Abstraction, fighters, and multiple attacks

 As I work on the long-delayed playtest draft of Goblins & Greatswords, I've been pondering the combat system, specifically as it relates to fighter-type characters. 

Fighters, as combat specialists, should naturally be more effective in combat. In most editions of D&D, this manifests primarily in terms of being able to use any weapon or armor, higher hit points, and better chances "to hit." Since combat is abstract, though, a single attack roll doesn't represent a single swing, but rather the sum of everything a combatant does in a round. It could mean one good solid blow among a lot of feinting and parrying, or it could mean a couple glancing slashes with your weapon, an opportunistic head-butt, and a kick to the knee. Fighters should be better able to perceive and capitalize on these opportunities, and so, in my opinion, should have the potential to do more damage per round.

Of course, better attack rolls do accomplish that, but the effect is overall rather trivial. A fighter who has an attack roll 4 points better than the cleric will do, on average, 20% more damage per round over the course of a fight.

AD&D gives the fighter a boost with multiple attacks, which are not only somewhat abstraction-breaking but also rather clunky in their execution. In order to avoid huge jumps in damage potential, there are "half steps" -- 3 attacks per 2 rounds and 5 attacks per 3 rounds, which means you have to remember whether you attacked once or twice last round.

Basic D&D of the BECMI line has multiple attacks at level 12 and above if the fighter can hit his target with a roll of 2, which is also quite wonky in my opinion, as well as having enormous stretches of little or no improvement followed by big sudden jumps. Also, I and many others would consider a campaign somewhat broken if PCs are regularly hitting foes 19 times in 20.

What I'm thinking of instead is to tie extra damage to the attack roll itself. At certain levels, a fighter gains the potential to roll an extra damage die for whatever weapon he's using if his attack roll is "x" higher than the minimum needed. Say, at character level 4, if the attack roll 4 or more higher than needed, an extra damage die is rolled. At level 8, a roll 8 or more higher than needed gets a third die, and at level 12, a roll 12 or more higher than needed gets a fourth die. These are only examples; you could tweak the levels and the thresholds for additional damage dice as desired. You could also grant other classes similar benefits at larger level jumps, e.g. maybe at 5th and 10th or 6th and 12th, or you could even give them at the same levels as fighters, relying on their poorer attack roll progression to make the benefits kick in less frequently.

In this scheme, armor never becomes obsolete as it tends to do at high levels in D&D. Even if a relatively low number is needed to hit at all, having better armor may keep the attack from surpassing the required roll for one or more extra damage dice, which is a fairly big deal. 

Additionally, you could allow the player to apply the extra dice to other opponents within range, so long as the attack roll is good enough to hit them at the required threshold -- easy to judge if he's fighting a gang of monsters with the same AC, and only marginally more complex in a mixed group. 

I'm thinking of applying this not only to characters, but also to monsters which traditionally have multiple attacks. Instead of an owlbear rolling three attacks for 1d8 damage, it rolls once, doing 1d8 on a basic hit, 2d8 on a roll 4 higher than needed, 3d8 on 8 higher, and in any case, the extra 2d8 "hug" on a natural 20. A giant who normally does 4d6 could have its damage broken down into d6 increments, easily wiping out several lesser opponents with a single good attack roll.

Obviously, more analysis and some play-testing are in order, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this method.

Gauging combat challenges

In the comments of a fairly recent post, I was asked to describe how I judge the challenge level of a combat encounter.  Short answer is that I don't have any hard-and-fast formula, and more or less eyeball it.  But of course that only evades the real question, which is what do I look at when eyeballing in order to make a judgment?

Firstly, let me say that encounter balance, as fetishized in some recent editions, is abhorrent to me.  Crafting every encounter to be "level appropriate" takes the fun out of the game, in my estimation.  I don't like railroady scenarios with scripted highs and lows that require easy victories over mooks and dramatic nail-biting climaxes.  And no encounter should be a mandatory combat - if the players can talk, bribe, sneak, or trick their way past something, the DM absolutely should not nullify that to force them into Exciting Combat!™

That said, I also don't want to create dungeons full of killer encounters or boring cake-walks.  An adventure should include plenty of opportunities for winnable combats, as well as encounters that demand more discretion.  Balance, to me, takes place at the level of the entire dungeon or scenario, not zoomed in to the individual encounter.

The amount of damage a group of creatures can do in a round is, I think, the most important consideration in judging their threat level.  Two primary factors contribute to this: the damage potential of each attack, and the total number of attacks per round of the group. 

I would weight the total number of attacks more heavily. A fight against four goblins is likely to be more deadly than a fight against a single ogre because the goblins get four chances to hit every round, while the ogre only gets one.  Against a party of 1st level characters, the goblins could potentially kill four in a round, while the ogre can't finish more than a single one at a time, no matter how much damage it rolls.

Damage per attack I would judged based on how many attacks it would take to kill a typical PC.  The more rounds the party can stand against it, the less dangerous it is to them.  Can it kill a PC with a single attack?  An attack that just hurts a character is a prompt to make a choice: withdraw or fight on.  This is an important consideration because character death, if it happens, is more likely to be seen as a result of player choice.  A one-hit kill is just a one-hit kill.  If you want to give a 1st-level party a fighting chance to engage in combat without too much anxiety, make sure to have some monsters that do 1d3 or 1d4 damage around.

Hit Dice are the usual unit of Monster Toughness in old school games.  Dungeon levels are supposed roughly to correspond to the average HD of the monsters found in them, and BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia D&D even have an encounter balancing formula which is based on Hit Dice.  However, Hit Dice are a distant third in my estimation of monster threat level.  What they are is a fairly good indication of how long a monster will last in combat, and thus how long it will get to keep making its attack and damage rolls against the PCs. 

Hit Dice also affect the chances of successfully attacking, but only by about 5% per HD, which is a lot less than extra attacks do.  A 1 HD creature needs to roll a 14 or better to hit AC 5, which translates to a 35% chance.  A second attack increases the odds of getting at least one hit to 57.75%, better than having 4 extra Hit Dice! 

Quite often, big HD correlate with big damage, but not always, so it's still a good idea to gauge them separately.

All else being equal, a single high HD monster with multiple attacks is usually more dangerous than a group of lesser creatures whose HD and attacks approximate it.  Consider a pack of five 1 HD orcs with 1d8-damage weapons and a 5 HD owlbear with three 1d8 attacks.  Each orc will take 5 or so points of damage to kill, and each one killed reduces their number of attacks by one.  The owlbear gets its three attacks per round until it's dead.

Armor Class rates a little bit lower than Hit Dice in my Monster Threat Assessment.  It too affects how long the monster remains alive and fighting, but unlike a big pile of hit points, which can only be whittled away, AC is bypassed by a good attack roll, and a d20 is a lot swingier than most dice you might roll for damage. 

Special attacks are trickier to assess.  For low-level parties, their effect is actually minimal.  A failed save vs. poison might kill you, but so will a single good solid physical blow, and dead is dead.  The odds of missing a save and getting hit in combat are only a little bit different.  A save-or-suck power is similar to a low damage attack: it's a cue to rethink one's position, not instant Game Over.

Save-or-die and save-or-incapacitated powers become a big deal at mid levels, not because they become more absolutely dangerous, but because they're now a lot more dangerous relative to attacks that do hp damage.  An orc with a sword and a medusa with a petrifying gaze can both take down a 1st level character in one round.  Only the medusa is likely to be able to do the same to a 4th or 8th level character.  The character's hp increases almost always greatly outstrip saving throw improvements, and while healing spells and potions are by now fairly common, spells that will reverse the effects of poison and petrification are still either out of reach or in short supply.

By high levels, saving throws have improved enough to make the success rate of save-or-die effects acceptably low, and the party probably has access to remedies, which makes them an inconvenience rather than a deadly peril.

Of course, the number of attacks principle also applies to special attacks.  If a monster can direct its special attack form against multiple targets at once, or there are several of the monsters in the encounter, it magnifies the threat level in much the same way.

Lots of attacks > big damage per attack > high HD > high AC

Combinations of those factors are possible, naturally.  So, lots of attacks + big damage per attack generally trumps big damage and high HD;  big damage and high HD beats high HD and high AC, etc.  What about lots of attacks and high AC vs. big damage and high HD?  How do special powers change things?  Use your own judgment.  It's an art; not a science.

Putting It In Play

In practice, I try to balance a dungeon as a whole, with a lot of encounters that I think the party could handle without too much trouble, some that would be quite risky, and a few that would almost certainly be disastrous if handled with straight-up combat. 

Remember that a good fight is one that costs the party some resources to win, not necessarily one in which the sides are evenly matched.  To a wise adventuring party, evenly matched battles are to be scrupulously avoided except in the most dire need or the richest possibility of reward.  Evenly matched means that both sides are likely to suffer losses, and either side could end up defeating the other.  That might sound exciting, and it is sometimes, but an adventure is more than one fight.  It's a war of attrition.

In a good dungeon, the PCs might be able to win any given fight, but they probably can't win them all, one after another, in a gauntlet match.  Even winnable fights must often be avoided, in order to conserve resources for fights that are not merely winnable, but important and/or profitable.  "Can we win this fight?" is an important question, but so is "What about the next one?"

1st level parties are the toughest to plan for because, with their low hit point totals, outcomes depend heavily on the very swingy d20 attack roll.  1st-level characters and 1 HD monsters can go from full strength to dead with a single attack.  A seemingly even battle can become lopsided very quickly if one side has a run of lucky or unlucky rolls.  Additionally, if the party includes a spell-caster, the outcome may hinge heavily on which spell he has ready and whether he still has it or has already used it. 

If you want to design a dungeon for low-level characters in which direct combat will play a big part, encounters should be predominantly with numbers of monsters smaller than the PC party, with 1 HD or less, low damage potential, and poor ACs.  A few encounters can be with even smaller numbers of creatures with 2-4 HD and better damage or AC.  Anything bigger, tougher, or more numerous is a serious risk -- but don't let that discourage you from including a couple such encounters.  It ain't all about chopping things up with swords, and part of the fun is knowing the difference.

