Randomize the Encounter Area

 

Some work in progress tables I'm using to generate more interesting (or at least diverse) areas for encounters.  The reaction table, distance and motivations are pretty standard. Working to expand the rest.

Distance

2d6 x 10 Distance: feet/yards

Cover

Roll 2d6:

2 Cover:       Monster - hard

3 Cover:       Monster - soft 

4 Cover:       Left (of PCs) - hard

5 Cover:       Left (of PCs) - soft

6-8 Cover:       None

9 Cover:       Right (of PCs) - soft

10 Cover:       Right (of PCs) - hard

11 Cover:       PCs - soft

12 Cover:       PCs - hard

Elevation

Roll 2d6:

2-3      Elevation:   Monster higher

4     Elevation:   Center higher

5      Elevation:   Left higher

6-8      Elevation:   Elevation level

9      Elevation:   Center lower

10      Elevation:   Right higher

11-12    Elevation:   Character higher

Visibility

Roll 2d6:

2-4     Visibility: Obscured (Mist, Smoke, Foliage)

5-12     Visibility: Clear

Reaction

2    Reaction:    Immediate Attack

3-5 Reaction:    Hostile - Possible Attack

6-8 Reaction:    Uncertain or Confused

9-11 Reaction:    No Attack - Leaves or Considers Offers

12 Reaction:    Enthusiastic Friendship

Motivation

Roll 2d6:

2 Motivation:  Lost or escaping

3-4 Motivation:  Overcoming obstacle

5-6 Motivation:  Resting

7 Motivation:  Seeking food/shelter

9-10 Motivation:  Searching for lost person or item

11 Motivation:  Guarding or near lair

12 Motivation:  Fleeing encounter

Combat Order and Initiative

Here's the current version of my initiative rules, largely inspired by AD&D and discussions thereof.

Combat Order and Initiative

1. Determine Distance, if unknown, between the parties.
2. Each side declares actions.
3. Determine Initiative for the round by rolling a d6 for each side.
4. Actions begin:
1. Movement (charges, closing, attempts to flee) begins
2. Attempts to Parley
3. Winners: Missiles, Magical Devices, and Casting Time 1 Spells Discharge
4. Losers: Missiles, Magical Devices and Casting Time 1 Spells Discharge
5. Charges and closing actions complete – resolve charge attacks in the order of longest weapon
6. Fighters with multiple attacks resolve their initial melee and hard combat attacks.
7. Winners: Melee and hand attacks occurs
8. Losers: Melee and hand attacks occurs
9. Grapples and unarmed combat occurs.
10. Remaining missile and melee attacks (for those with multiple attacks) occur.
5. Morale is checked.
6. Return to Step #2.

Rescuing a Rob Conley Comment from Obscurity

Posted on Grognardia by Rob Conley:

The Chainmail tables are meant to capture the penetration difference. The assumption was if the blow manages to penetrate it is going to kill the individual. Consider each blow in chainmail to do 1 pt of damage and normal men have 1 hp.

OD&D changes this so that damage is now a 1d6 and normal men start off with 1d6 hit points. This is to represent the variability of people and the vagaries of combat.

(Waxing Gygas me thinks)

Then in Greyhawk come the realization that some weapons are better able to hurt people if they hit. The force behind the two-handed sword is way more than a one-hander. The different types of trauma, (slash, stab, blunt) are just arbitrarily factored in.

Later on as RPGs grew more complex some start making the distinction. (GURPS, Rolemaster, Harnmaster, etc).

Separate but parallel is the need to fold in all the non-armor modifiers particularly for monsters. In the beginning AC was a straight forward representation of armor types but became divorced from the under lying armor system to become a scale measuring how are things are to hit. D20 take this to it's logical conclusions' giving armor a modifier

This whole disconnect is why in AD&D the weapon vs AC says to look at what the guy is wearing not his numerical AC.

If you want to use modifiers versus AC and not violate IP what you should do is return the chainmail roots and just list the modifiers for each weapons and include any notes for particular monsters.

You can derive the values from the chainmail table. For example (note I don't have chainmail in front of me so I making stuff up)

Longsword

+3 vs no armor

+2 vs leather

+1 vs chain

+0 vs plate

-2 vs Dragons

+1 vs Chimeras

+1 vs Trolls

+2 vs Purple Worms

You can get as complex or simple as you want as well as avoiding IP problems.

