Random D&D Notes

The following thoughts are things I could probably wrap whole posts around, but I've been a little busy lately and (thus) don't know when I'll get to it. Rather than lose these in the ether, I figured I'd just jot them down, perhaps to examine more deeply in the future:

Some great replicas, but
this one was real.

Viking Treasure: had the chance to check out a great exhibit at the Nordic Museum (in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle) on loan from Uppsala University in Sweden. Called "The Vikings Begin" it was a great collection with a lot of historical information. Didn't know that that the Norse didn't really have a currency before the 10th century or so; they collected coins from their travels, and would still use them for trading (as silver), weighing them with small (portable) scales. Also, silver coins? Really f'ing tiny (about the diameter of a nickel and thinner than a dime), though otherwise fairly uniform across multiple centuries and cultures; the exhibit included English pennies, coins from Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire, Arabic dinars, and some sort of Russian coin, all dating from the 7th to 9th centuries). Norse people liked to use wealth (gold and jewels) to decorate their stuff, especially weapons and armor.

Viking Shields: really big. Something along the line of Alexis's rule for large shields is appropriate, if a little generous (the +2 versus small missiles in the original DMG might model better; your call, of course).

Magic Swords: I keep wanting to write about this and I keep finding it hard to make the time. Magic swords in Original D&D (and also continued in Holmes Basic) only added their magical bonus to attack rolls, NOT damage. As far as I can tell, this is simply a continuation of the rules for magic swords in CHAINMAIL, the tabletop war-game which doesn't record "damage" anyway: one hit = one kill. Miscellaneous magic weapons, on the other hand, add their bonus to both attack and damage, save in the case of certain weapons (like magic bows). This wasn't changed until the 1st edition of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, where bonuses became universally applied to attack and damage rolls for ALL weapons (including bows), presumably for simplicity and consistency...I can find no other reason/information for the change I've spent the last couple-three days combing through every issue of The Strategic Review and early Dragon magazines leading up to the DMG's release (and afterward) to see if there was mention of this change, finding nothing.

Here's the thing: I actually LIKE the original rule better; I like how it models abstract combat in D&D. Armor does not reduce damage; it prevents damage being inflicted at all. A magical bonus to hit reflects the magic weapon's ability to penetrate the armor. I don't require the weapon to inflict "more grievous wounds" especially as a successful attack roll with a low damage roll can still indicate two parties grappling in fierce melee and thumping each other with fists and feet, while they try to get their blade in position to strike home. Adding a damage bonus to a sword attack means every blow is more likely to have been a killing stroke...and I just don't like that. Leave that to the axes and spears and arrows. I find this is yet another thing I really like about the original game and the Holmes version of Basic.

[also, for some reason, my D&D groups have always played that magic bows do not inflict their bonus to damage. I have no idea why this is, as both the B/X and AD&D rules are clear that magic add their bonus to both attack and damage. Weird....really don't know where we learned to play like that...]

Old School Advancement: And this will be the final thought of this post, as I've got stuff to do. In reading these old magazines, I've found a lot of info, much of it fascinating, insightful, or informative. No, not all of it is great, but there ARE kernels/nuggets of "good stuff" in there, one of which is Gygax's own thoughts and ideas on how advancement was supposed to look in D&D: a successful player who's character participated in 50-70 game sessions per year could expect to reach 9th to 11th level after the first year of gaming, and then another 2-3 levels per year thereafter. At the time he was writing this, his Greyhawk campaign had been going on for four years and Arneson's Blackmoor had been going for five, and he could "definitively" state that no character in either campaign was higher than 14th level...presumably (it isn't explicit) due to a combination of character deaths, energy drain, and retirement from active adventuring. By my calculations, this rate of advancement amounts to a (rough) average of 4,000 experience points per character per session over the course of a year, which seems a little high but perhaps he was still using the pre-Supplement I system when it came to awarding XP for defeated monsters. For certain the article was written prior to the publication of the AD&D books.

