|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 26, 2010 0:21:15 GMT -6
In Monsters & Treasure to receive a modifier 'to hit' a berserker may only do so when engaging 'normal men'. Since PC's in OD&D are not considered 'normal men' does this mean that beserker of does not receive a modifier when engaging a PC or creature?
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 26, 2010 0:44:42 GMT -6
Fighting-Men in OD&D are not considered Normal Men. The rest pretty much are, at least at first level.
"Normal Man" is generally held to be equivalent to 1 hit die or less. So once the party passes 1st level, they needn't worry about that +2.
But their henchmen/hirelings might.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 26, 2010 12:27:46 GMT -6
Coffee wrote:
This too has been my reading as well. This definition of 'normal men' (0-lvl.) seems to bear out in AD&D as well.
What I find confusing is that this qualification of 'normal man' to the 'berserkergang' is not mentioned in other renderings of the game, beginning with 'the Fantasy Supplement' of Chainmail through Holmes Dungeons & Dragons, Classic editions, and the 1st. edition manuals of AD&D. It also makes me wonder if the other static abilities of man groups, say like those found in the MMI (i.e, fanatacism +1 to hit, +1 damage) should only apply against 'normal men'? Any thoughts?
Nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 26, 2010 12:57:01 GMT -6
I could see it going either way.
The "simpler-is-better" side of me just wants to have any bonus apply to any target. Period. It's just easier that way.
On the other hand, making a clear difference between "normal men" and the player characters is a good thing. It makes them special. And that's part of what we play for.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 26, 2010 13:19:25 GMT -6
I've always taken it to mean that they gain a +2 to hit characters that cannot fight as heroes (1st and 2nd, but not 3rd or higher level, Fighting-men for example.)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 26, 2010 22:58:46 GMT -6
The "simpler-is-better" side of me just wants to have any bonus apply to any target. Period. It's just easier that way. This is my approach. Being simple means being more likely to actually get played at the table. Anything else stands a better than even chance of being overlooked. On the other hand, making a clear difference between "normal men" and the player characters is a good thing. It makes them special. And that's part of what we play for. Hmmm, maybe. But one of the swan-songs of "old school" style games is that PCs start out as nobodies who have to carve out a reputation for themselves by sheer grit and determination. That is in contrast to many other games where the PCs start out as super humans who can scarcely fail to achieve mighty deeds. On this front, I think it's important to remind players that their PCs are just ordinary mortals like everyone else. Giving a berserker +2 on attack rolls against PCs (and everyone, for that matter) is a perfect opportunity to do so. I can't really imagine why else that particular modifier would have been included. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2010 0:37:08 GMT -6
Coffee wrote:
This seems to bear out in AD&D as fighters are alotted a number of attacks vs. 'normal men', that is 0-lvl types, equal to their level, i.e, 4th lvl fighter may dice for times against one or multiple opponents.
Yesterday wrote:
I sympathize with underscoring the nature of the berserker in this way. I do, however, think that D&D distinguishes normal men from PCs even 1st level ones...
Tombowings wrote:
The association with heroes and fighting men begins at 4th lvl...you may have a valid point. AD&D, however, presents the normal man as being 0-lvl...
