Those that only affect the to hit roll.
2. Those that affect the to hit roll and damage differently depending on the target.
3. Those that affect both the to hit roll and damage.

This last one represents those powerful magic weapons forged by an ancient civilization whose knowledge has been long since lost. No one remembers the means by which to create these weapons any more. The second represents an intermediary civilization that knew some of the ancient's secrets but did not have a full knowledge of the techniques required to create weapons that could also affect damage other than on specified targets. The first represents current knowledge on creating magical weapons. The ability to affect damage has been completely lost.

Ring of Regeneration

In Holmes, rings of regeneration are described thusly:

regenerates injury to the wearer at a rate of 1 hit point per turn, even if the wearer is killed and dismembered, unless the ring wearer is treated as a troll.

Cook describes them this way:

The wearer will regenerate lost hit points at the rate of 1 per round. It will also replace lost limbs; a finger will re-grow in 24 hours and 1 limb can be replaced in one week. The ring will not function if the wearer's hit points drop to 0 or less. Fire and acid damage cannot be cured by this ring.

This is an intriguing mix. Whereas Cook's version is much better with a healing rate, Holmes' version is capable of rescuing somebody from death (though I would rule that they would have had to have the ring on when they died in order for it to function). Clearly, the Holmes version would be the rare ancient magic; however, the Cook version tantalizingly indicates that there are things where the intermediary civilization improved ancient magical techniques.

Potion of Giant Strength

Holmes describes a potion of Giant Strength this way:

Confers the full advantages of stone giant prowess, including doing 3-18 points of damage when scoring a hit, and having the same hit probability as a stone giant.

Cook gives this description:

The user will gain the strength of a frost giant. The effect may not be combined with other strength-adjusting magic items. The user may throw small boulders up to 200' to strike for 3-18 (3d6) points of damage, and will inflict twice normal damage on a successful hit when using any weapon.

The key difference between these two is that in Holmes, the imbiber attacks as a 9HD creature. The fact that Cook's version invokes the more powerful Frost Giant does not change the fact that it is less potent when used by low level characters. Again, this gives a tantalizing picture of an intermediary civilization trying to improve upon ancient magic and in some way coming up short.

Other Magic Items

There are several other discrepancies in magic items, but this mostly has to do with things like duration. For example, Protection Scrolls last 1d4 turns according to Cook and 6 turns according to Holmes. Keeping with the both/and theme there will be Greater and Lesser versions of these items (where current knowledge only allows Lesser items to be created).

This will also hold true for Wands of Detecting Secret Doors and Traps. Cook separates these into two different wands. Both exist, with the combo version being a lost technique.

In Holmes the Staff of Striking is only usable by Magic Users. In Cook they are also usable by Clerics. This is a bit of a conundrum, depending upon the metaphysics of the game setting. In my case, having (Christian) Clerics around is a relatively new thing. Thus, for my own purposes, Cook's version would be newer; however, I would adjust that depending upon what type of cleric you wanted using these staves and whether or not they are still around.

Medallions of ESP come in two varieties in Cook (30' and 90') and do not malfunction. Homles stats a 60' version and they have a 1 in 6 chance of malfunctioning every time they are used. The 90' version is ancient magic. Cook's 30' version is the intermediary magic. The 60' Holmes version is current magic.

Finally, in Holmes, the Potion of Flying only allows a move of 120' per turn. Cook has it at 120' per round. Thus, the Holmes version is more of a levitation kind of thing and I would probably just rename it and have it as a separate magic item, especially since Cook lists a Potion of Levitation but has no description for it.

More Thoughts on Variable Weapon Damage via Holmes & Cook

After some good discussion after my post yesterday on variable damage via Holmes and Cook, I've done some more thinking. There a couple ways my table can be improved:

• There needs to be a distinction between daggers/knives and throwing daggers/knives. The first are Small Weapons and the latter are Thrown Weapons.
• Some weapons can exist in two different categories depending on how they are used or who uses them. For example, Bastard Swords can be used as Heavy Weapons when wielded two handed and Standard Weapons wielded with one hand. Another example would be racial weapons like the Gnome Hook. Normally, this would be a Penetrating Weapon. In the hands of a Gnome, however, it can also be used as a Small Weapon.
• There probably needs to be another category of weapons — Reach Weapons. They deal d8 damage and will automatically win initiative in the first round against any other type of weapon (vs. other Reach Weapons they function as Standard Weapons). On subsequent rounds, however, they automatically lose initiative.
• There also needs to be another type of missile weapon: small thrown weapons like darts. These do 1d4 damage and up to two can be thrown per round.
• Finally, if the prospect of automatically losing initiative is enough of a deterrent for players to avoid the use of Heavy Weapons in play testing, I might suggest taking a -4 on initiative instead.

