Knights & Knaves Alehouse

thedungeondelver wrote:There's something in the DMG about hits against foes being totally random. I passed on that rule because I've got one live steel reenactor and three SCA guys in my current AD&D group and they assure me that no, you do not just swing blindly and smack targets at random, a sword blow going this way one round and the other way the next.

Consequently, I give monsters the same option. That guy in the back, in the robes, who waved his hands and made a third of the troops fall asleep? Yeah, he's going down first. Or the fighter with the glowy sword who keeps killing ogres in one shot? Dogpile on him.

I have no idea about the official rules (maybe SC or Foster have something on this). I remember a few threads about missiles into groups being random (which at short range doesn't seem logical, I'd aim for the MU too).

Here is a question for you, if an orc has 8 HPs does he look bigger and badder then the orc with say 3 HPs?

AxeMental wrote:Here is a question for you, if an orc has 8 HPs does he look bigger and badder then the orc with say 3 HPs?

Does a PC human fighter with 12 hit points look bigger & badder then the PC human fighter with 7 hit points?

Apollo Creed was a higher level fighter than Rocky, but I'd wager Rocky had more hit points. Yet I'd rank them roughly equivalently on the Bad Ass Scale.

Yeah, based on NPCs/PCs thats my impression as well.

Matthew wrote:

Mythmere wrote: I think that's just for missile fire into combat. Totally random target friend/foe, but slightly larger chance for a large person (monster or character) to be the one getting fired at, IIRC.

Nah, it is for melee too (see "Who Attacks Whom", DMG, p. 70). There is also a provision for choosing targets; the idea seems to be that in the whirling chaos of an abstracted one minute combat round you cannot choose easily who you will manage to deliver a telling blow against.

Man, that's a crappy rule.

Stonegiant wrote:I base it upon the intelligence of the monster, animal INT means they will pick the weakest member or the one that is hurting them. Orcs on the other hand have seen enough magic to know that they should focus missle power against an M-U, or pile on the brawny guy with the glowing sword, etc. Really the attacks have to be judged against the INT, the tactical layout, and the monsters knowledge of the situation, IMO. Something like a green slime, Gelatinous cube, etc. than yes random would be the method of attack unless marching order/positioning dictated otherwise.

Having done live steel myself I can verify what DD is saying, there are no random strikes in combat but I have seen a few random people walking in the way of a strike.

I completely agree with this line of reasoning (and I do it this way as well, intellegent monsters and cunning animals will act just so). What I ment was having the fighter just happen to have the 8 HP orc go to him, while the 3 HP orc happens to attack the thief (in reality the DM is matching to give the PCs a better chance at survival)...that sort of thing.

Mythmere wrote:

Matthew wrote:

Mythmere wrote: I think that's just for missile fire into combat. Totally random target friend/foe, but slightly larger chance for a large person (monster or character) to be the one getting fired at, IIRC.

Nah, it is for melee too (see "Who Attacks Whom", DMG, p. 70). There is also a provision for choosing targets; the idea seems to be that in the whirling chaos of an abstracted one minute combat round you cannot choose easily who you will manage to deliver a telling blow against.

Man, that's a crappy rule.

Then you need to switch to the 10 or 6 sec melee round.

Axe wrote:

Here is a question for you, if an orc has 8 HPs does he look bigger and badder then the orc with say 3 HPs?

For every 30 orcs there will be a leader and three assistants...having 8 hit points, each being the biggest, meanest and strongest (76 MMI).

Mythmere wrote: Man, that's a crappy rule. :?

When I first read it, I would have agreed with you. Now, though, I think it is not really that far off what I do anyway. It also means that if a magician is in melee, then the more fighters protecting him, the less chance he has of being hit. Of course, it makes less sense when you consider the facing rules, but these are only guidelines in any case. That is to say, when it does not make sense, it does not apply.

This rule might have also been included to prevent PCs and monsters from doubling up (to take down already weakened foe) which does seem like a bit of a cheat (ex. a party is fighting 3 ogers, ones been hit with a two handed sword for 11 pts damage (obviously on its last leg), the party cleric jumps forward and hits it with his flail finishing it off. With this rule I guess that cleric would have only a 1-3 chance of this working ).

