# Example of Basic D&D Combat



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2009)

I want to talk about, reminisce, and maybe slightly rag on this example of combat from the old 1981 Basic Dungeons & Dragons rule book. It starts thusly:



> Four player characters, Morgan Ironwolf (1st level fighter), Silverleaf (2nd level Elf), Fredrik (1st level dwarf), and Sister Rebecca (2nd level cleric) enter a room through a secret door which was detected and opened by Silverleaf.




First thing that jumps out at me here, is the 2nd level elf. Silverleaf must have at least 4,000 xp; Morgan has less than 2,000 and Fredrik has less than 2,200. Even Sister Rebecca, as a 2nd level cleric, must have less than 3,000 xp. So we can see here that Silverleaf has survived a few game sessions, at least. Maybe he was the lone survivor and therefore got all the xp for the previous adventure just by himself – that would bump him up a level in short time.

When I was playing BD&D, we learned pretty quick that magic-users died easily (hell, all classes died pretty easy). In the first few months of playing, we never got any character to 2nd level. So when we made new characters, we started making elves – they could fight like fighters and use spells like magic-users. The fact that they required nearly double the xp to make the next level didn’t matter, since we never saw the next level anyway.



> The room appears to be empty. While they are searching it, a second secret door opens (which Silverleaf did not find) and the first pair of 12 hobgoblins walks in.




Twelve hobgoblins? That’s twice the maximum possible listed in their stat block! That’s twice the maximum listed for them on the second level wandering monster chart! Some might think my pointing this out is a complaint about the number showing up in this encounter, but my thought is why did the designer even put a “number appearing” line in the stat block. Didn’t all DMs just put however many they wanted in an encounter?

Twelve hobgoblins against a party of four PCs (two 1st-level characters, two 2nd-level characters) is a pretty damn tough encounter. A smart party in this situation should immediately try to escape.



> The DM checks for surprise: the party rolls a 2, the hobgoblins a 1; both sides are surprised. The two groups stare at each other while changing their order into better defensive positions. Since Silverleaf is the only member of the party who speaks Hobgoblin, the other characters elect him as their spokesman. The player who runs Silverleaf becomes the caller. He quickly warns the others that he may have to use his sleep spell.




Ah, the days of “callers” – a single player who served as the party mouthpiece to the DM (as opposed to everyone, individually, speaking to the DM at the same time). Although this concept was part of both Basic D&D and Advanced D&D, I never played or DMed with any group who ever used a single caller.



> Silverleaf steps forward with both hands empty in a token of friendship, and says “Greetings, noble dwellers of deep caverns; can we help you?”. Just in case, Silverleaf is thinking of the words he must chant to cast his spell.




Instead of immediately attacking like dumb players, or trying to escape like cautious players, these guys are going to actually try parley with the hobgoblins. When’s the last time you’ve seen PCs try talking to monsters before combat? Good thinking, Silverleaf.



> The DM decides that Silverleaf’s open hands and words in the hobgoblins’ language are worth +1 when checking for reaction. Unfortunately the DM rolls a 4 (on 2d6) which, even adjusted to 5, is not a good reaction. The hobgoblins draw their weapons, but do not attack. They do move aside as two more hobgoblins enter the room.
> 
> The largest of the hobgoblins shouts, in his language, “Go away! You’re not allowed in this room!”
> 
> “It’s okay; Gary sent us,” Silverleaf answers.




“Gary sent us.” I assume this is an inside joke reference to Gygax, and that makes me smile.



> “Huh?” the hobgoblin wittily responds.
> 
> The DM rolls a new reaction with no adjustments. The roll is a 3; the hobgoblins charge.




Uh oh. And yay!



> The DM rolls a 2 for the hobgoblins’ initiative; Silverleaf rolls a 4 for the party, so the party has the initiative. Silverleaf has already warned the others that he is going to throw a sleep spell if the hobgoblins attack, so the party moves to form a defensive line across the room (making sure that they do not get caught in the spell’s area of effect). Morgan has a short bow ready to fire, Fredrik is getting his throwing axe ready, and Sister Rebecca is pulling out her mace and bracing her shield.




Cool. Look at that: the frontline fighters know not to get up and in the mage’s spell area. I’ve seen experienced gamers completely forget that tactic, much to the annoyance of the mage (or their own annoyance when they get caught in the area of effect).



> Since Morgan has her bow ready and Fredrik has his axe, they choose their targets and fire. First level characters need a roll of 13 or better to hit the hobgoblins’ Armor Class of 6. Since both attacks are at short range, Morgan and Fredrik each add +1 to their rolls. In addition, Morgan has a Dexterity score of 13, so she gains another +1 bonus. Therefore, Fredrik needs a roll of 12 (or greater) to hit, and Morgan needs a roll of 11.
> 
> Morgan rolls a 12 and Fredrik rolls a 16 – both hit! The DM rolls 1d6 for arrow damage and 1d6 for axe damage. Morgan’s arrow does 4 points of damage, and the hobgoblin she hit (who only had 4 hit points) falls; the DM announces “Hobgoblin #2 is dead” (counting from the first to enter the room). Fredrik’s axe is found to do 5 points of damage, but the first hobgoblin had 7 hit points. The 5 points are deducted from the hobgoblin’s total, leaving him with 2 hit points.