As characters gain in levels and hit points, they generally survive longer, and overall, combat becomes less swingy.  The more rounds they can go without dying, the more rolls are made, and the more rolls made, the more the cumulative result is pulled toward the average.  Characters with a few levels under their belts can go toe-to-toe with monsters well above their weight class more successfully than low-level ones can because hit points increase a lot faster than damage potential. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll win, but an ill-chosen fight is less likely to wipe them out before they can even realize their mistake and run away. 

Still, I think it's good to follow the rule of thumb that the majority of encounters should be ones that the party could handily best in combat, but will take a bite out of their resources.  The more fights they pick, the more their resources and hit points get ground down, the closer they get to being that 1st-level party all over again, when life and death can hinge on a single misguided choice or bad roll of the dice... 

Goblins & Greatswords: Armor and weapons

Figuring out the combat system for my fantasy heartbreaker turned out to be pretty easy compared to nailing down the particulars of the weapons and armor that characters will use in it.  I want different types of weapons to have meaningful differences, but I don't want huge complicated tables with lots of messy modifiers to look up or remember.  After a lot of false starts, I'm tentatively happy with what I have now.  

Armor comes in three types: Light, medium, and heavy, giving a base AC of 12, 14, or 16, respectively.  Light armor includes light, non-metallic, and relatively flexible options such as leather and padded armor.  Medium armors are made of metal or other hard material, but in flexible forms such as mail, scale, brigandine, and such.  Heavy armors are made of large rigid plates of metal or some other hard material.  The exact type of armor a character gets in any of the three classes is determined by the player and GM, and has no further game mechanical effect. 

Shields increase AC by 1, as usual.  I'm considering making a shield a requirement to use the character's Combat Rating defensively, too.

Weapons come in broad categories: Axe, Blade, Bludgeon, and Stick, and further divided into light, medium, and heavy types.

Axes are chopping weapons which are good at breaking through armor, and so receive a +1 bonus to combat rolls.  Damage is 4/6/8 for light, medium, and heavy types, respectively.   Examples include the hand axe and tomahawk (light), battle axe (medium), and polearms* (heavy.)  All axes use the wielder's Might modifier.

Blades are slashing and slicing weapons.  They are among the hardest to master, but have the highest damage potential at 6/8/10.  Examples include daggers and short swords (light), all of the various "normal" swords (medium), and great swords such as the bastard sword and two-handed sword (heavy.)  Light and medium blades use the wielder's Agility modifier.  Heavy blades use Might.

Bludgeons are blunt, smashing weapons.  They are the easiest weapons to wield, and also good at delivering impact damage through armor, and so receive +2 to combat rolls, but also have the lowest damage potential at 3/4/6.  Examples include the club/cudgel/shillelagh (light,) the mace and war hammer (medium), and the maul (heavy.)  All bludgeons use the wielder's Might modifier.

Stick weapons are long, slender weapons used mainly for thrusting maneuvers.  They gain a +2 bonus to Interpose actions.  Damage is 4/6/8.  Examples include the quarterstaff (light), the spear (medium), polearms* and lances (heavy.)  All stick weapons use the wielder's Agility modifier.

*Since polearms typically feature both heavy chopping blades and spear points or spikes, they may be used as either axes or stick weapons, whichever is most advantageous to the wielder.

Most light and medium weapons (except the quarterstaff) may be wielded with one hand, and combined with a shield if desired.  Most heavy weapons (except the lance from horseback) must be wielded two-handed.

Missile weapons are another can of worms with which I'm still grappling... 

Goblins & Greatswords: Grappling made simple(ish)

Grappling is one of those things that's always a nightmare in RPG combat.  It's almost invariably a fiddly mess that doesn't mesh or scale well with standard combat rules.  To an extent, grappling is a part of normal combat, as a lot of grabbing, pushing, tripping, and so on takes place even in a sword fight.  Sometimes, though, a combatant will expressly attempt to grasp and hold on to an opponent, and some grappling-specific mechanics come in handy.

What I'm going for here is something reasonably simple, without too many conditions and modifiers, which complements rather than contradicts the basic combat rules and minimizes absurd outcomes such as a high-level fighter wrestling a war horse or a giant to the ground.

For the basics of my fantasy heartbreaker combat system, see here and here.

Without further ado, here's what I've come up with for grappling.

The first phase of a grappling attack is resolved with standard combat rolls.  The combatant initiating the grapple must either have at least one hand free or use a natural attack capable of grasping, such as a crocodile's jaws.  A defender may be either unarmed or armed.  (Included in standard G&G combat, if I haven't mentioned it already, is a rule that attacking unarmed against an armed opponent incurs a -2 penalty to AC; thus grappling an opponent with deadly weaponry is more hazardous than grappling an unarmed one.)  A grappling combat roll is always modified by Agility; if the defender chooses to attack normally and try to avoid being grappled, it uses whatever modifier it normally would for its own mode of attack. 

Both combat rolls have their normal effects, inflicting damage if they exceed the opponent's AC.  If the attacker's roll is higher than the defender's (including all modifiers for both) the attacker has achieved a solid grip on the defender.  If the defender's roll is higher, it eludes the attacker's grasp and remains free.  Note that neither necessarily needs to inflict damage; the higher roll wins, even if it's otherwise dismal.  Ties always go to the defender; i.e. no change in status.

Once a grip is established, in subsequent rounds the attacker may simply hold on, or may try to overpower the opponent.  Regardless of which action is chosen, each combatant may continue to attack the other, making normal combat rolls each round and inflicting damage as appropriate. 


Holding on to an opponent means that the combatant is maintaining its grip on the opponent and avoiding the opponent's attacks.  One common tactic is to hold the opponent from behind, or in the case of a larger opponent, to climb on and cling to its back.  While holding, the grappling character's combat rolls against the opponent are made at +2, while the opponent's combat rolls against the grappler suffer -2.  Additionally, attacks by other creatures or characters against either grappler or grappled are made at +2 to the combat roll, as their ability to dodge and parry is limited.

The opponent chooses the direction of movement, if any, possibly at a reduced movement rate if the grappler is heavy enough to encumber it. 

Each round, new combat rolls are made, and if the opponent wins a combat roll against the grappler, it may either throw him off or establish a grapple of its own, which leads to an overpowering contest.

Only small, medium, or natural weapons may be used while in this stage.

At the GM's option, holding onto certain opponents may render some attack forms impossible and others more likely to succeed.  For instance, a grappled medusa may be unable to turn and use her gaze attack on the grappler, but the grappler would be extremely vulnerable to the bites of the writhing snakes on her head.

Overpowering occurs when one combatant tries to restrain, subdue, or move the other.  When two combatants are both grappling each other, it automatically becomes a contest of overpowering.  Overpowering requires a contested roll of 1d6, with each combatant adding its Combat Rating and Might adjustment.  For monsters without a Might score, use the creature's unadjusted Hit Dice.  Characters not using both hands to grapple (holding a weapon or other item in one hand) are penalized by -1. 

The one with the higher total is in control, and may do one of the following:

Automatically inflict 1 point of damage per point of difference in the rolls
Reduce damage done by the opponent by 1 point per point of difference in the rolls
Drag/carry the opponent 5 feet per point of difference. 
Break free, if its combat roll also exceeds that of the opponent. 

Ties result in a stalemate, with no movement possible. 

A new overpowering roll is made each round that the grapple continues, until one or the other combatant escapes or is subdued.  A combatant reduced to 0 hp in a grappling contest is considered subdued and unable to resist further.  A subdued opponent may be automatically slain if desired.

Only small or natural weapons may be used while involved in an overpowering contest.

Example 1

Gort the fighter wishes to grapple and subdue an outlaw without killing him in order to bring the miscreant to justice.  He has a Combat Rating of 4 and a Might adjustment of +2, and an Armor Class of 14.  The outlaw has a CR of 3 and Might +1, and AC 14 also.  Gort is unarmed, and so suffers a -2 penalty to his AC against the outlaw's dagger.

Gort scores a total of 17 on his first try, beating the outlaw's AC by 3 points, doing the maximum unarmed damage of 2 points.  The outlaw, however, gets an 18, tagging Gort for 4 points of damage and preventing him from getting a good grip.

Next round, however, Gort gets a 12.  This isn't enough to deal any damage, but it beats the outlaw's roll of 8, and Gort grabs hold of the cad.  He immediately tries to overpower his foe, aiming to subdue him.  Gort rolls 1d6 and adds 5 for his combat skill and strength, achieving a total of 10!  The outlaw rolls and adds his total bonus of +4, with a -1 penalty because he's not letting go of his dagger; he only scores a 6.  Gort could inflict an automatic 4 points of damage, or he could reduce the damage done by the outlaw by 4 points, or he could drag the bastard up to 20 feet.  Since the outlaw failed to do any damage with his combat roll, the second option is moot.  Gort chooses to wear him down with a punishing choke hold, doing 4 points of damage.

In the third round, the outlaw's combat roll is a resounding 18, but Gort outdoes him with a 21.  Gort does 2 points of damage with his (unarmed) combat roll, but will take 4 points from the outlaw's dagger.  Since Gort has maintained his grasp on his opponent, another overpowering check is made, which he again wins, 9 to 7.  Gort could choose to reduce the damage the outlaw inflicts on him by 2 points, to increase his own damage against his foe by 2 points, or to move him 10 feet.  He chooses to keep the pressure on his choke hold rather than fend off the outlaw's weapon hand, so he takes the full 4 points of damage but inflicts 4 points of his own.

So we leave their struggle, and move on to...

Example 2

Sera the thief gets caught picking the pocket of a burly fighter.  With no easy escape, she decides her best bet is to grab and hold on so he can't skewer her with his sword.  Sera's CR is 1, her Agility bonus is +1, and her AC is 13.  The fighter has an AC of 14, +1 Might, and CR of 3.  Sera has one free hand and her club in the other, so she suffers no penalty to AC.

Her adjusted combat roll is a 10 - not enough to hurt her opponent, but the fighter rolls only a 7, and she seizes him by his sword belt and jumps on his back. 

Next round she rolls a 15 and the fighter gets a 16, but since she has him grappled, she gets +2 to her roll, and his roll is penalized by -2.  Their adjusted totals are 17 and 14.  Sera wins, holding her relatively safe position on the fighter's back.  He does 1 point of damage to her, and she does 3 points to him.  If she hadn't successfully grappled him, she would have taken 3 points and done only 1 to him. 