Any thoughts?

Variable Weapon Damage using Holmes & Cook

As I've written before, when it comes to d6 vs. variable weapon damage, I am not a partisan. Yes, in practice I use d6 damage; however, I am not 100% convinced I like it. Enter yesterday's post about creating an amalgam of the Holmes Basic edition and the Cook Expert edition. When the comments discussion turned to d6 vs. variable weapon damage, I pointed out Holmes has daggers able to attack twice per round. Then several good people pointed me in the direction of some sites that discuss Holmes and why daggers ought not be able to do so.

While all very good and fantastically interesting, my thought experiment is about combining Holmes with Cook, and the rule about daggers attacking twice per round (obviously making it an "uberweapon" with d6 damage) got me thinking about a way to combine Holmes and Cook to scratch an itch about weapon damage. What follows is a variable damage weapon table that also gives players a tactical element to weapon choice:

Small Weapons

These weapons are small and/or swift. While they do only d4 damage, they allow a character to have two attacks per round.

• Dagger
• Staff*

Thrown Weapons

These versatile weapons only do d6 damage but may be used both as a thrown weapon and as an HTH weapon.

• Hand Axe
• Spear
• Club

Penetrating Weapons

These weapons are good at getting through armor. Though they only do d6 damage, they are at a +1 to hit in HTH.

• Lance
• Mace
• Short Sword
• War Hammer

Standard Weapons

These are standard HTH weapons. They do d8 damage.

• Flail
• Morning Star
• Sword

Heavy Weapons

While these weapons do d10 damage, they are slow. Therefore, characters who use them always lose initiative.

• Battle Axe*
• Pole arm*
• Two-Handed Sword*

Missile Weapons*

• Bows do d6 damage but are +1 to hit.
• Crossbows do d10 damage but lose initiative when they need to be reloaded.
• Slings do d8 damage.

* = two-handed weapon

Any thoughts?

Armor Class without Shields

One of my favorite renditions of Swords & Wizardry is Mike Davison's Ruins & Ronin. One of the minor tweaks that I enjoy is the way R&R handles armor and AC. Since the Japanese historically did not make use of the shield in the same way the Europeans did, shields are not part of the game, nor are they there to create a nice, clean AC progression. Rather, R&R allows players to cobble together various armor pieces where a full set of O-yori armor is AC -1.

If this principle were applied to European armor, then several aesthetic and mechanical things could be accomplished:

• It allows players to be more whimsical in their character conception through armor
• It has more potential for respresenting historic armor types from a wider range of time and place.
• It allows the shield to be something other than an AC modifier
• It conceptually makes more sense with a Weapon vs. AC table than the traditional "+shield" AC progression.
• It suggests a simple encumbrance rule where AC (modified by STR or DEX) x10 = movement (I must admit, I am borrowing this from something I read in the blogosphere, but I cannot remember who was the originator).
• It can make helmets mechanically important.

At the moment, I am approaching this from an abstract pov, so as to make it as flexible as possible. If the body is divided into three parts (head, torso, lower body) and armor divided into three types (light, medium, heavy) this creates the potential for an AC progression of 9 (no armor) to 0 (heavy armor for all three body parts) where Heavy = -3, Medium = -2 and Light = -1.

In addition, the torso and lower body can be divided into parts. Each part can have different styles of armor. Add up the different parts, divide by the number of parts (rounding down) in order to get the AC. For example, a retiarius gladiator is often depicted wearing heavy armor on one arm, but none on either the chest or other arm. Thus -3 +0 +0 = 3; 3/3 = 1. In addition, they are often depicted with a heavy armor helm. Thus, the final AC would be 5.

Movement rate = ACx10. This can be modified by the STR bonus. Thus, AC 0 with a 13 STR would allow a movement of 10 ft. If the character is wearing nothing but light armor, the STR bonus can be substituted for the DEX bonus.

