From Man-To-Man Melee tbl. to Weapon Factors vs. unarmored

[sepulchre]

Maybe someone can make sense of this to me...

Man-To-Man(41 Chainmail): a dagger, a morning star and a two-handed sword bear the same probability 'to kill' someone without armor.

Weapon factors ["efficiency against armor types" (38,105 PHB)]: +3 'to hit' (land a telling blow) with a bardiche, +4 'to hit' with Open-Hand and no adj with a two-handed sword or glaive (both heavy bladed weapons) ... Speed factor (weapon class/Chainmail) only plays a roll on tied initiative dice so the wieldiness of a weapon might be assumed in the abstraction, but it's hard to say.

I realize these are different games, but Gary did pen them. I skipped OD&D weapon factors as I did not have them handy, but I believe this question still has cause without reference to them. Also, weapon class (speed factor/PHB) accounts for the difficulty to wield, so what is being assumed in the figures on Man-to-Man and the modifiers of the Weapon Factors table in the PHB?

Note: Wasn't sure where to post this, moderators please feel free to move should this elicit some thoughtful discussion.

[derv]

The Man-to-Man tables weapon classes deal with both weight and reach and is part of who strikes the first blow. Also, this is a 2d6 table in a game where one strike kills. So, in the case of a melee between two unarmored men with one being armed with a dagger and the other a two-handed sword, the two-handed sword would get the first blow in the first round, but if he misses, the dagger will get the first blow each round there after and, in fact, be able to deliver three blows to every one of the two handed sword.

The PHB abstracts these subtleties into a d6 initiative and d20 attack roll.

[sepulchre]

Derv wrote:

The Man-to-Man tables weapon classes deal with both weight and reach and is part of who strikes the first blow.

Yes, this is accounted for in Chainmail's version of initiative and # of attacks, not the 2d6 figure for a killing blow as I understand the table to bear out.

this is a 2d6 table in a game where one strike kills

.
Indeed, this is mentioned above.

So, in the case of...be able to deliver three blows to every one of the two handed sword.

Yes, that is all part of Chainmail's Weapon Class.

The PHB abstracts these subtleties into a d6 initiative and d20 attack roll.

These subtleties play a part in ties in initiative in AD&D as I mentioned. The D20 is just a wider distribution with a different curvature of probability. Nonetheless, a like chance to kill plays out with d6 damage for 1st lvl types as one finds in Chainmail.

That said, I don't believe these points speak to the question I'm advancing. That is, given what is subsumed in
Chainmail by weapon class, why are the chances to kill (cause damage or kill/OD&D or AD&D) so disparate, as in AD&D, or similar, as in Chainmail?

[derv]

Not having the PHB at hand and not having played AD&D for quite some time, I'm suggesting they may not be that disparate. Though there is no curvature to the d20 roll like there is with 2d6. But, I'd be interested in knowing the modifiers for a dagger and morning star, if any, instead of the bardiche.

[sepulchre]

PHB: the dagger is +3, the morning star +2 'to hit' and do damage or kill.
Chainmail: dagger requires a roll of '6', the morning star a '7', bardiche a '5', glaive a '7' (str.Rvw #2).

[derv]

Well, if all you are asking is if the probabilities of a hit are similar with both methods, the answer is no, though the dagger is close to the same for one strike (MtM= 72% M&M= 70%). In comparison, the two handed sword= 55% and the morning star= 65% where they both would again= 72% with MtM. But, as my example shows above, the opponent with dagger may be able to deliver multiple blows in a round depending on what the other is armed with. This would raise his probability of a hit significantly.

This is where the two methods depart because MtM is not only a weapon vs. armor system, but also a weapon vs. weapon system. In contrast, Chainmail does not consider the level of the opponent striking the blow. The probabilities above are based on Attack Matrix 1 Levels 1-3 in M&M. Again, I'm not sure if the target number is different in the PHB. Regardless, the probability of hitting an unarmored man will increase with level with the d20 method.

