Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: How Many Hits Does It Take? « Reply #30 on May 10, 2012, 2:25pm »
Isn't that really just letting the hero now use strength bonus, thac0 and variable weapon dmg from greyhawk while wielding a 2 handed sword?
Variable weapon dmg with Thac0 is kind of like a blend of the fantastic and man to man combat.
Attack as 3 men with chainmail, or once on the alternate combat system w/variable dmg. In either case he's doing 3d6 dmg to the ogre. For CHAINMAIL I would replace FCT with greyhawk. HD would stay d6, but I'd do variable damage.
Isn't that really just letting the hero now use strength bonus, thac0 and variable weapon dmg from greyhawk while wielding a 2 handed sword?
Variable weapon dmg with Thac0 is kind of like a blend of the fantastic and man to man combat.
Attack as 3 men with chainmail, or once on the alternate combat system w/variable dmg. In either case he's doing 3d6 dmg to the ogre. For CHAINMAIL I would replace FCT with greyhawk. HD would stay d6, but I'd do variable damage.
cooper you have a knack for explaining these things, I like the analysis you have done on Chainmail in the past on these forums. (Can't use d6's though because we're using the Carcosa wacky dice )
I'm going to have to deal with this soon, because some of the PC's in my Chainmail campaign are about to reach 3rd level, therefore gaining the ability to attack on the Fantasy table as Hero-1.
My original inclination was not to use FCT at all, because I think it's silly. For example an Armored Warrior fighting an Ogre (defends as Heavy Foot) on mass combat rolls 1d6 and needs 5+ to "kill" (hit for 1d6 damage in D&D), a 33% probability. (If you allow him to attack as 3 Men then the odds of at least one hit are higher, and up to 3d6 damage is possible.) Then our hero achieves the rank of Swordsman and gains the "benefit" of using the Fantasy Combat Table. Now he rolls 2d6 and needs 10+ to "kill" (1d6 damage), dropping his odds to 17%!
But last night this occurred to me, a way to adapt an existing game mechanic...
What if... A successful hit on the FCT allows you to roll your hit dice in damage, and the target gets to save for half? Kind of like a breath weapon... Our hero has reduced "to hit" but it is a trade-off for inflicting up to 3d6 damage. Makes it an interesting tactical decision...
A couple of options suggest themselves:
There are a couple of alternate systems posted in the Chainmail section of the boards. My "Ringmail Variant" tries to convert the charts into a number of dice to roll. My "alternate FC" thread has an idea that uses multiple attacks in place of the Chainmail charts.
Again, there are many choices, depending on what you like. I ran an all-d6 campaign for a while and found certain frustrations with the fact that each +1 was an addition of +16.67% to the roll, or the fact that a character might get lots of attacks against kobolds but one attack against a troll. Sometimes you have to play something before you decide if you like it or hate it, and my personal dislike with the way combat was resolved resulted in my creation of the two systems I mentioned in the paragraph above. But not everyone has the same likes or dislikes and might not find those issues to be an irritant.
Just make your own interpretation or use that of someone posting. There are some great ideas out there and it doesn't really matter if your ruling is the "official" one. Once you pick a system, just stay with it and you'll be okay.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
The CHAINMAIL references were added in for backwards compatibility for those familiar with it, and perhaps to increase sales.
I strongly suspect this was the case and believe that if the 3LBB are examined closely it can be demonstrated that neither Chainmail nor Outdoor Survival are needed to play D&D, shooting down the "incomplete game" argument that some toss around.
The CHAINMAIL references were added in for backwards compatibility for those familiar with it, and perhaps to increase sales.
I strongly suspect this was the case and believe that if the 3LBB are examined closely it can be demonstrated that neither Chainmail nor Outdoor Survival are needed to play D&D, shooting down the "incomplete game" argument that some toss around.
You are absolutely correct, the game you are describing is one Dr. Holmes wrote!
You are absolutely correct, the game you are describing is one Dr. Holmes wrote!
Wrong cooper, the game I am describing is the 3LBB reformatted into a single volume to better understand the ruleset. Having done so I am 100% convinced that neither of the other two games are necessary. They can be used to supplement the game, but are not needed to play it - and the original game of D&D loses nothing by playing it without them.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: How Many Hits Does It Take? « Reply #36 on May 11, 2012, 12:16am »
I agree with your first point that they are not "needed" whatever that means (is chainmail "needed" when your 10th level fighter takes his 200 men at arms into battle against 150 orcs and catapults?)