[the reason for the high level spells in D&D (which became part of the system with the advent of the Greyhawk/Sup1 booklet) then appears to be neat and/or legendary effects that can be found on scrolls or provided through the good graces (or by paying) of high level NPCs]

I have to admit this seems entirely reasonable rate of advancement to me, and makes old tournament modules like Tomb of Horrors and Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth really look like worthwhile "epic paydays" for adventurers. Tomb of Horrors, especially, finally starts to inspire ambition as it's potential treasure payout is 437,409 g.p. Given that destruction of Acererak is another 100,000 x.p. that's a pretty substantial chunk of advancement for even a large party of adventurers. It really makes me turn up my nose at the paltry 53,035 g.p. one might pull out of White Plume Mountain...though, I suppose the original idea was that players would find the (campaign-wrecking) power of the magical weapons to be reward enough for their endeavor (all later publications/variations of WPM have insisted that the weapons be removed from PCs possession following the adventure).

All right...that's really all I have time for today. Later.

B/X Weapons & Shields

Ugh. I hate it when I contradict myself. Like when I say there shouldn't be a barbarian class in D&D when I'd previously posted a B/X version (and forgotten about it). Or when I write that characters are presumed to be using their weapons (even two-handed weapons) to the best of their ability, and then do something stupid like write all two-handed weapons were developed to penetrate armor so should receive an extra +1 to hit.

Sure, I'm allowed to change my mind (just like anyone)...BUT, when I reconsider my second stab at the same topic and realize that I was pretty much "right the first time"...well, I feel dumb issuing "retractions."

Ah, well...no help for it. I certainly continue to stand by my post on shields (and why they're modeled just fine in B/X); you won't find me suddenly changing my tune and saying "the shield rules in B/X are broken." No they ain't...not in my book, anyway. And I'm not going to worry about upkeep, repair, and broken weapons/equipment anymore than I'm going to worry about when characters need to answer the call of nature; they're professional adventurers, dammit, they're caring for their gear!

Having said that, I realize I've been skirting, sidestepping, and just plain ignoring the most glaring problem with my whole "all weapons do D6 damage" thang. And that's this:

"JB...if all weapons do D6 damage in B/X then what the hell's the point of purchasing different weapons at all? For a 1st level character, why aren't we just buying the cheapest weapon available (like clubs or daggers; the latter of which can be thrown). For that matter, didn't our primitive ancestors invent different weapons for different reasons?"

Of course they did...and why the hell aren't we honoring that?

OR (to put it another way), Moldvay/Cook/Marsh gave us a list of different weapons. They didn't just say:

"Hand Weapon - 10gp"

No, they provided us with a list of different weapons, even as did Holmes, even as did Gygax and Arneson...each weapon with its own individual weight and cost, despite the rules' basic premise that all weapons do D6 damage.

So fine...I will give you all reasons for buying/wielding different weapons.

Here are the caveats:

1. Combat must remain quick and simple

2. Damage remains D6 (or D8 for heavy weapons); my thoughts on that hasn't changed.

3. This shit has to be easy, so that I can remember it without consulting any damn tables (no weapon vs. AC minutia).

All right; everyone got the ground rules? Here's how I'd run it in my game:

OH, WAIT...before we begin, there's one item that needs to be added to the equipment list. The two-handed FLAIL, while mentioned in the Cook/Marsh Expert set, was left out of B/X despite being present in both OD&D and Holmes. No idea why. Here's our stats for including it (and I would use the exact same for a war maul as well):

Flail (two-handed), Cost: 8gp, Encumbrance: 100cns

Great...NOW we can begin:

ONE-HANDED WEAPONS

All weapons listed as one-handed weapons do D6 damage on a successful attack roll.

TWO-HANDED WEAPONS

Always strike last, regardless of initiative roll and do D8 damage to corporeal (physical) opponents; against spirits, elementals, or other creatures lacking a physical body, they only do D6 damage.

A character with a strength of 13+ may use a two-handed weapon with one hand. It still strikes last, but does only D6 damage.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING

A character with 13+ dexterity or a fighter of 3rd level (swordsman) or higher may use a one-handed weapon (only) in his or her off-hand. If the character fights defensively, the off-hand weapon provides a +1 bonus to AC just as a shield; if the character fights offensively he may roll D6 damage TWICE on a successful attack roll and pick the higher of the two dice. A character may only fight offensively or defensively in a round, not both.

***

The following special bonuses apply to specific weapon types. These special bonuses ONLY APPLY AGAINST OPPONENTS OF EQUAL OR LESSER HIT DICE/LEVEL; NONE OF THESE AFFECT MONSTERS OF HIT DICE 15+. For example, NONE of these weapons do anything special against an ogre unless the character is at least 4th level because an ogre has 4+1 hit dice (the +1 bonus is dropped for determining the hit dice of a monster). IN ADDITION, unless otherwise noted, none of these special bonuses work against the undead or incorporeal creatures (like spirits, elementals, or slimes) or ANY monster that requires a magical weapon to hit. Other restrictions may apply (and will be listed):

AXE WEAPONS (hand axe, battle axe)

+1 attack bonus against opponents with an AC of 7 or better. This bonus applies to skeletons and zombies.