At levels 1-3, MtM seems to be more deadly.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm not clear on exactly what the question is but, FWIW,


In MtM vs AC9 across all foot weapon types (assuming all foot weapon types occur equally frequently):

. A two-handed swordsman is 72% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a flail-man is 58% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a dagger-man is 85% likely to cause at least one kill.

The two-handed sword would attack first in the first round of combat, so it is 72% likely that the flail- or dagger-armed combatant would not get to reply at all.

Another other consideration is space required. According to S&S a two-handed sword requires 13.75ft of space, so only 7 figures armed with two-handed swords could fight side-by-side across a 100ft wide front, while 10 figures with flails or 16 figures with daggers could occupy the same space. According to GH a two-handed sword or flail requires 12+ft of space, so 8 figures could fight across a 100ft front.



In M&M a combat between two combatants with AC 9, THAC2 17, and 1 HD each (assuming 1-6 damage per hit and Greyhawk's weapon vs. armor adjustments):

. A two-handed sword is 38% likely to score exactly one kill.

. A flail is 35% likely to score exactly one kill.

. A dagger is 38% likely to score exactly one kill.

Technically, the MtM initiative rules can still apply, in which case the two-handed sword still has the significant advantage of the first strike. There is also the option to dice for initiative, in which case the two-handed sword loses its initiative advantage and performs the same as the dagger.

If, like Holmes, you rule that light weapons strike two blows per round (which is a pretty decent approximation of the MtM rule), then the dagger instead has this performance:

. A dagger is 51% likely to score at least one killing hit (although it gets a bit complicated with possible damage overflow).

In which case it might be judicious to apply the MtM initiative rule, or other balance, lest daggers be supreme.

The space requirements presumably still apply.



In the PHB flails are sub-divided into two weapons, and a new column is added to the weapon type table vs AC 10. The average PHB adjustments for the dagger, footman's flail, and two-handed sword vs. ACs 9 and 10 appear to be within 1 pip of those given in Greyhawk, even though the "meaning" of AC 9 has now changed.

However, the amount of damage caused by weapons in AD&D, the numbers of hp figures have, and the ratio of damage caused to damage sustainable are all different to OD&D. This means the same adjustments are not *exactly* comparable between editions. My overall impression (without calculating it all out) is that weapons are, in general, marginally less dangerous in AD&D than they were in OD&D.  Assuming that were true, then the AD&D weapon type adjustments would need to be somewhat larger than those in GH if parity were to be achieved.

[sepulchre]

Thank you both for your detailed responses. I will try and make my question more explicit, which is really to say - what sense do these values make given how they are understood? First the MTM and then the PHB, the problem as it appears to me is common to both texts.

MTM: (my assumptions: weapon class relates to the wieldiness of the weapon, 'kill value' to the impact)
Weapon class addresses initiative (order and number of attacks)as defined numerically, and reflecting the mass of the weapon as it relates to wieldiness and space required.

The 'Kill value' also reflects the mass but as it relates to impact rather than wieldiness. Yet,the numerical values e.g. values for dagger, two-handed sword, and morning star vs. non-armored opponent, do not reflect their differences in impact, or if they do, unless I'm mistaken, they do not appear to be well-considered.

PHB: (The problem appears the same as above)
Speed factor: a diminished version of weapon class from MTM, conceptually the same, but in practice different (see tied initiative dice)

Weapon factors are roughly the 'Kill values', and this is apparent for two reasons: one they represent the impact of weapons on unarmored and armored opponents, two if ported into Chainmail MTM, a 'telling blow' be it represented as 1 hit or 1-6 hp is not considerably different for figures, barring an unlikely extra combat round or two due to a remainder of a few hit points. So, the impact difference of each weapon, much like the 'kill values', is reflected by the weapon factors (modifiers to land a 'telling blow') and not their damage; thus +3 'to hit' with a bardiche, +4 'to hit' with Open-Hand and no adj with a two-handed sword or glaive (both heavy bladed weapons) really don't appear to make any sense at all.

Note: The problem appears not to lie with the applied numbers or cited text, but in the conceptual effort that advanced the numbers in the first place.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree that, intuitively, an individual weapon factor appears to represent the weapon's effectiveness versus armor. But I'm less convinced the factors of two weapon classes are directly comparable to one another, at least not in the MtM rules. In MtM most weapon attacks are quite likely to kill an unarmored opponent, so the weapon factors are not as important as is having the first strike.

