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 | Cleric | 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.
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
ReplyDeleteOne 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
"Smaller numbers are better", well, I mostly agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, 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.
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.
DeleteHave you just solved "quadratic wizard / linear fighter, Eric? ;)
What's really fun is that we've got all sorts of scaling across the different editions.
ReplyDelete1. 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.