A different initiative system

An unplaytested, hypothetical, alternate sequence for resolving B/X combat:

All combatants complete each portion of the sequence before proceeding to the next portion of the sequence.

A. Morale checks, if needed (page B27)

B. Movement per round - meleed opponents may only move defensively, if not meleed the character can move and fire missiles or move and fight hand-to-hand (close for melee). Spellcasters may not move and cast spells.

C. Missile fire combat - Missile combat will be handled in the following order:
1. Thrown
2. Short Bow
3. Long Bow
4. Sling
5. Crossbow

D. Magic spells - magic spells will be handled i order of the level of the spell being cast (lowest level to highest level)

E. Melee combat - Melee combat will be handled in the following order during the first round of combat, when opponents first close:
1. Lance
2. Polearm
3. Two-Handed Sword
4. Spear
5. Staff
6. Battle axe
7. War Hammer
8. Sword
9. Mace
10. Club
11. Hand Axe
12. Short Sword
13. Dagger

For all subsequent combat rounds, after opponents have closed, melee will be handled in the reverse order (daggers to lances). combatants using the same weapon will go simultaneously.

When it becomes important to know who goes first when doing something besides straight up combat, opposed d6 individual initiative rolls (modified by DEX Initiative Adjustments), will determine what happens first. For example, two characters diving for the same object, a character trying to dive behind cover before an opponent can fire an arrow at him, or trying to move past a bodyguard to get to the evil ruler.

This might be fairly close to the system shown in the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets but I haven't looked at those in a while so I could be wrong. What do you think?

My 1d6 dagger, mace, sword, axe...

Another excellent post by JB that I am really posting here only to make it easier for me to find again later.

B/X Combat - Fast, faster, fastest

One of the benefits (at least in my mind) of B/X combat is the speed at which it is resolved.

Recent editions have focused on taking long duration combats and giving the players enough "fiddly bits" to make the combats interesting. However, I prefer the fast, abstract combats of B/X. A few reasons why:

1. Initiative is rolled every round - I much prefer this to the cyclical initiative in the most recent editions. I like the uncertainty and I really like the fact that it eliminates the need for such things as Attacks of Opportunity. It is also instrumental in balancing spellcasters and fighters.

2. Declaration of actions prior to initiative - I find that this and the fact that initiative is rolled every round keeps players at the table and interested. it also speeds things up. It eliminates the "what am I going to do this round…" when it cycles to each players' turn.

3. You can really try anything - I know that free form actions in combat are not restricted in 3E or 4E but I find that feats and powers have the unintended consequence of focusing a players decisions to a relative narrow scope of actions. There are no such mechanical focuses in B/X.

3. Fast feedback - Tactics in B/X are very different than in the most recent editions. Proper tactics in B/X are really focused on the decisions made prior to combat - things such as marching order, choke points, resource management, etc. But there are still enough decision points after entering combat to give players some control over what happens after combat begins - such things as trying to trigger opponents morale checks, when to withdraw or retreat, etc. The speed with which B/X combat is resolved allows for quick feedback of these larger macro decisions. There may only be three of these large scope decisions to be made each combat but the speed of B/X combat allows for these decisions to be made in quick succession. The longer combats of recent editions instead focus on micro decisions such as 5-ft steps, avoiding attacks of opportunities, etc. I would rather have a 10 minute combat where there are three important decisions that impact the outcome of the combat and then move onto the next encounter instead of an hour long combat where there are thirty decisions each of which has a minor impact on the outcome of the combat.

4. Onto the next encounter - I much prefer a series of short interesting encounters than a long encounter with a series of variables. Maybe it is a lack of attention span.

However, recently I have been finding myself getting wrapped up in the narrative description of what is happening in a combat. I am beginning to think this is actually a "bad" thing. Why would describing the action be bad?

1. Slows things down - if one of the key benefits/strengths of B/X combat is speed, anything which detracts from this is harming the action.

2. I can't compare to players' imagination - How can the words I use compete with the image in each player's head? Any verbs or adjectives I use may be counter to how a player imagines the action. My descriptions cannot be as vivid nor as interesting as what a player can have in their mind's eye.

3. It takes focus off of the important decisions - who cares if the orc hit with an overhand chop or a sweep at the legs? it doesn't impact the decisions that the players can make to affect the combat.

