Alternate Combat Matrix « Thread Started on Oct 11, 2008, 2:58pm »
One of the things I've been thinking about is ways to differentiate between weapons without moving away from d6 damage dice. I've been looking at the Chainmail combat tables, but I'm not really satisfied with them; they don't have enough room to stretch and accommodate higher level characters. What I've worked up, for your critique, is a system that breaks down weapons into five classes of melee weapons, and two classes of ranged weapons, and bases to-hit numbers on weapon type. The armor classes are listed on the top row, and the weapon classes on the left column.
AC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weapon Class I
19
18
16
14
13
12
10
9
Weapon Class II
17
15
15
13
13
12
11
10
Weapon Class III
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Weapon Class IV
16
15
14
12
12
11
9
8
Weapon Class V
16
14
12
11
11
10
9
8
Weapon Class R
20
18
16
14
13
11
10
9
Weapon Class X
19
17
15
14
12
10
9
8
Humans (PC and NPC) also use the following chart to determine to-hit bonus (by level):
Bonus
Fighting-Man
Magic-User
Cleric
Rank A
0
1-3
1-5
1-4
Rank B
+2
4-6
6-10
5-8
Rank C
+5
7-9
11-15
9-12
Rank D
+7
10-12
16+
13-16
Rank E
+9
13-15
17+
Rank F
+12
16+
Monsters use the following chart:
Hit Dice
Bonus
Up to 1
0
1+1
+1
2-3
+2
3-4
+4
4-6
+5
7-8
+6
9-10
+8
11+
+10
The math in the attack rank tables will reproduce the attack matrices from Men & Magic if applied to Type III weapons. The weapons in OD&D and Greyhawk break down as follows:
Class I - Dagger, Hand Axe, Quarterstaff, Spear, all improvised weapons (clubs etc). Class II - Mace, Hammer (incl. Dwarven Hammer), Pike Class III - Sword, Morning Star, Battle Axe Class IV - Flail, Military Pick, Bastard Sword (used 2-handed), Pole Arms Class V - Halberd, 2-Handed Sword
Class R - long and short bows, projectiles that are thrown by hand Class X - Crossbows, projectiles launched by machine (catapult, lever, etc)
Monsters use the Class III line unless they are using a specific weapon or special attack that is like a weapon.
The underlying philosophy is this: damage is relatively similar from weapon type to weapon type. It's all about causing organ and tissue damage one way or the other. The question is getting around (or through) defenses; some weapons are better at it than others, and that's what is reflected in the chart above. I also like having little wrinkles like how maces are affected more by shields than by armor type, while daggers are more affected by armor quality.
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 618 Location: The Echo Chamber Karma: 25
Re: Alternate Combat Matrix « Reply #1 on Oct 11, 2008, 11:17pm »
I like this! It's a nice, simple way to add some variability to combat without having to resort to cumbersome weapon vs. AC tables. I may have to try this out.
I'm just curious about how you handle magic weapons. Or magic armor. Thoughts?
Well, I'll most likely be playtesting the chart for the first time on Tuesday, and that probably won't come up. Generally, though, I think magic weapons would add their bonus to the roll made by the attacker and magic armor (and magic shields) would subtract their bonus from the roll rather than affecting weapon class or armor class directly.
Ernest Gary Gygax 1938 - 2008 "How many people could say that they impacted the lives of millions without bloodshed, political power or a global marketing machine - just a small game of gelatinous cubes, strange dice and 10' corridors? Gary did it just like this, and he did it out of his humble game room in Wisconsin. The context makes it all the more remarkable." - Melan
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 2,337 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 67
Re: Alternate Combat Matrix « Reply #5 on Nov 8, 2008, 8:24am »
Not a critisism but a question. Your chart uses combat bonuses of +0, +2, +5, etc, just like the original combat matrix does.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I mean, this progression tends to make more of a stairstep model, where you advance a few levels and then BAM! go up a lot in combat ability.
Part of me thinks that it's good to stick to the original, and part of me thinks that smoothing it over would be better so that a character gets more gradual advancement.
I also prefer more gradual improvement. Back when I played AD&D, I used the option that gave Fighters +1 per level instead of the +2 ever 2 levels that the combat matrices presented. I found it worked better in terms of modeling a gradual increase in ability/skill.
Not a critisism but a question. Your chart uses combat bonuses of +0, +2, +5, etc, just like the original combat matrix does.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
I mean, this progression tends to make more of a stairstep model, where you advance a few levels and then BAM! go up a lot in combat ability.
Part of me thinks that it's good to stick to the original, and part of me thinks that smoothing it over would be better so that a character gets more gradual advancement.
Thoughts on this, anyone?
I find the question interesting, because - as should be fairly obvious - my intent was not to tinker with how level impacts on weapon type at all.
For me, the chart is at the point where it's not making the game any harder for me to run as a referee, while making combat a bit more interesting. I think if I tried to make a more even distribution, it'd complicate matters more than I care to.
One of the things I like about the chart is that fighting-men get their +2 when they reach level 4, which is "Hero." So everybody of lower level than "Hero" doesn't fight as well as one. Something about that just seems right to me, and I think it's not unintentional given that Hero was such a major shift in Chainmail from just "Man." So I'm inclined to keep it as-is. Of course, anyone interested in varying it up a bit could just do the math backward on Class III from the AD&D matrices and create an alternate rank chart; I'm happy with how it works as is.
For what it's worth, I think it's had some interesting results in play. It creates an interesting dynamic between the usefulness of two-handed weapons and the protective extra AC of a shield. (For instance, the men-at-arms have halberds, which has a particular historical "right" feel to it.) I may tweak the numbers for a "final" version, but I'm very happy with how it's varied combat at this point.
One of the things I like about the chart is that fighting-men get their +2 when they reach level 4, which is "Hero." So everybody of lower level than "Hero" doesn't fight as well as one. Something about that just seems right to me, and I think it's not unintentional given that Hero was such a major shift in Chainmail from just "Man."
A good point. I don't have Men & Magic handy, but it would be interesting to see if the other classes fit this model as well; e.g. when their "Fighting Capability" reaches Hero status, is that the same point where their +2 kicks in as well?
Of course the pattern is broken with Super Hero; perhaps let fighters 1-3 be +0, 4-7 be +2, and 8-something be +5. That way there would be a bump at Hero and at Super Hero.
Just me musing out loud. May be a dumb idea, and it certainly changes the charts....
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://jmalisze.googlepages.com/cigar.jpg){kind=small}
![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4qI6i7wKX1c/SdZoRveimpI/AAAAAAAAADI/N5Grto0YRg4/S220/Mage.JPG)
![[avatar]](http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4vzdx/images/menmagicmini.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk238/finarvyn/th_FinRedonGrey.jpg)