E.g., a dagger and a two-handed sword may both have the same weapon factor, but when two men armed with dagger and two-handed sword face off, the two-handed swordsman is 72% likely to kill the daggerman. Period. Within the remaining 38% of occassions, the daggerman is only then 85% likely to kill the two-handed swordsman.

So, in the first round of combat, with equal weapon factors, the two-handed sword is 72% likely to kill, and the dagger is 32% likely to kill. I.e., despite having equal factors, the two-handed sword is twice as deadly as the dagger.


If, in the transition to D&D combat, the MtM initiative rule is abanndonned then the weapon factors may become "more comparable", and the issue you raise may come into play: suddenly a dagger is equal to (if not better than!) a two-handed sword.

On the otherhand, GH and AD&D appear to "compenstate" for this (at least to some degree) with the variable weapon damage rule. I.e., while the dagger and the two-handed sword may still have the same weapon factor versus AC9, the dagger causes 1-4 hp damage, while the two-handed sword causes 2-12 hp damage. So, once again, despite having "equal" weapon factors, the two-handed sword is still, superficially, the more dangerous weapon.

I'm not suggesting the weapon factors are "perfect" in any edition, only that whatever "imperfection" may be present seems unlikely to be decisive in unarmored combat.

[derv]

I think waysoftheearth has a pretty good handle on what you're asking sepulchre, so I really don't have any further comments.

I am curious about your numbers here, though, waysoftheearth.

In MtM vs AC9 across all foot weapon types (assuming all foot weapon types occur equally frequently):

. A two-handed swordsman is 72% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a flail-man is 58% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a dagger-man is 85% likely to cause at least one kill.

The weapon in question was the morning star (instead of the flail), which is a class 6 weapon. Just for clarity, I've always assumed the morning star was meant to be either a one handed flail or a wood shafted mace on the MtM table. Where the true flail is two handed. The weapons mentioned- the two handed sword, the morning star, and the dagger all have a target number in common of 6 against unarmored. The flail has a target number of 7 against unarmored and is a class 7 weapon. This is only significant because the morningstar is four classes lower then the two handed sword and would therefore get two blows to every one of the two handed sword. The dagger would get three blows for every one since it is nine classes lower.

Also, it seems that GH weapon factors are different then what sepulchre had shared from the PHB. Two handed sword= 0, morning star= +2, and dagger= +3 against AC9. Not sure why that would be different?

edit: I looked and GH's modifiers are indeed different. Two handed sword= +2, morning star= +2, and dagger= +2.

[sepulchre]

Waysoftheearth wrote:

I agree that, intuitively, an individual weapon factor appears to represent the weapon's effectiveness versus armor. But I'm less convinced the factors of two weapon classes are directly comparable to one another, at least not in the MtM rules.

Interesting, so there is a difference in how list combat is conceived of in Chainmail.

In MtM most weapon attacks are quite likely to kill an unarmored opponent, so the weapon factors are not as important as is having the first strike.

I'm willing to run with this assertion, but it still begs the question as to what is being considered when the 'kill values' were arrived at. It occurred to me that maybe the process worked in reverse, Kill values vs. armor type initially were considered, unarmored values were arrived at last. Nonetheless, three very different weapons possessing the same value still begs the question. I agree with your assessment of the primacy of initiative in MTM. Yet following that logic, if three weapons that vary so widely from each other are defined by the same value "6" vs. an unarmored opponent, why not just give all weapons the same fixed value against one armor type? This would be much like all weapons do 1d6 damage.

If, in the transition to D&D combat...a dagger is equal to (if not better than!) a two-handed sword.

Indeed, this picks up where I began.

...with the variable weapon damage rule.

Variable weapons damage has always appeared redundant to me given the weapon factors table is intended to define the impact of weapons vs. armor type. Instead of staying true to the abstraction the 'Kill Values' represent in MTM, that very abstraction morphed into an apparently flawed table of weapon factors, and then variable damage was tacked on to make up for the flawed weapons factor tables.

whatever "imperfection" may be present seems unlikely to be decisive in unarmored combat.

