|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:52:52 GMT -6
SECOND EDIT: I have adjusted my terminology to be more logical, but less compatible with Chainmail.
EDIT: I suppose I should explain what this is, otherwise folks will think it's a "Workshop" or "Campfire" type thread. This is an attempt to streamline the Chainmail combat system so that it makes more sense. I wanted to share the system with everyone to see what you think about it as a replacemet for the Mass Combat Tables on page 40 of Chainmail.
Finarvyn’s “Ringmail Variant” Combat System:
Last summer we ran an OD&D game using the Chainmail mass-combat system. While it wasn’t a disaster, it was very frustrating in many ways because of the wacky fractions.
The solution was to program an Excel spreadsheet to generate dice totals corresponding to the odds. (This can be found in Table 4, below.) The plan was to simplify the process of determining how many dice to roll, and what numbers on the dice were needed in order to score a hit on another figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:53:13 GMT -6
This combat system starts off by determination of how to rate each figure. 1. Determine each figure’s Unit Classification (Attack) rating. This is usually based on the weapon used by the figure, but may be modified by the Referee. Table 1 – Unit Classification (Attack)| Melee Weapon | Missile Weapon | Infantry | Cavalry | | None | None | Unarmed Foot (U) | Unarmed Cavalry (U) | | Dagger, Staff, Hand Axe | Sling | Light Foot (LF) | Light Cavalry (LC) | | Sword, Battleaxe | Short Bow, Light Crossbow | Medium Foot (MF) | Medium Cavalry (MC) | | Two-Handed Sword, Pole Arm | Longbow, Heavy Crossbow | Heavy Foot (HF) | Heavy Cavalry (HC) |
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:53:36 GMT -6
2. Determine each figure’s Unit Classification (Defense) rating. This is usually based on the armor worn by the figure, but may be modified by the Referee Also keep in mind that a character or monster does not have to have identical ratings for attack and defense. For example, a berserker in Chain Mail might defend as HF but attack as AF because of his berserk attack. Table 2 – Unit Classification (Defense)| Armor Class | Reverse AC | Armor Type | Infantry | Cavalry | | 9 | 10 | None | Unarmored (U) | Unarmored (U) | | 8 | 11 | Shield | Light Foot (LF) | Light Cavalry (LC) | | 7 | 12 | Leather Armor | Light Foot (LF) | Light Cavalry (LC) | | 6 | 13 | Leather & Shield | Medium Foot (MF) | Medium Cavalry (MC) | | 5 | 14 | Chain Mail | Medium Foot (MF) | Medium Cavalry (MC) | | 4 | 15 | Chain Mail & Shield | Medium Foot (MF) | Medium Cavalry (MC) | | 3 | 16 | Plate Mail | Heavy Foot (HF) | Heavy Cavalry (HC) | | 2 | 17 | Plate Mail & Shield | Heavy Foot (HF) | Heavy Cavalry (HC) |
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:54:01 GMT -6
The next thing to consider is how well one Unit Class fights against another. Consult Table 3 below to determine how various types of units compare to one another. The notation below might be designated as “1/4 dice” which implies 1 attack die per 4 figures, but my notion is simply “1/4”. In addition there is a note as to what rolls on the d6 result in “kills” and is noted as “5-6 kills” (using HF attacking LF as an example) and I have indicated a (5+) in parenthesis to mark that. Table 3 – Finding the Odds| | | | | Defender | | | | | Attacker | U | LF | MF | HF | LC | MC | HC | | U | 1/1 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | 1/4 (6) | 1/4 (6) | 1/5 (6) | 1/6 (6) | | LF | 1/1 (5+) | 1/1 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | 1/4 (6) | | MF | 1/1 (4+) | 1/1 (5+) | 1/1 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | 1/4 (6) | | HF | 2/1 (4+) | 1/1 (4+) | 1/1 (5+) | 1/1 (6) | 1/1 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | | LC | 2/1 (4+) | 2/1 (5+) | 2/1 (6) | 1/1 (6) | 1/1 (6) | 1/2 (6) | 1/3 (6) | | MC | 3/1 (4+) | 2/1 (4+) | 2/1 (5+) | 2/1 (6) | 1/1 (5+) | 1/1 (6) | 1/1 (6) | | HC | 4/1 (4+) | 4/1 (5+) | 3/1 (5+) | 2/1 (5+) | 2/1 (5+) | 1/1 (5+) | 1/1 (5+) |
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:54:29 GMT -6
Once we have figured out the x/x number, use Table 4 below and match up the attacker’s HD or Fighting Capacity against the x/x number to see how many dice to roll. (For monsters, HD is the same as FC.) Table 4 – Dice to Roll| FC | 4/1 | 3/1 | 2/1 | 1/1 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/5 | 1/6 | | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0* | 0* | 0* | 0* | | 2 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0* | 0* | | 3 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 5 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 6 | 24 | 18 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 7 | 28 | 21 | 14 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 8 | 32 | 24 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 9 | 36 | 37 | 18 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | | 10 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | | 11 | 44 | 33 | 22 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | | 12 | 48 | 36 | 24 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | | 13 | 52 | 39 | 26 | 13 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | | 14 | 56 | 42 | 28 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | | 15 | 60 | 45 | 30 | 15 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | | 16 | 64 | 48 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | | 17 | 68 | 51 | 34 | 17 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | | 18 | 72 | 54 | 36 | 18 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | | 19 | 76 | 57 | 38 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | | 20 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
* At the Referee’s discretion, the minimum number of dice rolled can be one. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 6, 2009 20:54:49 GMT -6
EXAMPLES:
Suppose an ogre has 4+1 HD and fights as MF for both attack and defense. Suppose that ogre is trying to battle against a host of goblins who attack LF and defend MF.
