Rules
I’ve been thinking about the hit point method explicitly stated in Swords & Wizardry White Box, the “re-roll all hit dice” method:
Hit points are re-rolled each time a Player Character advances in level—however, if the re-roll results in a character having fewer hit points for their new level than their previous level, ignore the re-roll and retain the prior amount.
This is obviously different than the “standard” method of simply rolling an HD and adding it to a PC’s previous total at each level advancement, but I’m thinking of using it in my Labyrinth Lord game. I’ve got a few posts on this topic planned for the next few days, but I lucked out when a discussion of this erupted on the Swords & Wizardry board. I encourage you to check it out, starting about here for the in-depth analysis and this thread for an excellent summary.
During the discussion, Random ran one million (!) simulations of the various totals at various levels and posted the results. Using his numbers, I put together a couple of charts to display the curves at 5th and 7th levels for fighters:
Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 5th Level
Hit Points Standard and Re-Rolled at 7th Level
The number on the bottom is the hit point total, the number on the left is the number of times that result came up out of 1,000,000. Keep in mind that S&W WB uses d6 hit dice for fighters. Click the images for a better look.
As you can see, the re-roll method has a slightly sharper curve to the bell and tops out a little higher than the standard method, but not by a whole lot. Random’s simulations showed an average difference of less than 1.88 hit points at 10th level, something I don’t find significant enough to spend any time worrying about.
I like the idea that a “bad” HD roll, say a roll of 1 when advancing from 5th to 6th level, can be “made up” at the next level. The cost, of course, is the fact that hit points may not increase at all if earlier rolls were particularly good. As for narrowing the bell, drawing most characters toward the mean, I don’t see that as a problem, though those who are convinced they can beat the odds and get nearly max hit points each level won’t like it.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, rules, Swords & Wizardry
Blood of Prokopius posts on the D6 weapon damage thing, making this point:
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.
Often, particularly with NPCs, I assign “other” weapons as a sort of characterization. This is really cool in my mind, but then the NPC finds itself over-matched in combat because the PCs all have optimum (dice-wise) weapons. Which is a bummer.
Again, I really like the idea of all-D6 weapon damage, but it doesn’t work so well when the system uses hit dice greater than D6.
Tags: rules
Grognardia points out a Fighting Fantasist post on all-d6 weapon damage. It’s actually more of a description of hit points, using the “measure the life expectancy of the characters under fire” description to justify all weapons doing the same damage.
2d6
To be honest, there are a number of things I was looking forward to in my since-abandoned Swords & Wizardry White Box game, and all d6 weapon damage was one of them. Another, which Fighting Fantasist also went with, was the removal of class weapon restrictions. I did the same thing. Since all weapons do the same damage, why tell the magic-user’s player that his character cannot use swords?
It also would have gone quite well with my Clerics as Mystic Warriors plan, though this isn’t necessarily dependent upon all-d6 damage. I’m going to use the mystic warrior concept in my Labyrinth Lord game instead of the more overt religious cleric design.
Something that I think is important to keep in mind when considering all-d6 damage is the hit dice power curve. All-d6 fits right in with d6 monster hit dice and the original character class hit dice (all d6). It is probably a little under-powered when monsters have d8 and fighters have d8 or d10 as in later versions of the game.
Though I will be using the BX-derived variable weapons damage in my Labyrinth Lord game, I do think that the all-d6 scheme has a lot of merit.
Tags: rules
Saw this proposed house rule in the Swords & Wizardry forums:
Save vs. Wandering Monsters
Instead of rolling a 6-sider every now and then, I’m going to ask one of the PC’s to make a saving throw (vs. “wandering monsters”) whenever the party is being especially loud, incautious or is simply wasting time. A failure means the party’s recklessness has caught the attention of wandering monsters (think of the Hobbits dropping the pebble down the shaft in Moria). I like the idea of this rule because it puts the fate more in the players’ hands, but I’ll have to see how it works in practice.
Another poster notes that using a standard saving throw means that higher-level PCs have less of a chance to attract wandering monsters due to improved saving throws. I can see how that might make sense, if you simply assume that more seasoned adventurers just know to be a bit quieter even when making noise. But a 9th level PC banging a gong (for instance) makes just as much noise as a 1st leveler doing the same thing.