Melee - Are we doing it wrong?

Years of video, miniature, and roleplaying games have propogated the idea that 'melee' is virtually any form of combat not using ranged/missile weapons or spells. Perhaps a better term than "hand to hand" or "close combat" is needed, but 'melee' is not it. Not to pick on 3rd and 4th edition D&D, but the carefully plotted movements on a grid only exacerbate the issue. The goals: give players choices, making decisions interesting and tactical, and encourage character teamwork. Nothing wrong there. The result: 5 foot squares, fixed targets, and relatively static positions.

Sorry for getting all wikipedia on y'all, but the term melee means "when groups become locked together in combat with no regard to group tactics or fighting as an organized unit; each participant fights as an individual." Why is the dictionary quoting important? Because it's historical accurate (for simulation fans) and it's what Gygax and company were thinking of (for you Grognards), and it's fun.

Look at a couple of cool (choreographed) movie fights:

Princesss Bride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs

Errol Flynn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w

Even when it's not planned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry47zyrYGt8

Sure, duels are your typically melee, but it gives you a taste of the fluctaution of position and movement. People are moving, switching positions. Someone moves five feet, the other follow. Fixed formation fights can occur (Greek phalanxes, shield-walls, and Roman infantry techniques). They have their place and deserve their own rules. Perhaps trained fighters could use them in a dungeon corridor, but the positioning should be the exception, not the default assumption.

The idea is that melees are a mess and disorganized. The AD&D rules reflect that. Firing missile into Melee. Closing vs Charging. Spell casting during melee.

How do we reflect that?

Mosh Pits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQW8eb1P3dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOHY1YxX5iA

There is a zone of melee and zones (areas) outside it. Closing and Charging (per AD&D) get you into the zone. Fleeing and falling back get you out. Smart spell casters stay out alltogether. Large areas may have more than one melee zone. Firing missile weapons? Take your chances on shooting into the melee, or try to target some outside of the zone.

Weapon vs Armor, Revised

Weapon vs Armor Class/Type modifiers are probably the most omitted section of AD&D rules. In my unscientific survey of fellow players and forum/blog discussion, most people liked the idea, but found the execution awkward or lacking. We also played a year or so of AD&D (more or less by the book), using the table with the same experience. Here are some of the common complaints:

1. The annoyance of referencing a table

2. The shield question

3. How to handle monsters

4. The modifiers are not realistic

I'm not going to touch #4. If anyone has a good source on weapon types versions mail, plate, etc, I'm happy to take a close look. For now I'll be sticking closely to the AD&D numbers.

The existing PHB tables takes up a whole page. That's largely a function of the variety of weapons, but it also makes for a wall of numbers. Character sheet layout with room for the modifiers can go along way. Let's take the next step by breaking the armors into types with similar construction. Padded armor isn't used enough to warrant it's own column. We could probably condense them further, but for now we have six types of armor and "no armor". To prevent confusion the armor types are indicated by a letter:

Armor Types:

A: Plate armor

B: Splint armor, Banded Armor

C: Mail hauberk, Elfin (chain) Mail

D: Scale Armor, Lamellar Armor

E: Ring Armor, Studded Armor

F: Leather Armor, Hide Armor, Padded Armor

G: No armor

How to handle the shield? Ignore it. Perhaps this is the wrong answer for a pure simulation, but it throws the types off, adds additional calculation, and confuses players. Xerberon the Fighter is Armor Type 'C' whether or not he uses a shield with his chainmail. On the character sheet (ignoring dexterity modifiers) his player would note "AC: 4C" if he was using chain and shield, but "AC: 5C" if he was not.

Monsters: Gygax's suggestion in the Dungeon Master's Guide should be used across the board where the foes are not wearing actual armor. This will take some work, but TSR would be modifying some monster statistics already. I would probably do this off the cuff as I use monsters or plan encounters. The AC should be recorded similarly, so a Black Dragon might be "AC: 3A" and a Red Dragon "AC: -1A".

I'll post a review armor and shield list, the weapon vs armor table, as well as some sample monsters in a forthcoming post.