1. For the ogre to attack, we match MF against MF and the chart says “1/1 (6)” which means he attacks on the 1/1 column and it takes a 6 to hit the goblins.
2. A 4 HD figure fighting on the 1/1 column gets to roll 4 dice, so a 4+1 HD ogre gets to roll 4+1 or 5 dice.
3. So the ogre gets to roll 5d6, and scores a hit on a 6. Goblins are 1 HD creatures so each hit becomes a kill.
Same situation, only let’s track the goblins attacking the ogre.
1. For the goblins to attack, we match LF against MF and the chart says “1/2 (6)” which means they attack on the 1/2 column and it takes a 6 to hit the ogre.
2. A 1 HD figure fighting on the 1/2 column gets to roll 1 die.
3. So each goblin gets to roll 1d6, and scores a hit on a 6. Ogres are 4+1 HD creatures, so it takes more than 4 hits (which would be 5 hits) to kill the ogre.
Same situation, only the Ogre is mounted and acts as cavalry.
1. For the ogre to attack, we match MC against MF and the chart says “2/1 (4+)” which means he attacks on the 2/1 column and it takes a 4-6 to hit the goblins.
2. A 4 HD figure fighting on the 2/1 column gets to roll 8 dice, so a 4+1 HD ogre gets to roll 9 dice.
3. So the ogre on horse gets to roll 9d6, and scores a hit on a 4-6. This guy is going to plow through a lot of goblins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 7, 2009 20:44:53 GMT -6
I'm thinking that using this system could make the Supernatural combat chart obsolete. Monsters would get multiple attacks and take multiple hits before death, and characters would be the same. Kind of puts both sides on a level playing field, I think....
Any feedback?
|
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on May 8, 2009 6:16:31 GMT -6
2. Determine each figure’s Unit Classification (Defense) rating. This is usually based on the armor worn by the figure, but may be modified by the Referee Also keep in mind that a character or monster does not have to have identical ratings for attack and defense. For example, a berserker in Chain Mail might defend as HF but attack as AF because of his berserk attack. If you have a character that attacks and defends significantly differently, it seems to me that it'd make more sense to give them a different Fighting Capacity for attack and defence, and leave the Unit Classification as strictly representing equipment. Otherwise the UC seems to be covering elements that FC is meant to cover. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on May 8, 2009 7:35:31 GMT -6
How would you handle magic weapons and armor? I'd thought of doing the same thing but found this to be a major stumbling block.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 8, 2009 7:59:26 GMT -6
If you have a character that attacks and defends significantly differently, it seems to me that it'd make more sense to give them a different Fighting Capacity for attack and defence, and leave the Unit Classification as strictly representing equipment. I think we're saying the same thing. Maybe I need to re-think my wording. The way I see it, characters would be given a FC based on class and level and would also be given a Unit Classification based on equipment. Monsters would be given FC based on HD only (more generic) and Unit Classification based on attack (claws, etc) and defense (scales, quickness, whatever). These ratings would be more subjective on the part of the Referee. I have several monsters statted out. I'll try to start a thread on this when I get the chance. (And once I get them into web-table format.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 8, 2009 8:03:47 GMT -6
How would you handle magic weapons and armor? I'd thought of doing the same thing but found this to be a major stumbling block. Magic weapons are easy. Give a +1 weapon one extra attack die, a +2 weapon +2 attack dice, and a +3 weapon +3 extra attack dice. I suspect it was done that way early on, since they make such a big deal about the awesome +3 Dwarven Hammer. Magic armor is more problematic. My knee-jerk reaction is to simply subtract the "+" number of dice from the foe's roll. So, if a gang of orcs is rolling 4d6 to hit a character in +1 armor, they only get to roll 3d6. That kind of thing. An alternate option is that the "+" of the armor could represent the number of hits absorbed by the armor each turn. Those same orcs score 3 hits, but the +1 armor reduces it to only 2 hits. Bear in mind I am thinking about the WB treasure tables here and not the inflated Greyhawk Supplement magic items. Too many plusses in Greyhawk... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2009 8:12:20 GMT -6
Finarvyn, why do you have 1/5, and 1/6 columns on Table 4 ?