The statement that the game "looses nothing" by not using them is pure subjectivity about your chosen play style (holmes basic). Your opinion is worth exactly that, obviously in my games I would loose a lot by not using them. It is you who are calling the original game flawed with chainmail and the wilderness survival rules, not me calling it flawed without.
Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't.
The fact that you took the time to copy out most of the rules doesn't give you any special authority. You don't need to denegrate playstyles in order to validate your own. Chainmail and the outdoor survival rules are part of d&d and can be used by those who want to, or not. There is no "offical" 0d&d. It's a buch of helpful rules for dudes to play a game, including 4 optional combat rules.
Maybe next time you are in 1974 with gary and dave you can tell them to leave that stuff out ok?
Thomas Jefferson took all the stuff out of the bible he didn't like, he prefered his edit, he disn't however pretend it was the authors intent.
Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't.
I found the psionic rules in EW you'uns talk about. I read the box set books over and over again and I see tak about other combat systems in them, but I don't see the removed systems. Could you'uns provide a volume and page so I can see what he took out?
Quote:
Maybe next time you are in 1974 with gary and dave you can tell them to leave that stuff out ok?
I know a "in your face" when I see one. Thats savage.
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson took all the stuff out of the bible he didn't like, he prefered his edit, he disn't however pretend it was the authors intent.
You got the bible reference but ya forgot to compare him to hitler and call him a nazi.
I agree with your first point that they are not "needed" whatever that means (is chainmail "needed" when your 10th level fighter takes his 200 men at arms into battle against 150 orcs and catapults?)
It means exactly what I said. And if a person wants to conduct mass battles, something which is not part of the 3LBB rules themselves, they could use any set of suitable wargaming rules, Chainmail or otherwise.
Cuts both ways cooper since your opinion is clearly as subjective as mine. According to Mike Mornard, who is a member of this board and I believe the only person to play in the original campaigns of Gygax, Arneson & Barker, Gygax never used Chainmail when playing D&D, but of course that was his chosen style.
Your reformat removes 2 combat systems from the rules, it's like saying if you were to "reformat" elderitch wizardry that it would be "complete" without the psionic rules--sorry it wouldn't.
My reformat did no such thing. Most references to Chainmail were removed, but no game mechanics. The references to Chainmail were just that - references. I plan on revisiting the project to keep 100% of the original text and I know from what I cut out the first time around that you'll not find any evidence of "2 combat systems from the rules" lying on the cutting floor.
The fact that you took the time to copy out most of the rules doesn't give you any special authority.
I agree and prove me wrong but I never suggested it did. Although given that I appear to be the first person ever to do so in the thirty-odd years since it was published I would say the process gave me insights into the game that escaped even the most ardent and long-term devotee - a fact made obvious to me from 35+ year veterans of the game saying that the reformat revealed to them things they didn't realise were in the original ruleset, made clear simply by better organising the original text.
You don't need to denegrate playstyles in order to validate your own.
Once again a dishonest accusation. I did no such thing and it makes it pointless to debate with you if you are just going to invent things that I supposedly said. That being the case please feel free to respond to this post, but I won't bother replying to any more of yours since you clearly aren't "playing fair."
In that respect you're correct since Gygax never said any of his versions of D&D had to be played completely by the book. However, when brandishing the term "official", a term I never used myself by the way, it would be possible to apply it to the original text of the game as a historical document. I'm not suggesting that be done, only that it would be a fair interpretation of the word "official".
Maybe next time you are in 1974 with gary and dave you can tell them to leave that stuff out ok?
Thomas Jefferson took all the stuff out of the bible he didn't like, he prefered his edit, he disn't however pretend it was the authors intent.
And in a bit of tit for tat, maybe you can stick your sarcasm up your arse cooper. Don't pretend to debate a subject and then resort to falsely attributing statements to the other person and then dishing out sarcastic insults. If this is your level of intelligent discussion you can count me out matey, but I hope it made you feel better after my crime of supposedly denigrating your playstyle.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: How Many Hits Does It Take? « Reply #39 on May 11, 2012, 2:02am »
Just to be clear, I will be the first to sing your praises for the work you've done, I use your reformat literally every day. I don't believe the game is 'incomplete' as presented, the addition of the alternate combat system, simple morale, initiative, and damage makes that clear. But that's still different from removing rules. Greyhawk supplement (and 1e/2e) includes the weapon vs. AC chart from chainmail translated into d20, removing it makes the game "incomplete" inso far as you removed an optional rule from the game. When you remove "hero-1 or 3 men" from the 3rd level fighting man, you remove a rule from CM. (in fairness you put it in an appendix. Which is your perrogative in your re-edit, but you shouldn't excise reference to rules, even if a rule exists in a supplemental book.