If the fighter should beat Sera's combat roll next round, he could choose either to throw her off, or to attempt to overpower her.  As the thief hangs on for dear life, we move on to...

Example 3

Dorn the Overly Inquisitive prods a crocodile with a stick and gets the result any person with basic common sense would expect.  The croc attacks and scores a total roll of 13, not good enough to pierce Dorn's plate armor (AC 16) but enough to beat his pitiful flailing roll of 7.

The croc naturally tries to overpower him.  It rolls a 4 on 1d6, plus its Combat Rating of 3, plus its unadjusted Hit Dice (also 3) for a total of 10.  Dorn rolls a 5, plus his CR of 2 and Might adjustment of +1, coming up short with an 8.  The croc chooses to drag him 10', into the water.

The next round the croc wins again with a combat roll of 8 over Dorn's 5, neither scoring any damage, and wins the overpowering roll 11 to 6.  Now the croc goes into its "death roll" and deals 5 points of damage to Dorn, who is in serious trouble...

Optional Rules

Multiple attackers: If more than one combatant tries to grapple the same target, any that is not counterattacked succeeds as long as its combat roll is not a natural 1.  For example, four goblins try to grapple a fighter wielding a mace, with which he can sweep up to three opponents.  The first three goblins succeed only if they beat the fighter's combat rolls against them.  The fourth succeeds unless it rolls a 1; the fighter doesn't have enough actions to oppose it.

When multiple attackers attempt to overpower a grappled opponent, only one 1d6 roll is made for the entire side.  Add the most powerful member's CR and Might or HD adjustments and +1 for each additional member.

Multiple defenders: An attacker with more than one available grasping appendage may attempt to grapple more than one target.  This is treated as a sweep, with combat rolls modified accordingly.  Overpowering rolls are made, dividing the attacker's bonus from CR and Might or HD evenly among the opponents held, rounding down.  For example, a fighter with CR 4 and Might adjustment +2 who grapples two goblins rolls 1d6+3 for each of his overpowering rolls. The goblins roll without penalty.

Holding onto a grappled opponent while attacking or fending off others is likewise considered a sweep and combat rolls should be adjusted accordingly.

Mutual grappling: If two combatants both wish to grapple, both are automatically successful.  Combat rolls determine only whether any damage is scored.  A mutual grapple is always a contest of overpowering; proceed to the overpowering roll.

Disarm: If a combatant wins two overpowering rolls in a row and chooses the "reduce damage" option (whether or not the opponent would actually score any damage), the opponent is disarmed if desired (and applicable.)

Tackle: Charging or leaping onto an opponent adds +2 to the initial grappling attempt.  For example, a panther leaping from a tree branch to grapple a target on the ground would get this bonus.


Adapting to standard D&D

Use Dexterity adjustment instead of Agility, and Strength instead of Might.  Use (20-THAC0) instead of Combat Rating.  When Combat Rating is increased or penalized due to grappling positions, increase or reduce any damage caused by rolling twice and taking the higher or lower roll, respectively.


If I've made any mathematical or logic errors, or if you find a serious (or even not-so-serious) rules expoit that could result in an unbalanced advantage or an absurd result, please point them out!

Goblins & Greatswords: Combat sequence

Initiative: I can take it or leave it.  I'm not sure it really adds much to the game, other than another die roll.  How would I run things if I left it out?  That's exactly the kind of thing to include in a fantasy heartbreaker, right?

One of the things I don't like about traditional initiative is that it often produces weird results when each side (or even each individual) is able to complete its actions for the round before the other even starts.  It also often disrupts what should be the logical sequence of things.  It seems ridiculous to me if, for instance, a swordsman can make a full round's worth of movement to attack an archer before the archer gets a shot off, just because the swordsman won an initiative roll.  Moldvay, though, explicitly allows missile fire to occur out of normal initiative sequence in the example of combat in the Basic Rules.  In other words, go in order of the die roll unless logic dictates otherwise.  But with that in mind, why not dispense with the die roll and simply have action occurring simultaneously unless logic dictates otherwise?

Here's what I've come up with as the basic sequence of actions in G&G.  Each combatant is allowed movement plus one other action per round.  The other action can be melee or missile combat, using an item, drinking a potion, picking something up, or anything else a player can think of to do.  In each phase, all characters and creatures who are taking an appropriate action will be able to act, regardless of which side they're on, and regardless of whether the events of that phase result in their being killed or incapacitated.  Combatants slain or incapacitated in one phase may not act in subsequent phases, however.  For example, two archers both get their shots off in the ranged combat phase, even if they kill each other, but if a swordsman moving to engage a foe is killed by arrows during the ranged attack phase, he is dead before the close combat phase, and thus may not complete his declared action. 

1. Morale is checked, and attempts to surrender or parley are initiated.
2. Declarations of intent. GM describes what the opponents are doing.  Players state their characters' intended movement and actions in general terms.  If an action is not declared, the character or creature acts at the end of the round, after the close combat phase.
3. Ranged attacks. Any combatant using a ready missile device or a thrown weapon acts in this phase. Ranged spells and those cast on self or nearby allies take effect now. Magic items which are activated by a word or thought may also be used in this phase.
4. Movement. Combatants who are not engaged in melee combat move now, up to their full encounter movement. Those who are engaged in melee are more limited. (5' per round, which may be dictated by an opponent's combat roll; see the previous post.) Combatants moving toward one another will meet somewhere in the middle.  Where enemy combatants meet, one or both may choose to engage the other in melee, which halts further movement.  If neither does, they simply move past each other.  Miscellaneous actions, such as opening a door, picking up an object within reach, or drinking a potion, are also resolved during this phase.
5. Close combat. All actions involving melee combat or disengaging from it occur now. Spells that require close proximity to the target are also resolved in this phase.
6. Held or changed actions.  A combatant who has not yet taken an action, and has not been killed or incapacitated, may abort a planned action and take some other action at the end of the round.  Using this rule, a character could, for example, hold a ranged attack action, move during the normal movement phase, and shoot at the end of the round from the new position.  If  movement itself is held, the combatant may move only up to half its normal rate at the end of the round, the other half being "wasted" during the moments of inaction.  If multiple combatants hold actions, they are resolved in the same order as the original combat sequence, i.e. ranged, movement, melee.  No further holding his possible.
   
   
   
   
   Example of Combat (refer to my previous post for the basic rules of combat)
   

A party of five characters consisting of Culhern and Saedrith, fighers; Telos, a cleric; Sorrel, a halfling burglar, and Kierdran, a mage, meets a band of a dozen orcs.  After attempting to negotiate from across a wide chamber, the encounter turns hostile.  Combat begins, with the groups 60' apart.

Round 1

Phase 1: Since combat has just begun, and the orcs outnumber the party, no morale checks need to be made yet, and negotiations have already broken down. 

Phase 2: The GM states that ten orcs draw their axes and charge, while two hang back and prepare to throw spears.  Culhern and Saedrith's players state that their characters draw weapons and rush to meet the advancing orcs.  Telos's player decides that his character will follow them, while Sorrel loads a bullet in her sling and Kierdran begins a sleep spell.

Phase 3: The two orcs throwing spears, Sorrel with her sling, and Kierdran's spell all act at once.  One orc throws its spear at Culhern, and its combat roll of 18 against his AC of 15 scores 3 points of damage.  The other comes up short on its roll against Sorrel, and its spear hits the wall behind her.  Sorrel fires at one of the oncoming orcs.  Her combat roll totals 21 after all adjustments, which deals maximum damage of 4 points against the orc's AC of 13.  The orc had only 3 hp, so it goes down, and will not be able to complete its action for the round.  Meanwhile, Kierdran finishes her sleep spell and sends four of the advancing orcs off to dreamland.

Phase 4: Orcs and humans move at about the same rate, so the moving combatants meet roughly halfway between their starting points.  There are five orcs left of the ten who began the charge, against three heroes. 

Phase 5: Culhern, Saedrith, and Telos all choose to engage in melee with the orcs, with the two fighters using the sweep option to engage two orcs apiece.  Telos fails his combat roll and does no damage.  Saedrith makes two combat rolls, each at -2, and gets results of 7 and 15.  The first orc is unharmed, but the second takes 2 points of damage.  Her orcs both wish to withdraw so they can go slay the unarmored mage and burglar.  They make their combat rolls and get a 5 and a 16.  Neither is enough to pierce Saedrith's sturdy plate and mail armor, but the second orc menaces her with its axe and manages to back away, disengaging from the melee.  Culhern rolls 12 and 19; the latter roll is enough to deal a mortal wound, but since actions happen simultaneously, the orc gets to make its roll against him.  It succeeds, and with its dying breath slashes at him for 5 points of damage!  Its cohort fails, though it lives to fight another round.

Since no actions were changed or held, no actions occur in Phase 6.

Round 2

Phase 1: At the start of the second round, the GM checks the orcs' morale, and determines that they will fight on. 

Phase 2: The orc who withdrew from melee with Saedrith charges at the mage and burglar, while Culhern, badly hurt, decides to defend, and also uses his greatsword like a spear to interpose between himself and the remaining orcs.  Saedrith takes on two orcs again, while Telos begins casting a spell to revitalize Culhern.  Sorrel readies her sling again, while Kierdran draws a dagger and prepares to throw it at the approaching orc.  The two orc spear-throwers draw axes and advance on the fighters and cleric.

Phase 3: Sorrel uses her combat roll to attack one of the fresh orcs threatening the fighters, and rolls a 14, dealing a paltry 1 point of damage.  Kierdran hurls her dagger and also scores 1 point of damage.  Since Telos is within easy reach of Culhern, the GM rules that he may touch his ally and the revitalize spell takes effect during this phase, restoring 5 hp to Culhern.

Phase 4: The former spear-throwers rush into the fracas in the middle of the chamber.  Everyone else is either engaged in melee already or chose not to move.