Agreed, it just appears to want for elegance and seems sloppy.

Derve wrote:

I looked and GH's modifiers are indeed different. Two handed sword= +2, morning star= +2, and dagger= +2.

Yes, and notice they are all the same.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 10, 2015 17:21:50 GMT -6 derv said:

I am curious about your numbers here, though, waysoftheearth.

In MtM vs AC9 across all foot weapon types (assuming all foot weapon types occur equally frequently):

. A two-handed swordsman is 72% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a flail-man is 58% likely to cause exactly one kill.

. THEN, if he survives, a dagger-man is 85% likely to cause at least one kill.

The first two weapons strike only one blow per round (vs all other dungeon-going weapons), so it's simply a matter of calculating the odds of rolling a 6+ or 7+ on 2d6 (72% and 58%, respectively).

The dagger can strike a different numbers of blows per round versus different weapons, so it's a bit more complicated. I calculated the odds of no hits versus AC 9 considering number of blows per round versus each possible weapon type, then averaged all the results, then subtracted the result from 1. It's perfectly possible that my calculations are in error, but I arrived at 85%.

Jun 10, 2015 17:21:50 GMT -6 derv said:

I've always assumed the morning star was meant to be either a one handed flail or a wood shafted mace on the MtM table. Where the true flail is two handed.

Hmmm, to me the defining feature of a flail is that there is a length of chain or rope between a handle and the striking mass, which could be smooth, flanged, or even spiked. M&M positions the flail, battle axe, and morning-star together at 100 cn weight (less than halberds and two-handed swords, but more than swords, maces, and hand axes). GH says flails require 12ft of space, S&S says 10ft. Personally, I prefer the flail as a one-handed weapon with 3-4ft of chain giving it significant reach (and thus requiring 10ft of space to use), but it seems EGG preferred it as a genuinely heavy weapon (the AD&D footman's flail is among the heaviest weapons listed).

To me, the morning-star has no chain to it. I see it much as a two-handed, spiked mace. EGG depicts a Holy-water Sprinkler in SR 1.4 (p2) and states that it is a morning star. It's effectively a stout wooden haft with a spiked head on it, typically 3-4ft in overall length and sometimes even exceeding 6ft in length. The notion that a Holy-water Sprinkler is a morning-star invites us think that clerics can employ them too.

[Mushgnome]

Jun 10, 2015 14:44:40 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

...really don't appear to make any sense at all...

I think you really hit the nail on the head here, which is why most players and DMs never bothered with the nonsensical weapon vs. armor table. "Roll d20 to hit and d6 for damage, all weapons are equal" really was OD&D's most fun feature in my opinion.

[derv]

Jun 10, 2015 22:56:14 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

Yes, and notice they are all the same.

Actually, the Greyhawk numbers make more sense since they are consistent with what's found in CM.

All the weapons found on the MtM table are consistent, for the most part, in what's presented as modifiers in GH.

Possibly Gary changed his views on some of these weapons by the time the PHB was published.

[derv]

Jun 11, 2015 4:58:17 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

To me, the morning-star has no chain to it. I see it much as a two-handed, spiked mace. EGG depicts a Holy-water Sprinkler in SR 1.4 (p2) and states that it is a morning star. It's effectively a stout wooden haft with a spiked head on it, typically 3-4ft in overall length and sometimes even exceeding 6ft in length. The notion that a Holy-water Sprinkler is a morning-star invites us think that clerics can employ them too.

I believe that if you ask a dozen or more people what a morning star looks like, you will get a number of different answers.

I wasn't sure if you were lumping it in with the flail in your example or not. Some associate the classic caractured spiked ball and chain as a morning star. Others more closely associate it with the mace. Either way, MtM presents it as a class lower then the flail and three classes higher then the mace.