Back in the day, monster hit points were all, individually, rolled up randomly. Even published modules listed different hit points for a group of monsters. For instance, these hobgoblins might have been statted out like this: (AC: 6, HD: 1+1, hp: 7, 4, 5, 4, 6, 5, 7, 3, 2, 5, 6, 3, Att: 1, Dam: 1d8, Saves: F1). I quickly found this rather a pain to keep track of, so I started using the hit die average rounded up (1d8 = 5). In the case of these 1+1 HD hobgoblins, I would have written down that they all have 6 hit points.

Morgan kills on her first attack in the battle, but poor Fredrik only wounds his opponent. We’re going to see, reading the rest of this battle tale, that Morgan just rocks, and Fredrik just sucks.



> Silverleaf casts his spell and finds that 13 levels of monsters fall asleep. Since hobgoblins have 1 + 1 hit dice, they are treated as 2 hit die monsters for this purpose. Therefore, six hobgoblins fall asleep: the 3 who are charging, the two coming through the door this round, and one standing just beyond the doorway.




Sleep: the tactical nuke of Basic D&D. When you absolutely, positively have to drop every mamma jamma in the room. Any elf or magic-user with any knowledge or experience in the low levels of D&D knew that you always took sleep or charm person as your first spells.



> At least half of the monsters are out of action, so the DM decides to check the hobgoblins’ morale. Normal hobgoblins morale is 9, temporarily lowered to 8 in this situation. The DM rolls a 6, so the hobgoblins will fight on.




I miss having a core, standard morale check mechanic.



> In the second round of combat, the party loses the initiative roll. Another two hobgoblins charge through the doorway. Since Morgan still has her bow out, she may shoot at the charging monsters. These start moving from 20’ away from her, so the party has time to get their weapons out. The DM warns Silverleaf that if he wants to cast any spells this round, the hobgoblins will be able to attack him before he can do so. Silverleaf decides to get out a weapon. Morgan rolls a 4 (a miss), and the hobgoblins decide to attack Fredrik and Morgan.




Why does Morgan get a shot at the charging hobgoblins on their turn? There’s no rule, that I can find, that says you get to attack when your opponent charges (there’s no “charge” mechanic – it’s just a description of their movement). This action/allowance seems to break the rules, and I can’t figure out why.

Regarding Silverleaf wanting to cast a spell, but the hobgoblins will get to attack him before he can do so: oddly, I can't find any rule in the basic set that says being attacked and/or hit messes up spell casting. Until right now, being unable to find the rule, I had thought this was a core rule in BD&D. Have I been wrong in thinking this all these years? Is this just an AD&D rule that I backward added to my memory of BD&D?



> The hobgoblin attacking Fredrik rolls a 17, hitting Fredrik’s Armor Class of 2, and scores 8 points of damage! Poor Fredrik had only 6 hit points, so his is killed.




“Poor Fredrik” is right. The dwarf failed to kill with his first attack, and then gets killed in the second round of the fight. Silverleaf will be getting even further ahead in xp. Damn lucky elves.



> The monster attacking Morgan needs a 15 to hit her Armor Class of 3 (since she had her bow out, which required two hands, her shield was not included in the Armor Class). The DM rolls a 15, and Morgan takes 4 points of damage – not quite enough to kill her.




Shields were only 1 point of AC in BD&D, regardless of their size. The only reason they weren’t discarded by fighters in favor of big, two-handed weapons was that wielding a 2H meant you automatically lost initiative each round.



> Morgan has already attacked this round, so she may not do so again. The DM does allow her to drop her bow and draw a sword, so that she may attack in melee combat in the next round.




Yeah, she got to shoot her bow on the hobgoblins’ turn. Cheater.



> Both Sister Rebecca and Silverleaf can attack, however, and together they kill one hobgoblin.
> 
> The party gets the initiative for the third round. All of them choose to attack the only monster in the room. Rebecca and Silverleaf both miss, but Morgan hits (with her sword). She rolls a 4 for damage. The hobgoblin has 5 hit points. But Morgan’s great Strength gives her a bonus of +2 on damage, so she scores a total of 6 points of damage, killing the hobgoblin.




So, Morgan has a 13 Dexterity and a 16 or 17 Strength. She’s lucky, munchkiny, and cheaty. I wonder if she’s the DM’s girlfriend?



> The DM decides to check the hobgoblin’s morale again. They began with a morale score of 9, adjust to 8 before, and further adjusted this time down to 7. The DM rolls an 8; the last three hobgoblins drop their weapons, and shout (in hobgoblin, of course), “We surrender! We’ll tell you all about this room if you don’t kill us!” If the hobgoblins had made their morale check they would not have to check again and would fight to the death.




Aren’t the last three hobgoblins still in the other room? This is why we quickly started using minis on a battlegrid, so no one got confused about where anyone or anything was in a battle.



> Silverleaf tells the party what the hobgoblins have said. The characters accept the surrender, and tie up all the hobgoblins and remove their weapons. The helpful hobgoblins not only tell the party where the treasure is, but how to avoid the poison needle trap which guards the lock on the chest.




I like the way these hobgoblins are actually helpful when taken prisoner. So many times I’ve seen defeated enemies act like asses with contempt for the victors, refusing to give up any information without a hard debate.



