The Underappreciated Combat Table of Barbarian Prince

Barbarian Prince is a great little game from 1981. James Maliszewski over at Grognardia posted a short retrospective in 2011, and in 2020 Anne from DIY and Dragons wrote an excellent three-part analysis (Map and Layout; Main Menu; Characters, Followers, Encounters, and Combat). It has been recently on my mind partly because of the Drifter series (see my review of the first game here) and a four-part actual play series by the Lone Adventurer.

Today I only want to look at one specific aspect of Barbarian Prince: the combat result table.

The gist of it is this: roll 2d6, add your Combat score, subtract the enemy's Combat score, apply modifiers if any, and consult the chart below to see how many wounds the attack inflicts.

taken directly from Anne's part 3 post linked above

Anne points out how the wording in the original rules is confusing and how the table above makes no logical sense. The Lone Adventurer criticises the rule for a similar reason. I didn't go looking, but I imagine other people being baffled by the above table.

However, this table is actually pretty ingenious. Let me show you a table of the average expected damage results arranged by final modifier to the 2d6 roll.

The first column shows the final result; next to it you can see how many wounds that roll inflicts upon an enemy. The columns after that alternate between showing the percentage chance of a result (given the final modifier noted on the first line) and the expected damage. The bottom two lines show the average expected damage per attack based on the final dice modifier as well as the percentage chance of inflicting at least 1 wound (i.e. the chance of hitting).

As you can see, the average chance to hit steadily increases (up until it plateaus at 83.34%, while also retaining the increase in average damage). The way the table is set up allows the chance to hit
(basically) to follow a gradual progression whereas if it was a standard 2d6 roll (something like 2d6+mods vs a target number), the progression would be much steeper.

Of course, whether the added granularity and hard-capped accuracy is worth having a chart is something we may disagree with; I can at least point out how deliberate the numbers are, and the fact that such granularity can be achieved on a 2d6 roll is just interesting to me in and of itself.

Thinking About Spells per Level for Clerics

While finalizing the text of the upcoming 2nd edition of the Hungarian retro-clone Kazamaták és Kompániák, we took a look at clerics. Here's a simple table that sums up XP requirements and spells/day by edition (note that it's an incomplete table; Rules Cyclopedia, although up until level 14 matches Mentzer, grows way beyond that, and so does AD&D). I'm specifically looking at 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells to gauge power levels. For reference, among others, consider the following spells:

• 3rd level: Continual Light, Cure Disease, Locate Object, Remove Curse
• 4th level: Neutralize Poison, Protection from Evil 10' radius
• 5th level: Commune, Quest, Raise Dead

When you consider that clerics gain access to all the spells on their list (except in AD&D, where 5th spell level and up are provided directly by the cleric's deity), and the fact that the spell list grows a little bit in each edition (for instance, Mentzer adds Cure Blindness as a 3rd level spell and Dispel Magic as a 4th level spell to the cleric's repertoire), you can see the power discrepancy between the editions.

As noted on the summary sheet, a Cook/Marsh cleric gets access to 4th and 5th level spells at level 6 (i.e. 25,000 XP), whereas a magic-user in the same edition only gains 3rd level spells at level 5 (i.e. 20,000 XP). By the time the magic-user gets their first 4th level spell at level 7 (i.e. 80,000 XP), the cleric has already got access to 5th level spells (from 50,000 XP, actually).

In Mentzer (and the Rules Cyclopedia), however, the clerics' power curve is steeper. They only get their hands on 4th level spells at level 8 (i.e. 100,000 XP) and 5th level spells at level 10 (i.e. 300,000 XP), which is comparable to magic-users in this edition (level 7 and 9, i.e. 80,000 XP and 300,000 XP, respectively). Furthermore, for an extra set of 6th level spells, clerics in Mentzer can cast fewer low level spells at the highest levels (although in the Rules Cyclopedia they make up for it as they advance beyond level 14).

AD&D is somewhere between the two B/X editions, with the caveat that clerics have access to 1st levels spells from level 1. They get their 3rd level spells the quickest (at level 3, i.e. 13,001 XP). They receive 4th level spells at level 7 (i.e. 55,001 XP), which is comparable to magic-users (level 7, i.e. 60,001 XP). In fact, magic-users get access to 5th level spells sooner than clerics (135,001 XP vs. 225,001 XP).

