skydyr
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 17
|
Post by skydyr on Oct 4, 2015 9:40:55 GMT -6
the big complaint that I usually hear is that fighting-men become really wimpy compared to magic-users at higher levels, using the standard 1 attack per spellcasting opportunity. At 5th level, a magic-user can cast a fireball against a party of 2HD gnolls, arguably doing 5d6 damage to all of them that get hit, while the fighter can only hit one of them for a chance at 1d6 damage plus a few possible bonus points, and when the fighter hits the next one next round, the magic-user casts sleep and knocks out 4 more. Even at first level, a magic user has the same attack roll and damage as a fighter while having only an average of 1 hp less. A few observations could be made about this argument: . I believe the "standard 1 attack per spellcasting opportunity" is a misnomer. -- To start, the 5th level fighter has at least five attacks (as a normal man) in a "combat period" versus normal types. (There are good reasons to believe Gnolls qualify as normal types--but that's a whole different discussion). -- Depending on which combat rules you employ, a combatant may strike multiple blows per round. The Man-to-Man rules allow 1-3 blows per round, depending on difference in weapon types. Holmes simplifies it down to 2 blows per round with non-heavy weapons. -- And then there is the topic of this (and many other) discussions on these boards: how many rounds of combat that should be fought per turn, and when should spell casting occur in the order of battle. To be clear, I agree with these assertions, and wanted to contrast it with the sort of received method of later editions where all of these actions take place at the same scale. The way I read it the 5th level fighter would have 5 attacks against normal foes, modified for weapon classes and such, but would roll each attack on the ACS tables as if he were a normal man. As an alternative he could choose (or it may be a forced normal vs. fantastic combat distinction) to only roll one attack, but using the ACS tables for his level to increase his chance of hitting with that one strike. However it's not necessarily true that the normal/fantastic combat split occurs at the 1+1 HD barrier. The first level where a fighter fights as fantastic is 3rd, as a hero -1, or 4th as a hero, depending on how you see it. I think it's arguable that creatures up to 3HD or so may have been viewed as normal as well. Notice that there seems to be a big difference between 2 HD gnolls, who come in groups of 20-200 and 4HD ogres, which come is much smaller groups of 3-18 and have a damage bonus. With gnolls, also, there's the specific statement that the bodyguards and king fight as trolls (a 6+3 HD monster), which is an immense jump in strength. Perhaps they fight as trolls in part due to there description, but also to get them on the fantastic combat tables? Honestly though, I'm quite unsure whether the text was meant to imply that 5th level fighting man always gets 5 attacks per the table, or as I described above, or one attack per the table generally, or if there's a clear fantastic vs. normal distinction left even. There's so little to go on. It could also be that you get one attack, modified per the weapon distinctions or not, each time around. The fact that a 5th level fighter fights as 5 normal men could mean that in a fight he should be able to get through 5 one on one combats with normal men, or even that it should be ignored as a chainmail distinction when you need to use the ACS only instead.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 4, 2015 9:49:54 GMT -6
Because it is a different game? The others are combat games; D&D is not. Because D&D does not explain how to operate combat at all. It explains hit points, it gives you some combat tables, and it tells you there are ten rounds of it in an underworld turn. Nothing else. Because EGG* is ADDING detail to a system that had given none before. You want to break combat into short segments? Okay, here's a couple of tables to do that. He's not changing anything; he's adding. * Actually, I think Tim Kask came up with segmented combat, and he's been unhelpful when asked directly how it works. Because Holmes wrote it, not EGG. Because it's only an introductory D&D game, with a number of changes. D&D also did not have ten-second rounds, which is what Holmes introduced. Since none of those are actually problems, but straw men, there is no problem with the statement. In a section explaining how a turn in the underworld is 10 minutes, the statement that there are 10 rounds of combat in one of them is perfectly understandable. It's only by inappropriately bringing in baggage from Chainmail, a separate game, that one thinks he sees a problem. Your post also tries to hard to find meaningful differences in various terms for "round"; you fell into the same trap that I described previously.