SWORD WEAPONS (short, normal, two-handed, and daggers)

On a maximum damage roll (6, or 8 for two-handed swords), the weapon has slashed open a bleeding wound. The target will take an additional 1 hit point of damage every round until he spends a round binding his wound OR is magically healed. Has no effect on plants, constructs, or creatures that regenerate.

BLUNT WEAPONS (club, mace, hammer, flail/maul, staff)

On a maximum damage roll (6, or 8 for two-handed weapons), the weapon has a chance of rendering an opponent unconscious. The target rolls a save versus death ray, failure indicates he has been knocked senseless for D4 turns. This bonus has no effect on plants or constructs, or creatures with more than one head; clubs and staves have no effect on opponents with an AC of 5 (chainmail) or better.

POLE WEAPONS (spears, pole arms)

Wielder automatically gains initiative against any opponent not also armed with a pole weapon. As long as the opponent fails to hit with an attack, the wielder retains control of initiative every round; once an opponent scores a hit, initiative becomes normal (with spear-wielders rolling and pole-arm wielders always striking last). This ability will function against corporeal undead (like skeletons, zombies, and ghouls).

LARGE SHIELDS (*optional rule*)

A large shield is larger and heavier than the standard shield sold to adventurers and can protect more of the body at a cost to maneuverability. Only a character with a strength of 13+ can effectively use such an item in melee (at a +1 AC bonus); all others receive NO BONUS in melee. Against missile attacks the shield provides a +2 bonus to AC, and when used in formation with other large shield bearers it can provide an additional cover bonus (see page B26) of +1 to AC, or possibly more with other cover (thick woods, battlements, etc.). A large shield costs 15gp and has encumbrance of 200cns.

[hmm...does that count as changing my mind on shields?]

To My Players: I will be putting these rules into play effective immediately.

Shield Love

I’m tired of people whining over aspects of the game that aren’t broke. There are plenty of things in the D&D game that are in need of fixing, but for me SHIELDS aren’t one of these things. That there’s even a debate on the issue (or rather, a consensus of complaint) irritates me…like a tick under the old cuirass, so it does.

For me, I find shields in the B/X game to be modeled just about perfectly.

God, where to begin, where to begin…the stupid splintered shields rule? The discussion on the limitations of the shield? Shields through the ages? Or the total bad-assedness of the shield rules as written? We’ll probably have to get into the abstract combat of B/X at some point, too, though I dread re-treading the same ground already covered.

Ah, well.

Historically speaking, back when shields were a regular part of the field of battle (i.e. before gunpowder and plate armor, the latter of which forced warriors to switch-up to heavy two-handed weapons), they were generally made of wood and hide/leather. LIGHT wood…tricky enough to fight with one’s off-hand, but there was also the point about speed and arm endurance…you didn’t want to get tired out blocking blows all day.

And blocking shots is NOT what the shield was all about anyway. While crossbowmen might hide behind a tower shield for cover while re-loading, the average knight in the field (or foot-slogging infantryman) used the shield mostly for DEFLECTION…something to knock aside an opponent’s blow and (hopefully) create an opening for a killing strike. Shields are not a passive defense, but an active tool WIELDED by the fighter. Like an oven mitt used to get a hot item out of the stove, the shield was designed to maneuver something that would injure you if you used your bare hand.

Now I’ve put in a little shield-work, myself, in the past…15+ years ago, sure, but I remember the experience. Shields work great to deflect an incoming attack…until someone stronger and/or more skilled than you knocks it aside and clubs you. In individual combat (as opposed to a phalanx formation), shields are a happy little device, easily overcome by someone who knows what they're doing.

Of course, I’M no fighting man. If anything, I’m the equivalent of the Normal Human (maybe with 3 hit points, as I’ve been bicycling a lot lately). A +1 bonus to AC is about all I could hope and expect out of a shield…I would be MUCH better off wearing leather armor and helm (or hopefully, something heavier!).

Using a shield as an active defense is a grueling work, made easier and more effective by skilled use, by someone with COMBAT SMARTS. And how exactly are those things modeled in D&D?