So, for MtM this suggests that the morningstar would get two blows against the two handed sword and it's probability of a kill would be much higher then 58% ( higher then 72% but I didn't do the math ). I wasn't questioning the result of your calculations, more the implications of those results. But, I think it all worked out in the wash any way

[sepulchre]

Mushgnome:

"Roll d20 to hit and d6 for damage, all weapons are equal"

I am beginning to see the rationale of this. The other option would have been to make the kill values the same for a particular armor type regardless of the weapon employed.

Derve wrote:

All the weapons found on the MtM table are consistent, for the most part,

Consistent? Yes. Sensical? No. Again, weapon class accounts for the difference in the wieldiness of weapons, the kill values for each armor type should then only reflect the efficacy of the weapon vs. the armor type. So how the three cited examples should bear the same values and fulfill that intent is not apparent.

[derv]

Well, I really can only point you back to Ways post above

"I agree that, intuitively, an individual weapon factor appears to represent the weapon's effectiveness versus armor. But I'm less convinced the factors of two weapon classes are directly comparable to one another, at least not in the MtM rules. In MtM most weapon attacks are quite likely to kill an unarmored opponent, so the weapon factors are not as important as is having the first strike."

To me, the GH numbers are consistent and sensical because they are based directly on MtM- which is limited to a 2d6 spread that has a bell curve. If you are looking at the individual weapons and the probability of a hit without considering how the initiative system works in MtM, then it's still a matter of a personal judgement whether you feel the numbers accurately reflect how likely those weapons are to make a hit on an unarmored man (without consideration to what weapon he is defending with).

On the otherhand, the PHB modifiers make less sense to me. But, it might be that Gary was adjusting the numbers to account for the abstraction of a d6 initiative.

[sepulchre]

Derv wrote:

If you are looking at the individual weapons and the probability of a hit without considering how the initiative system works in MtM,

I am, because weapons class and the kill values in MTM serve different purposes. They are not subsumed under one fixed numerical value, thus they represent independent operations and with non-inclusive considerations.

Ways wrote

In MtM most weapon attacks are quite likely to kill an unarmored opponent, so the weapon factors are not as important as is having the first strike.

Thanks Derv, agreed about the primacy of initiative in MTM, if the concept behind the MTM numbers is as Ways and you ascribe, then as I noted above, I would expect all the values under the unarmored opponent to be the same. That they are not implies either this is not well thought out, or there is something else being considered in their estimation that has not come to light.

[derv]

Well, let's set the rules aside for a second and think about the scenario that MtM is trying to emulate. Primarily, it was intended for recreating historic battles during the middle ages with miniatures.

Would our unarmored peasant be more likely, less likely, or as likely to be killed by a charging knight with a lance as he would if the knight was armed with a mace?

Would our unarmored peasant be more likely, less likely, or as likely to be killed by that same knight, under those circumstances, if he was armed with a pike or if he was armed with a hand axe?

Whose more likely to strike the first blow despite the armor being worn and will the armor make a difference? A little bit, alot?

Historically, what type of armor was worn by particular troop types and what weapons did they employ? Were they skilled?

My point is that there was more that went into the numbers then just an armors innate ability to deflect or absorb a blow. Historically, it's really why we saw the evolution of armor to include full plate and the development of weapons and tactics that would cause mortal wounds to those wearing it. This evolution would revert back to lighter and more maneuverable armor as gunpowder became more prevalent over time.

[Deleted]

Derv has it. It's not just "how much does this armor resist this weapon."

And the design approach Gary used was "make up some numbers and diddle with them until the game plays the way you want."

In the case of CHAINMAIL there's some attempt to be able to emulate historical battles.

And the history of when two handed swords were used, and against which opponents, is interesting.

Basically, I'm not going to write a twenty thousand word treatise on medieval combat, but CHAINMAIL's man to man table is entirely reasonable to me as a historical game.

And D&D evolved along entirely different lines. If you try to apply the same design principles to D&D and CHAINMAIL you're chasing a Crimson Clupea.

[Deleted]

Jun 12, 2015 8:54:19 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

or there is something else being considered in their estimation that has not come to light.

Serious question... how much have you studied medieval military history?

Because that's what you seem to be missing.