> Before the party leaves they gag the hobgoblins, to make sure that no alarm will be raised. Morgan is Neutral in alignment, and argues that it is not safe to leave a sure enemy behind them, even if that enemy is temporarily helpless. Silverleaf is also Neutral, but he believes that the hobgoblins are too terrified to be of any further threat. If Morgan wants to kill the prisoners he won’t help her, but he won’t stop her, either.




Don’t forget there are six sleeping hobgoblins in this room. They’ll wake up soon.



> Sister Rebecca, a Lawful cleric, is shocked by Morgan’s suggestion. She tells Morgan that a Lawful person keeps her word, and that she promised the hobgoblins that they would be spared. Her god would never allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners . . . .




Nice role playing Sister Rebecca.



> Morgan agrees that killing captives is wrong, and that it was only the great pain from her wound which caused her to say such things.




Nice role playing Morgan. And this is played out without a big intraparty argument about alignment.



> Sister Rebecca casts her cure light wounds spell on Morgan. It does 5 points of healing, bringing Morgan back to her normal 6 hit points.




Note: This is Sister Rebecca’s one and only spell for the adventuring day. Clerics get their first 1st-level spell at their 2nd character level. Without that spell, it would take Morgan at least two full days (24 hours) of rest to recover those 4 points of damage. BD&D healing rules say 1d3 hit points healed naturally per full day of complete rest.

On this note, let’s think about how this one fight affects the PCs and their adventuring day.

They were outnumbered 3-to-1 by roughly equal powered enemies.

The sleep spell took out half the hobgoblins in one shot. But that one spell was half of the spell allotment for Silverleaf – a 2nd-level elf has only two 1st-level spells per day. That’s all. That’s it.

The single cure light wounds was the full allotment of Sister Rebecca’s spells per day.

One PC is dead, so the party is down to just 3, now. And how will they get the new PC into the group? Should they pull out of the dungeon now, or continue ahead? Fredrik’s poor player will be ready with a new PC in a minute, but will he have to just wait – sit over there and play Breakout on the 2600?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 18, 2009)

So, Morgan has a 13 Dexterity and a 16 or 17 Strength. She’s lucky, munchkiny, and cheaty. I wonder if she’s the DM’s girlfriend?

ROFL. Morgan's stats are 16,7,9,13,14,8

A DM's girlfriend would NOT have an 8 Charisma


----------



## Plissken (Feb 18, 2009)

> Cool. Look at that: the frontline fighters know not to get up and in the mage’s spell area. I’ve seen experienced gamers completely forget that tactic, much to the annoyance of the mage (or their own annoyance when they get caught in the area of effect).




OMG! Yes! I hate it when that happens. 

One of the things that I liked about Basic D&D was how initiative worked. If the players won initiative they first talk about a plan and then execute it.

I'm thinking about implementing that in my next 4e game...wonder how players will respond to it.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 18, 2009)

Plissken said:


> One of the things that I liked about Basic D&D was how initiative worked. If the players won initiative they first talk about a plan and then execute it.



You don't have to win initiative to talk about a plan and execute it. 


> I'm thinking about implementing that in my next 4e game...wonder how players will respond to it.



I think it will depend on whether they feel that "pausing" the in-game flow of time for them to discuss tactics will break immersion. My group plays more for the combat than for the role-playing, and even we don't engage in detailed tactical discussions before we start combat. Co-ordination is usually achieved through player-to-player suggestions in the course of the fight, e.g. "Don't rush them yet, let me use my area attack first," or "Delay until after my turn, I might be able to give you a bonus to the attack roll."


----------



## S'mon (Feb 18, 2009)

The combat example only seems to make sense if the combat phases (Move-Missile-Melee-Spell) are applied to both sides at once, not run through side A then side B.  That way, (a) hobgoblins move, then (b) PCs fire bows before hobgoblins can (c) make melee attacks, but hobgoblins make melee attacks before (d) PCs spellcast.

It gives interesting results, but I've always just done "side A acts, then side B acts" which seems to work fine - it's somewhat more favourable to casters.  But I rule that if a caster is being attacked and they start casting, opponent gets a free attack on them; if it hits the spell is lost.

I do kinda like how this Moldvay phased system privileges non-melee missile fire and penalises casting, though, without giving free attacks.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Why does Morgan get a shot at the charging hobgoblins on their turn? There’s no rule, that I can find, that says you get to attack when your opponent charges (there’s no “charge” mechanic – it’s just a description of their movement). This action/allowance seems to break the rules, and I can’t figure out why.




there is a rule in place about ranged weapons being ready. it comes from chainmail. 

readied ranged weapons were always given a chance to fire at opponents as they moved. if the opponent were in melee combat with the bowman that would be different. but since the hobgoblins had to move to get to the bowman or any of the party in this case. the bowman can shoot.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Twelve hobgoblins? That’s twice the maximum possible listed in their stat block! That’s twice the maximum listed for them on the second level wandering monster chart! Some might think my pointing this out is a complaint about the number showing up in this encounter, but my thought is why did the designer even put a “number appearing” line in the stat block. Didn’t all DMs just put however many they wanted in an encounter?




Number appearing as standard is 1-6. For a lair the number appearing is 4-24.



Bullgrit said:


> Twelve hobgoblins against a party of four PCs (two 1st-level characters, two 2nd-level characters) is a pretty damn tough encounter. A smart party in this situation should immediately try to escape.