And all of this comes back to the incorrect assumption that D&D expects you to use the Chainmail rules to resolve combat. It doesn't. It gives you rules to insert your characters into Chainmail battles should they occur ("Fighting Capability" and "Land Combat"), but in the general matter of combat in the underworld or wilderness it assumes the referee will handle the flow of combat as he sees fit, with only the proviso that a character will get ten combat actions in an underworld turn. You know how you get two "moves" in an underworld turn? Well, you also get ten combat actions in an underworld turn. These combat actions are, in that one-sentence paragraph but not elsewhere, called "rounds." Oh, wait, there IS one other place Gygax uses round to describe them: in the FAQ in SR #2. The FAQ which shows no evidence whatsoever of playing by Chainmail rules, but very much that the referee is using the principles of free kriegsspiel.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 4, 2015 13:41:15 GMT -6
Here’s the thing skydyr, Stormcrow would lead you to believe that the original intent of the author is that there are ten 1 minute rounds of combat in a 10 minute turn. That rounds and combat turns are the same thing. This is understandable and seems to be what is implied by the placement of the text, “Melee is fast and furious.”, in the context of the Move/Turn in the Underworld section. As pointed out by Ways, it is not supported in any other TSR games of this period. They all contain sub-minute rounds in combat. I’m not really opposed to people wanting to use the rules this way in their game since it’s likely how they came to understand the game in later iterations. But, what’s troubling is that Stormcrow refuses to acknowledge, even though it is stated throughout the rules and is commonly known as fact, that D&D developed out of Chainmail. He prefers to diminish this fact and suggest the language was careless. We know Arneson was using Chainmail when he developed Blackmoor. Gary then chose to retain this connection when he took Daves notes and compiled them into the LBB’s. The Dalluhn Manuscript supports this connection. There are sections of the rules that come directly from Chainmail whole cloth. Personally, I find his position on these things disingenuous. Yes, you can use whatever combat system you would like, but the original game evolved from Chainmail and the original gamers understood a combat turn in regards to Chainmail. It has been reliably established that the Alternative Combat System was quickly adopted and used exclusively by the time the LBB’s were published. But, where did the Alternative Combat System come from? It came from Chainmail’s Man-to-Man and Fantasy Combat Tables. More to the point, the length of a turn in Chainmail is one minute and the number of rounds it contains is indeterminate. So, the most likely turn sequence for combat that Arneson and his players were familiar with in Blackmoor came from Chainmail. There was no need to restate it in the LBB’s which already referred you back to Chainmail. By the way, Chainmail is where we get the distinction between “normal” and “fantastic”. It is also where the practice of multiple blows against normals arises.
|
|
skydyr
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 17
|
Post by skydyr on Oct 4, 2015 14:08:06 GMT -6
I think it's somewhat telling that there are examples of combat in the FAQ, but there is no spellcasting or ranged weapon fire in those examples.
The first example of spellcasting while melee is ongoing that I can find is in EW. In that, there is a table that breaks a round or turn (used interchangeably so I will use cycle) into pre, segments 1-6, and post sections, so each cycle has 8 different parts.
First it says, "All melee activities, including missile fire, spell casting, movement, and combat then are assigned to some — possibly all — part of the melee turn." It then says that if you're not moving or fighting, things happen per adjusted dexterity, and if you're moving, it's based on your normal movement rate as adjusted by the DM. It then gives a table of adjusted dexterity and which segment you act on, including for very high dexterity getting to go in intervals of less than a full cycle. The table, however, is ONLY for missile fire or spell casting.
Then it says, "If surprised lose the 1st segment on a die roll of 1 and the 1st and 2nd segments on a die roll of 2.
"Attacks by combatants are made whenever the respective parties come within range, but movement need not cease until bodies are actually in contact."
Finally, it gives a table of adjustments to dexterity, and a table splitting a movement rate into the 6 segments mentioned earlier.