Class and level, baby.

Hit Points, in other words. Who’s the most effective dude using a shield? A fighter. Who has the most hit points? A fighter. What do those hit points represent? Aside from actual physical health: endurance, conditioning, skill, and luck.

Take a look at my All Time Favorite medieval combat scene in film: the final judicial “trial by combat” in the 1952 film Ivanhoe, starring Robert Taylor. Ignore the clang of weapon on aluminum shields (the main historical inaccuracy of the scene) and go with the wanton brawl of an axe/flail fight that lasts three minutes (the equivalent of 18 combat rounds in B/X!). See those guys take a pounding on their shields? That’s not the equivalent of a “missed” attack roll…those are HITS that are subtracting hit points from each combatant’s profile.

Every shot that is not “actively deflected” is a blow that is absorbed, an impact felt through the wrist and arm and shoulder, a little more damage wearing the character down to where that final telling blow causes mortal injury. Because these guys are high level fighters they have scores of HPs to soak punishment…if it was me out there, I’d probably be clubbed senseless by the first blow struck, even if I got my shield up in front of my face!

Shields give you a +1 bonus to AC…it helps the exact same as having a Dexterity of 13-15. Interestingly, up until the AD&D PHB was published, there was never any mention of Dexterity being “agility”…in the LBBs and Supplement I and Holmes it is pretty clear that Dexterity is speed of hand and hand-eye-coordination. This is why it provides a bonus to missile combat (and determines “first strike” in Holmes). When Gygax gave fighting men (only) the bonus to AC based on DEX, it was due to the ability to dodge and parry attacks…hand-eye-coordination giving a bonus to defense for swordsmen.

Which, by the way, explains why the AC bonus provided by DEX was never affected by armor worn (well...until later editions, that is). Wearing chainmail or plate doesn’t hamper your ability to use your weapon for deflection and maneuver, it only hampers your movement when trying to run (which is accounted for with encumbrance). Shields, then, AID in the deflection/parry of incoming fire, just like having a higher dexterity.

“But what about arrows? Look at those films where a wall of shields holds off a huge flight of arrows.” Okay, first off, have you ever tried to deflect/block an incoming arrow/crossbow bolt with a shield? Have you ever tried to catch a bullet with a baseball glove? There are two reasons why a wall of shields is SOMEwhat effective against missile fire (as opposed to being incidentally effective for carrying a heater), neither of which has to do with Hollywood's dramatic license:

1. A bunch of people in formation means massed ammunition being divided amongst multiple targets…there's less chance that YOU are the one being hit.
2. Large enough shields in a stable formation can provide some amount of COVER (and such cover rules may be found in the B/X rules on page B26). While a single shield is NOT considered cover, a phalanx of steel shields or a two-handed tower shield might be considered such, depending on the DM’s judgment.

Otherwise, any protection provided by shields is minimal (possibly increased by a character’s DEX…how good are you at maneuvering that shield to catch an incoming missile?).

So having put all THAT out there, maybe you’re starting to come around to my way of thinking…that a +1 AC bonus for carrying a shield is just fine and dandy. Perhaps your next question is, why the heck would anyone want to carry a shield for a measly +1 bonus when I could be hitting folks in the mouth with my two-handed war sledge?

Because they are hella’ effective, that’s why.

I’m going to tell you a story first, and then I’ll give you some math. Back in the Way WAY Back History of my youth, I had a long-running AD&D campaign that featured characters of nearly every class and stripe: elves and half-elves, dwarves, thieves, barbarians, acrobats, assassins, bards, clerics, illusionists, drow…even classes/races out of Dragon magazine like half-ogres and archers and healers. The ONE combo that was almost completely missing was the lowly, drab, totally boring human fighter.

Almost.

We had ONE in our group…a character that had been grandfathered into our AD&D campaign from our B/X days. She still had D8 hit dice, and while we probably converted her for “weapon specialization” sometime after the Unearthed Arcana was published, I don’t remember ever using it. Fact of the matter is, she didn’t need it. With plate mail, shield, and a broad sword she outlasted and out-fought every other power player in the game. She was a frigging juggernaut, eventually relegated to the role of an NPC that would occasionally make cameo appearances. As a kid, I never understood why she was so much more durable than the 18 CON barbarian or the 20th level bard…or the demons and devils and beholders she might encounter.

Amazing what a combo of good armor, shield, and high hit points will do for a character.