Or try and BS thier way out of fighting, which they tried first. 





Bullgrit said:


> Instead of immediately attacking like dumb players, or trying to escape like cautious players, these guys are going to actually try parley with the hobgoblins. When’s the last time you’ve seen PCs try talking to monsters before combat? Good thinking, Silverleaf.
> 
> “Gary sent us.” I assume this is an inside joke reference to Gygax, and that makes me smile.




Me too. Immediate flight is not always cautious. Fleeing at first sight from certain enemies is like putting on a "kick me" sign.





Bullgrit said:


> I miss having a core, standard morale check mechanic.




I don't. I never stopped using it so I never missed it.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Fredrik’s poor player will be ready with a new PC in a minute, but will he have to just wait – sit over there and play Breakout on the 2600?




nah, any referee worth his weight in dice would have Fredrik's player roll for the monsters until he gets his PC back into the game.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 18, 2009)

On thing I find interesting is how little D&D actually needs an initiative system.

Running Empire of the Petal Throne (OD&D with a few twists... which I guess is a redundant statement!), I don't even use an initiative system. I do roll for surprise, if applicable. But otherwise it's generally obvious which side should get to go first. And I just adjudicate it on the fly.

Slow opponents like undead automatically cede initiative. Long weapons like spears and polearms can afford a first strike. Readied missiles can make an opportunity fire. And sometimes it just comes down to who decides to make the first move and commit.

It's not all written down in a complicated formula. I just go with what seems reasonable. Rarely I might call for a 1d6 roll, or ask somebody what their Dexterity rating is (one fellow is extremely dextrous and so that's a great situational tie-breaker for him). I find it works well. My preference is to give the protagonists (I wouldn't call them heroes!) the benefit of the doubt.

Kind of the Jeet Kune Do method of Judging, if you will (yes... "DMs" used to be called "Judges" in some circles... you know, because they were expected to exercise judgment!).


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> One PC is dead, so the party is down to just 3, now. And how will they get the new PC into the group? Should they pull out of the dungeon now, or continue ahead? Fredrik’s poor player will be ready with a new PC in a minute, but will he have to just wait – sit over there and play Breakout on the 2600?




The new character will be chained to the wall in the room all those Hobgoblins just came from, the last survivor of a group that didn't' have a PC with a sleep spell memorized.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 18, 2009)

diaglo said:


> nah, any referee worth his weight in dice would have Fredrik's player roll for the monsters until he gets his PC back into the game.






JDJblatherings said:


> The new character will be chained to the wall in the room all those Hobgoblins just came from, the last survivor of a group that didn't' have a PC with a sleep spell memorized.




True and True. A player should only have to sit and twiddle the thumbs if he/she feels like it.


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 18, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Twelve hobgoblins? That’s twice the maximum possible listed in their stat block! That’s twice the maximum listed for them on the second level wandering monster chart! Some might think my pointing this out is a complaint about the number showing up in this encounter, but my thought is why did the designer even put a “number appearing” line in the stat block. Didn’t all DMs just put however many they wanted in an encounter?



If you read the other example of play appearing in the book (it's physically later in the book, but confusingly temporally earlier in the sequence), you'll see that the pcs were on the second level.  Hobgoblins are a first level monster.  Their printed number appearing is the number of monsters that will be found on the level they usually appear on.  When found on lower levels, there will be more monsters.  



Bullgrit said:


> Why does Morgan get a shot at the charging hobgoblins on their turn? There’s no rule, that I can find, that says you get to attack when your opponent charges (there’s no “charge” mechanic – it’s just a description of their movement). This action/allowance seems to break the rules, and I can’t figure out why.



Others have noted that there is a rule in Chainmail, and thus by default OD&D, that allows missile users to fire at charging opponents during the opponents' charge.  I'd guess that this example was written before it was determined whether that rule stayed.  Or maybe to the old wargamers writing things, it was so patently obvious they didn't feel the need to include.  Or maybe they just wanted to throw an example in as to how the DM could make rulings that just seemed to make sense.

There is a charge mechanic in the Expert rules.



Bullgrit said:


> Regarding Silverleaf wanting to cast a spell, but the hobgoblins will get to attack him before he can do so: oddly, I can't find any rule in the basic set that says being attacked and/or hit messes up spell casting. Until right now, being unable to find the rule, I had thought this was a core rule in BD&D. Have I been wrong in thinking this all these years? Is this just an AD&D rule that I backward added to my memory of BD&D?




It's in the spell casting section.  It might be more explicitly stated in the Expert set, though.



Bullgrit said:


> So, Morgan has a 13 Dexterity and a 16 or 17 Strength. She’s lucky, munchkiny, and cheaty. I wonder if she’s the DM’s girlfriend?



Nope, as we learned when we got hold of the DM's Adventure Log, she's the editor's pc.  Sister Rebecca seems to be the pc of the editor's wife or sister.



Bullgrit said:


> Don’t forget there are six sleeping hobgoblins in this room. They’ll wake up soon.



Nope.  Check the duration on that Sleep spell again.  They won't be waking up any time soon.



Bullgrit said:


> Nice role playing Sister Rebecca.
> 
> Nice role playing Morgan. And this is played out without a big intraparty argument about alignment.



Since they're married or related in RL, it's probably a good idea that D&D arguments don't get too heated.