I must admit that I am thinking of using this set-up in context of the 1 hit = 1 hp experiment I came up with over the weekend. Therefore, the following are directly related to that concept; however, with a little fiddling I can see them applicable to a variable damage system as well.

• Shields can negate one attack per round; however, the character using the shield cannot attack the creature whose attack was blocked that round.
• Two-handed weapons do +1 damage (x1.5 in variable?)
• Wielding two weapons affords a +1 to hit (allow the character to add their DEX bonus to hit?)

I would also consider making the latter two only available to fighters.

Chainmail Revisited (Weapon vs. AC Reborn?)

A recent post over at A Paladin in Citadel has got me thinking about Chainmail (and thus Weapon vs. AC tables) again. I very much like the system proposed, due to its marvelous simplicity; however, it suffers from the same problem that I ran into in my own attempts to implement a Chainmail-esque combat system. Unlike the alternate d20 system that subsequently became the norm, hit points never outpace damage per round in Chainmail combat. A 9HD creature has the potential to kill 9HD worth of opponents per round. This leads to short, deadly and (most importantly) boring combat.

This did not stop me from re-reading my LBBs with Chainmail in mind, however. As a result I ran into a very interesting tid-bit:

All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted.

On its own, this is not earth-shattering; however, this appears as part of the Alternate Combat System. This got me thinking — what if variable damage was not used if the Chainmail combat rules were in place? Rather than doing d6 hp damage per hit, everyone (unless noted — more on that later) would simply do 1 hp damage per hit.

Without having play tested this idea, there are some immediate consequences that come to mind:

• On average I would expect combat to last a little longer.
• Tactics would prove vital — figuring out how to focus attacks on a single target (and getting the right type of weapon vs. armor to increase the chance for a hit with a Weapon vs. AC table) would be key.
• Morale would play a much greater role in combat (and might actually help keep combats short).
• Creatures such as Ogres, Giants and Dragons would be truly terrifying, because they are capable of doing variable damage per hit.
• Having a +1 damage on anything would be a huge bonus.
• And most importantly, hit points outpace damage beginning at first level. Combat is still deadly, but no one is going to die from a single hit unless they have 1 hp (or are stupid enough to take on an Ogre, Giant or Dragon).

My obsession with finding a workable Weapon vs. Armor table may very well have found a second life...

On d6 Weapon Damage

This morning I followed a link from James at Grognardia to this very reasoned argument for all weapons doing d6 damage. Even though I use d6 damage for all weapons in my own game, I find myself disagreeing with this argument for much the same reasons.

Combat in OD&D is abstract. Thus, we as players are free to interpret various elements of the combat system as we choose. In other words, whether or not we use d6 damage, variable dice damage, weapon vs. AC tables, critical hits, ablative shields, or any number of combat rules is all aesthetics.

In my own experience I love universal d6 weapon damage and I hate it. So far, my love has outweighed my loathing. Having d6 damage has given my players the freedom to use weapons that they wouldn't otherwise use. The main party fighter uses a spiked club, which he is very attached to. Once variable weapon damage is introduced (especially as written in AD&D) fighters almost always go for swords — why settle for club at d4 damage when the long sword does d8? In practice, the universal d6 damage has resulted in creative play — since everything does d6 damage, advantage in combat comes from tactical choices outside of weapon choice. As a gamer, I've really enjoyed this creativity — aesthetics.

At the same time, I have noticed that it has reduced the number of cool shaped dice in actual game play. Over the course of a night, my players will only use d6s and d20s. Since one of the reasons I started gaming all those years ago was the ability to use all these cool shaped dice, I miss them in game play — aesthetics.

My group uses a house rule where shields are ablative and can absorb a hit by being destroyed. I have really enjoyed this in game play — it adds a level of tactical choice that increases tension in combat at the same time that it increases survivability. It is powerful enough, however, that there is little incentive to use two-handed weapons. They get used, but only in very specific tactical situations like bracing for a charge. I am not happy with this, but not enough to scrap d6 damage — aesthetics.

All of this demonstrates, I hope, that d6 weapon damage and variable weapon damage are both perfectly legitimate choices in play. I actually like both of them, for different reasons. The wonder of old-school style of play is that it gives us the room and freedom to play with both. It all comes down to what we find most entertaining to play with — aesthetics.