4. It takes focus off the things which do create tension in B/X combat - Tension in a B/X combat is not created by intricate description of the action but instead by the attrition of the party's resources. Quick combat keeps the focus on how many hit points you have left, what spells you have remaining, how many retainers have fallen, etc. Me describing how a bunch of hobgoblins press the attack does not create tension as much as a player seeing their hit points dwindle under the on-slot of those hobgoblins.

What do you think? Do you prefer fast abstract combats with only a few significant decision points or long combats with a large number of intricate decisions? Do you use colourful descriptions in your combats or instead stick to the basic, "you are hit for 6 points of damage"?

B/X King of the Ring: Clerics vs Fighters

In the comments to the post: Does the B/X Fighter need to be Buffed? K-Slacker mentions how he doesn't like that at times the Cleric surpasses the Fighter in fighting ability. Now, I've never really examined this in detail before. I put the following tables in the comments section to that post but I wanted to pull them into a post of their own.

Table 1: Cleric vs Fighter THAC0
XP..…CLevel..….CTHAC0……Flevel……..FTHAC0
0………….1………………19………………1……………….19
1500……..2………………19………………1……………...19
3000……..3………………19………………2……………...19
6000……..4………………19………………3……………...19
12000…….5……………..17………………4……………...17
25000…….6……………..17………………5……………...17
50000…….7……………..17………………6……………...17
100000…..8……………..17………………7……………...14
200000…..9……………..14………………8……………...14
300000….10…………….14……………….9……………..14
400000….11…………….14……………..10……………..12
500000….12…………….14……………..11……………..12
600000….13…………….12……………..12……………..12
700000….14…………….12……………..12……………..12

Table 2: Cleric vs Fighter Average Hit Points
XP..…CLevel..….CAvgHP……Flevel……..FAvgHP
0………….1………………3.5…..………1……………….4.5
1500……..2………………7………………1………………4.5
3000……..3………………10.5……………2………….…9
6000……..4………………14………………3………………13.5
12000…….5……………..17.5……………4………………18
25000…….6……………..21………………5………………22.5
50000…….7……………..24.5……………6………………27
100000…..8……………..28………………7………………31.5
200000…..9……………..31.5……………8………………36
300000….10…………….35……………….9……………..40.5
400000….11…………….38.5…………..10……………..45
500000….12…………….42……………..11……………..49.5
600000….13…………….45.5…………..12……………..54
700000….14…………….49……………..12……………..54

So yes, from a hit point perspective the Cleric does intermittently surpass Fighters at low (from 1,500 to 12,000) experience point levels. However, I don't think the discrepancy is enough to tip the scales too far in the Clerics favour as the discrepancy only lasts for a short time.

Also, if the optional variable damage system is used, the damage output of the fighter will likely be higher as they will likely have a weapon that will do at least 1d8 damage and they might have a strength based damage bonus. Also fighters will likely have any magic swords that are found.

The Mistaken Synchronicity of Basic's Missile Weapons

I like to believe that the Moldvay, Cook and Marsh version of D&D is near perfect and everything in it was very carefully considered and forms a utopian synergistic whole. I also know that all it takes is to look for the description of the Detect Invisibility spell to blow that belief out of the water but let me dream.

Looking at the Missile Fire Ranges and Variable Weapon Damage tables in the Basic rulebook there are four missile weapons (not including thrown weapons):

Crossbow* Short 5-80, Medium 81-160, Long 161-240, Damage 1-6
Longbow Short 5-70, Medium 71-140, Long 141-210, Damage 1-6
Shortbow Short 5-50, Medium 51-100, Long 101-150, Damage 1-6
Slings Short 5-40, Medium 41-80, Long 81-140, Damage 1-4

* Two-handed weapon - always looses initiative.

Even though longbows and shortbows are not marked as two-handed weapons they obviously are. However, I like to think that this isn't a mistake or typo. I like to think this is a deliberate design choice to differentiate longbows and shortbows and allow them to follow the normal initiative rules.

This gives four distinct missile weapons:
1. Crossbows have the longest range, can be used by anyone except clerics but always loses initiative;
2. Longbows are in the middle for range, follow the normal initiative rules but can't be used by dwarves, halflings, clerics or magic-users;
3. Shortbows have only a slightly longer range than slings, follow the normal initiative rules and can be used by anyone except clerics and magic-users.
4. Slings have the shortest range, low damage and can be used by clerics.

Of course, then the Expert rulebook throws out this idealized belief of mine when it says that crossbows can only fire once every other round.

Oh well, I can ignore that if I have to.