Bullgrit said:


> One PC is dead, so the party is down to just 3, now.



Actually, two are dead.  Poor Black Dougal the thief didn't even make it this far.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 18, 2009)

FireLance said:


> You don't have to win initiative to talk about a plan and execute it.



You don't have too, but the combination of  a _Caller_ & the whole party choosing their actions first, _then_ resolving them really adds to the potential for group tactics. In a _initiative-cycling system_, like 3e & 4e, the players can still plan thier actions as a group, but it is a lot easier for one player to jump the gun or to just say _"Screw it, I'm trying something stupid!"_ Indeed, in an _initiative-cycling system_ IME tactically minded players have to make judicious use of _Ready_ and _Delay_ actions just to undo the damage of the initiative roll crapshoot.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2009)

For the record: I know about the other example of play in the book. I have the book (two copies, actually). But I was keeping my comments to just the example on this one page and the rules in this one book.

Bullgrit


----------



## Ourph (Feb 18, 2009)

diaglo said:


> there is a rule in place about ranged weapons being ready. it comes from chainmail.
> 
> readied ranged weapons were always given a chance to fire at opponents as they moved. if the opponent were in melee combat with the bowman that would be different. but since the hobgoblins had to move to get to the bowman or any of the party in this case. the bowman can shoot.



For the Moldvay/Cook B/X rules I don't believe this is exactly the case.  IIRC, it's a simpler system in which initiative is always resolved so that ALL missile fire occurs first in the round, followed by movement and melee combat.  So instead of the round looking like this...

Hobgoblins fire missiles, move and make melee attacks -> PCs fire missiles, move and make melee attacks.

... it looks like this ...

Hobgoblins fire missiles -> PCs fire missiles -> Hobgoblins move and make melee attacks-> PCs move and make melee attacks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Ourph said:


> For the Moldvay/Cook B/X rules I don't believe this is exactly the case. IIRC, it's a simpler system in which initiative is always resolved so that ALL missile fire occurs first in the round, followed by movement and melee combat. So instead of the round looking like this...
> 
> Hobgoblins fire missiles, move and make melee attacks -> PCs fire missiles, move and make melee attacks.
> 
> ...




We tried things like that for a while and it works great unless you have a spellcaster. In the taking turns sequence as written it goes: 
1)morale
2)movement
3)missiles
4)spells
5)melee

If it worked as you outlined above, a caster would never get a spell off unless they were facing an enemy without missile fire capacity. Casting in combat is hard enough.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 19, 2009)

I like a phased combat sequence.  (The one I use and linked to is derived from _Chainmail_ and _Swords & Spells_.  There is another one -- which I haven't used -- in the Mentzer Immortals rules, too -- you can also find info on it in MrReapers Rules Cyclopedia errata document: search for 'This is a revision to the Combat Sequence Checklist').

In the sequence I use, standard spellcasting is interrupted by taking damage (e.g. from an arrow), but also by becoming engaged in melee (i.e. you don't have to actually score a melee hit, just get close enough to engage the caster).


----------



## RFisher (Feb 19, 2009)

Yeah, the rule for spell spoilage is in the beginning of the spell chapter in the Expert book.

While the bit about Morgan getting the arrow off probably is just one of the many details that didn’t make the cut, I choose to see it as emphasis that the booklet clearly says that it’s “rules” are really “guidelines”. The DM should do what seems right rather than being a slave to the given combat procedure.

So much of that example reminds me of reasons why it’s my favorite edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2009)

RFisher said:


> Yeah, the rule for spell spoilage is in the beginning of the spell chapter in the Expert book.
> 
> While the bit about Morgan getting the arrow off probably is just one of the many details that didn’t make the cut, I choose to see it as emphasis that the booklet clearly says that it’s “rules” are really “guidelines”. The DM should do what seems right rather than being a slave to the given combat procedure.
> 
> So much of that example reminds me of reasons why it’s my favorite edition.




True for me too. I am currently at work on my own variant system and this thread has made me stop and think about where I'm going with the project. The more I think about combat rules and the ridiculous situations that can crop up when following a set of rules to the letter (even a very good set), the more I'm leaning towards a guideline approach. I've got some re-working and simplifying to do.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 19, 2009)

When I was playing BD&D (1980-81), we never even bothered with the order of actions thing. We just rolled initiative (straight 1d6), and then let each monster and PC go on their side's turn, in order of the individual Dexterity.

That is, on the party's turn, Silverleaf could cast his spell, then Morgan could shoot her bow, then Fredrick could move up and attack in melee, then Sister Rebecca could move up and attack in melee.

But that was totally a house rule we came to use without actually consciously choosing to use a house rule. That method of handling combat just kind of happened without us really learning the details of the rules.

* * *



> I choose to see it as emphasis that the booklet clearly says that it’s “rules” are really “guidelines”.



This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.

In an edition we don't like, a wonky rule is "stupid and an example of why that edition is bad."

In an edition we do like, a wonky rule is "meh, they're only guidelines that you can ignore or change."

Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, "but here's how we work around it." Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the "they're only guidelines" thing.