Phase 5: Culhern, restored, decides to drop his defensive stance and go on offense against the orc in melee with him.  Since this is a changed action, he'll have to wait until the end of the round to do it.  The enraged and slightly injured orc moving against Kierdran reaches her and attacks, rolling a 14 vs. her AC of 10, dealing 4 points of damage and seriously hurting her.  Saedrith manages to hold her own against two orcs, neither taking nor dealing any damage.  Two orcs attack Telos, wounding him for 3 points, and the last fails to hurt Culhern.

Phase 6: Culhern now takes his changed action, and rolls an adjusted total of 23!  Against AC 13, that's 10 points of damage, neatly liberating an orc's head from its body. 

So we leave our brave heroes, on the brink of victory or defeat as Round 3 looms...

Dragon tactics for B/X

Dragons probably aren't the most appropriate opponents for levels 1-3, but of course it would have been a perverse design decision indeed to leave them out of even the introductory books of a game that's half named for them.  They really did seem like nigh-insuperable foes back when I was first poring over the monsters section of the Moldvay rulebook, especially the upper range of the dragon hierarchy, the terrible red dragon and the mighty gold.

That was with low-level PCs in mind, though.  Once the PCs gain several levels, they begin to rival the great monsters, at least at a glance.  A 6th-level fighter has about as many hit points as a white or black dragon, and maybe more if he has a bonus from Constitution.  Most likely he's going to have as good or better AC than most dragons, too, with magical armor and shield bonuses.   Dragons usually have the edge in physical attacks (a lowly white dragon has damage potential of up to 24 points per round, compared to the fighter's 1d8 or so plus Strength and magic - say, around 12 points max.  The dragon theoretically has an advantage in attack rolls (14 to hit AC 0 for a 6 HD white dragon) but a fighter at 4th level probably has similar odds (base 17 to hit AC 0, but with a combined bonus of +3 or more from Strength and magic, he at least equals the dragon.)  

(Random digression: This, in my mind, is a good argument in favor of limiting attack and damage bonuses from magical weapons.)

A B/X white dragon has 6 Hit Dice, an AC of 3 (equivalent to plate armor), and damage of 1d4/1d4/2d8 with its claw/claw/bite attack routine.  That's pretty tough for low-level PCs, but curiously, except for the better AC, ability to fly, and breath weapon, it's not far off from the stats of a tiger (6 HD, Dam 1d6/1d6/2d6) -a formidable foe, to be sure, but less than you might think.  While the correlation between size and HD in B/X is tenuous at best, taken together with attacks and damage it maps pretty well to size and strength.  The dragon's claw attacks do as much damage as a character with a dagger, and less than the tiger's claws.  Its bite is a little better than the tiger's, but the total damage potential is 24 in both cases.

(Random digression: A 3 HD giant crab also has damage potential of up to 24 points - 2 pincers for 2d6/2d6.  An overgrown crustacean is going to mess you up as much as a tiger or a dragon?  What?)

So, apparently a white dragon is roughly equivalent in size to a tiger.  Probably a longer, more sinuous shape, with smaller claws and bigger teeth, but still pretty close to the same overall bulk and strength.

More powerful dragon types have more Hit Dice, better ACs, and significantly more powerful physical attacks, but across the board, a dragon's biggest advantage over other foes is its breath weapon.  This inflicts automatic damage (no attack roll needed) equal to the dragon's current hit points, or half that if a save is made.  In theory, then, our white dragon could either knock a 6th level fighter (or a group of them - breath weapons are area attacks!) either to around 0 hp, or to around half their starting hp in one breath.  Lower level characters would most likely be slain outright on a failed save, and in very bad shape even on a successful save. A dragon can use its breath weapon three times per day, so if it doesn't wipe out the opposition on the first try, it can finish them off with a second blast.

Of course, if the PCs get the drop on the dragon - either surprising it or winning initiative the first round - and manage to do some significant damage to it, they also reduce the damage it can do with its breath.  This is virtually essential for successfully fighting a dragon.  More so than in almost any other situation in the game, surprise and initiative can make the difference between victory and a rout or TPK.

Clearly, then, these B/X dragons are not the gargantuan monsters depicted in fantasy art (including that of most editions of D&D.)  They aren't Smaug.  (The Mentzer edition Companion set provides stats and write-ups for such epic beasts, though they should probably be exceedingly rare, maybe no more than a small handful in an entire campaign world.)  While they are physically robust and well-armored, B/X dragons aren't world destroyers.  If they were no more than their physical bulk, armored hides, claws, and teeth, they'd be tough, but predictably beatable by a party with enough experience.

Even more than their legendary breath weapons, it's the intelligence and cunning of dragons that truly set them apart from run-of-the-mill monsters.  Dragons should absolutely not be played like zombies, charging headlong into battle and fighting until slain.  A toe-to-toe fight between a powerful party and a dragon should almost never happen.  Even dragons not intelligent enough to talk or use magic will be clever and devious opponents.  A party that expects to walk into a dragon's lair and cut it down through sheer force of arms and magic should generally have a very bad time, even if every one of them individually has more levels than the dragon has Hit Dice, because dragons play their advantages to the hilt.  Defeating a dragon should require them to outfox the beast, not merely outfight it.

If there were a book like The Art of War written by dragons for dragons, it would probably include the following pieces of advice:

• The first strike is decisive.  Be aware of your opponent before he is aware of you.
• Whenever possible, observe and learn the strength of your opponents.  Engage them in conversation, if you can talk, and if you can do so without endangering yourself unduly.  Humans who come poking around in a dragon's lair are either very formidable or very foolish, but the greatest fool is you if you mistake one sort for the other.
• Your lair is your fortress.  Know it to the last detail.  Set traps and alarms on every entrance, especially if you plan on sleeping there.  Block the entrances that are of no use to you.  Conceal the others if possible, and consider moving if you can't.
• Unite and conquer!  Use terrain to your advantage, to force your enemies to approach you together so that you may wipe them out at once with a breath attack.  Do not allow them to surround you and bring all their attacks to bear on you at once.  Hallways and narrow defiles are your allies; huge chambers with low ceilings are deathtraps. 
• Choose the time and place of a fight to suit you.  Don't fight on your enemies' terms if you can help it.  Outdoors, the choice is almost always yours, because you can fly. 
• Use your wings.  When fighting outdoors, don't stand there on the ground while your enemies swarm over you.  Take to the air; use your mobility to attack individuals separated from the rest, and take off again before the others can come to their aid.  If you've chosen a particularly spacious cavern for your lair, you can use flying tactics there too.
• Employ henchmen, hench-monsters, servitors, dragon cultists, etc. to act as guards, spies, and providers of tribute in the form of treasure and fresh meat.  Don't ever trust them completely, though.
• If you have the use of magic spells or items, use them, especially if they facilitate one of the above strategies. 

Critical hits

I don't think that any of the "old school" editions of D&D ever formally enshrined the wildly popular "critical hit" rule.  It's certainly not in B/X or BECMI. My experience with AD&D (both 1st and 2nd edition) is fairly limited, but I don't recall seeing critical hits in those rulebooks, either.  I can't even imagine such a thing being included in OD&D.

Actually, I should say that none of these editions had a universal critical hit rule.  Old school D&D does, however feature quite a few special cases that specify a special effect which occurs on a high enough attack roll.  Such ad hoc applications don't constitute true critical hit rules, but they do conform to the general concept.

Peruse the monster chapter in the Expert Rules (Cook or Mentzer) and you'll notice at the beginning a list of special attacks.  Two stand out: Swallow and Swoop.  A swallow attack occurs on a natural 20, and for larger creatures may occur on lower numbers as well.  The most iconic example of a Swallow attack is that of the purple worm, which succeeds on an attack roll which exceeds the minimum roll needed by 4 or more.  Swoop attacks are used by flying creatures; on a roll of 18 or better, the creature grasps the target and flies away with it if it can lift the target's weight.  Some other special moves, such as a bear's "hug" attack which is activated by two successful paw strikes, have some shades of critical hit to them as well.

Player characters aren't entirely left out.  The Companion Set (the C in BECMI) has the sword of slicing, a magical weapon which reduces the target instantly to 0 hp on an attack roll of 19 or 20 if a save vs. death ray is failed, and inflicts triple damage even if the save is made.  AD&D has the vorpal sword and sword of sharpness, which inflict their severing effects on a high enough attack roll.  There are also the optional Weapon Mastery rules of the Mentzer edition Master Set and the Rules Cyclopedia, which grant a few weapons the ability to inflict double damage or other special effects on a high attack roll at high levels of mastery.

So, the basis for critical hits, at least in narrow applications, really is all right there in the manual.  How much these narrowly focused cases inspired or influenced the broader application of critical hit rules I have no idea.  It does seem rather strange that, with all the wildly unbalancing stuff the official rules poured into the game, a relatively mild tweak like the critical hit has remained exclusively the province of house-ruling, never even meriting an Optional Rules mention from the folks at TSR.

There's no single right way to implement a critical hit rule.  Different variations have different mechanical effects in play.

• Critical hit on a natural 20 has the virtue of making them fairly infrequent, but also has the effect of making criticals against heavily armored targets as likely as against unarmored ones.  Also, if you have a target that a character can only hit with a 20, every time he does manage to penetrate its defenses he does critical damage, which seems a bit wonky.
• Critical hit when the roll exceeds the number needed by a certain amount tends to give fighters (and monsters!) an advantage over other classes, and makes heavily armored targets less susceptible than lightly armored ones, but also drastically ramps up the damage potential, and thus the lethality, of combat.  If a critical happens on an attack that succeeds by 5 or more, then a 1st level fighter with no bonuses fighting an AC 6 monster - pretty typical for a low-level opponent - is going to crit on an 18-20.  With a +2 bonus from Strength, that widens to 16-20, or 25% of all attacks, and fully half of those that hit will be criticals.  You can set the "buffer" number higher than 5, of course, but as the characters advance in level, criticals will become more common.  Not that that's automatically a bad thing, because they're probably going up against opponents with a lot more hp, as well as having more themselves.
• The most common result of a critical hit is double damage.  Rolling twice the number of dice gives a solid average, and minimizes the chances that your glorious crit does chump damage, but also decreases the odds of max damage.  Rolling the usual dice and doubling the result gives a higher chance of max damage, but also a higher chance of minimum - the spread is exactly the same as for a non-critical. 
• Or, just do the attack's max damage without rolling, which makes every critical hit a solid blow without inflating total damage potential.
• Or, roll on a Death and Dismemberment table, which typically has results ranging from minor but flavorful to actual death and dismemberment.
• Another option is for a critical hit to provide an opportunity for another attack roll, perhaps repeated if the second roll also qualifies for a critical.  If used with the standard Natural 20 crit rule, it provides some of the advantages of both methods of determining whether a critical hit has occurred.  It's a relatively uncommon occurrence, and you've got to succeed at a second attack roll in order to capitalize on it, so characters with good attack probabilities do better, and targets with poorer ACs fare worse.  This one is the front-runner for my personal favorite.
• Yet another option is for stunts and special attacks called by a player to occur on a critical, as in the Simple Combat Maneuvers from Telecanter's house rules.  No extra damage, just extra possibilities.  Could be used in conjunction with one of the other options - if you don't call for the attack to do something cool, a natural 20 just defaults to the other critical hit option.
• Finally, exploding damage dice are also a critical hit mechanic of a sort, which operates independently from the attack roll, and instead is activated by rolling the maximum on the damage dice.  Each time the maximum is rolled, the dice are rolled again and the result is added to the total.  This increases the average damage by a fairly trivial amount, but with a small chance to inflict a lot more damage than the weapon's usual range.

