Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[The1True]

Hiding the information behind a skill check wall

I agree with everything leading up to this statement except the statement itself. I think of it as filing information in a series of skill check opportunities. Opportunities to roll the dice, use skills or abilities that you've invested in, and be engaged. There just need to be opportunities for all the different classes at the table to roll the dice and have their moment to be engaged in what can often be a style of play that involves one or two players 'driving' while the rest twiddle dice impatiently. DEFINITELY vital information should NEVER be hidden behind a skill wall and only truly privileged or 'bonus' information should be hidden behind anything over an average skill check.

I also used Hexographer

Hexographer is hours of fun! I wish I could find where they hide their icons in the code though, so I could directly edit them...

 

[Beoric]

I agree with everything leading up to this statement except the statement itself. I think of it as filing information in a series of skill check opportunities. Opportunities to roll the dice, use skills or abilities that you've invested in, and be engaged. There just need to be opportunities for all the different classes at the table to roll the dice and have their moment to be engaged in what can often be a style of play that involves one or two players 'driving' while the rest twiddle dice impatiently. DEFINITELY vital information should NEVER be hidden behind a skill wall and only truly privileged or 'bonus' information should be hidden behind anything over an average skill check.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree. My full statement was:

Hiding the information behind a skill check wall only makes sense where you can't resolve the situation by player choices, as with Read Languages (in a dungeon, that is, you can always make a copy and take it to a sage who specializes in ancient languages).

If it is not vital, roll-to-continue information, by all means the players should be free to fail if they rely on a skill check to accomplish what they want. All I am saying is the DM should try to think about how the information can instead be gained narratively by clever play, which is at least as engaging for players as choosing a skill to use.

If the DM has determined that Clever Jim the bartender thinks Sneaky Mike might have that sort of information, then this can be resolved in two ways (assuming for simplicity that Clever Jim will provide the information when asked):

1. The player makes a Gather Information check. If he fails he gets nothing. If he succeeds the DM narrates that they talk to Clever Jim the Bartender, who tells them that Sneaky Mike might have the information; or

2. The player has his PC ask Clever Jim who he might talk to to find out the information, and Clever Jim automatically tells the PCs that Sneaky Mike might have the information.

If you want Clever Jim to be difficult about coughing up the information, the same options apply, because even though in both cases you need to figure out a way to make Clever Jim talk, in the second case you still don't have to make the check to decide to talk to Clever Jim in the first place.

I see taking your chances with the dice as a safety net because you, the player, can't figure out a narrative approach. But if the play can figure out a good narrative approach, I think the DM should always be open to it, even if all it does is increase the odds of success.

 

[Beoric]

Question for the 1e crowd. On PHB p. 25 it states that higher level fighters get one attack per level against creatures with less than one hit die "and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans". Not sure if "semi-humans" includes humanoids. Also, IIRC, in either or both of 0e and the varieties of Basic, the rule is that fighters get one attack per level against creatures with one hit die or less.

Now orcs are 1HD in 1e, and also I believe in 0e and Basic(s). So if I am not misremembering, according to that working in 0e and B+ a fighter can hit them once per level, but in 1e he can't. Compare that to a 1e goblin, which is technically less than 1 HD, but is very close in stats and worth the same experience.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?

 

[squeen]

Here it is in OSRIC:

Fighting the Unskilled: When the fighter is attacking creatures with less than a full hit die (i.e. less than 1d8 hit points), the fighter receives one attack for each of his or her levels of experience, e.g. a 4th-level fighter attacking goblins would receive 4 attacks per round.

And this is how I've always played it. Goblins, kobolds, etc. and untrained humans...but sadly (for the PCs) not orcs.

This has implications if you also use the 1e unarmed combat (grappling/overbearing) rules in the number of "grab" attacks a fighter can fend off as well, e.g. a high-level fighter with a sword can stand-off a mob of villiagers seeking to...well, err..."mob" him.