* * *

I'd love to play a game of BD&D, again. I've offered many times to DM a game session or two for my group, but no one has shown any interest. But I don't think anyone is opposed to BD&D, they just don't like one-offs. <sigh>

Bullgrit


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 19, 2009)

I'm trying to envision how this encounter would look in 4e:

PCs:
1st level fighter
2nd level elf (wizard)
1st level dwarf (fighter)
2nd level cleric

Monsters:
Elven hobgoblin grunts, level 3 minions.
One hobgoblin subcommander, level 3 soldier (from Dragon).

The hobgoblins move into the room in pairs, and the PCs try to parley first.  Diplomacy checks fail.  Both sides roll initiative, PCs win.  Wizard and Cleric will certainly fall back behind the fighters.  An arrow and axe drop two minions immediately.

10 hobgoblins left.

The elf dropping sleep would, at best, drop 4 hobgoblins, but only if they're clumped up, and even then it might just slow them.  Plus they have Hobgoblin Resilence. Given the way the hobgoblins are staggered, the spellcaster might have to target the ones past the doorway. You can immediately see how much harder it is to abjudicate without minis for visual reference. 

But let's say 4 hobgoblins minions are hit and slowed, and fail their saves the 2nd round and fall unconscious.

6 hobgoblins lef: 5 minions and the subcommander.  At this point, there is no morale check comparable in 4e, other than DM fiat.  Personally, i'd still have them all charge.

At this point, the dwarf Fighter Fredrik is going to get swarmed (assuming he was out in the open). There is no way that a single hobgoblin can kill him, but for the sake of argument, let's say that he's hit by 5 minions in melee and a critical hit from the leader. 

5 + 5 + 5 +5 +5 + 12 = 37 hp damage. 

In this scenario, let's say he had 33 hit points, so the dwarf fighter is down, but not dead until his blooded number. In fact, he's only at -4 right now. 

Concentrated attacks by the PCs kill two more minions (in the original scenario), but that still leaves 3 minions and the subcommander starting Round Three.

The dwarf would start making Death Saving Throws, and a malicious DM would have the hogbolins attack the dying dwarf, although there's no reason they would do that with 3 viable targets breathing down their throats. 

Again, the DM has the opportunity to check for Morale, but there is little reason for the hobgoblins to logically give up the fight, especially when their leader is still alive and kicking.  I love having morale, but it is just as easy to make up on the fly without resorting to a die roll.

So, at this point, the fight would continue and change considerably from how it ended up originally.  The only way for the fighter to die is very bad luck, lack of help from his allies, or continual attacks from the hobgoblins against his body.  

In fact, the whole battle might very well be over.  Scorching Burst would have annihilated the minions, and a few encounter powers would take down the subcommander.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> Monsters:
> *Elven* hobgoblin grunts, level 3 minions.
> One hobgoblin subcommander, level 3 soldier (from Dragon).




AHA!! I knew elves were evil!!


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> AHA!! I knew elves were evil!!






I won't even edit it.  The truth must be known!


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 19, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why can't we just acknowledge a rule is wonky, "but here's how we work around it." Or explain why a rule is not wonky. Let's not always fall back on the "they're only guidelines" thing.




That the 'rules' are in fact only guidelines is the basis of Old School play. You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that rule, any more than you can do modern Physics without an understanding and acceptance of gravity.

As Judge, I know best about the individual situation. I'm the one responsible for delivering a good session to my players and so I make the call. If I wanted or needed the rules to make all the calls themselves, i.e. cover every possible situation with a reasonable and consistent result, the actual rules would have to be enormous and complicated.

In something like Advanced Squad Leader you do have an enormous set of rules... precisely because there is no Referee and it's just two guys/teams playing against one another. So the rules have to be exhaustive, because the players all expect realism, fairness and consistency... yet there is no human whose job it is to make sure everything is realistic, fair and consistent in a game of ASL. So you have to externalize a very complicated set of instructions (almost like a program) to automatically adjudicate any of the million different things that can happen. And ASL is actually much more constrained in scope than a role playing game.

The word "rule" as applied to Old School role playing is only spoken analogically... it's not univocal with the word "rule" as it appears in a competitive tournament game.

Initiative rules are a great example of this principle. In a lot of games, a guy can have a loaded crossbow, and a foe can run 30 feet and attack him before he can fire. Now, you can come up with one or more rules (including individual special case rules) to deal with this. Or you can have a simple ruleset and rely on the Judge... to Judge.

Now, among internet pundits there seem to be a fair number who had really lousy DMs that they for some reason never shouted at or punched in the face. Carrying these emotional scars with them decades later, they seek the "perfect set of rules", where "rules" is understood to mean something binding. To me, this is a Quixotic errand. A bad DM can and will ruin any game, no matter how good the rules are. So why not have the rules be a mere set of guidelines and tools?


----------



## Galloglaich (Feb 19, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I like a phased combat sequence. (The one I use and linked to is derived from _Chainmail_ and _Swords & Spells_. There is another one -- which I haven't used -- in the Mentzer Immortals rules, too -- you can also find info on it in MrReapers Rules Cyclopedia errata document: search for 'This is a revision to the Combat Sequence Checklist').
> 
> In the sequence I use, standard spellcasting is interrupted by taking damage (e.g. from an arrow), but also by becoming engaged in melee (i.e. you don't have to actually score a melee hit, just get close enough to engage the caster).




I wonder if you should allow an AoO for missile weapons if someone moves in front of an archer (etc.) more than say, 10' ?  This would mimic this effect in the BD&D combat, which I like, in 3.5 rules.