Pondering an alternative combat system

For a while now, I've been mulling an idea that has its roots in Brendan's Necropraxis post on Monologic Combat with a sprinking of my own musings from way back on level-scaled combat.  Not sure I'll ever actually use it, but I thought I'd throw it out there for consideration and comment.

The gist of it is that when two creatures fight, instead of rolling for each to hit, only one roll is made, and there's a winner and a loser.  Regardless of the results of the roll, somebody's gonna get hurt.  The winner deals damage, and the loser takes damage.

Why this appeals to me:

• Obviously, no wasted rounds.  No more double-whiffs when both sides fail their attack rolls.  Every round counts.
• Instead of two fighters hacking at each other for a round, one of them gets a decisive upper hand during that round, and the other is put on the defensive, struggling just to survive.  Next round, fortunes might reverse.  This feels more natural to me, and more evocative, imparting a sense of ebb and flow rather than the toe-to-toe pitched battle depicted in standard combat.  
• The winner-take-all results each round are dramatic and easy to narrate in a colorful and exciting way.  One fighter capitalizes on the other's mistake to claim the advantage.  A fighter battling a giant either dances away from the monster's attack and slips inside its defenses to stab at it, or is batted aside by the giant's mighty club. 
• It feels clearer that an attack roll does not represent a single swing, but an entire round of maneuvers, thrusts, parries, wary circling, etc.
• A fighter can hold his own in combat against a foe he can't hurt.  Say he's wielding an ordinary sword, and in melee against a wight.  Under standard rules, he makes his completely ineffectual attack and then waits for the wight to attack and hopes it doesn't hit him.  With this rule, he makes the single combat roll between the two of them, and if he wins, he holds the monster off.  That sounds a lot more interesting to me.
• It merges offense and defense as a single function of a character's class and level, instead of the dichotomy of level-based offense against static defense.

The basis of the system is a simple stat I call Combat Rating (CR,) which is equal to the character or creature's bonus to attack (derived by subtracting its THAC0 from 20; for most monsters this is simply equal to Hit Dice) plus Dexterity modifier, plus the +1 modifier for a shield, if used.  If the character is unarmed, its CR is reduced by 2 points.  (A shield or a makeshift weapon negates this penalty, as do natural attack forms such as claws, teeth, horns, etc.)  When a character enters melee combat with an opponent, the player makes the combat die roll on 1d20, adding the character's Combat Rating and subtracting the opponent's CR.  On a total of 11 or higher, the PC wins.  On a 10 or lower, the opponent wins.  (Two evenly matched opponents would each have a 50% chance to win any given round.)  Winner rolls damage and applies it to the loser's hit points.  A natural 20 always goes to the PC, and a natural 1 always goes to the opponent.  Armor reduces damage: 1 point for light (leather or padded), 2 points for medium (mail or scale), 3 points for heavy (plate), to a minimum of 1 point. Strength bonuses do not apply to the combat roll, but do increase damage.

If a character or creature is meleed by more opponents than it has attacks, it chooses which to apply its attacks.  All others attack it with a -2 penalty to its CR - they are not threatened by its attacks, and so can attack more aggressively with relative impunity.  If they win, they inflict damage, but the defender inflicts no damage if it wins.  (Optional: the defender inflicts damage if its defense roll is a natural 20.)

Characters or creatures with multiple attacks can either concentrate them on a single opponent or spread them among several.  Attacks spread among several opponents are resolved normally.  If focused on one opponent, only one roll is made, as usual, and if it succeeds by a certain margin, the additional attacks succeed and score damage.  Say, if the adjusted roll is 16 or higher, a second damage die is rolled.  On a total score of 20, a third die, and at 23 a fourth.  The Damage Reduction from armor is applied to each damage roll.  (Reversed for monsters, so two attacks succeed on a roll of 5 or less, three on a 1, and four on an adjusted total of -2 or lower.)  Thus, an inferior opponent is less likely to deal extra damage to a superior one, and a superior one is more likely to deal extra damage to its inferior. Note that if the attacks are not concentrated on one opponent, no single opponent may be subjected to more than one.  If a creature with three attacks fights two opponents, it can either focus all three attacks on one of them, or use one on each and lose the third.

Monsters would do base damage based on the sum of all their attacks divided by the number of attacks.  For instance, a monster with three attacks capable of a maximum of 24 points per round would do damage of 1d8 or 2d4 per successful attack, even if in the rules-as-written it does a claw/claw/bite routine for 1d6/1d6/2d6.  Monsters' Damage Reduction would need to be deduced from the monster's AC and description; some might well have DR greater than 3.

Tactical options that work particularly well with this system include:

Set spear: Interposing a spear or other weapon with reach gains a +4 bonus to CR against a single opponent, if that opponent has not yet closed to melee.  The bonus applies until the opponent manages to make a successful attack, or until the spear-bearer lets his guard down.  A character with multiple attacks may maintain this guard against multiple opponents.

Reckless attack: The combatant using this tactic hurls itself at its opponent heedless of the other's attacks.  If it loses the roll by two points or less, then both combatants inflict damage on each other.  This tactic is often used by mindless undead, enraged or berserk creatures, creatures immune to the opponent's attack, heavily armored creatures, and those with a lot more hit points to spend than the opponent.

Guard: The combatant gains +2 to all combat rolls applying to it that round; if successful no damage is inflicted by either combatant.

Grapple: Instead of an armed attack, the combatant tries to grapple the opponent, and succeeds on a winning combat roll.  Losing one roll results in being grabbed, two is taken down, and three is pinned.  This could also be modified for climbing on huge opponents.
  
Surprise attack:  The target does not apply its CR to the combat roll and suffers a -2 penalty, and inflicts no damage if it wins the roll. 

Insubstantial attacker: An attacker able to ignore solid matter, such as a wraith, is unhindered by armor, and its damage is not reduced unless the armor is magical.  Additionally, unless the opponent has a weapon capable of harming it, the monster attacks as if the opponent were unarmed. May be combined with Reckless Attack.

Seizing momentum:  Winning two or more rounds consecutively gives the aggressor a +1 bonus to CR for each round after the first, to a maximum of +4. Resets when the defender wins a round, or when contact is broken or another combatant enters the fray on the defender's side.

It should also work well with Simple Combat Maneuvers.

One potential down side of this method is that, since normally only one combatant of a pair inflicts damage in a given round, fights tend to last a bit longer than they otherwise would.  This only gets worse at higher levels.  Equally matched opponents each have a 50% chance of dealing the other damage in each round, regardless of their levels.  A pair of 10th level fighters do no more damage to each other on average than a pair of 1st level fighters, but they have a lot more hit points.  In the rules as written they both hit each other more often, increasing their expected damage per round.  I'm not sure whether or not this amounts to a significant problem.  One possible solution is to flatten hit point totals for characters and monsters, to reflect the overall reduced damage potential. It might also be mitigated somewhat by making damage dice "explode" on a roll of max damage.

Another possible problem is magic armor. Since it no longer affects the chances to be hit, what does it do?  Increasing DR even a point or two is a lot more powerful than a similar bonus to AC.  One possibility is to make the magical bonus effective only against the pluses of magical weapons.  Armor +1 counters sword +1, but does not affect a normal sword.  Perhaps magical armor confers some protection from purely magical attacks such as spells or wands.  As suggested above, magical armor protects against the attacks of creatures that ignore non-magical armor.

There are probably still some kinks and bugs I haven't addressed, but that's the rough idea.

Tweaking weapons and damage

Weapon damage is kind of a contentious thing in D&D.  There are quite a few different methods, and probably dozens if not hundreds of tweaks and variations on each.

There's straight 1d6 for everything (possibly "roll twice, take higher" for big two-handed weapons.)  This has simplicity on its side, but it also makes choice of weapons pretty much pure fluff.

There's the optional variable weapon damage rule from B/X, which feels better intuitively to me, but also makes it incredibly obvious which weapon is "best."  (It's the one with the highest damage die, possibly mitigated by the inability to use a shield.)  Likely to result in Every Fighter Wields a Sword.

There's damage by class or Hit Die.  Fighters and dwarves always do 1d8.  Clerics, elves, and halflings do 1d6.  Thieves do 1d6 or 1d4, depending on the DM's concept of the class.  Magic-users do 1d4.  It does a good job of enforcing the combat supremacy of the fighter class, but once again, the actual choice of weapon is merely one of style.

There's the Weapon Mastery system of BECMI.  It looks cool on paper, but in practice it can be a bit of a nightmare, the huge damage increases and other benefits can be wildly unbalancing, and a character who specializes in a single weapon will tend to be vastly superior to one who studies more broadly.

There's the weapon proficiency and specialization of AD&D, the primary effect of which seems to be giving fighters a damage bonus with a chosen weapon.