The original poster responded that perhaps a negative modifier equal to the dungeon depth would fix that problem, and I think that’s reasonable.
What I’ve generally done (though I’ve never codified it or even thought of it as a “house rule”) is to simply roll an extra wandering monster check any time I think the PCs have done something to possibly attract unwanted attention. Sometimes it’s just another roll like the hourly standard check or whatever is specified for that area, and sometimes it’s an x in 6 chance to alert monsters in a nearby encounter area.
PCs can’t get a heavy door open and want to chop through it? Fine. It will take d6+1 rounds with a 2-in-6 chance each round of attracting the goblins from room #17. Or whatever I think is appropriate.
What I do like about the original idea, however, is having the players make the roll. Dropped a pebble down the shaft in Moria? Fine. Pippin’s player rolls the check. If a one comes up, everyone can get mad at Pippin’s player, which helps build what I like to call “mood”.
The only problem I can see is that this method means the players know (or can figure out) that they’ve attracted something. Maybe I want the goblins to sneak up and set an ambush. Of course, seeing a ’1′ rolled maybe makes the players think, “boy…that can’t be good” which might be what PCs suddenly realize after chopping at the door and helps build the “mood”.
So I’m going to give this approach a try.
Tags: rules
For previous posts on this topic, see this and this.
First, the thread I started on the Goblinoid Games Labyrinth Lord forum sort of took off. A lot of great discussion there. Here are a few things I particularly liked:
What I like for a retro game like LL is 3d6 assign in order. To do a quick sample:
1st roll = 9
Before I go any further, I have to assign this to one of the six. It’s not what I want for a prime ability score, so I’ll go elsewhere. Always good to have at least average Con, and Con 9 will keep Dwarf and Halfling an option, so I assign this to Con.
The idea is that you have to slot your roll before making the next roll, which seems like a workable compromise between “in order” and “arrange to taste.” If you’re set on playing a magic-user, you wait until you get a good roll to fill the Int slot. Though, of course, you may not get a good roll. Or, you may get a better one later. As in Yahtzee, it’s up to you if you use that roll for ’4 of a Kind’ or for ‘Threes’.
I like to have humans roll 5d6 (dropping the lowest two rolls) to make them larger-then-life types, but non-humans roll 4d6 (dropping the lowest roll).
From the comment it sounds like demi-humans do NOT have level limits in his game. This seems like a decent idea for mere humans in such a game.
But the first thing I’d consider to “power down” B/X/LL would be to scale back the ability modifiers*. Something like this, maybe:
(sample Strength mod)
3-4 …… -2
5-6 …… -1
7-14 …… 0
15-16 .. +1
17-18 .. +2
I actually think I prefer bonuses to start at 15, but changing the ability modifier scheme is a bigger change than altering the method of rolling up abilities in the first place. Though I’m not at all a dead-on by-the-book player by any means, I also don’t like to tinker with things more than I feel is necessary. The low power curve of Swords & Wizardry White Box (based on OD&D with no supplements) made it just fine for PCs to usually have no bonuses at all, but LL is designed with at least some bonuses in mind. If bonuses are lowered, PCs are at an unfair disadvantage unless abilities are actually RAISED to make up for it. This problem is summed up here:
It’s been my experience that lowering the ability score modifiers actually just encourages the players to only accept higher scores. I’d rather give a +1 at 13 and have PCs with high stats of 15 than have players all refusing to play a character that doesn’t have at least one 17 or 18.
Indeed.
Here’s an interesting idea:
I just had a weird thought for combining 3d6 and 4d6. Give each ability a starting and potential maximum stat. It would work like this:
For each ability, roll three regular dice and one die of a different color – the potential die. The starting level of an ability is the total of the first three dice. The maximum level of the ability is the total of the three highest of all four dice. For example:
Rolling for Strength, a player rolls 4, 3 and 3 on the first three dice and a 6 on the potential die. Starting Strength is 4 + 3 +3, or 10. The potential maximum is the highest three of the four die (4,3,3,6) or 4+3+6 or 13. So the character would list Strength as 10/13. His staring Strength would be 10 but over time he could raise it to 13.
To raise abilities, every time a character goes up a level, he can raise one ability of his choice by +1, provided the ability is below its maximum.
