In Praise of the OD&D Hit Dice Scale

-

Smaller numbers are better.

It's not always true in RPGs, but it is generally true. It's easier to work with in terms of calculation, but perhaps more importantly it makes it easier to intuitively gauge the significance of the numbers. You can feel the impact of a +1 on 1d6 more than you can on a d20. The older I get, the more I appreciate smaller numbers.

The art quality in OD&D may be lacking, but the art direction was pretty dang good.

Number creep started with Greyhawk, continued in AD&D, really took off with 3e, before being scaled back a bit in 5e, with its notion of "bounded accuracy".

5e's notion of bounded accuracy still yielded a greater inflation of numbers than Classic D&D (Holmes, B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia) which held back a bit on that front but still had slightly higher numbers than pre-Greyhawk D&D.

One of the most obvious parts where number inflation took off is hit points. And in this regard, I quite appreciate the HD scale in OD&D. Here is how it looks for the cleric:

That's right, asymmetric HD progression. Really, did anyone ever pause to consider if 1=1 scaling of level and HD was actually a good idea? Gygax must have known, since he curtailed it from level 10 onwards, but I think it's a worthwhile assumption to question. Here and there, I think Gary fell to the false appeal of number harmonies as the game developed. 

Compare a 9th level cleric in OD&D to Ad&D. 7d6+1 (26 hp average) vs 9d8 (41 hp average). 

On average, the AD&D cleric has 60% more hit points than the OD&D one. CON modifiers will only increase the gap due to the extra two HD. That's a significant inflation. The question where your mileage may vary is of course - Is this a good thing or not?

Moreover, and this is another part that speaks to me, everyone, PCs and monsters alike, use d6s for their HD. This speaks to me more than it ought to, I think, but I really like this.

Now, the progression in OD&D is a bit too wonky for straight usage for me (MUs end up with more HD than the Cleric at higher levels), but the principle is entirely workable. 

And not that hard to backport into Classic D&D, based loosely on the Hit progression of each class (I use T20). Here's a writeup for how it could look applied to Classic D&D:

Oldest-School Hit Dice

All characters and monsters roll HD using d6s.

Use the following table for rolling HD at each level (applying CON modifiers as usual).
Re-roll all Hit Dice at every level and take the highest of your new and former total as your Hit Point total going forwards:


Hit Dice by Class & Level


Level

Fighter/Dwarf
/Halfling*

Cleric
/Thief/Elf

Magic-user

1

1+1

1

1-1

2

2

1+1

1

3

3

2

1+1

4

3+1

2+1

2-1

5

4

3

2

6

5

3+1

2+1

7

5+1

4

3-1

8

6

4+1

3

9

7

5

3+1

10

7+1

5+1

4-1

11

8

6

4

12

9

6+1

4+1

13

9+1

7

5-1

14

10

7+1

5

*Halflings roll 1d5 (1d10/2, round up) for HD.


To Hit bonus is simply equal to HD (use the regular table for monsters).


Healing happens at a rate of 1 HP/HD for every three days of rest.

This “flattens the curve” of progression, making characters more vulnerable as they level, likewise for monsters. So overall, combat is speedier/deadlier on both sides at higher levels. My grievances with healing not scaling with level are much easier to resolve with this since everyone use d6 for HD.

The "re-roll at every level" mitigates the fewer HD somewhat, and is a plausible interpretation of how to roll for hit points in OD&D at any rate.

I think it combines well with “Death & Dismemberment” rules that make HP<=0  a bit more forgiving to create a setup where higher level characters feel a bit more grounded in how vulnerable they are in combat, yet overall doesn't necessarily increase mortality.


Comments

  1. Jack Tremain19 September 2024 at 12:16

    Hahahah. :___ I'm making a personal adapt of OD&D and the weird assymetric hp progression was one of the things I've taken out first. I started as "what if the fighter rolls badly at second level and stays having the same HP" and now Fighters have 1d6 per level and MUs have (1d6 per level - their level) hp. Casually the averages are always 1 or 2 hp over or under the natural one
    One thing to take into account is that unequal xp advancement makes, for example, MUs be at level 14 while fighters are at level 12, and sometimes, mostly at first levels, its the opposite

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric Diaz19 September 2024 at 17:16

    "Smaller numbers are better", well, I mostly agree.

    However, if that is the case, why have 14 levels in the first place?

    The fighter could have 10 levels ending with 10 HD, the MU 5 HD, much easier than using the odd tables of OD&D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anders H19 September 2024 at 20:57

      Well, it is certainly a way of favoring the Fighter, since he doesn't lose much from such a compression of levels, whereas spellcasters lose out on several spell levels and spell slots. The thief also loses... Some percentage points.

      Have you just solved "quadratic wizard / linear fighter, Eric? ;)

      Delete
    2. Eric Diaz20 September 2024 at 02:15

      Yes, I definitely don't mind nerfing the MU further, lol! Not sure I'll ever solve that!

      The thief, well, the numbers in their tables are purely arbitrary anyway.

      Delete
  3. bmfrosty19 September 2024 at 19:24

    What's really fun is that we've got all sorts of scaling across the different editions.

    1. Hit dice scaling for hit points
    2. To-hit scaling for hitting
    3. DPR scaling (as a combination of how often a PC can hit combined with their best weapon)
    4. AC Scaling
    5. Saving Throw scaling.
    6. Ability Check scaling. 0e doesn't even have the concept, and the roll-under house rule doesn't scale, but later editions scale ability checks in various ways.