Some of those are closer to my ideal than others, but none is completely satisfying.  What I want is something that's simple, makes weapon choice matter, and makes fighters better at dealing damage.  Here's what I've come up with:



1d2 damage unarmed
1d4 damage for light or crude weapons, such as daggers, clubs, hand axes, and slings
1d6 for medium weapons, including all other one-handed weapons plus the quarterstaff.  Note that this includes the traditional "normal sword," which is no longer the obviously superior choice for every fighting man, as well as the battle axe.
1d8 for heavy weapons that must be wielded two-handed, such as polearms and two-handed swords

Fighters use the next higher die for all weapons.  A fighter thus does 1d6 with a dagger, 1d8 with a sword or mace, and 1d10 with a two-handed sword.
Dwarves (if you're using B/X race-classes) step up one die for traditional dwarven weapons.  In a traditional fantasy world, that's probably axes and hammers.
Elves step up one die for traditional elven weapons.  Sword, spear, and bow are typical.
Halflings step up one die for traditional halfling weapons.  As far as I'm concerned, that's only the sling.  Hey, they may be decent fighters, but halflings aren't supposed to be damage-dealing juggernauts.

All other classes use "allowed" weapons at base damage.  If using a weapon not allowed for their class, they drop one die size.  (Clerics may suffer other penalties for using proscribed arms, but that's another matter.)  For example, a magic-user using a sword (a one-handed 1d6 weapon) would do 1d4 damage.  With a two-handed sword, he'd do 1d6.  He can do so as a matter of style, if the player likes, but it's not going to gain him any advantage over using a dagger or staff.

Weapons that are normally used one-handed but can easily be used two-handed, such as clubs, battle axes, and bastard swords, step up one die size when wielded with both hands. This is cumulative with fighter bonuses.  A fighter using a club two-handed would step up two dice, to 1d8.




Fighting with a weapon in each hand grants +1 to damage.  The second weapon must be a light one.

The overall effect comes pretty close to the class-based damage model, but allows some room for weapon choice to have an effect.


To distinguish weapons a little bit more and make weapon choice more meaningful:

Swords do +2 damage to unarmored and lightly armored opponent, i.e. leather or less.  Monsters with AC6 or better that isn't due to agility and dodging are considered heavily armored for this purpose.

Heavy impact weapons such as maces, war hammers, battle axes, and various polearms gain +2 to hit vs. chain mail or heavier armor, representing their real-world use in defeating armor.

Spears do +2 damage to large opponents, due to their ability to penetrate deep into flesh, where other weapons have difficulty doing more than superficial damage.

Quarterstaves grant a bonus to AC as if the wielder had a shield.

Crossbows are +2 to hit everything, but fire every other round.



That's it.  Not overly complicated, I hope; at least it doesn't offend my B/X sensibilities too badly.  Next time I get a chance to run a game, I'm going to give this a whirl.

More on abstract combat and the ten-second round

To recap the gist of the previous post, combat rounds are aggregate abstractions of all the action in an interval of time (in B/X, 10 seconds.)  Choices in combat are not discrete maneuvers but broad tactical decisions applied to the entire round.  The attack roll represents not a single attempt at attacking, but the likelihood of a combatant seeing and capitalizing on at least one opportunity to strike or rattle the target.  A miss doesn't necessarily mean an earnest swing that fails to connect; it could also mean that no good opportunity was presented at all.  Damage isn't necessarily done only by the attacker's weapon; the weapon merely determines the range of the attacker's damage potential.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to explore some special cases, and a few instances in the B/X rules that seem to ignore the principles behind the abstract aggregation of the ten-second round.

First, there's initiative.  The most intuitive interpretation is that initiative literally determines who strikes first.  Since we don't even know for sure until we roll attacks that an opportunity to attack has even occurred, we can't even say that initiative represents the first opportunity.  I like to think of it more as an abstract measure of the ebb and flow of combat, a momentary edge which could permit a combatant to take his opponent out of the fight IF he can spot and capitalize on an opportunity.  It's worth noting, though, that the game would actually function just fine without initiative at all - all combat takes place simultaneously.  This might slightly increase the lethality of the game, because double kills would become more common, but the possibility of initiative-less combat intrigues me nonetheless.

Missile combat is troublesome because unlike melee combat, it uses up resources; specifically, ammunition. Even so, the number of arrows or bolts or sling stones expended doesn't necessarily correlate 1:1 with attack rolls. You can hand-wave it and say that the number of missiles expended averages out to one per round (sometimes you get off a couple shots, and sometimes you don't get a clear look at all.)  You could also use an abstract method of tracking ammo. 

Next, there's the issue of multiple attacks.  B/X as written doesn't support multiple attacks for characters (at least not without magic like the haste spell) but BECMI and other old school editions do.  It's not too difficult to grasp that a more skilled fighter will, on average, see and be able to take advantage of more opportunities to strike in a given time than a less skilled one.  But, since we can't definitively say how many opportunities a character exploits with a successful attack roll, it's a little difficult to fathom what a second or third attack roll by the same character in the same round might mean.  That they can potentially exploit twice or three times an indeterminate number of opportunities? 

It seems to me that this might be more aptly modeled, and more consistent with the combat round as I understand it, by increasing damage potential rather than number of attack rolls.  As characters increase in level, their chance to exploit at least one opportunity in a round increases with their improving attack rolls.  Since the damage range given for a weapon doesn't necessarily represent the damage caused by one stroke of that weapon, it seems reasonable that damage per round could be increased for highly skilled characters without absurdly implying that they're necessarily doing a lot more with a single blow.  You could increase the damage die size a step or two, for example 1d6 to 1d8 or 1d0, or grant extra dice of the same type as the weapon's base damage, say, from 1d6 to 2d6.  The latter pretty neatly captures the spirit of multiple attacks, without messing with the base damage die for each weapon.

But wait a second...What if multiple attacks don't necessarily mean multiple swings (since we know that happens anyway) but the ability to threaten additional opponents in the same round?  Say, a fighter with one attack per round, surrounded by orcs, could only attack and potentially do damage to one of them in a round, but a fighter who gets two or three attacks per round could attack two or three of them, and divide the damage rolled among them?  This could still be handled with a single attack roll.  If the targets have different ACs, the same roll is compared to all; some may take damage and some not. (Whether the damage should be divided by the total number of targets, or only between those that are actually "hit" is a question for which I don't have an answer yet.)

And now we come to the weirdness of monsters.  Unlike characters, the multiple attacks of monsters are normally listed with specific attack forms for each, implying that, for instance, a grizzly bear makes one swipe with each paw and one attempt to bite in a combat round.  That's a pretty neat and orderly attack routine for a wild beast.  It would make more sense to aggregate the possible damage and use a single attack roll.  A B/X grizzly does 1d4/1d4/1d8, so in the single attack format, 2d8 would be about right.  (Rather than the bonus "hug" damage being activated on two claw hits, it could occur on a critical of 19 or 20 of the single attack roll.)  It's not unrealistic to suppose that a bear could maul three closely-grouped opponents at once, so multiple attacks could be directed against two or three characters, and the damage rolled divided among them.  (Naturally, only one, probably chosen at random, could be subjected to the "hug.")  Now we need not concern ourselves about whether the bear went after Bob the fighter with a claw or a bite attack.  We just know that the grizzly tore into Bob for 8 points of damage, and whether it was its slashing paws or snapping jaws or some combination that got him can be narrated any way the DM and player feel appropriate.

Some creatures, with huge damage potential and equally huge bodies, like dragons, may be able to attack even more than three targets at once.  A big amorphous blob like a black pudding might be able to threaten everyone within striking distance of it at once.

This does make for a more all-or-nothing experience in combat; a creature either does its full damage or none.  This would be an advantage for well-armored characters and a disadvantage for lightly or unarmored ones.  A monster which gets three attacks under the rules-as-written would do at least some damage 48.8% of the time against a target that it needs a 17 to hit; with a single attack roll it has a 20% chance to do its full damage. The same monster, against a target that it needs a 6 to hit, will hit all three attacks 42% of the time; with the single roll it will do its full damage 75% of the time.  I don't have a problem with this, but your mileage may vary.

Abstract combat and the ten-second round

For a long time, I think I've harbored a fundamental misunderstanding about how D&D combat works, or at least was mostly designed to work.  It's taken me a while to put together all these pieces into a coherent theory, but (I hope) I finally have a good enough handle on it to explain it now.

It's never explicitly stated in B/X that an attack roll doesn't represent one discrete swing of the sword.  In fact, there are a lot of factors that mistakenly imply that one attack roll does in fact represent a single attempt to do harm.  There's the terminology of "hit" and "miss."  There are monsters with multiple attacks, explicitly labeled "claw, claw, bite," implying that the creature attempts to strike exactly once with each of them during a round.  Even the initiative roll implies individual blows, with one combatant taking a swing at the other, and then the other counterattacking.

Of course, ten seconds is quite a long time in the frantic scuffle of combat.  Go ahead, count it out - one-thousands or Mississippis or whatever method you favor.  While you do this, imagine a sword fight in real time.  I'll wait right here...

Did you imagine one person swinging a sword, and then the other swinging in return?  Of course not!  You probably imagined a complex dance involving many thrusts, slashes, and parries, circling and jockeying for position, ducking and weaving, tripping, shoving, stumbling, off-hand punches, and dirty tricks.  In D&D combat, all of this is neatly subsumed in a minimal number of die rolls:  a d20 attack roll vs. a static Armor Class number to determine if each combatant was able to effectively wear down his opponent, and if that succeeds, a damage roll to determine by how much.  A successful attack doesn't even necessarily mean that the attacker "hits" or threatens the opponent once and only once with his primary weapon.  A fighter with sword and shield who scores a successful attack may do damage by thrusting with his sword, but also by bashing with his shield, kicking his opponent in the knee, tripping his opponent to the ground, ramming him against a wall, or some combination of these and other possible moves. 

The upshot of all this is that not only is B/X combat abstract, it abstracts by aggregating actions within a unit of time.  It does not attempt to narrate a blow-by-blow of combat through game mechanics; it resolves the general outcome of ten seconds of battle and leaves any narration to be done on a post hoc basis.  The dice tell you how much attrition of stamina each combatant inflicted on the other, but the precise "how" can only be explained after game mechanical resolution.  Choices consist of broad tactical options rather than discrete maneuvers - to fight, retreat, or flee rather than whether to attack with primary or secondary weapon, parry, feint, or trip the opponent.