G.


----------



## Galloglaich (Feb 19, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> That the 'rules' are in fact only guidelines is the basis of Old School play. You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that rule, any more than you can do modern Physics without an understanding and acceptance of gravity.
> 
> As Judge, I know best about the individual situation. I'm the one responsible for delivering a good session to my players and so I make the call. If I wanted or needed the rules to make all the calls themselves, i.e. cover every possible situation with a reasonable and consistent result, the actual rules would have to be enormous and complicated.
> 
> ...




Great post!

G.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> * * *
> Quote:
> I choose to see it as emphasis that the booklet clearly says that it’s “rules” are really “guidelines”.
> 
> ...




The wonkiness of individual rules, the problems they create, and the ease of solutions is highly dependent on the system as a whole. Earlier rulesets had some odd subsystems that not everyone liked. Later rulesets still had some wonky rules that not everyone liked.

The difference? In older editions a wonky rule or even subsystem could be changed or removed without as much effect on the rest of the game. Newer rulesets are more integrated with universal mechanics and subsystem dependencies. 

Lets say I don't like 1E initiative very much. I discard the whole system and replace it with phases such as Philotomy J. suggested. The game still works. 

Now lets say I don't like opportunity attacks in my 3E game so I just get rid of them. Now casters are even more overpowered, certain feats are useless, ect. One item removed and the system is out of whack and needs further corrections.

If we tried to turn OA rules into a guideline, and said that OA's would be granted " when appropriate" it would be even worse. Players would never know when it would be a good time to cast a spell, or if taking certain feats was worth the effort. 

For me at least it comes down to complexity. I LIKE GURPS, but realize that its a somewhat complex system that takes a bit of effort to tinker with. Some games run better with guidelines replacing rules than others.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 19, 2009)

> You cannot understand or practice Old School play without an acceptance of that *rule*



But it's only a guideline.

Bullgrit


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> I'm trying to envision how this encounter would look in 4e:
> 
> PCs:
> 1st level fighter
> ...




That's one of the problems I have with minions.  We infer that because the group is outnumbered, that the majority of the opponents must be minions.  But this assumption makes it very difficult if not impossible to communicate in game information without resorting to out of game language.

In any previous edition, communicating 'You are outnumbered, this is probably not a good time to just draw a sword, scream, and leap' was a fairly trivial excercise.  I love how in the example of play, the PC's immediately assess, "Twelve hobgoblins is a pretty significant fight.  Let's try a different tactic."  That was standard play 'back in the day'.  

I don't completely miss 'treasure as XP' because it has big problems as well, but I really dislike how not having treasure as XP rewards 'we can't talk to the monster, because that's walking XP'.  

Anyway, back to my point, if we have 'minions' the world there has to be a way to mark them as minions, otherwise any gathering of creatures will be assumed to be primarily minions.  If the party encounters a warband of 20 hobgoblins, and the point of the encounter is, 'You are outnumbered, this is probably not a good time to just draw a sword, scream, and leap', if you are used to minions you'll probably assess that 19-20 members of the group are minions and act accordingly.  If they are in fact all level 3 soldiers, you are suddenly going to find yourself in over your head (and probably very surprised), when the DM's intention was, 'This is an encounter you are supposed to solve through stealth and evasion or some other alternate strategy than straight forward combat.'

The other thing I notice about the example of play is just how much I miss combat turns with phases, no minatures, and the assumption of simultaneous action.   That is to say, I love how you don't get to do your whole round worth of actions before anyone else moves.  You are moving, and they are moving, at roughly the same time so you can't just step out of melee with something and do your own thing because that something can follow you and be right next to you the whole time.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 19, 2009)

> Morgan rolls a 12 and Fredrik rolls a 16 – both hit! The DM rolls 1d6 for arrow damage and 1d6 for axe damage.




Bullgrit... I'm suprised you didn't mention that one.

1. The DM roles the damage players do with their weapons?  I forgot about this and don't remember when this changed.

2. Both weapons deal 1d6 damage. Back then ALL weapons did 1d6 damamge right? I know this was the case in the first set of D&D rules I owned, but there was an optional different weapons do different damage dice rule.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 19, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> That's one of the problems I have with minions. We infer that because the group is outnumbered, that the majority of the opponents must be minions. But this assumption makes it very difficult if not impossible to communicate in game information without resorting to out of game language.




I agree. The descriptions of minions and the intent of the rules imply that PC's should be able to recognize minions. Even so that doesn't help things IMHO. I would be happy to discuss this further in another thread.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 19, 2009)

> I love how you don't get to do your whole round worth of actions before anyone else moves.



Actually, the rules (or guidelines  say one side gets all its actions, and then the other side gets all its actions. 

So it's not:
Monster move
Party move
Monster range
Party range
Monster spell
Party spell
Monster melee
Party melee

It's:
Monster move
Monster range
Monster spell
Monster melee
Party move
Party range
Party spell
Party melee

By the book.

* * *

Yeah, Scribble, I did drop the ball by not noting that. I remember rolling (as DM) all damage for the players in BD&D, and even into AD&D for a year or two.