Combat Modifiers

I have mentioned a number of times how much I enjoy the abstract combat system in B/X. To me each individual piece fits together like a puzzle to give a near perfect abstract/narrative combat system that also gives players important tactical options.

Part of this combat system is a distinct lack of modifiers for "to hit" rolls. Taking a quick look through the Character Classes and The Encounter sections of the Basic rulebook gives the following modifiers that can be applied to "to hit" rolls:

- Thieves Abilities (B10): The thieves' "backstab" ability which grants a +4 bonus
- Resting (B19) and Running (B24): if not rested a character will have a -1 or -2 penalty, respectively
- Retreat (B25): opponent can add a +2 bonus
- Range (B26): +1 to hit with missile weapons at short range and -1 to hit at long range
- Cover (B26): -1 to -4 based on how much cover

- And of course Ability score bonuses (Strength for melee and Dexterity for missile attacks) and magical bonuses.

The lack of a multitude of situational modifiers goes hand in hand with the abstract system where one "to hit" roll does not equal one swing of a sword.

It doesn't surprise me that most of the modifiers listed above are related to missile attacks. Missile fire just doesn't fit as nicely into the abstract combat system.

The Odds are Stacked in Favour of B/X Characters

There is a thread over at RPGnet where a DM asks for advice in helping reduce the fatality rate of the characters.

There is an excellent reply by Galadrin which focuses on the subsystems in B/X that really help improve character survival. These are things I have mentioned a number of times here but I liked the way that he put it.

PC's actually have a very high survival probability, when you think about it. Here is my argument, with page citation in bold.

1) If you think about it, by the book, every 1st level character except Magic-Users and Thieves is running around with AC 2 (Plate Mail and Shield is only 70 of the average 110 gp for starting characters, B12). Assuming the average party size of 7 (B19), that means 5 of the 7 characters are only hit 20% of the time (and with an average 5-6 hit points, thanks to the last line of B6, they need to be hit twice on average to inflict a casualty). That means a character must be attacked 10 times (on average) to kill him.

2) Combine this with the caveat that allows a Magic-User to pick his first spell (B16), very likely "Sleep", and you have a pretty tough party.

3) But who needs Sleep, when monsters only attack 28% of the time (B24)?

4) Even when a fight does break out, monsters tend to flee when they take their first casualty (B27).

5) All of these factors make it more likely that you can snag the treasure without a hard slog for it. The lair treasure of 24 Hobgoblins is already more than a quarter of a level for that group of 7, with even more for unguarded treasure, monster XP and so on.

B/X Unarmed Combat

I have been thinking about rules for unarmed combat and grappling the last while. This is because of a post a bit ago on Wheel of Samsara "The Eternal Pain of Grappling" and discussion about 1E AD&D grappling rules on an episode of Roll for Initiative. Grappling hasn't come up in my 2E Rise of the Runelords campaign which is good because I haven't read the 2E grappling rules in years.

In the Expert rule book (page X25) it states:

Unarmed Combat
Characters who engage in combat without a weapon (for whatever reason) will do 1-2 points of damage plus and strength adjustments for a successful attack. All normal rules regarding combat apply to unarmed combat.

So that does it for punching and kicking but what about grappling where your character is trying to grab or wrestle down an opponent?

I have typically used one of the following methods:

Method 1. Opposed d6 rolls. I think this is from OD&D, maybe an issue of Strategic Review or an early Dragon. Each side rolls a number of d6s equal to the HD or level of that side. So for example, a 4th level fighter is being grappled by 5 orcs. The player rolls 4d6+strength adjustments and the DM rolls 5d6 for the orcs (there are no strength adjustments as strength is factored into HD). High side wins.

Method 2. The Ode to Black Dougal Default System. Have the player roll 2d6 with some adjustments for relative sizes, strengths, circumstances, etc.

2= it turns out REALLY bad for the player
3-5 = it turns out bad for the player
6-8 = neutral
9-11 = it turns out well for the player
12 = it turns out REALLY well for the player

Using the Fiendish Dr. Samsara's example of a Sorcerer, finding himself not too successful with spell or weapon, wants to pull a beastie off a companion before it eats her shoulder. Roll 2d6 with some adjustments you feel are appropriate:

2 = It turns out very poorly for the sorcerer - maybe he is knocked down at the feet of another beastie
3-5 = The sorcerer fails to grab the beastie
6-8 = gets his hands on the beastie but doesn't pull him off. May allow for a bonus to try again next round.
9-11 = pulls the beastie off
12 = pulls the beastie off and punches it in the face!