I’ve long thought about how to allow ability increases in a reasonable manner. It’s something that we’ve never done, but I can see it being worth thinking about. This particular method sounds sort of cool.
If you’re interested in the topic of rolling up abilities, I heartily recommend reading through the entire thread. Add your own thoughts, too.
As for me, reading through the feedback here and on the board has got me pretty much convinced that 3d6 is the way to go. With bonuses available at 13, 4d6 just gives out too many pluses without enough minuses.
My plan is to use 3d6, though I haven’t decided if it’s going to be:
- 3d6 in order, with 2-for-1 adjustment allowed as per the rules, or
- 3d6, arrange as desired, or
- 3d6, let the player choose one of the above options before rolling
Either method will allow a player to create the class of character he or she desires, which is something that I do think is in the best interest of everyone at the table.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, rules
As a follow-up to last night’s post on rolling up ability scores for Labyrinth Lord, here’s a screenshot of a little Excel sheet I whipped up to simulate some rolls:
Green indicates a bonus of 1 or greater, Red indicates a penalty of 1 or greater
You can click for a closer look, but, before you do, notice the green and red on each side. Green indicates a score of 13 or better and bonus. Red indicates a score below 9 and a penalty. As I noted last night, it’s that bonus at 13 that makes me cringe when talking about 4d6. So much green on the left side.
Something else to consider is the class requirements. In LL, only elves, dwarves, and halflings even have a minimum score required, and that’s a 9 in every case. Certainly not all that difficult with 3d6. Especially with the “trade 2 points somewhere else to add 1 to your prime req” rule, which I’ve never really liked but may consider using if we go with 3d6.
Another option, one I used in my short-lived Swords & Wizardry White Box game, was “3d6 in order, plus a 7th 3d6 roll which can be traded with any of the first six.” What I liked about this was that it helped make sure that a PC had a good chance to avoid a really bad score while not doing too much to ramp up the power level.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, rules
I am planning to shift to a “roll in order” for ability scores, with the opportunity to swap two scores.
We’ve almost always played “4d6, drop lowest”, but I’m leaning toward a straight 3d6 for Labyrinth Lord from now on. I believe that the +1 modifiers for to-hit, damage, and hit points at 13 is excessive. Yes, I realize that this is how original B/X played it, but I believe it’s just too much. My conscience requires me to either adjust the ability score modifiers, probably to a +1 at 15 instead of 13, or slightly deflate ability scores.
Since the 3d6 method is by the book to begin with, going that route is preferable to me.
Over at Dungeons and Digressions, I see the sidebar poll shows a sizable lead for the “4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste” method. This has long been my own most common rule, though I’ve varied things over the years.
What do readers do and/or prefer?
UPDATE: I also posed this question on the LL forum.
Tags: rules
I’ve noted before that I grant thieves six-sided hit dice in my Labyrinth Lord game rather than a d4. As I stated, I believe that thieves are generally tougher than magic-users but maybe not as tough as clerics. The problem arises because in LL clerics have d6 hit dice and magic-users have d4. There’s no simple middle ground as there is in AD&D where clerics have d8 hit dice and the d6 splits the difference. As I believe that most thieves are adventurers who have ignored advanced combat techniques for some specialized skills rather than normal men who have learned some technical crafts, I give them d6 hit dice.
Now, I find myself making another house rule to benefit the thief class.
The revised Labyrinth Lord rules have made a number of adjustments to armor. The most significant of these, in my opinion, is shift of leather armor to AC 8 from AC 7. Though maybe not a big deal to other classes, this is a major issue for thieves, who “cannot wear armor heavier than leather” and cannot use shields. Suddenly, every thief wearing leather armor is more than 10% easier to hit, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. High dexterity, magic items, whatever…any thief wearing leather armor (which is about 95% of them in my experience) lost half of their armor protection in combat.
So I’m going to allow thieves to wear studded leather armor. Studded also lost an AC point in the revision, and now grants base AC of 7, the same as pre-revision leather armor. Problem solved.
Honestly, I’m not necessarily the biggest fan of the thief class and am not thrilled about constantly tweaking things for them. If their abilities were better at lower levels, I’d probably resist the temptation. But I also don’t want their biggest contribution to be a pick locks or remove traps roll. I see them as adventurers, not specialists.
Tags: Labyrinth Lord, rules, thief