 

[Beoric]

I don't doubt you, but what bugs me about this is that, while this rule makes orcs much more dangerous than goblins, they are worth exactly the same amount of XP. While a hobgoblin, which is barely tougher than an orc using this rule, is worth twice as much XP.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

Yeah, with humanoids that circle around 1 to 2 HD other factors like group organization, tactics, environment and culture can make much more of a difference than a couple hit points plus or minus. Sometimes you chop through a bunch of useless goblins, sometimes you get pranked by Tucker's Kobolds. XP numbers are pretty much the same. I thought this was an accepted element of humanoid monsters. Largely because I'm not sure how you could fractionate XP distribution *enough* to take this kind of thing into account.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

I don't doubt you, but what bugs me about this is that, while this rule makes orcs much more dangerous than goblins, they are worth exactly the same amount of XP. While a hobgoblin, which is barely tougher than an orc using this rule, is worth twice as much XP.

It seems a trifle to worry about considering that the majority of XP is going to come from treasure rather than monster kills. If a goblin was worth as much XP as an ogre, I might have reason enough to complain. As it is, goblins on average are worth 1 XP less than orcs. Goblins as a group/tribe can be just as dangerous as orcs, with the high chance that they have 5-30 dire wolves/wargs in their camps vs the orcs 2-5 ogres, as well as superior spell casters.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

Here it is in OSRIC:

And this is how I've always played it. Goblins, kobolds, etc. and untrained humans...but sadly (for the PCs) not orcs.

This has implications if you also use the 1e unarmed combat (grappling/overbearing) rules in the number of "grab" attacks a fighter can fend off as well, e.g. a high-level fighter with a sword can stand-off a mob of villiagers seeking to...well, err..."mob" him.

I think EOTB‘s take is right. Armed attackers get a free fend off attack against any unarmed opponents, followed by another freebee ‘for real’ if the fend off is successful. I don’t think this is linked in with multiple attack routines.

 

[squeen]

I guess I really do like the mob taking down an armored opponent and skewed the rules towards my preference.

 

[Beoric]

To be clear, I didn't ask because I am running AD&D and am worried about the amount of XP I am granting. I sought clarification because I frequently convert AD&D to 4e (and now 5e), and I have been using XP as a starting point to determine the relative power levels of monsters. I do this exclusive of factors like the traditional tactics associated with a monster, since I have other ways of accounting for that.

My takeaway is that I need to treat AD&D orcs as tougher than their XP would suggest - that is, nudge them a bit toward hobgoblins and a bit away from goblins. And to treat 0e (and I think Basic?) orcs as weaker than 1e orcs. So my hierarchy would be kobolds < poorly armed/armoured 0-level humans < goblins & better armed/armoured 0-level humans < 0e/Basic orcs & well armed/armoured 0-level humans < 1e orcs < hobgoblins < gnolls.

 

[squeen]

I tweaked my kobolds quite a lot...turning them into sexless prols in a great war machine with small clever hands, with a strong collective mentality. I added a male warrior-class (stealthy assassins with bartered drow armaments that hunt in triads) and a much larger, serpentine female ruling class. Their ruling Empress is a savant mutation --- an escapee from the Mind Flayers legendary Body Banks.

Certainly Tucker-esque in their organization, but not quite as a-hole lethal. Still, my players are afraid to take them on directly. Their "advanced tech" comes from a mad half-dwarf "prisoner"---one of the main antagonists of the megadungeon.

 

[Beoric]

I have been thinking about map conversions in converting early system adventures to later systems. I tend to design my conversions so they support the large parties you would have expected in the originals, but it causes some unusual interactions.

The basic problem is that 1e, at least, assumes each medium sized humanoid takes up about 3.3 feet of space. That means they can stand, and fight, three abreast in a 10' hallway. In later editions, medium humanoids take up 5 feet of space, and you can only fit two abreast in a 10' hallway.

So if you have a party of, say, 9 characters, in 1e they could stand three rows deep, but in 3-5e they would have to stand 5 rows deep. That makes it really hard for the people in the back rows to get involved in the fight (well technically it might not because of overly forgiving missile-fire-into-melee rules, but I houserule those).