Even though the cleric's spell per level table in Cook/Marsh hurts my sense of symmetry, it allows the proliferation of save or die effects. If you think about it, if a party of six acquires a total of 300,000 gp during their adventures (and that's without XP for killing monsters!), their cleric gets access to raise dead - for the same to happen in Mentzer, those 300,000 gold pieces must have been acquired by the cleric alone.

AS&SH Average Damage per 2 Rounds

I have made another spreadsheet that I thought might interest others as well. This time I was calculating the average damage output of various weapons in AS&SH.

Here's a breakdown of what's in the spreadsheet:

• Average damage output was calculated for all FA/HD levels vs. all non-negative AC values.
• The numbers show average damage in 2 combat rounds (!) because the number of attacks often alternates.
• Each sheet contains details for a single type of weapon (such as bows, light/heavy crossbows, 1d8 melee weapons, etc.).
• "Dmg" is for the weapon's average damage, "To-hit" and "DmgB" cover bonuses from high attributes and weapon mastery, while "#Atk" and "#Atk7" show how many attacks are made in two rounds level 1-6 and 7-12, respectively.
• Melee weapon damages are calculated with fighter types in mind (other characters have the same attack rate throughout all levels).
• Four primary circumstances are covered: (1) no mastery, average attributes, (2) no mastery, high attributes, (3) mastery, average attributes, and (4) mastery, high attributes. Details are added in notes.
• The last four sheets cover the following special cases: (1) bow vs. damage reduction 1, (2) light crossbow vs. damage reduction 1, (3) bow vs. damage reduction 2, and (4) heavy crossbow vs. damage reduction 2.

Here are my findings:

• Weapon mastery is even stronger than I suspected. Without weapon mastery, it takes 2 rounds on average for a 1st level fighter to kill a zombie (HD 2, AC 8). With weapon mastery, it takes only 1 round.
• A fighter with a two-handed sword (3d4 dmg) has a lower average damage than a fighter with a longsword (1d8) having mastery (until level 6 at least). Note that these numbers don't take damage reduction into account (but also note that monsters don't usually have damage reduction).
• Crossbows are supposed to be better against armoured opponents, but the fact is they are outperformed by bows (provided the archer is stationary). Light crossbows outperform bows against medium armour only if the archer moves before shooting (thus having a reduced rate of fire). Heavy crossbows are even worse against heavy armour: they only outperform (moving) archers from level 7 and on.

Static Damage Reduction vs. OSR Damage Rolls

Under a Reddit post concerning damage reduction in OSR systems a commenter proposed the idea that maximum damage rolls could bypass armour, ensuring that even low damage weapons (such as daggers) wouldn't be rendered completely inefficient against armoured foes. The nerd I am, I made a spreadsheet to calculate the modified average damage outputs (a perfect pastime for a lazy holiday): column A shows the die size, columns B-M the reduced damage output corresponding to the roll, and column N the average. The first sheet assumes armour may completely negata a hit (cf. zero damage), while on the second a single point of damage always goes through. These rules are summarised in column P on both sheets.

Rappan Athuk AS&SH Campaign Data

A year ago I ran several sessions of Rappan Athuk (using AS&SH for those sweet sub-classes) - 18 sessions out of a 26-session campaign, to be precise. The sessions were 2-3 hours long each, conducted over TeamSpeak. I kept notes and maintained an ugly master sheet for XP and mortality data, of which I was just reminded by a question on Reddit (How many XP do characters bring back per session in your games?).

My answer to the question lies in the document hereby shared for all of you kind readers to see.

Most of the stuff in there should be fairly obvious, but here are some notes: In the Overview tab the PC and NPC columns show the number of characters present at a particular session, whereas in the Mortality tab the Sum columns have the number of PCs/NPCs present up to that point combined for purposes of lethality calculations (given in the mW columns). In the XP tab the "Loot XP %" value notes that over the course of these 26 sessions about 60.69% of XP came from treasure.

Lessons Learnt Running Megadungeons

Disclaimer: Some of the links below are affiliate links (meaning I get a small percentage of sales without extra cost to you).