Something for the low fractions that might work.
FC 1 - 1/2, roll 2D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (13.89%)
FC 1 - 1/3, roll 3D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (4.63%)
FC 1 - 1/4, roll 4D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (.77%)
FC 3 - 1/4, roll 2D6, 6 to Hit
Basically, one D6 to start with and one D6 for every man your short of the fraction.
Please feel free to remove this post if this is not the type of feedback you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 8, 2009 11:16:21 GMT -6
Finarvyn, why do you have 1/5, and 1/6 columns on Table 4 ? Hmmm. Must be a leftover from another of my versions. I'll have to go back to see which chart is wrong. Maybe I want those columns, or maybe I should eliminate them.  Something for the low fractions that might work. FC 1 - 1/2, roll 2D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (13.89%) FC 1 - 1/3, roll 3D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (4.63%) FC 1 - 1/4, roll 4D6 you still need a 6 to Hit. (.77%) FC 3 - 1/4, roll 2D6, 6 to Hit Basically, one D6 to start with and one D6 for every man you're short of the fraction. I tried something similar and wasn't as hapy with the double-roll method. It just added an extra step I didn't like. I do appreciate the feedback, however!  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 15, 2009 11:30:46 GMT -6
Just an update -- I modified my initial 6 posts with adjusted terminology. Cavalry figures remain Light-Medium-Heavy and Footmen have become Light-Medium-Heavy as well (instead of Chainmail's Light-Heavy-Armored).
The problem is that conversion from one system to the other is a pain because of the change in the use of the term "heavy" for footmen. I think it works out better in the long run, however, since it is more logical.
My "monsters rated" chart (another thread) uses the updated terminology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 19, 2009 18:12:52 GMT -6
If you have a character that attacks and defends significantly differently, it seems to me that it'd make more sense to give them a different Fighting Capacity for attack and defence, and leave the Unit Classification as strictly representing equipment. You could do this, but that's kind of why characters in Men & Magic are rated in both FC and HD. FC corresponds more to the attack factor and HD represents how long the character can go before death. This combat system is really designed to blend Chainmail together with Men & Magic (not the "alternate" combat system but the "chainmail" combat system). I'm surprised (and somewhat disapointed) that nobody is interested in this. I had thought to make a major breakthrough in the "Chainmail" combat system to make it easier to run and less confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 19, 2009 18:32:10 GMT -6
I'm surprised (and somewhat disapointed) that nobody is interested in this. I had thought to make a major breakthrough in the "Chainmail" combat system to make it easier to run and less confusing. Don't, it's really interesting, and makes things far much clearer. I think getting closer to Chainmail is a good way to explore od&d outside of the 'pre-ad&d sheme / d20 scheme'. I guess there is still some tinkering and discussions to have, but it could leads to a new reading of the game which is very interesting. I was looking Eldritch Wizardry' this evening again, and it's intersting to see the Druids characters table keeps the 'superhero-1' style of notation. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 6:03:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 20, 2009 7:05:25 GMT -6
I read your stuff with interest too. I think we're several to search for a 'non-alternative fighting system' od&d, and there's still some tinkering to achieve something which is as rule-lite and efficient as the alternative system, and very different from ad&d. I guess there will be more reactions when we achieve a convincing system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 20, 2009 7:45:07 GMT -6
I downloaded your pamphlet, but haven't played with it yet. (Still too busy tinkering with my system....) |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 9:05:12 GMT -6
Therein lies the problem, methinks. We're all busy tinkering with our own thoughts on the issue! I doubt we'll ever come to a real consensus on a convincing system, but that suits me just fine--keeps the discussion going.
|
|
|
|
Post by calithena on May 20, 2009 10:14:44 GMT -6
If either or both of you would like to write up an alternative, chainmail-inspired combat system for Fight On!, we'd love to have it for a future issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 13:16:08 GMT -6
It would be great to do, but managing it standalone without the requirement for Chainmail would be a challenge at best...
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2009 12:42:18 GMT -6
It occurs to me that it doesn't have to be a stand-alone. Something similar to your Chainmail-to-OD&D bridge would still make a fine article. It would require someone to own both games, but still be a nice source of ideas.