For that matter, have you ever weilded an actual greatsword? I have; Prof. M.A.R. Barker had one in his weapon collection (15th century German, provenience reliably established.)

They're ponderous. It would be way easier to hit an unarmored person using a dagger instead. Somebody in half plate in a tight formation... that is, Swiss front rank pikemen... would be much easier to hit with a greatsword.

Rather like using a tank gun to kill a wasp.

[sepulchre]

Gronanofsymmerya wrote:

It would be way easier to hit an unarmored person using a dagger instead...

What you are referring to in Chainmail is already assumed in the abstraction of Weapon Class. Your point underlies the impetus for the O.P. The Kill values are about impact, otherwise the whole business is redundant and the abstraction of weapon class rather pointless.

Derve wrote

Would our unarmored peasant...My point is that there was more that went into the numbers then just an armors innate ability to deflect or absorb a blow.

Sure, weapons evolved to meet the advances in armor construction. However, historically there are plenty of long and/or heavy weapons wielded against non- or lightly armored figures who don't have to be peasants, heavier armor was uncommon and rare in many cases. As for what is subsumed in the abstraction, Gary wasn't thinking about the effect of wearing armor when he came up with the 'kill values'. All of those numbers are independent of the armor the attacker is clad; he could be wearing anything. This understanding is born out in further iterations of the game; barring severe encumbrance, there are no negative modifiers for wearing armor.

This is not about whether the numbers are eye-balled or not. What matters is weapon class and the 'kill value' are distinct abstractions from one another, that is, speed and impact, the considerations bound in each are not meant to overlap. If they did we would have one numerical value representing one abstraction.

[Deleted]

I was entirely talking about CHAINMAIL. D&D is a different game written for a different purpose.

[derv]

Jun 13, 2015 23:08:17 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

However, historically there are plenty of long and/or heavy weapons wielded against non- or lightly armored figures who don't have to be peasants, heavier armor was uncommon and rare in many cases. As for what is subsumed in the abstraction, Gary wasn't thinking about the effect of wearing armor when he came up with the 'kill values'. All of those numbers are independent of the armor the attacker is clad; he could be wearing anything. This understanding is born out in further iterations of the game; barring severe encumbrance, there are no negative modifiers for wearing armor.

That's exactly right, historically there are other examples of lightly armored soldiers wielding heavier weapons who were not peasants (Consider the Landsknecht, specifically their Doppelsoldner, since we have been talking about two handed swords). So, the next question you might ask about such troops is were they trained/skilled and what weapons were they most likely to face on the battlefield? Because, on the one side of this issue we have these poorly trained peasants who were simply handed a weapon or farm implement and expected to withstand either cavalry or like-type troops as themselves. There are even examples of such troops successfully defeating well armored knights and causing them to rout from the field (Battle of the Golden Spurs, etc.). Now, how does all this input effect the over all probability of a hit with certain weapons vs unarmored?

In comparison, who would be wielding a lance and what sort of armor would they be wearing? Are they skilled or unskilled? Who would they normally be facing and what sort of armor? Are these opponents skilled or unskilled? How does this effect the probabilities?

The final and distinct input to all this was also playability. Gary wanted the game to be both interesting and challenging. He wanted armor selection to have some variability when you roll the dice. Don't mistake my arguments as suggesting that I think the numbers are perfect. I'm just of the opinion that they do make sense.

[sepulchre]

gronanofsimmerya wrote:

I was entirely talking about CHAINMAIL.

As am I. The problem begins in Chainmail; it can be followed through the weapon factor tables of D&D and AD&D.

Derve wrote:

Now, how does all this input effect the over all probability of a hit with certain weapons vs unarmored?

These factors are accounted for: morale, armor type, the point system, and some implied social class consideration (access to arms and armor). These factors neither have bearing on the 'kill value', nor on weapon class, otherwise those considerations would be part of the MTM table.

He wanted armor selection to have some variability when you roll the dice.

I am not arguing against variability, I am arguing for sensibility. I am not arguing against an MTM table, merely the numerical values that define it, specifically the 'kill values'. Naturally, this argument extends to the weapon factors of other editions that are drawn from the MTM's inception. Also, I believe a redress of these values would only benefit 'playability'.