    @Eric Diaz - The original drafts the alternate (non-chainmail) to-hit system was something like d20 roll + fighter level + opponent AC >= 20 to hit. Fighters only went to level 9. Between draft and publication, they scaled that to-hit to 14 levels and ended up with the table on page 19 of Men and Magic. It would have been better smoothed out and been a column on pages 17 and 18. You can get a smoothed version of the fighter by multiplying level by 9/14 and rounding.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Top 6 most viewed posts in the last 12 months

The Difficult-to-Believe Case of Zak Smith's Innocence

-
I honestly did not imagine myself to be writing a piece like this on this blog. But I feel morally obligated to do so, given that I previously wrote a piece based on the firm assumption of his guilt . Yesterday,  Jeff Rients shared a link to an article based on an upcoming research paper  by Dr. Clio Weisman. I'd encourage anyone who has, or has had, some interest in the OSR community and/or held some sort of opinion on the case of Zak Smith, to read it after reading this one. tl;dr - The article is about the utterly bizarre lying, harassing and slandering behaviour that has somehow become prevalent in certain sectors of the Rennaisance-Formerly-Known-as-OSR. And Zak Smith sat at the heart of it, as its principal recipient. Dr. Weisman thus chose him as her case study.  Long story short, Dr. Weisman lays out a meticulous and researched case that shows Smith to be targeted by OSR trolls for many years with a series of slanderous harassment campaigns, and also to be th...
Read more

The 3 Mile Hex - The Natural Unit for Exploration

-
Image
There will be interludes between the AD&D Appraisal series, to keep my own writing motivation going. I was going to do a 3-mile hex post outlining the virtues of it, but turns out Silverarm did that already and stole all my points  (even down to the "Outdoor Survival also uses 3 miles") and added more points I wasn't aware of myself. So go read that excellent piece and come back here. What I instead want to talk about is how the 3 mile hex is a very close fit to our natural sense of distance and visualisation and how the that makes the 3-mile hex the perfect blend between immersion and usable game artifact and how to actually bring that into your game.  Minaria hexmap. Scale: 1 hex = 50 miles. Not what we're going for here. A while back, Noisms contemplated the difficulty of creating a sense of wonder in journeys . The difficulty with journeys in RPGs is the scale of it. It becomes too big, and thus too abstract, to visualize, to immerse oneself into.  I tried, un...
Read more

In Praise of "Black Box" D&D

-
Image
when it comes to non-Advanced D&D, The internet, and in particular the OSR blogosphere, has deserved praise galore for the B/X sets for D&D. And whilst not quite as enthusiastic, the Mentzer editions for those Basic and Expert sets also get plenty of praise for its art and way of introducing the game. The Holmes set also has its fair of passionate fans. And of course the original brown booklets themselves. Of newer releases, the Rules Cyclopedia also has a large following of fans. One release that hardly ever gets a mention is the 1991 'black box', by Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning. Actually, the Rules Cyclopedia was published as a sort of companion to this set. Together  they represents the fifth and final edition of non-advanced D&D. "The New Easy to Master Dungeons & Dragons Game" also labelled "Classic Dungeons & Dragons" It's short, 64 page booklet, so much the same as its predecessors, comes with a simple dungeon m...
Read more

Addendum: Why "Roll under" Ability checks really are the best of checks

-
Image
My recent meditations on roll under ability checks and rant against the D20 unified mechanic has generated a bit of commentary and further clarified my own thinking on the matter. This post is an addendum to my  Using Ability Checks in B/X  article, seeking to further explicate why the "Roll Under" ability check truly is the best of ability checks. Earlier today, during my delvings into the blogosphere, I came across this box from  Quarrel & Fable , a Fighting Fantasy spinoff: First thing that struck me was how similar it was to my proposed resolution for Ability Checks . And secondly, it combined those thoughts with my memories of the old Fighting Fantasy  [FF] gamebooks and set my mind spinning into that cross section and how much I always liked the elegant simplicity of the FF mechanic. The best part about doing a post involving Fighting Fantasy is the chance to showcase some of the brilliant art in the gamebooks Now, I've given reasons already in prev...
Read more

How Difficulty Class and the D20 engine ruined roleplaying

-
Image
It seemed revolutionary at the time. 3e came out and made a unified mechanic. Roll 1d20 against a target number to see if you succeed. In combat, AC is the target number. For everything else, it's a Difficulty Class [DC]. That's it.  Some of those DCs are calculated as a function of level, opposing ability score etc. But what we also got from this system was a way of ad hoc determining the difficulty of something and then simply saying "roll against that target number to succeed".  In its core form, this is wonderfully simple and intuitive. All you need to internalise is the size of the numbers on a d20 in relation to overall difficulty and then you can resolve basically anything with it. The part about size of numbers has proven to be a bit of an achilles heel for d20 over the years, but that is a different point I will address further below. No, the real point here is that there's an unintended side effect to DCs as a unified mechanic. There are other downsides ...
Read more

The Fighter Across All Editions of TSR D&D

-
Image
Ok, it's time to get back to elf-games. And why not look at the class that is simultaneously the most beloved and under-appreciated class in the history of D&D? I was going to include assessments of WotC fighters too, but honestly, they end up being so different, and embedded into different systems, that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I would still like to look at the 3e fighter, as that has at least a little continuity with TSR D&D but I think that's for a different post on why feats aren't so bad after all and have a place in all versions of D&D... Moving ON , let's dig in: OD&D : Fighting-Men, as they are called. They get d6 hit die like everyone else, but they start at HD 1+1 and gain more HD as they level than clerics or magic-users (at level 10, the fighter has 10+1, cleric 7+2 and and magic-user 7). They have no armor or weapon restrictions. For weapons, this only matters in regards to which weapons are typically magical (swords, figh...
Read more