Another issue is that early designers often didn't give much thought to how their dungeons work as physical spaces and, well, the rooms are really small for the number of creatures in them, even using the 3.3' space rules. A 10 x 10 room with 10 orcs is pretty cramped considering there is only space for 4 of them to stand and fight.

I've been thinking about how to deal with the issue for a while, and I think I might just try making all the dimensions 50% larger. So 10' hallways will become 15', and 10x10 rooms will become 15 x 15 rooms. I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not sure if I can just expand existing maps (or shrink the grid size), or if there will be a lot of odd results in terms of dimensions that will require some redrawing and reinterpretation (like a 15x15 room becoming 22.5x22.5).

Has anyone else had this problem, and if so, how have you dealt with it?

 

[Osrnoob]

Excuse me my 10 by 10 hallways have NOTHING TO SAY MISS RED DRAGON

JUST TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS 30 x 30 ROOM

WANKER

 

[Beoric]

I had a thought for a hexcrawl procedure. This relates only to calculating distance travelled, and obviates the need to keep track of the distance travelled within a hex.

1. 6-mile hexes.
2. Good roads generally speed movement and help with navigation; poor roads help with navigation only.
3. Entering a hex using a good road takes 6 units (miles) of movement. On plains and the like without a good road, or rougher terrain with poor roads, it takes 8 units of movement; difficult terrain takes 12 units of movement, and very difficult terrain takes 20 units.
4. Calculate the distance that would be travelled in ideal conditions in miles, given the movement rate and time spent travelling. Assume base unencumbered rate for humans in whatever system you are using is 3 mph.
5. Figure out how many complete hexes could be travelled, subtracting the movement value for each hex from the calculated distance.
6. If there is a remainder, roll a die of the same value as the movement value of the next hex. The remainder is the chance of entering that hex.
7. If the party isn't happy with how far they got and want to travel longer, deduct each extra mile from the original roll to see if they make it.

For example, a 1e party is walking with a movement rate of 9" (because they are a UA party with fighters in full plate, and fuck "plate mail" movement). They travel for 8 hours at 9/12 of full speed, so 3 mph x 8 hrs x 9/12 = 18 miles under ideal conditions. They take a good road to the next hex, which uses up 6 miles of movement. They then travel cross-country in plains, which takes 8 miles of movement. They have 4 miles of movement left and want to go into the hills, which are difficult terrain and would require 12 miles of movement. Roll a d12; on a 1-4 they make good distance and enter the hex; on a 5-12 they don't quite make if before their 8 hours is up. Let's say they roll a 8, they will need to travel long enough to add another 4 miles to make it where they want to go, which would take 4 miles/3mph/(9/12) = 1.8 hours.

For modern/sci-fi, use 10 km hexes, assume base 5 kph movement rate, good roads take 10 km of movement, good terrain with no roads takes 12 km, difficult terrain takes 20 km and very difficult terrain takes 30 km (you do have a d30, right?).

 

[squeen]

I think that system works nicely.

For example, a 1e party is walking with a movement rate of 9" (because they are a UA party with fighters in full plate, and fuck "plate mail" movement).

I generally would invert this and kick full-plate to the curb. "Full plate" is intended for jousting tournaments and maybe the battle-field, but not traveling or adventuring in dungeons. It's too bulk for long travel and your fighter would almost certainly not be wearing it and have it packed on a beast of burden. Hence the reason for just including plate mail in pre-UA D&D.

 

[Beoric]

I generally would invert this and kick full-plate to the curb. "Full plate" is intended for jousting tournaments and maybe the battle-field, but not traveling or adventuring in dungeons. It's too bulk for long travel and your fighter would almost certainly not be wearing it and have it packed on a beast of burden. Hence the reason for just including plate mail in pre-UA D&D.

Yeah, no. Gothic plate included, but was not limited to tournament armor.