I have been running megadungeon products a lot. I've run Barrowmaze (the first volume) for two regular players in person, I am still technically running Dwimmermount for a face-to-face group (although we only played like 3 sessions each year, and none so far this year), plus I am actively running Rappan Athuk online (we spent about 20 sessions down there, but the campaign is on the cusp of turning into something very different).

I have tried to summarise my thoughts about running megadungeons, focussing on some of the issues that I have. I must add that I immensely enjoy reading and running megadungeons, so these concerns aren't about invalidating the concept but rather things that if solved would make it an even better, smoother, and more rewarding experience. I should also add that these issues may come up in other types of adventures as well; they just seem exacerbated in megadungeons.

TL;DR: (1) consider the costs and benefits of grids and gridless dungeons; (2) add environmental cues around branching off points on the map; (3) use observable warning details around traps consistently; (4) secrets doors should always be interesting; (5) random encounters should have details that you can build on

Personal Trad Game Manifesto

I am trying to make an all-encompassing guide that I personally follow when I run traditional games, such as AS&SH, Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Warhammer Fantasy, Ars Magica, Numenera, Rifts, Exalted, Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate, Zweihänder, GURPS, Traveller, Dragon Age, or World of Darkness - any game that has distinct player and referee roles, and their mechanics are concerned more about success and failure than narrative rights. Here is what I have so far.

The setting is separate from the characters and exists independently. Locations aren't designed and power levels aren't necessarily considered with the player characters in mind. If something sounds dangerous, it probably is. In the lich's mansion you will likely run into the lich, whether you are level 9 or level 1. Similarly, numbers aren't tweaked based on the number of player characters.

There is no plot in the sense that no encounters are planned to take place in a given order (or at all, sometimes). The events of a session will naturally form a narrative, in the sense that each day or lifetime of a person forms a narrative. Some of it makes sense immediately, some of it never will. Some of it would make a good movie, while some will be a chaotic mess. Importance is not inherent but recognised either retroactively or spontaneously.

Locations, NPCs, monsters, and items are all treated as stolen cars. I don't invest much into them emotionally, and the players are free to interact with them as they please. The consequences follow the logic of the game world (which is a combination of realism, genre appropriateness, and gaming conventions).

Dice are rolled in the open, and once a roll is declared, there is no going back. If you ask, I will tell you what happens on a failure, and you can decide not to go forward, but once the die is cast, both parties have implicitly accepted all the possible consequences. Impossible or trivial things aren't decided by dice rolling, though. They fail or succeed automatically.

Thematic OSR Games

This is a taxonomic post; its goal is to establish a term referring to a subset of OSR products. Using the Pundit's terminology, these are a subset of third-wave OSR products, while in Dan Proctor's terms they fit the broader category of neo-retro games. Alternatively, you may just want to read further to find some cool games.

The OSR has many wonderful things to offer from straight-up clones (e.g. OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord) to neo-clones with refined mechanics (e.g. ACKS and AS&SH), from fantastic adventures (e.g. Slumbering Ursine Dunes and Deep Carbon Observatory) to innovative supplements (e.g. Red Tide and Vornheim). But one of the many kinds of products - one that I might enjoy the most - seems to attract less appreciation: thematic games.

Abilities Acquired Diegetically

I have been thinking about character abilities lately; more specifically, about how they are acquired. In OD&D and B/X (and most games derived from them) characters do not gain new abilities as they grow in levels (except for new spells); they only improve their already existing ones. In AD&D (and its derivations) character do gain new abilities, but they are tied to certain levels. In newer editions of the game players may often choose their characters abilities (be they feats or class abilities) off a list.

I myself do not find character building much entertaining, but mostly because it is cumbersome and it is removed from the game world (i.e. my choices as an adventurer have no impact on which abilities I might be able to take). On the other hand, it feels rewarding to being able to pick a new ability and using it as soon as the right circumstances arise.

The solution might be making almost every character ability diegetic regarding their acquirement. That is, classes could be designed with only a few key differences (permitted weapon and armour; advancement of to-hit bonuses; hit dice type; and one or two distinctive feature), and we could provide ways of gaining new abilities tied to the setting. To keep niche protection, abilities could also be tied to certain classes (that is, a character may not acquire every available ability). Also, if abilities are not equal in power, the difficulty of their acquirement can be adjusted properly.

How many hits do I need to kill that thing?