When fighting against weapon-using opponents (like humanoid monsters), the addition of a shield can add ROUNDS of survival to your character. Assuming average hit points and average DEX, the difference between plate and plate & shield breaks down like this:

Against goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 3 extra rounds
3rd level – 4 extra rounds
4th level – 6 extra rounds
5th level – 7 extra rounds
6th level – 8 extra rounds
7th level – 9 extra rounds
8th level – 10 extra rounds
9th level – 12 extra rounds

What good is an extra round of survival in combat? Just he difference between life and death! Using my dopplehander weapon rules, the damage output over time is equivalent (the two-handed weapon does roughly the same damage in a shorter survival period as the one-handed weapon in a longer survival period), but what do those extra rounds really mean?

• Time to run away (if necessary).
• Time to be healed by a party cleric.
• Time for a buddy to jump in and spell you/save your bacon.
• Time for you to spell a buddy about to get killed.
• Time for the monsters to break morale and surrender/run.
• Time for you to get in that lucky blow that ends the fight.

Extra time in combat is precious…and the shield gives you this. Against smaller monsters (like kobolds) that time is increased; against larger monsters it’s decreased. However, you still gain time through the use of a shield; for example:

Against gnolls/2nd level fighters:
1st level – 1 extra round of survival (on average) when using a shield
2nd level – 2 extra rounds
3rd level – 2 extra rounds
4th level – 3 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 4 extra rounds
7th level – 5 extra rounds
8th level – 5 extra rounds
9th level – 6 extra rounds

And these extra rounds of survival are gained simply by using a NORMAL shield. When a character sports a magical shield, survivability rises considerably, quickly out-pacing the over-all damage output of a character with a similarly enchanted two-handed weapon.

Now before you shield-wielders run out there feeling all Captain America and invulnerable, it’s important to realize and understand the limitations of the shield. First off, you’ve only got ONE. That means its most effective against one defender. Secondly, it was designed for ARMED COMBAT…i.e. combat against sentient, weapon-users.

What does this mean? That your character’s survivability decreases when faced with multiple attackers or creatures with multiple attacks (like owl bears and ghouls). If you think a shield is going to give you “extra rounds of survival” against the mauling of a grizzly, you may be in for a rude awakening (not that the guy without a shield is going to do much better…). But check this out:

Against THREE (3) goblins/orcs/1st level fighters:
1st level – NO extra rounds of survivability
2nd level – 1 extra round
3rd level – 1 extra round
4th level – 2 extra rounds
5th level – 3 extra rounds
6th level – 3 extra rounds
7th level – 3 extra rounds
8th level – 3 extra rounds
9th level – 4 extra rounds

So if your character is a 1st level fighter that gets surrounded by three goblins, it doesn’t matter if you have a shield or not…it takes the same length of time to kill you with one as without (and by the way, that IS counting the +1 shield bonus against all attackers…you’re assumed to be whirling and twirling in the chaos of melee). Three adversaries are just a lot tougher to face down as a lone warrior: one guy beats your blade, one guy tries to pin your shield, and the third stabs at your eyeballs…a nasty business. Back at the Caves of Chaos a few weeks ago, our barbarian was sporting chainmail and a +1 shield; but he got isolated and surrounded by a bunch of spear-wielding kobolds and went down hard because of it.

The point here is, you still have to be SMART…pick your point of attack, find a choke-hold, buddy-up with your shield-wielding companion(s) and form a mini-phalanx, etc. There ARE tactics in D&D, even the B/X edition.

All right, that’s enough for now. I’m sure there will be dissenting opinions, and this may need a follow-up post for things I've forgotten. However, I want to say one last thing regarding the “shields will be splintered” rule. If you want to keep this “get out of jail free card” for your players, fine. If you want everyone to start with a couple potions of healing, you can do that, too. Personally, I figure shields are “splintered” when a character gets killed (as is armor, for that matter…ragged, tattered, and useless). You know what broke nearly as often as shields back in the “old days?” SWORDS. An individual using a weapon as often as the average D&D adventurer would probably need to purchase a replacement every 1-2 game sessions (at least one per 6 or so combat encounters). Why don’t y’all model that?

While shields ARE breakable (wood and cloth, remember?) if you’re breaking ‘em too often, you’re probably using them wrong. Again, they’re designed to deflect and turn blows, NOT absorb every swing.

Doing that too much is going to give you a broken arm!
; )