"split move and fire" is a combat proceedure granted to elves in your edit, but the rule appears only in CM, so too the elfs ability to hide from sight--a rule actually left out of your edit!
The LBB contain detailed rules on ship to ship combat, where are the detailed rules for seiges of castles? We're they left out because they disn't find castle sieges important enough to include in the game, or did they think it wasn't neccessary to repeat the information in chainmail?
You say references to CM were removed, but no game mechanics. The term "light foot" isn't just a "term", it is a game mechanic with a specific meaning in mass combat in CM all of the human entries in the LLB's give the CM combat classifications, further more "hero-1" is also more than a "term" it is also a combat classification with concrete rules in CM. you say someone can just use, "any mass combat system"--this is true and also wrong. Of course someone can use any modern or old mass combat system with, d&d, or GURPS or cyberpunk2020, however only d&d gives specific rules for how a 5th level fighter fights on the FCT, or what classification a dervish is, or that neanderthals attack "as flails" on the man to man combat chart.
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: How Many Hits Does It Take? « Reply #40 on May 11, 2012, 12:35pm »
<sigh>
Okay, here's what the book says:
RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT:Dungeons and Dragons (you have it!) Outdoor Survival Dice — Chainmail miniature rules 1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player) Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best) Sheet Protectors (heaviest possible) 3-Ring Lined Paper Drafting Equipment and Colored Pencils Scratch Paper and Pencils Imagination 1 Patient Referee Players
Notice that word at the top; Reccomended not required
That's all that Dave said. Chainmail is not needed to play the 3lbb game. It's nice to have and useful. It's fine to bring in information from it, but your games not going to be wonky if you don't want to use it. That's obvious from the fact that thousands have managed just fine without it. The exact same may be said of Outdoor Survival and Flight in the Skies (which is mentioned in the aerial section because it is based on FitS and FitS does provide a means of fleshing the aerial rules out if you need to.)
...... Greyhawk supplement (and 1e/2e) includes the weapon vs. AC chart from chainmail translated into d20, removing it makes the game "incomplete"
What Greyhawk and later supplements add to the game and where it comes from is irrelevant Cooper. By that reasoning you must also add all the hit location and weapon length rules of Supp II because they build off the Accumulative Damage and other rules in the 3lbb's.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
The Faq does contain a less than 1 HD rule I handn't noticed before and maybe more interestingly, neither the 3lbb's nor the FAQ seems to indactate that multiple attacks are exclusive to the fighter. Like to know what yuins think.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: How Many Hits Does It Take? « Reply #44 on May 16, 2012, 12:23pm »
I think too much emphasis is put on wizards casting spells in combat all the time, which then leads to questions about, "having nothing to do when a wizard is out of spells." further, casting spells in combat or memorizing combat spells leads to burning through memorized spells too quickly (magic missilex2 gets burned up much faster than having featherfall and detect magic).
Expecting mu to melee in combat puts magic in it's rightful spot--abilities to help exploration of a dungeon. Letting 5th level magician attack as 3 men+1 just as the rules states, means "sleep" can be saved for the ogre and not on the first group of goblins you bump into and you don't end up in 4e with magic missile as an "at will" ability. More magical and mystical and less "marvel hero super power". Just look at the 0d&d spell list. Out of twenty 1st/2nd level spells, only sleep is clearly a combat spell and charm person/phantasmal force are borderline and even those three spells circumvent combat.
There is little to fear of overshadowing the fighting-man in a fight. AC0 with plate, and 5 men+1 puts him ahead of the magician, and with his magic sword (light spell+abilities) the fighting-man also has an exploration role out of combat.
Edit: according to mike mearls today, overwhelming feedback in 5e from players from all editions was for at will low level pew-pew powers. I'm not a fan, but I will say I like the way he presented it (basically, you have a cantrip that creates acid for your alchemy experiments, or a flame to start a camp fire and you can also use that cantrip as your at-will combat power)
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i48.tinypic.com/1hp7pj.jpg "[avatar]")
)
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/ICON18Spears.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")