I was trying figure out the minute (or not so minute) differences between various hit point and damage systems. For that I just made a simple spreadsheet (available here) where I calculated a number of things - I thought it may be some help to others.

I provided a minimal amount of notes (how I obtained the average HP and damage at a given level), but the following should be notes, as well. The first and sheet includes how many HP a character (or creature) may have at a given level and how much damage he may deal. Assuming an opponent of equal level or Hit Dice, you can find the number of hits it may take on average; after that, how many attacking attempts are required depending on your chance to hit (25%, 50%, and 75% of success, respectively).

The third and fourth sheets differ: they show you how a character of a pre-defined level (1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th) compares to creatures of various Hit Dice. Therefore, average HP is calculated for the creature and damage for the character, and the number of hits or attacks are calculated from the character's point of view.

2014. 03. 13. edit: Last night I updated the file for there were some incorrect functions. Shouldn't have done it so late, I guess.

Workday Ramblings - Rules and Rulings in RPGs

This post is my long response to a comment on a blog post; I also thought about many things during writing it so it became somewhat incoherent and it does not have that nice structure I crave for. Nevertheless, I though it deserved its own post.

Over Monsters and Manuals, there is a post dealing with how different it is to enter the role-playing hobby to entering some sports game (i.e. to become familiar with the rules and how they are played). I am actually not that interested in the main discussion but in something Lucky said in the comments:

Where the analogy breaks down for me is that in sports, the devil is in the details. The rules are not an abstraction in sports the way they are in RPGs, where you're trying to collect a multitude of things into a smaller set of rules. In sports, those things ARE the game. The challenge and enjoyment of sports is in trying to accomplish a simple goal under a complex set of dos and don'ts. At least for me, RPGs are about trying to accomplish (sometimes) complex goals under a simple set of rules. In sports, it pays to know all the rules, because you're bound by them. In RPGs, both the DM and the players can hand wave to their hearts content.

Is it house-ruled D&D or a new game?

A current discussion over the odd74 forum deals with the question of what constitutes a new game and not a house-ruled D&D. I offered the following hypothetical games in whose case it may be decided whether they are D&D or something else. I firmly believe that the answers could help us establish a simple baseline to what D&D is and what it is not.

• No. 1. Exactly like B/X but with a spell point system (but the point costs can be reverse-engineered into the original spell levels); thus, rules for spell point recovery, spell point-based magic item creation.
• No. 2. Exactly like No. 1. but with spell schools and specialised wizards, for whom the spell point costs are also varied by schools and not only the original spell levels.
• No. 3. Exactly like No. 1. but the spell point costs are not related to the original spell levels anymore.
• No. 4. Exactly like B/X but no Hit Dice; instead, a flat number of HP is gained upon each level, and monsters' have a fixed number of HP, too.
• No. 5. Exactly like B/X but no character classes; characters are built from powers (which resemble cast abilities: attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, turning, casting, thief skill, etc.).
• No. 6. Exactly like B/X but uses d100 instead of d20. The probabilities are the same, though, only the die size is changed.
• No. 7. Exactly like B/X but uses 3d6 instead of d20. The probabilities are sometimes drastically changed because the bonuses and penalties are not adjusted at all, only the die rolling mechanics.
• No. 8. Exactly like B/X but uses a single die roll to determine the outcome of battle. Other sub-systems (spell casting, non-combat spells, thif skills, movement, advancement, etc.) are untouched.
• No. 9. Exactly like B/X but character advancement is based on (a) "role-playing" (acting like your character, doing a voice, etc.), (b) clever solutions, and (c) witty remarks in-character that bring laughter to the table.
• No. 10. Exactly like BX but adjusted to a 1on1 setup with no henchmen or followers. A single hero versus the world.

What makes a setting work for D&D?

A while back on Dreams in the Lich House, there was a couple of posts (here and here) regarding what makes a D&D setting good in terms of playability. Although there was some disagreement over which elements count as core and essential to the game, no one has offered a better treatment yet (regardless of what exactly "better" is supposed to mean in this context).

Assuming there exist a number of criteria which absolutely have to be satisfied, we can find the core elements of a D&D setting by analysing how adventures are generally set up, what elements they include (locations, items, etc.), and how they relate to the player characters' actions.