In contrast, many rules, both official and house, have been put forth with the goal of increasing the range of choice and the excitement of combat.  A large number of these add options to perform specific actions and maneuvers and resolve them game mechanically within the combat round.  For example, BECMI D&D (the heir to B/X) introduced a weapon mastery system that allowed characters wielding certain weapons at a high enough level of master to deflect attacks by making a saving throw vs. death ray.  This certainly can be exciting, rolling to escape all damage from an attack in the moment as it occurs, but it also violates the basic assumptions of the abstract ten-second round by correlating each attack roll with a single discrete attempt to do harm. 

This sort of granularity can be a slippery slope indeed.  Are we to assume that unless a character has and uses the deflect ability no parrying takes place during a combat round?  Or are we arbitrarily singling out one parry of many in the round for mechanical resolution, and if so what is the justification for hand-waving the rest?  To move to a system of individual maneuvers rather than an abstract aggregate requires a lot of arbitrary decisions or assumptions as to where each action begins and ends and which ones are significant enough to warrant their own mechanical resolutions.  Since these determinations are necessarily arbitrary, it opens up the possibility for all kinds arguments unresolvable by mere reason, and the ugly head of DM fiat must be reared.  A combat round is, of course, also a purely arbitrary interval of time, but the potential for argument is limited to how long it should be.  I imagine there are plenty of players prepared to go to the mat over their characters' signature combat moves, but very few who would bother to protest vociferously that the combat round is the wrong number of seconds.

It actually is possible to increase the range of player choice and agency in combat without short-circuiting the abstraction of the ten-second round or increasing the granularity of combat.  Tactical options can apply to the entire round, and are best done with flat modifiers rather than additional dice-rolling.  For example, an option to fight cautiously might grant a bonus to AC and a penalty to the attack roll.  This simulates the character taking a conservative approach, passing up questionable opportunities for offense in order to concentrate on defense and deny offensive opportunities to the opponent.  Reversing the modifiers simulates an aggressive approach, in which the character presses any perceived advantage at the cost of possibly leaving himself open or falling for a feint.  Even though the choice only modifies two die rolls (character's attack roll and opponent's attack roll) - in fact, because it only modifies the standard die rolls of a combat round rather than adding more - it applies to everything that character and his opponent do in that round.  The round is still resolved abstractly and in aggregate form; the players aren't calling specific maneuvers, but they do have a little more say-so in the outcome.

Telecanter's simple combat maneuvers can fit neatly into this framework as well, by interpreting the player's declaration of intent not as a specific maneuver but as a desired goal of a round of combat.  It doesn't violate abstraction, because the player is not choosing simply to do a single maneuver, but integrating a goal into the cut and thrust of the combat round.  Even if the character doesn't accomplish that intent, normal damage my still be inflicted by all .  The round is not assumed to be taken up by a single action.  If Bob the fighter wants to disarm his opponent, he isn't making a roll specifically to disarm; he is declaring that he wishes to make that one of the possible outcomes of the round's combat.  He's stating that if the opportunity arises he would prefer to disarm the opponent than to inflict damage.  Whether or not that opportunity does arise in a form which Bob can capitalize on is determined by the attack roll; if it doesn't, Bob hasn't necessarily done nothing else in the round.  He has ranked his priorities, and taken whatever his opponent and his own level of skill allows him to take in that round.

I have some more thoughts on the implications of the abstract ten-second round on multiple attacks, damage, initiative, and monsters with more than one attack form, but those are probably best saved for the next post.

More monkeying with combat

If you've been reading (or browsing, skimming, or offhandedly glancing at) this blog for a while, you might remember this, in which I posited that rather than continually escalating attack matrices vs. more or less static Armor Classes, we might extract a character or monster's attack bonus from the chart, and then, in a fight, apply the difference between the attack bonuses of the combatants to the attack rolls of the greater. In other words, opponents become easier to hit not based on the attacker's absolute skill, but on the difference in skill between attacker and defender.  This means that a fighter with a THAC0 of 3 (an attack bonus of 17) dueling a fighter with a THAC0 of 5 (AB 15) doesn't hit his AC3 plate-and-mail clad opponent on a roll of 0 (i.e. missing only on a natural 1 as per the rules.)  Instead, because his attack bonus is two points better than his opponent's, he'll hit on a roll of 14, and his opponent will hit with a 16.  (We're using the line of the attack chart for 1st level characters to determine what number is needed to hit each AC.)  If the fighter with the attack bonus of 17 is up against a fighter with a bonus of only 5, then he'll add the difference in his favor of +12 to his attack rolls, not simply because he's a high-level fighter in an absolute sense, but because he's a LOT better than his inexperienced opponent and capitalizes on every mistake the other fellow makes in battle.

Further Thoughts

Since composing that particular ramble, I've decided to drop the "attack bonus" terminology, and refer to this derived stat as Combat Rating, or CR.  It also seems like a good idea to modify how ability scores affect combat.  This is both to prevent extreme ACs right out of the starting gate (a level 1 halfling with plate, shield, and 18 Dex would be AC-1, and thus nearly unhittable to any opponent of similar level), and to tone down the massive advantages of high Strength (bonuses to hit AND damage make an 18 Strength fighter vastly more effective in melee than one with a 13.)  The character's Dexterity adjustment should apply directly to his CR, and Strength adjustments apply only to damage rolls.  This means that a Dex adjustment counts for both offense and defense, or more precisely, it affects the balance between the total (offensive and defensive) combat skill of both combatants.  The 18 Dex, level 1 halfling has a CR of 4 (1 for his level, +3 for his Dex adjustment) and an AC of 2.  The 18 Str, level 1 fighter has a CR of 1.  He's raw and ungraceful in combat relative to the halfling, who with his net +3 CR advantage will be zipping in for quick slashes more often than Mongo is going to land a clumsy haymaker on him, but when Mongo DOES hit, he's going to mess the little guy up pretty badly with that +3 bonus to damage. 

One interesting implication of this is that natural coordination and grace can to some extent make up for a lack of experience, and conversely, long experience and drilling of combat reflexes can make up for a lack of natural quickness and agility, but pure physical might is entirely its own thing.  You just can't learn brute force.  (As I used to hear a lot, back when I followed NBA basketball more closely and some team would take a chance on an awkward 7-footer, "You can't teach size.")

One option I've thought about is, instead of automatically applying the difference in CRs to the attack roll of the greater, how about the one with the higher CR gets to choose whether to apply that difference to his attack or to his defense?  The more skilled dancer gets to lead, so to speak.  

Of course, you still can have actual attack bonuses, whether those comes situationally (+1 for attacking from a position of superior height, say), or a magical bonus such as that of a sword +1.  That would make these bonuses especially valuable to the lesser combatant.  A CR 2 fighter against a CR 5 fighter who gets a +1 bonus to his CR will find that he can defend himself a little better.  It affects the other fellow's hit rolls, not his own.  If he gets a direct bonus to his attack roll, he actually stands a better chance of hitting.

CR and Climbing on the Dragon's Back

Another possibly interesting consequence of this combat system is that it makes the system of climbing onto really big monsters, first formulated by Scrap Princess and modified by Zak S., into a very valuable tactical option.  I don't think it's too uncommon for parties of 4th-6th level characters to take on a red dragon, but using the CR system, none of them are going to have an advantage over teh dragon - in other words, no bonuses to hit vs. its AC-1.  The dragon will have a little tougher time hitting the fighters than it otherwise would, but they're going to have a devil of a time dishing out any damage on it.  What to do?  Use those rules for climbing aboard and getting close to the vulnerable spots!  (Zak's adaptation of the idea seems to fit a lot better with my underlying system, IMO.) 

Weapons and CR

A while back, something I read on Charles's Spells and Steel blog got me thinking about the relative merits of different weapons.  One of the points of the post was how bizarre it is that, in D&D, it's no more difficult to hit a trained fighter holding a sword and a peasant with nothing but his fists if both are similarly armored.  Same goes for one fighter with a sword, and another with a dagger.  In a real fight, it's quite as possible to kill a man in a single hit with a dagger as with a sword, but it's going to be tougher, all else being equal, for the dagger wielder to land a hit against the swordsman.  Damage potential itself isn't so much an issue; it's the fact that the swordsman has a great advantage in reach, and he's got not only a sharp point but two or three feet of blade that has a chance to catch his opponent and deal some damage.  The dagger wielder has to get in a lot closer, and to get a really good lick in, he must thrust with the weapon's point; slashing is far less effective.  In other words, all else equal, bet on the swordsman.

Well now, what if, instead of variable weapon damage, different weapons added different bonuses to the wielder's CR, based on reach, ease of use, and defensive capabilities?  A barehanded character fights with only his base CR, i.e. with a weapon bonus of zero.  A dagger might add +1, a sword might grant +4.  A two-handed greatsword might grant +5.  Short swords, with less reach, might give CR +3.  Maces and hammers, being heavier and less elegantly balanced, might be +2 to CR overall, but grant +2 to hit against medium and heavy armor, representing their purpose of defeating those armors with impact damage.  (These numbers have been pulled out of the air with relatively little consideration.  Perhaps a wider or narrower range might be more appropriate, but I haven't fully math-geeked out the details yet, much less consulted with folks more knowledgeable than I about the merits and demerits of medieval weaponry.)

Let's say a hypothetical rebellious peasant has gotten his hands on a sword, and caught a mercenary of the corrupt town alderman unarmed.  Both are unarmored (AC9.)  Under ordinary D&D rules, the 1st level mercenary fighter actually has a slightly better chance to land a blow against our sword-wielding peasant rebel (attack rolls for 1st level classed characters are 1 point better than those for Normal Humans.)  Mercenary needs a 10 to hit AC9, peasant needs an 11.

Now let's try the CR system with weapon adjustments.  Mercenary has a base CR 1, while the peasant's base CR is 0.  Now put the sword in the peasant's hands, and add its +4 CR bonus.  Peasant now has a total CR of 4 (0+4) and a net bonus of +3 over the unarmed mercenary, and the upper hand in combat.  He can apply his bonus to attack, meaning he'll hit the mercenary on an 8 or better, or he can apply it defensively, and force the mercenary to roll a 13 or better to hit him.  (But of course, not both at once.)

