A&A Attack Matrix

01 Dec, 2023

I've been tinkering with different options for adjudicating combat in Archons & Armigers, my OD&D hack. OD&D famously doesn't have a fully-developed combat system, and I'm taking that license to tinker and running with it. I've been particularly inspired by several posts on Traverse Fantasy.

Starting point & goals

(Very picky, I know)

• I want the combat to be OD&D-compatible; that is, I want to be able to use OD&D monster stats as-is, and to be able to use OD&D classes (even though I'm writing my own versions thereof)
• I want fast and abstract combat; I'd prefer to exclude to-hit rolls and don't want to worry about maneuvers, etc. I'd prefer not to have slogfests of chipping enemies away 1-6 HP at a time.
  • BUT I don't mind if the system is a bit abstruse; I have a perverse desire to avoid a 'universal' resolution systems etc. I just don't want to model every sword swing.
• I want to avoid having damage vary by weapon, but I'm not wedded to using a d6 for all damage and I'm open to giving broad weapon classes a +1 or advantage
• I want Armigers (fighters) to stand out somehow
• I want armor to matter, especially at lower tiers of play, and I'd like more than three tiers of granularity to it, but less than, say, 10.
• I'd like to roughly keep the logarithmic scaling written about in Muster -- HP scales linearly while damage scales slower, thus giving high-level characters more time to strategize during combat.
• I own Zocchi dice and want to use them, dammit!

With all that in mind, I considered and rejected the following:

• Adding HD to damage rolls - the problem here is that combat with a high-HD enemy turns into rocket-tag; the bonus becomes bigger than the d6 range and if you get hit first it's over. This isn't the worst thing, but it feels inelegant.
• Armor as subtractive damage-reduction (with or without the above) - my issue here is that it increases the amount of 'whiffs' in combat, and it is hard to scale the range of armor bonuses to the damage dice available as weaponry; in Cairn for example, full plate armor only reduces damage by 3, while d10 weapons are readily available. (I am sure this works fine in play, but it rubs me the wrong way, idk).

The Damage Die Matrix

I was perusing the LBBs, saw the to-hit matrices and thought, 'what if I made a matrix to scale damage by AC?'. So I came up with this:

The idea here is to use this instead of a to-hit roll; so if a 3 HD bandit chief is attacking a figure in chain+shield, she'd consult the HD 3 row and Armor 4 column and roll a d4, subtracting the result directly from the target's HP.

The assignment of the specific die sizes was a vibes-based undertaking, though I took some initial cues from here and generally tried to think in terms of how quickly a roll would kill a figure of HD 1, 2, and 3. Furthermore:

• Since I'm not using ITO-style flesh points, I erred on the side of reducing die sizes a bit to keep things from getting too lethal.
• I tried to keep armor especially effective at low levels.
• I tried to make the AC 9 (unarmored) to AC 8 (with shield) drop-off distinct at low levels so that having some defense is rewarded.

Here's the matrix of average damage/round:

And here's ODD damage/round for comparison (using the Delving Deeper attack matrix and assuming all attacks do a d6):

And here's the damage/round difference between the two methods. My approach advantages heavily armored figures fighting low-HD figures, and makes high-HD figures substantially scarier (excepting OD&D combat systems granting extra attacks with HD).

I think the mechanics-to-fiction interpretation would have to take abstraction cues from Into The Odd and Muster:

• 'Damage' should be interpreted abstractly as 'peril'
• HD represents abstract 'combat power', thus ability to sustain and deliver peril
• Weapon type has minimal effect on peril relative to the skill/physical prowess represented by HD
• Armor reduces incoming peril
  • Most effective vs. low-level enemies.
  • High-level enemies are less disadvantaged by armor, the dragon isn't going to whiff whole attacks just because you're in plate. (But wearing it will still extend your lifespan)

And to flesh out the system a bit more:

• Magic weapons can still just give flat +1, +2, +3 bonuses. This makes them relatively more useful against armor, which feels appropriate
• Monsters (and characters) with a +/- modifer to HD consult a row up or down on the table, respectively
• The above plus tying damage directly to HD inherently advantages Armigers (fighters), but I do think they need more to be effective.
  • (Maybe) armigers (fighters) get a minimum die size? Or a fray die? or an extra attack?
• (Maybe) armor-piercing weapons provide a minimum die size? (thus no extra damage for low-armor targets, but armor past a point provides no benefits)

Clunkiness aside, I feel like there has to be at least one glaring issue with this, but for now it seems like it checks most of my boxes. Only playtesting will tell for sure.

Addendum

As I was about to publish this Marcia B analyzed an ultra-simple combat system proposed by Reddit user Kubular. Just for kicks, I decided to compare it to my system.

Average damage:

Compared to my matrix:

It's... almost identical (if I did my math right), rarely off by more than a point save for edge cases where a high HD figure is attacking someone with low armor. This threw me for a bit of a loop as Kubular's system is way, way simpler. Were I writing Archons & Armigers to adhere to principles like 'good game design' and 'appeal to a wide audience' I would almost certainly just snag Kubular's system. But I'm not, so I think I'll stick to the system that allows more granular tinkering and incorporates more funky polehedra.

Discuss this post on Reddit

#archons-and-armigers #game-design #odnd