[net.games.frp] ad&d mods for lesser damage

dove@mit-bug.UUCP (Web Dove) (09/30/85)

While we are on the subject of game balance, here are some changes we
are playing.  They have to do with damage.

1) Roll all damage
All adjustments to the damage of a weapon (magical plusses, ranger
bonus vs giants, elf bonus with sword/bow, monk bonus with weapon,
strength bonus ...) contribute to an additional die that is rolled and
added to the basic dice of the weapon.

For example, a 10th lvl 18/00 str ranger swinging a +3 two-handed
sword against a hill giant gets

10 (ranger) + 3 (sword) + 6 (strength) = d19

in addition to the basic 3d6 of the weapon.

Of these pluses, only the ones directly attributable to the magic of
the weapon are unlimited (e.g. a +20 sword is possible though
unlikely).  The sum of the pluses of the other catagories cannot
exceed the maximum roll of the basic weapon.  So in the example above,
if the ranger only had a +5 daggar, the adjustment for ranger and str
would be limited to +3 (the maximum roll of a daggar vs giants) which
when added to the (unlimited) +5 of the weapon itself yields d8
additional damage.

Notice that this reduces the damage in the first case from

3*3.5 + 19 = 29.5 (avrg)  22 (min)

to

3*3.5 + 10 = 20.5 (avrg) 4 (min)

More importantly for us, it makes the damage RANDOM again.  Guaranteed
damage takes a lot of the excitement (and frustration) out of the game
and replaces it with enourmous monsters that kill you in the
first/second round.

Also, it makes big weapons worth having (before this everyone
gravitated to longswords).

(The pain of rolling a d13 or d17 isn't too bad.)


2) damage reduction
AC lower than 9 allows you to roll a damage reduction at the end of
the round (i.e. after all creatures have swung at you).  For each
point below 9, the reduction die gets an additional face (ac 8 means
no roll is necessary, it is always a 1).  The reduction can NEVER
exceed the cumulative damage for that round (if you are hit you always
take at least 1 point).

For purposes of this reduction, the only things that count are
inherent creature AC and non-magical ARMOR (not shield).
Magical contributions to AC DON'T COUNT.  Dex adjustments DON'T COUNT.
(We are right now counting monk AC, but that may change).

So for humans, leather gives AC 8 (1 pt reduction), plate gives AC 3
(d6 reduction).  These are the limits for humans.  For monsters, a
demon with AC -10 gets d19 points of reduction!

This reduction applies to most damage (e.g. fireball, falling).
However, some cases can be excluded (metal armor won't reduce
electrical damage).  See the section in the DM guide under saving
throw adjustments from armor for guidance.


This rule has several purposes:

it gives low level fighters/clerics some help (since they tend to be
the front line in melee)

it puts some significance back into wearing armor (Previously everyone
was gravitating to bracers where possible.  Now armor is definitely
worth it)

it is a big help for monsters.  (doesn't mean much to low levels, but
biggies are MUCH tougher to kill).


--

Both rules are easy to implement.  They were intended to give monsters
a hand and put some randomness back into high level battles.

slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/05/85)

>dove@mit-bug.UUCP (Web Dove) writes:
>1) Roll all damage
>All adjustments to the damage of a weapon (magical plusses, ranger
>bonus vs giants, elf bonus with sword/bow, monk bonus with weapon,
>strength bonus ...) contribute to an additional die that is rolled and
>added to the basic dice of the weapon.

I rather like this.  I do get tired of characters who do 22 points
damage or such just by connecting with a target. (Probably because
I never seem to be one of those characters :-)  It seems a bit 
unrealistic that some characters always do incredible damage when they
hit.  I would probably have a mutiny on my hands if I used this, but 
might give it a try.

My only argument is when you say:

>(e.g. a +20 sword is possible though unlikely).

I had thought that +6 or so was the max.  I don't have my books with me
here at work, so I may be wrong.  Not that it matters much, but who
is playing the variant here, us or you?  (We play it so variant, that
I lose track.)

>2) damage reduction
>AC lower than 9 allows you to roll a damage reduction at the end of
>the round (i.e. after all creatures have swung at you).  

Not so sure about this one.  After all, your lower AC already means
you are harder to hit.  Are you sure this doesn't unbalance the game?
It does make logical sense, though.

Thanks for some interesting things to think about.  This is the kind 
of posting I like to see in this group.
-- 

                                     Sue Brezden
                                     
Real World: Room 1B17                Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
            AT&T Information Systems
            11900 North Pecos
            Westminster, Co. 80234
            (303)538-3829 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Your god may be dead, but mine aren't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

west@onion.cs.reading.UUCP (Jerry West) (10/16/85)

The brief discussion on AD&D damage makes several valid points on
limiting damage from weapon blows but is it necessary to do so?

I am fully aware of the horrors which can be perpetrated by high level,
high magic worlds, but isn't that part of the fun?

The grossest damage of each weapon (assuming +5 max) is nothing compared
to the additions characters add up on top of this. If girdles of giant 
strength are added in, and the the high-level fighter attacks at his full
rate per round - with a weapon in each hand, of course, oh, and you'd better
not forget the haste he has on him.... 

Towards the end of a very high power campaign I was privileged(?) to watch, 
damage per round was into three figures! 

BUT, since the opposition was equally powerful, the balance was 
maintained. Since no real advantage was to be gained by sheer brute force, 
the characters had to resort to politics. This produced many shifting power
bases in the campaign and although melee sometimes proceeded at a snails pace 
(say 1 melee round / hour - don't forget the psionics have 10 segments to
get their oar in), the campaign often played for weeks without any combat.
This was during the off-season at University, and so play would go ahead
maybe four days in the week.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that damage is fairly irrelevant,
provided that everything else scales up to match. I don't like to see 145
htk being taken off one opponent in one round, but since the DM used little
tricks to beef up the enemy (eg, devils in hell (their own plane) are about 10
times bigger & better than on the Prime Material), the players rarely expected
to knock anything out in one blow. But it was such fun to roll all those dice!
And that's what it's all about. FUN. It was summed up in an old A&E some while
back as being a choice of possible systems (I summarise) -

a) The 'realistic' school (but not too realistic, 'cos if you loose a leg in
reality and have no healing you stop there - so we'll use those bits of 
realism we want and ignore the rest).

b) The 'have fun inflicting Enormous Damage to your enemy (Take THAT, Swine!)
whilst Laughing off his Puny Blows' school.

I say, with pride!, that I am firmly in the latter camp. In my own system, 
the "high-level" guy (note the quotes - there are no levels really) can cream
a peasant in virtually one blow. But if 24 peasants gang up on him, they will
wear him down (eventually!). If you've ever read the superb Niall of the Far
Travels stories you'll have an idea of the sort of melee I'm happy with.

Hmmm, I seem to have ranted on a bit to no real purpose here, and I
don't have very strong views on the matter either way, so I'll stop.

(well, it passes the time....)

Jerry
-----