CR and Monsters

For monsters, the correlation of Hit Dice to escalating attack rolls in standard D&D wouldn't have to be modified at all.  If a creature's Hit Dice are a function of its size, like a bear, dragon, or giant, then the corresponding CR represents an advantage in reach.  If the creature's HD are more attributable to superlative skill at dodging or supernatural resistance, like a cockatrice or a wraith, there's no good reason we can't apply that same rationale to its ability to fight, too.  Monsters who commonly use weapons can benefit from the standard CR bonus for weapons.

And finally, there's the issue of grappling, and of animals and other monsters with natural attacks mowing over weapon-wielding adventurers.  As has been noted on another blog (which is utterly escaping me right now, so if it's yours or you know whose it is, please drop me a comment so I can give due credit!), it's pretty tough to bring a sword to bear on a wild boar that's goring you or a mountain lion that's jumped from a crag to pin you to the ground.  But suppose that once you're grappled or successfully hit by an enemy in brawling range (i.e. occupying the same space on the combat grid, if applicable), only small weapons still grant a bonus to CR.  Medium and large one-handed weapons convert their normal CR bonus to an equal penalty, and two-handed weapons are just unusable under those circumstances.  A dagger is a lot more handy than a battle axe when a wolf has pounced on you and is going for your jugular.  I'm thinking this just might be enough to counteract the advantage that creatures using weapons, and receiving a CR bonus for it, would seem to have over monsters that use natural weapons and get no CR bonus for them.  The initial advantage will belong to the weapon-wielder, but once that wolf is tussling with you hand-to-paw, the advantage of holding a sword is less than nil, and you'd best let go of the sword and focus your efforts on throwing the wolf off, or stabbing it to death with your dagger.

I'm not at all sure that I'll actually use any of this in play, but it's fun to speculate and play with the numbers. 

Brawn vs. grace

**WARNING: PEDANTIC ANALYSIS OF NARROW RULES CATEGORY AHEAD**

One of the peculiarities of old versions of D&D (I can't speak at all of the new ones, as I'm barely familiar with them) and similar games is the very high relevance of the Strength ability score to melee combat.  In fact, as I'll demonstrate shortly, a high Strength score is much better than an average one, and even superior to an equally high Dexterity in melee combat.

Fantasy fiction thrives on tropes like the immensely strong warrior who defeats his opponents by dealing mighty crushing blows.  But there is also the equally popular archetype of the quick and wily fighter, the swashbuckling swordsman or Robin Hood-type who, physically fit though he may be, is never depicted lifting wagons in a military press or tearing ironbound doors from their hinges with his bare hands.  Instead he overwhelms his foes with quickness, grace, nimble footwork, and skillful swordplay.  Quite often in fiction, in fact, this type of hero is portrayed as the superior combatant, though he may be painted initially as the underdog for dramatic purposes.

In D&D, it's the musclebound basher who is the odds-on favorite.  This stems from a simple quirk of the rules:  Strength adjustments apply both to the attack roll and the damage caused.  Dexterity applies only to AC.  It affects the opponent's attack rolls negatively, but does nothing else, either offensive or defensive.

First, let's take the case of a strong fighter vs. one of equal experience but only ordinary brawn.  We'll give them both AC5 mail and standard 1d8 swords.  The first one has an outstanding, but not superhuman, Strength of 16, for a +2 bonus to hit and damage, while his opponent has a perfectly respectable score of 12 which grants him no bonuses.

The base number needed to hit for either man is 14, but Brawny Bob's great Strength drops that to a 12.  He hits Average Joe 9 times in 20, or 45%.  Joe hits him 7 times in 20, or 35%.  When Bob hits Joe, he does an average of 6.5 points of damage - that's the 4.5 average of a 1d8 roll plus his bonus of 2 points.  Joe does only the sword's base 1d8 damage, averaging 4.5 points per successful attack.  Joe's average damage output per combat round overall, factoring in both hits and misses, is 35% times 4.5 points, or 1.575 points per round.  Brawny Bob, meanwhile, is dishing out 45% times 6.5 points, or 2.925 per round.  That's just a bit less than double what Joe can do.

Here's the spread for damage per round for each level of Strength, to complete the picture:
(Assume target is AC5, and attacker is wielding a standard 1d8-damage sword and using the 1st level line of the attack roll tables, with THAC0=19.  Remember also, penalties cannot adjust damage below 1 point; thus the wonky averages per hit for low Strength scores.  All results are rounded to the nearest thousandth.)

Str 3        -3 penalty   Hits 4 in 20 (20%)    Avg. damage per hit 2.25     Avg. per round 0.450
Str 4-5     -2 penalty   Hits 5 in 20 (25%)    Avg. damage per hit 2.875   Avg. per round 0.719
Str 6-8     -1 penalty   Hits 6 in 20 (30%)    Avg. damage per hit 3.625   Avg. per round 1.089
Str 9-12          0          Hits 7 in 20 (35%)    Avg. damage per hit 4.5       Avg. per round 1.575
Str 13-15  +1 bonus   Hits 8 in 20 (40%)    Avg. damage per hit 5.5       Avg. per round 2.200
Str 16-17  +2 bonus   Hits 9 in 20 (45%)    Avg. damage per hit 6.5       Avg. per round 2.925
Str 18       +3 bonus   Hits 10 in 20 (50%)  Avg. damage per hit 7.5       Avg. per round 3.750

As is clearly demonstrated here, an 18 Strength is not just a nice perk for a fighter; it's a monstrous advantage.  The guy with the 18 is dishing out, on average, 238% of what a person of ordinary might can do.  He's dealing out 170% of the punishment that a 15-Strength fighter - clearly no weakling himself - can manage.

Of course, there's sound reasoning behind both applications of the Strength adjustment; my question is whether the reason for applying them both at once is as sound.  The logic behind the damage adjustment is pretty obvious - the more muscle power you put behind your swing, the harder it hits, and the more it hurts.  The reasoning for the attack bonus isn't hard to grasp either - more force helps to penetrate armor.  The problem is that, applying the bonus both ways actually compounds it, and the result is essentially just a bigger bonus to damage per round.

Without a damage bonus, each bonus to the attack roll equals an additional 0.225 points of damage per round, on average - just under a quarter of a point.  This rate is constant within the limits of the d20 attack roll, assuming a minimum chance to hit of 1 in 20 and a maximum of 19 in 20; as long as a 1d8 damage weapon is used, each +1 to hit works out to 0.225 points of damage per round on average.  If only a natural 20 hits, a fighter with Str 10 and a sword averages 0.225 points of damage per round, and one who only misses on a natural 1 averages 4.275 points per round. 

Without a bonus to hit, each +1 bonus to the damage roll increases average damage per round by 0.35 points, or a little more than a third of a point (for a 1st level fighter attacking AC5.)  Moreover, the greater the chance of scoring a hit, whether due to a better base THAC0 of the attacker or a poorer AC of the defender, the more the average damage bonus per round per point of Strength bonus increases.  Whatever the attacker's chance to hit is, expressed as a decimal, that's the increase to its average damage output per round per point of Strength bonus.  A fighter who hits 50% of the time adds 0.5 points average per round with a +1 bonus, a full point per round for a +2 Str bonus, and 1.5 points per round for a +3 Str bonus.

That's a lot of math, and I wouldn't blame you if you skimmed or skipped it.  The upshot of all this is that, while there are some significant differences in how they play out mathematically, both attack roll bonuses and direct damage bonuses increase the characters potential for damage per round.  This means that the Strength bonus applied both ways is a double-dip advantage. 

Now, just for fun, let's imagine an ultimate championship fight between two 3rd level fighters: Mongo the Mauler, a muscular bruiser of 18 Strength, and Nimble Norman, fencing master with a Dexterity of 18.  Once again, we'll assume that both are clad in AC 5 mail.  Norman's adjusted AC is 2, his damage per hit is 4.5 points with a normal sword, and he needs a roll of 14 or better to hit Mongo.  On average, he dishes out 1.575 points of damage per round.  Mongo also needs a roll of 14 to hit Norman, because his +3 bonus from Strength completely cancels out Norman's -3 AC bonus from his amazing Dexterity.  However, his mighty blows deliver 7.5 points of damage per hit, or an average of 2.625 per round.   Mongo is clearly the favorite in this fight, dishing out the punishment at approximately 167% of the rate at which Norman can give it back to him.


Of course, combat is just about the swingiest (no pun intended, though in hindsight perhaps it should have been) part of D&D, and so those averages are averages of a very wide range of possible outcomes. Mongo's big theoretical advantage in average damage per round could very easily not pan out for him if only a few attack rolls don't go his way.

I'm curious, though, how removing the attack roll bonus from Strength, and retaining only the damage bonus, would affect things.  Revisiting Mongo and Norman's match-up, Norman's average damage per round doesn't change.  He still averages 1.575 points of damage per round.  However, without Mongo's Strength attack bonus canceling out Norman's enhanced skills of evasion, Mongo needs a 17 to hit, and his average damage per round drops to 1.5.  Advantage, Norman!  Not by much, mind you, but it's a significant turnaround from the large advantage Mongo enjoyed when he got to apply his Strength bonus twice. 

Despite the fairly even damage per round averages, there are still significant differences.  Norman will hit more often, so on any given round he's more likely to inflict some damage.  Mongo misses more, but when he does hit, he makes it count in a bigger way.  Since attack rolls are far more swingy than damage rolls, Mongo stands to gain or lose more from the luck of the dice.  He could put a quick end to the ruckus with a couple fortuitous attack rolls coupled with his heavily augmented damage dice, or he could have a frustrating time as Norman methodically nickel-and-dimes him to death in a drawn-out battle.  As it turns out, this is actually a pretty good representation of what I'd expect a fight between a masher and a speedster to look like.

Is it worth changing a long-standing rule of D&D for what might amount to a minor impact in the game?  Are these ruminations anything more than rank pedantry?  I really don't know.  It was just on my mind, so I decided to crunch some numbers.  Make of them whatever you will.