Bullgrit


----------



## Scribble (Feb 19, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> Yeah, Scribble, I did drop the ball by not noting that. I remember rolling (as DM) all damage for the players in BD&D, and even into AD&D for a year or two.
> 
> Bullgrit




I can understand though how it keeps a sense of mystery going.... But that just seems like way to much work for me the DM.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Feb 20, 2009)

I love you fellow grognards.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 20, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 2. Both weapons deal 1d6 damage. Back then ALL weapons did 1d6 damamge right? I know this was the case in the first set of D&D rules I owned, but there was an optional different weapons do different damage dice rule.



It was optional in classic D&D (i.e. B/X and BECM).  The  original D&D little brown books used d6 for everything, and variable weapon damage was added as an optional rule in Supplement I (which also added different damage vs. small/medium or large creatures, space required rules, and weapon vs. AC modifiers).

My OD&D game uses d6 damage for weapons (and d6 for all hit dice).  I talk about why in my musing on damage and hit points, and also touch on the issue of the "numbers scale" in my ability scores and bonuses musing.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 20, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 1. The DM rolls the damage players do with their weapons?  I forgot about this and don't remember when this changed.



Hah!  Check this one out (from original D&D's _Men & Magic_, emphasis added):


			
				Men & Magic said:
			
		

> DETERMINATION OF ABILITIES:
> 
> Prior to the character selection by players *it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities*, and thus aid them in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Each player notes his appropriate scores, obtains a similar roll of three dice to determine the number of Gold Pieces (Dice score x 10) he starts with, and then opts for a role.




(I don't do that...the players roll their own PCs)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 20, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Hah! Check this one out (from original D&D's _Men & Magic_, emphasis added):
> 
> 
> (I don't do that...the players roll their own PCs)




I don't know...............Letting players roll thier own 3d6 in order could lead to power creep.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't know...............Letting players roll thier own 3d6 in order could lead to power creep.




Well... it did.


----------



## RFisher (Feb 20, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> This is one of the most annoying things that people say in a discussion of D&D -- it's an excuse, a cop-out.
> 
> In an edition we don't like, a wonky rule is "stupid and an example of why that edition is bad."
> 
> ...




I don’t say they are guidelines as an excuse. I say they are guidelines because this very book taught me that. It is how the people who wrote and developed and edited the book wanted me to treat them.

I try very hard not to consider _any_ rule stupid, because to get into print in an edition of D&D many people had to think it had merit. I do my best to understand why they thought so.

When I play any edition, I treat the rules as guidelines and happily modify them to taste.

My favorite edition is my favorite merely because I have to modify it less to get to where I want to be.

I acknowledge rules that I think are wonky in my favorite edition. (Two-handed weapons automatically losing initiative is wonky.) I don’t mention them being guidelines in order to avoid explaining why. I’ll happily try to explain why. (From what I’ve learned, I’ve come to believe that weapon length is more often an advantage than a disadvantage.)

I didn’t bring the subject up in order to excuse a wonky rule. I merely pointed out that for me, this element of the example that isn’t backed up by a rule is—for me—a reinforcement of what is written on page B3.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 20, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 2. Both weapons deal 1d6 damage. Back then ALL weapons did 1d6 damamge right? I know this was the case in the first set of D&D rules I owned, but there was an optional different weapons do different damage dice rule.




Nope this is the Moldvay basic set. IIRC weapons did either d4, d6, d8, or d10. Two handed swords and pole-arms did d10, daggers did d4, and lots of things did d6 (arrows for sure, not positive on hand axes though I think battle axes and longswords did 1d8).


----------



## RFisher (Feb 20, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Nope this is the Moldvay basic set. IIRC weapons did either d4, d6, d8, or d10. Two handed swords and pole-arms did d10, daggers did d4, and lots of things did d6 (arrows for sure, not positive on hand axes though I think battle axes and longswords did 1d8).




Actually, the standard was still 1d6. Variable weapon damage was included, but as an option.



			
				p. B25 said:
			
		

> AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1–6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable. If the *Variable Weapon Damage* system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).




^_^ Hmm...the guideline lawyers could argue that magical penalties only apply when using the variable weapon damage option.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 20, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Nope this is the Moldvay basic set. IIRC weapons did either d4, d6, d8, or d10.



In B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh), the default is 1d6 damage for all weapons, and variable damage is an optional rule.



			
				Moldvay/Cook Basic Rules pg B25 said:
			
		

> AMOUNT OF DAMAGE: All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (1d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable.  If the *Variable Weapon Damage* system (hereafter) is used, check the weapon type to find how much damage each weapon will do (adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses or penalties).




Edit -- oops, beaten to the punch...


----------



## Voadam (Feb 20, 2009)

RFisher said:


> Actually, the standard was still 1d6. Variable weapon damage was included, but as an option.




Huh, its been a couple of decades, I guess we just always used that option and never looked back.

I really wish this and the follow up expert set had been turned into pdfs. It would be great to be able to call up this info easily without having to dig out my old battered book.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 20, 2009)

RFisher said:


> ^_^ Hmm...the guideline lawyers could argue that magical penalties only apply when using the variable weapon damage option.



No, no.  It's magical bonuses (only) OR (all) penalties.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 20, 2009)

Bullgrit said:


> But it's only a guideline.
> 
> Bullgrit




*gong*

You have done well, Bullgrithopper.

Now meditate on this:
A student said to a master "Does a Behir have Gygax nature?"
And the master replied "No."

*gong*


----------