These rules are an amendment to the earlier not very clear rules of the ACS. It's helpful to tell what the original rules are, because they are making exceptions or clarifications to those rules. So, what are they trying to clarify? The only way I can think of to interpret this is to split up movement into segments where there is an attack, and to explain how and how frequently spells and missiles may affect the entire battle while melee is ongoing. It can also be used to determine when a spellcaster or archer is determined to be in melee so that they can't fire anymore.
Things that it does not say: -- That the exchange of blows occurs only when the units are first in range. (It says you keep moving after you've started fighting until you are touching) -- That combat on subsequent rounds happens on a particular segment (because it happens on all of them when in range) -- That there is any delay of segments between the first and second exchanges of blows. -- That combat, unlike spellcasting and missile fire, can't take place in each or all 8 sections of the turn.
More specifically on the last point, there are rules written that specify that a given action can only occur on this or that segment (missiles and spells) or this group of them (movement). Melee is the only thing that has no restriction given after the sentence on it, and the only restriction later is range.
In sum, I take the modifications in EW not to tell you that spells go off less frequently than you thought, or ranged weapons, but rather to tell you that even though there's melee going on every now and again we'll give a chance for people not directly involved to do something, instead of waiting until it's finished. The only reason you would feel a need to say that is if previously, they could not do anything unless involved directly in the melee.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 4, 2015 15:19:46 GMT -6
Oh, I should have noted:
All phases are simultaneous. So initiative is rerolled until some side clearly has initiative (there is not simultaneous simultaneous!).
So initiative really just grants the advantage of act/react (move/countermove).
This made spell casters really scary and it changed strategy - for both sides!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 5, 2015 6:25:04 GMT -6
The way I read it the 5th level fighter would have 5 attacks against normal foes, modified for weapon classes and such, but would roll each attack on the ACS tables as if he were a normal man. Yes, that is by the book. If you use choose the FAQ rule, then the 5th level fighter would get five attacks as a 5th level fighter. Personally, I choose not to do this, because a) it is effectively combining advantages in normal and fantastic combat together, and b) it cuts both ways and ultimately harms the players more than it helps them. As an alternative he could choose (or it may be a forced normal vs. fantastic combat distinction) to only roll one attack, but using the ACS tables for his level to increase his chance of hitting with that one strike. I don't believe I have seen anything that indicates the player has a choice. Combat is usually either normal, or it is fantastic. Using both together might get tricky. However it's not necessarily true that the normal/fantastic combat split occurs at the 1+1 HD barrier. FWIW, I agree. To me, the contention appears to be derived from a difference between OD&D different authors' methods. EGG apparently leaned toward the 1+1 HD limit, while Arneson apparently was a bit more lenient. I recall he had a comment to the effect you are suggesting regarding numbers occurring. There is a relevant discussion about all this here.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 5, 2015 6:32:38 GMT -6
Because it is a different game? The others are combat games; D&D is not. At the relevant time D&D is a "Fantastic Medieval Wargame". It's about more than just combat, sure, but it does it have combat? Yes Sir. Because D&D does not explain how to operate combat at all. It explains hit points, it gives you some combat tables, and it tells you there are ten rounds of it in an underworld turn. Nothing else. The 3LBBs go significantly further than you make out. There are dozens of references to combat stats and combat mechanics throughout the 3LBBs. Try the brief ACS notes I collected three+ years back for starters. There's a lot more around troop classifications, and fighting capabilities of specific monster types. Not to mention the 3LBBs invite the reader to use other wargames rules to fill whatever gap may remain. Because EGG* is ADDING detail to a system that had given none before. You want to break combat into short segments? Okay, here's a couple of