Part of the problem is that most of the armor types posited by Gygax likely never existed, at least not in the form he described. Studded leather never existed, and was likely a misunderstanding of the rivets on brigandine, which actually gave a lot more protection. Ring mail was likely a misinterpretation of artistic renditions of chain mail. "Chain mail" was actually called "mail". Splint "mail" was actually just used for limb armor. I don't know what banded armor was supposed to be, but my best guess is lame and/or a coat of plates.

"Plate mail" may have been any of a number of combined mail-and-plate armor, none of which were actually European. The picture in the 1e DM Adventure Log looks what Palladium described as "plate over mail", literally reinforcing plates worn over a mail hauberk and cuisses during a transitional period before armor-smithing was up to the task of making gothic plate. It is described in Wikipedia as

Single plates of metal armour were again used from the late 13th century on, to protect joints and shins, and these were worn over a mail hauberk. Gradually the number of plate components of medieval armour increased, protecting further areas of the body, and in barding those of a cavalryman's horse. Armourers developed skills in articulating the lames or individual plates for parts of the body that needed to be flexible, and in fitting armour to the individual wearer like a tailor.

and probably looked like the cuirass and brassarts of this image from the "splint armor" page linked above:

It would have been heavy and cumbersome, being a full suit of mail over a full gameson, all of which had various other plates (courass, grieves, vambraces, brasssarts, rondels) strapped overtop or wired in.

Late medieval plate like gothic plate was later that, and likely superior to, either type of armor that Gygax may have been referring to as "plate mail" (and is in fact what the paladin in hell was wearing). It also much easier to move in than the 6" movement rate that is attributed to platemail; see this video. [Someone need to explain to me the syntax of imbedding video.]

 

[squeen]

Yeah. No.

Still not buying that you would travel full-suited like that long distances (or go climbing down into tight spaces). Sorry.

 

[Beoric]

Still not buying that you would travel full-suited like that long distances (or go climbing down into tight spaces). Sorry.

No, you would take it off if you didn't expect to be in danger. But the padding underneath is actually padded armor, so you aren't completely unprotected. And let's face it, in a D&D wilderness you would probably deal with the discomfort rather than risk a fight without it - an experiment you can try with your players, who will tell you with their choices.

Even so, you would be more comfortable in field plate than in plate mail, so suggesting you would be happy to travel in plate mail but not in field plate makes no sense to me.

I'm pretty sure ancient armies marched in armor. And I doubt modern soldiers lose their kit, including their body armor, before they march.

 

[Two orcs]

If you could afford a suit of full plate you could afford multiple horses. Modern soldiers in bad climates definitely ditch their armor all the time, even when risking ambush patrolling places like Afghanistan or Iraq. But the wilderness in D&D is a lot more dangerous than those places.

D&D doesn't really simulate things like discomfort well, but I think it´s fine if PCs are monsters of will taking the "long route" to their goal be it travelling in armor, living on hard tack only or never skipping sentries because it feels safe.

 

[Beoric]

It would be relatively easy to rule that the time you could spend travelling would be reduced if you were in heavy armor. Although you already have ridiculous movement penalties, so maybe the tradeoff is already built in: 25%-50% reduction in speed vs. risk of encounter while lightly armored. Or using 1e overland rules, 33%-67% reduction in speed vs. risk of encounter while lightly armored.

Or you could use the rules in the Wilderness Survival Guide, which start applying ability and movement penalties based on ambient temperature. They look straightforward if a bit fiddley, although you would probably only have to make one or two calculations per armor type per journey, since the temperature ranges are quite broad. And since they stack with 1e overland rules, movement ends up being very slow, even given 1e's ridiculously high base overland movement rate of 30 miles/day; most heavily armored characters would end up travelling 7-8 miles on even a cool day, and 6-7 miles a day if it was remotely warm. (Or you could carry your armor instead, and travel a whole 10 miles/day.)

Also, horses will slow you down in mountains or wetlands, since you have to take detours to find routes to accommodate them, and you would probably need to lead them much of the time instead of riding them. A lot of hills are also pretty tough, as are forests with a lot of deadfall and/or undergrowth. Horses are plains animals and don't do well with steep slopes, deep mud, concealed uneven ground or lots of things to trip on.