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2010 0:53:23 GMT -6
The association with heroes and fighting men begins at 4th lvl...you may have a valid point. AD&D, however, presents the normal man as being 0-lvl... I say third level because a Swordsman can fight as a hero -1. Thus allowing him to access the fantasy combat table--he is now a fantastic creature rather than a normal man. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 27, 2010 2:11:31 GMT -6
I sympathize with underscoring the nature of the berserker in this way. I do, however, think that D&D distinguishes normal men from PCs even 1st level ones... certainly distinguishes normal men from other PCs, and even gives them their own "0th level fighter" entry on the attack matrix. But as far as I recall (please correct me if I'm way off) the original D&D attack matrix makes no such distinction. Men, Kobolds, and all other 1 (or fewer) HD creatures are exactly on par with fighting-men of levels 1 to 3, clerics of levels 1 to 4, and magic-users of levels 1 to 5. They all need to roll a 10 or better to hit AC 9. That is of course, just one position. But (being silly now) the position that some PCs are not "normal men" can be milked for all it's worth by the ingenious player... Elves and Dwarves are not Men at all so they can hardly be considered "normal Men". Nor could any non-Human monster or creature, or any female character, for that matter, in which case Berserkers could not benefit from the +2 attack modifier versus Females, Elves, Dwarfs, Goblins, Orcs, magic-users of any kind, vermin, cows, stray dogs, and so on and so on... But seriously, none of that is much fun at all, which is why I tend to just stick to the simple approach. Berserkers are... berserk! They get +2 to hit. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Aug 27, 2010 3:36:06 GMT -6
Nor could any non-Human monster or creature, or any female character, for that matter, in which case Berserkers could not benefit from the +2 attack modifier versus Females Note that Conan is always in trouble when he must fight a woman and try to avoid it. So this is not so silly. |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2010 9:38:34 GMT -6
Tombowings wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, my focus has been AD&D since the early eighties, so lately I have been trying to integrate and familiarize myself with OD&D to get more of a sense of the games roots (being a proponent of the less is more perspective as well). So that is interesting, point taken.
Waysofthearth:
Point taken, thanks Ways, still gathering the differences between OD&D and AD&D, appreciate it, especially in the context of the berserker.
Understand your point of view, and appreciate the levity. I believe there still something to this, but realize one may need to tread lightly in how this ruling is interpreted...
Snorri wrote:
Hmmm. Reminds me a bit of how Eowyn felled the Nazgul. Interesting...
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 27, 2010 10:25:54 GMT -6
But (being silly now) the position that some PCs are not "normal men" can be milked for all it's worth by the ingenious player... It's actually not that silly. It just isn't based on the Alternate Combat System. If you look at the Fighting Capability column, you'll see that Fighting Men at first level fight as "Man +1". So, already, they are not "normal men" who would obviously fight as "Man". (And speaking of Elves, this finally cleared up for me the reason why, in the monster listings, Elves are rated at 1+1 hit dice, whereas Dwarves are only 1. Dwarves here count as normal men (despite not being men) and Elves count as "above normal men".) |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 27, 2010 23:06:10 GMT -6
It just isn't based on the Alternate Combat System. Agreed, this is a critical distinction. All of the attack matrices and (almost all?) of the attack roll modifiers are intended for the alternate combat system (which, if you are coming from an AD&D perspective is simply the combat system). Any speak of "normal men" is carry over from the Chainmail system, which can be thought of as a "parallel universe" to the alternate combat system. You can choose to play out combat one way, or the other, or as a mix of the two. Or somehow entirely differently. This is (in my view) the confusing thing about the passage regarding the Berserker's +2 to hit adjustment. Clearly it is intended in terms of the alternate combat system, but then the clause regarding "normal men", with its inherent meaning derived from a different combat system, is thrown in. Reconciling the two different combat systems is, of course, the referee's job  |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 29, 2010 9:20:07 GMT -6
Waysofthearth wrote:
Ok, but the "+2" modifier for berserkers is included in Chainmail and Gygax's Classical Warfare...which predate the alternative combat system.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 29, 2010 16:27:27 GMT -6
Ah, well as I don't have either of those volumes I was unaware of that. But I think my previous comment still stands up if you are prepared to replaced "Clearly it is intended in terms of..." with "When used with...".
What is also interesting about the berserker entry (but slightly off topic) is that they are listed as having Hit Dice of 1 die +1/man. Is this to be read as "1 Hit Die plus one hit point per berserker present"? In other words, the more of them there are, the more ferocious each is? This could easily get ridiculous if 180 are encountered, but it is an interesting notion when, say, 2 to 12 are encountered.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Aug 29, 2010 16:53:36 GMT -6
"Normal men equal 1st level fighters." states M&M p. 19 (under combat matrix), but it don't means too much, as there's no difference between level 1-3 characters for fighting capacity. But the Bandit entry, which is often a clue to many problems, seems to consider that Hero and higher are no longer normal men. So, level 4 - or maybe 3 as Tombowings suggested.
A lot of interesting quotes here!
|
|