AxeMental wrote:This rule might have also been included to prevent PCs and monsters from doubling up (to take down already weakened foe) which does seem like a bit of a cheat (ex. a party is fighting 3 ogers, ones been hit with a two handed sword for 11 pts damage (obviously on its last leg), the party cleric jumps forward and hits it with his flail finishing it off. With this rule I guess that cleric would have only a 1-3 chance of this working ).

The cleric's move works if there are no other ogres within striking distance (10') of the cleric.

I think that a full, one-minute combat round is a bit difficult for people to wrap their brains around. Combatants can trade not just a few, but very many blows in a 60 second period. Any combatant with a shield, or second weapon to parry with, could even draw out another weapon, maybe even more than once depending how they are fixed to his person. There's a helluva lot of footwork going on in one minute of life or death fighting. AND, in a dungeon setting, you've got 5, 10 or even more total combatants in a confined space doing all of this, all at the same time.

Under those circumstance, I don't think the rule is at all odd.

If there's anything difficult to accept with AD&Ds combat system its the length of combat. If the average battle lasts 5 minutes, that seems like a really really long time (realistically) regardless of all the faints, perrying, jumping around assumed to be going on. I can only think of a few battles that last that long in movies or TV (most are less then a minute).

That said, the minute long roiund works well with spell durations and movement rates, and as a system I can't think of a way to improve it (such as changing duration round duration etc.)

If you want a finer grain on the interaction of attacks, movement and spell-casting, then a strike rank system, as in BRP, is the best way to go in my opinion. SRs make each round last a little bit longer, but the hit allocation system with BRP balances out the length of each round by usually making the overall length of combat shorter. It does this by incapacitating combatants much more quickly than the attrition of D&D.

It's a rubik's cube. You change one thing, you gotta change the rest.

AxeMental wrote: If there's anything difficult to accept with AD&Ds combat system its the length of combat. If the average battle lasts 5 minutes, that seems like a really really long time (realistically) regardless of all the faints, perrying, jumping around assumed to be going on. I can only think of a few battles that last that long in movies or TV (most are less then a minute).

That said, the minute long roiund works well with spell durations and movement rates, and as a system I can't think of a way to improve it (such as changing duration round duration etc.)

Really, it is the ten minute turn that works best in that context with regard to map scales, exploration and wandering monsters, rather than one minute rounds themselves. Turning one minute rounds into six second rounds works good in some areas, bad in others, but exploration in 1 minute turns has serious time scale problems. I suspect that is why Classic Dungeons & Dragons retained ten minute turns when using 10 second rounds.

Is the random targeting a concession for those playing without miniatures?

I don't have my DMG handy, as I'm at the office, so I'm not able to read the paragraph in question.

But it seems to me that with minis it is obvious who is hitting whom during combat and everyone just ignores that the static display is an abstraction of a fluid activity.

So with minis it makes sense to apply the facing rules, etc. in AD&D or to sub in some other combat rules.

While if you're not playing with minis I could see the "random target in melee" an equitable solution to the problem of a player's or DM's tendency to structure the combat (fairly or unfairly).

I'm just thinking "out loud" here, as I have next to no experience with minis aside from a little 40K about 15 years ago.

Thoughts? Does this dog hunt, or is it a senseless bitch with fleas?

I looked at this thread (and reminded why I don't post to rules discussions). Can I just say take rule enaction a little more lightly?
If I had all this niggling at the table I would say hold it.

Now this is the way its handled by me and try it this way if you haven't:

If the characters "line up" that is have enough area to get around and link like DNA then fine. Lots of people do this. (I'll take the fighter as a fighter) Its just the way fighting happens. If an animal-like thing then its savage opportunity (i.e.: "weak and tasty","in my defense", etc.) first (which can be randomized too). If its a cultured opponent then randomness can be applied to their preference of victims/opponents/etc.

However if its an instantaneous cluster fuck in a hallway with all kinds of opponents (the average dungeon encounter) then random comes in and gets applied always no "ifs", "ands" or "buts".

"Dungeon crunch first" in D&D rules thats what the elaborations mean in the rules but one thing that I've learned is fairness is the correct way to play.

Heres my general rule: If somehow the players think they've been cheated then you're doing something wrong. STOP!