Method 3. Probability of Success. I have been gaining a greater appreciation for this style lately. Just determine what the probability would be for the characters to succeed and roll the d%. Using the sorcerer example again, after weighing many factors the DM decides that the sorcerer would have a 30% chance of grabbing the beastie and pulling it off his companion.

How do you do grappling in your old school game?

Minis

This is a recent email I sent to my players:

Hey guys,
At the end of last session we discussed the use of minis and a battlegrid. I am not a huge fan of using minis with 2nd edition and earlier D&D - I actually think the combat mechanics work better without them - but I am fine with using them if everyone else wants to. The important thing to remember if we are using a battlegrid and minis is the placement of your mini on the map is not the exact location of your character relative to everything else.

Why is this?
1. The duration of a combat round is 1 minute. It is completely unfeasible for a character to stand in one 5x5 area in a combat situation with horrible abominations trying to kill him for a whole minute.
2. The combat system in 2E and earlier D&D is abstract in that a d20 roll to hit is not the only swing of his sword. It is the culmination of a full minute of intense action involving many swings, parries, feints, wrestling, pushing, dodging, etc. Think of how much action happens in a "Bourne" combat scene during one minute. The number of d20 rolls you get during a melee round is an indication of your ability to have one or more of these many, many actions cause you to gain an advantage and/or your enemy to become disadvantaged. This leads into the actual meaning of "hit points" but that is a whole other discussion. It is because of all of these actions that happen in a 1 minute combat round that means you can't think of your character being in one stationary place on a battlegrid.

So while the minis and battlegrid will show very approximate locations it is best to view groups of minis in a whirl of constant motion in a larger general area instead of a mini in a set 5x5 square.

What does this mean?
1. There are two "states" in combat - "In Melee" and "Not In Melee" - one of the things that the minis and battlegrid will show you is who is in melee against how many opponents and, in a very approximate way, where this melee is happening relative to those "Not In Melee". The "In Melee" state has two positions "Front Rank" and if you have a long weapon (such as a spear) "Second Rank". If you have a long weapon you have to tell me if you are in the second rank - if not I will just assume you are in the front rank. Second Rank allows you to attack from behind your fellow party members, reducing the number of opponents that can attack you.
2. Firing missiles (arrows, thrown hand axes, etc) into melee will still be done as per the DMG - there is the random potential to hit anyone engaged in that melee.
3. The rules for Flanking and Rear attacks will still be done as per the core rules - ie the first 3 opponents are assumed to be to your front, the 4th to your shield flank, the 5th to your other flank, and the 6th to your rear (not including any special situations like a thief hiding in shadows and his sneak attack). So just because your mini shows that you are behind someone doesn't make it so unless you specify that you are in the Second Rank. However, I will allow the thief to sneak attack someone without any hiding or moving silently if he is the 6th opponent to attack that target which the core rules do not allow.
4. To steal a term from 3rd edition D&D - anyone in a melee is "Threatened" by all of the other opponents in that melee. Just because there are 2 squares and another mini between you and the Ogre does not mean that he doesn't get a free attack if you decide to flee (unless you say you are in the second rank).
5. Movement is inexact. For example, if there are two melees happening at opposite ends of a large room and your character decides to leave one melee to go help at the other melee - you can't just count the squares to find out how far you can move. Where you are actually located in the melee you just left is abstract. If it looks like you might be able to make it to the other melee we will roll some dice to see if you make it there.
6. With abstract positioning and movement, knowing where the PCs are in a melee for an area of effect spell will also be abstract. If you are in a large room fighting orcs and the magic-user casts a Fireball into an area that includes a portion of the "In Melee" area, your PC might get caught in the blast. We will handle this by rolling some dice and seeing where your PC actually is.
7. Narrative description is far more important than where the mini is located. I am far more likely to give bonuses for narrative descriptions than mini placement. Telling me that your character "hangs back at the edge of the combat attacking whenever the opportunity presents itself" means more than having your mini at the edge of the melee. In the narrative example, I can rule that you have a minus to attack but also limit the number of opponents that may swing back, give you a bonus to check if you are in the Fireball area of effect, etc. Telling me you jump off a table, bringing your axe down on top of your opponents head may get you a bonus to damage from the momentum. Most of the time I will do a 2-for-1 bonus for penalty - such as a +2 bonus to damage for a -1 penalty to AC in the example of jumping off the table.

What do you think? Any questions/comments?