I'm thinking of putting my "Ringmail Variant" together as an article.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 26, 2009 13:58:43 GMT -6
I'm surprised (and somewhat disapointed) that nobody is interested in this. I had thought to make a major breakthrough in the "Chainmail" combat system to make it easier to run and less confusing. But it is interesting Fin! Trouble is that first, your post is in the chainmail board, and second it is labeled "Ringmail Varient" I'll be honest, until today I hadn't read it. Why? Well because like a lot of gamers, I haven't played Chainmail and really only find it interesting as it pertains to D&D. Secondly, because I have no idea what "ringmail varient" means and figured it was just a new take on the miniature rules, not realizing you had in fact worked out the very tables for troop type combat that I complained were missing from Jasons piece. Brilliant! You should definetly put this together as a document and not just a couple posts. About those plusses though; while its clear that bonuses to magic weapons mean an extra die, what is your reasoning that a HD 4+1 should be interpreted as rolling 5 dice? How is this really materially different from the Ogre in question simply being a 5HD monster? Does it make much difference? I mentioned in the Blackmoor combat thread that Arnesons early system bears some similarity to the OD&D combat in the concepts of HD/FC as damage dice and he has Svensons men at 8HD +5, some others at +3. Of course, his stats (apparently from 1972) may not be working in the same way as in OD&D, but I bet the idea with bonuses was the same, in which case its hard for me to imagine that 8HD men are supposed to roll 13 dice in a 1 to 1, as oppsed to rolling 8 dice and adding 5 to one roll. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 26, 2009 19:00:19 GMT -6
Well, at first I called it Chainmail but decided it wasn't really the same thing anymore once I tweaked it. Than I thought I'd call it "Ringmail RPG" but realized that it didn't really fit that title, either. So, I hoped that "Ringmail Vaiant" would (1) sound enough like Chainmail that folks would conect the two, and (2) indicate that it had evolved into a slightly different thing of its own worthy of its own name.
I just found that the way the troop types were named were illogical, but the more I tweaked it the less Chainmail-compatible it became. It's essentially the same thing, but the terminology just doesn't match anymore.
Anyway, I thought it was a really major step in organizational evolution but nobody seemed to have given it any notice. I appreciate your feedback as to why you (and perhaps others) didn't pay attention.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2009 20:23:21 GMT -6
I should have posted some note expressing interest, because I was watching this topic with a great deal of interest.
I've always wanted a good D&D based mass combat system, but miniatures wargaming has never been my strong suit. I was mostly observing, waiting to see what you came up with.
If you feel the urge to continue to develop Ringmail, I encourage you to do so. I would love to see the finished product. My apologies for not expressing more interest when you were putting all that hard work into the rules set.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 26, 2009 20:46:48 GMT -6
Well, you could move the whole thing over to the "Men and Magic" section perhaps and/or maybe call it "Finarvyn's Ringmail varient OD&D combat system". <shrug> just thinking out loud here. Would like to hear your reasonings for your take on the +'s though when you get a chance.  |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on May 5, 2010 16:36:23 GMT -6
Has any work on Ringmail been done since the previous revision?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 14:32:50 GMT -6
this is great! thanks for the hard work on it |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 22, 2010 2:19:06 GMT -6
www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=44164&p=926109#p926109Here's a compilation of my posts, cleaned up a bit. There are still flaws in my understanding of the rules, but I try and re-edit the posts as I discover them. I think it's possible you guys might actually be running some of your numbers a bit wrong in combat. There is actually no need for reducing fractions or other divisions. For example a hero with a magic sword attacking a 3HH dragon would roll 5d6/6 and count every other 6 as a hit (2:1 AF vs. HH) if he rolled 1,3, 6, 6, 6. Then he scored 1 hit (reducing the dragon from 3 "hit die" to 2 "hit die". Next round he rolls again 1, 3, 3, 4, 6 and either you interpret the combined 6's over both rounds or you treat each round seperately. You don't have to have to divide 5d6 by 2 to get the number of attacks in a round. Is there any disagreement with what I am saying with that? Secondly, I believe you are erroneously reading that 2nd level humans get 2d6 attacks and 5th level armored humans would get 5d6 and I don't believe the rules say that at all. Best evidenced by the attack matrices in d&d as opposed to the smoothed out attack matrix of monsters. I'm really happy that there are three of us (at least) who are really keen on CHAINMAIL. I have the pdfs and love reading mine and enjoy Finarvyns, grey elf, aldorran, tombowings, snorri's, matthews and even deltas posts. I welcome any pushback on what I interpret as BtB reading of the rules. If anything, the back and forth will help me understand better other, and my own interpretation.
|
|
)