tables to do that. He's not changing anything; he's adding. I agree EW is adding detail, but don't go so far as you'd prefer. To me, EW is adding the detail of segmented action on top of round without changing its length. Your case seems to be that EW adds all the detail of segmented action AND ALSO significantly reduce the duration of a round. Either case is plausible, (if, for the sake of this argument, we choose to ignore the pre-existing prevalence of short rounds) sure, but I find it unconvincing that so significant a change would be introduced with scarcely a comment! Because Holmes wrote it, not EGG. Because it's only an introductory D&D game, with a number of changes. D&D also did not have ten-second rounds, which is what Holmes introduced. EGG (or at least TSR) edited what Holmes wrote, and made numerous alterations to Holmes' manuscript but--importantly--chose not to change the business of rounds. You call it "only an introductory D&D game", but another perspective is that Holmes' edit represents a well documented account of how D&D was being played by at least one active group at the time of its development (presumably around 1976). Sure, Holmes codified rounds at 10-seconds--not unlike other contemporary games. This would surely be a smoother transition if it were from short/sub-minute rounds to 10-second rounds, than it is to go from one-minute rounds to 10-second rounds? Either way, it seems to me this is what the Holmes group made of the 10 rounds per turn business, and EGG/TSR didn't see a need to alter it, which implies to me that they were doing something "similar enough" themselves. Since none of those are actually problems, but straw men, there is no problem with the statement. In a section explaining how a turn in the underworld is 10 minutes, the statement that there are 10 rounds of combat in one of them is perfectly understandable. It's only by inappropriately bringing in baggage from Chainmail, a separate game, that one thinks he sees a problem. Seriously? I didn't even mention Chainmail in my post. Your post also tries to hard to find meaningful differences in various terms for "round"; The point of that (irrelevant sidetrack) is that combat periods were short. They were: Blows. Swings. Chops. One single swing of a weapon and you're done. That's it. The relevant part of the post, which you continuously choose to ignore, is that the rules detailing combat are separated from the rules detailing movement in the underworld by page and pages of other material. To spell it out: there's no connection whatever between the underworld exploration rules and the combat rules in the draft, so you would not (reasonably) relate combat rounds to exploration turns in those rules. And all of this comes back to the incorrect assumption that D&D expects you to use the Chainmail rules to resolve combat. It doesn't. It gives you rules to insert your characters into Chainmail battles should they occur ("Fighting Capability" and "Land Combat"), but in the general matter of combat in the underworld or wilderness it assumes the referee will handle the flow of combat as he sees fit, with only the proviso that a character will get ten combat actions in an underworld turn. You know how you get two "moves" in an underworld turn? Well, you also get ten combat actions in an underworld turn. These combat actions are, in that one-sentence paragraph but not elsewhere, called "rounds." Oh, wait, there IS one other place Gygax uses round to describe them: in the FAQ in SR #2. The FAQ which shows no evidence whatsoever of playing by Chainmail rules, but very much that the referee is using the principles of free kriegsspiel. There are lots of other references to rounds and combat actions in the 3LBBs, and other sources, as you well know so I can only presume you are being rude. FWIW, I did not mention Chainmail in my post and it is in fact you who has the incorrect assumption Stormcrow. I don't believe D&D expects a player to use Chainmail at all; that hornswoggle is all coming from you. I do believe D&D ALLOWS a player to use Chainmail, or whatever else he so chooses. As a matter of fact, I was only here discussing the length of a round.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 5, 2015 7:07:54 GMT -6
To quote Gronan: "Crom's hairy nutsack!" There are ten rounds of combat in an underworld turn! This is one of the only things about D&D combat that is explicit and unambiguous! There are no "one-minute combat turns" subdivided into "melee rounds." Finding "evidence" from other games or from other versions of the game written or edited by different people is meaningless.
I now return you to your previously scheduled mutual loin-massaging. Have at it, boys!