Don't mistake my arguments as suggesting that I think the numbers are perfect. I'm just of the opinion that they do make sense.

Understood. For my part, I am not looking for perfect, I am just looking for them to do their job. Based on my understanding of the abstractions, I don't believe they serve that purpose.

[derv]

I guess I'm not expressing my point well. I don't think Gygax considered ahistorical combinations when he established his numbers. So for example, an untrained levy armed with a two handed sword would not have been considered when establishing the table. The same would go for the lance. The values would be based on common historical concepts.

But, the pike would be another subject altogether because both trained and untrained troops used them to greater or lesser success depending on the opponents they faced. This would effect the probabilities.

These factors are accounted for: morale, armor type, the point system, and some implied social class consideration (access to arms and armor). These factors neither have bearing on the 'kill value', nor on weapon class, otherwise those considerations would be part of the MTM table.

You're trying to parse out MtM into individual parts based on your understanding of D&D. What I'm saying is that it is a unified system where all parts work together.

You're trying to rationalize the target numbers for the MtM table independently and I'm trying to tell you what may have gone into forming those numbers.

The only reasonable solution I could offer you is to take the weapon factors from the PHB or GH and change them until they suit you, if you plan on using them independently of the MtM initiative. Or, if you find no satisfactory solution, take Mushgnome's recommendation and don't use them. I personally do not use them in my D&D games.

[sepulchre]

Derv wrote:

...The values would be based on common historical concepts.

I agree...however, unarmored or lightly armored warriors wielding heavy or lengthy weapons (higher weapon class values) is not ahistorical.

But, the pike...would effect the probabilities.

In mass combat, given morale is front and center, it does given that the pike in your example is being considered with respect to training. In MTM, training and morale play a compartmentalized role; the unified system is refracted into component parts.

You're trying to parse out MtM into individual parts based on your understanding of D&D.

In the MTM the abstraction we find for mass combat is brought into higher resolution in that the considerations behind it are given individual attention, resulting in lesser abstractions, that is: armor type, weapons, weapon speed and recovery, lethality based on weapon type - bringing these into focus, higher res. This is a game changer.

I'm trying to tell you what may have gone into forming those numbers.

Indeed, and I am asserting those considerations fall not under the umbrella of a unified system like we find in mass combat, but a deconstructed system of moving parts, in which the parts are exposed and represented by their own individual abstractions (i.e. weapon class and others) and fixed numerical values.

[derv]

Jun 14, 2015 12:22:17 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

Derv wrote:
But, the pike...would effect the probabilities.

In mass combat, given morale is front and center, it does given that the pike in your example is being considered with respect to training. In MTM, training and morale play a compartmentalized role; the unified system is refracted into component parts.

Unfortunately, I disagree with your assessment.

Morale and training can be part and parcel, but if those untrained footmen pass morale you still need to account for their ability to handle a weapon. Thus, it is still considered when establishing the probability of a hit.

*I should also point out that pikes get the first blow in the first round in all cases except against lances (or if attacked in the rear or left flank). This is only apparent if you use the MtM initiative.

[Deleted]

Ya ever actually PLAYED the game?

Refight some historical battles, show how you get consistently ahistorical results, and we'll talk.

[sepulchre]

Derve wrote:

...This is only apparent if you use the MtM initiative.

I am not taking issue with weapon class.

Morale and training can be part and parcel, but if those untrained footmen pass morale you still need to account for their ability to handle a weapon. Thus, it is still considered when establishing the probability of a hit.

The handling of the weapon is accounted for by the weapon, based on the weapon class and the 'kill value'. It is assumed who wields the weapon is proficient. If that were not the case the kind of delineation you are addressing would be evident in the MTM table, as it stands it is not. You can't tell who is wielding the weapon in question, unless one is dicing for a leader or berserker for example, and as the morale values demonstrate there's a lot of variation in skill accounted for.

gronanofsimmerya wrote:

Ya ever actually PLAYED the game?

You've obviously got an axe to grind. Do you actually read these posts..?