|
|
skydyr
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 17
|
Post by skydyr on Oct 5, 2015 7:45:38 GMT -6
As an alternative he could choose (or it may be a forced normal vs. fantastic combat distinction) to only roll one attack, but using the ACS tables for his level to increase his chance of hitting with that one strike. I don't believe I have seen anything that indicates the player has a choice. Combat is usually either normal, or it is fantastic. Using both together might get tricky. I agree that it might get tricky, but without an explicit line of when combat becomes fantastic, you have to make decisions somewhere. I would assume that if the players can make the choice, they would use normal for things that are relatively easy to hit and save fantastic for things that they have a better chance of hitting by rolling once with a 25% or 40% chance than 6 times with a 5% chance each time, so it should cleave to roughly the same distinction. If they really want to go whole hog against that dragon, they can take their 6 attacks or howevermany, but it's going to take it's HD in attacks back. I don't think this is what the rules as written really mean, but it seems like a usable way to play it that's within the bounds of interpretation. To some degree I expect the real intent was 'do we want to highlight this combat (fantastic), or is it a speedbump we should just roll through quickly (normal)?' However it's not necessarily true that the normal/fantastic combat split occurs at the 1+1 HD barrier. FWIW, I agree. To me, the contention appears to be derived from a difference between OD&D different authors' methods. EGG apparently leaned toward the 1+1 HD limit, while Arneson apparently was a bit more lenient. I recall he had a comment to the effect you are suggesting regarding numbers occurring. There is a relevant discussion about all this here. It just occurred to me on reading this that most of the numbers of normal-seeming enemies are divisible by 20. Presumably this is so that you can set them up at 20-1 for normal combat, and the heroes, wizards, etc. that they fight get single fantastic figurines.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Oct 5, 2015 12:31:00 GMT -6
skydyr, I agree with you completely. I think "normals" are all those listed with minimums in the tens.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 5, 2015 16:30:27 GMT -6
The first example of spellcasting while melee is ongoing that I can find is in EW. In that, there is a table that breaks a round or turn (used interchangeably so I will use cycle) into pre, segments 1-6, and post sections, so each cycle has 8 different parts. In sum, I take the modifications in EW not to tell you that spells go off less frequently than you thought, or ranged weapons, but rather to tell you that even though there's melee going on every now and again we'll give a chance for people not directly involved to do something, instead of waiting until it's finished. The only reason you would feel a need to say that is if previously, they could not do anything unless involved directly in the melee. I can't really give you too much input on EW's additions to the ACS. I've read through it in the past and quickly dismissed it as too tedious for practical use at the table. So, take my comments with a grain of salt. I do not think the text uses the terms rounds and turns interchangeably. Where it uses the term "turn", it is talking about over the course of ten rounds. In other words, it is possible that each character is doing something each round of the turn as the tables bear out. The table establishes who will go first (by segmenting the rounds) each round based on modifiers, thus changing the flow of the turn sequence. In this case, you are not using two moves to the turn at all. But, the actual movement rates do bear out all the same. To me, much of this is a matter of perspective. It is not that the characters are actually doing nothing while melee takes place. Some need this much minutiae to differentiate when things are happening. I'm personally satisfied with two moves to the turn and a standard sequence. None of the arguments for further segmenting the turn have ever resonated with me. Those sort of things that require a call I simply fall back on the GM's judgement to decide. But, in my mind, events are simultaneously unfolding and flowing through the course of a combat turn.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 7, 2015 8:21:52 GMT -6
skydyr, I agree with you completely. I think "normals" are all those listed with minimums in the tens. My analysis is that normals have a maximum number appearing of 25 or more in almost all cases. Here is what Arneson said on the matter "The following fact should be borne in mind for most creatures encountered in small groups. That is that these represent "Hero" type monsters." FFC 80:52
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 7, 2015 8:32:26 GMT -6
d) Why, when editing Holmes, does EGG not alter sub-minute rounds? Because Holmes wrote it, not EGG. Because it's only an introductory D&D game, with a number of changes. D&D also did not have ten-second rounds, which is what Holmes introduced. Ways commented on this already, but just to mention Zenopus study of Holmes manuscript makes it clear that Gygax extensively altered Holmes combat section where Holmes got it "wrong", but left the seconds long rounds intact. Holmes does introduce some new material, but his mss. is otherwise extremely and deliberately faithful to OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 7, 2015 8:43:36 GMT -6
...... Anyone engaged in combat (not just melee) is operating in rounds; this includes movement in combat, missile-fire, and spells. ....... The rules do not say this, and I don't agree that's the case. Anyone not engaged in Melee (within 1" of an opponent) is free to move, or shoot up to twice per turn, or cast a spell once per turn. Only combatants in Melee are operating in rounds.
|
|