Man-to-man confusion

[Alex]

I was just trying the man-to-man combat last night in a simple test encounter and found it really confusing. There are three parts of the rules that I found which dictate the order and number of attacks and they don't seem to agree. So who can explain this. The pertinent sections are Melee (p25), 4 (parry rules p25), Melee Table (p26). I know aldarron, thegreyelf, and finarvyn have all made rules documents for using chainmail with OD&D but I don't know if any of them are good at explaining the rules as written and how much they change the rules or re-interpret them.

[Matthew]

Without knowing what exactly you find confusing about the rules, it is hard to give a full answer, but maybe an example will help:

Fighter A has plate armour and a spear (class 8); Fighter B has mail armour, a sword (class 4) and shield.

In the 1st round, fighter B moves to attack fighter A, but since fighter A has a weapon 4 classes higher than fighter B, he attacks first.

In the 2nd round, because fighter B has a weapon four classes lower than fighter A, he has two options:

a) parry first (possibly with a counter blow) and attack second
b) attack first and then attack third

Some interpretation is required, as the rules do not spell out exactly how things work. Possibly in the 1st round fighter B has two attacks in the 2nd and 3rd striking order, or has the options he enjoys in the 2nd round.

[cooper]

The phrase, "one or several blows will be struck" is referring to the possibility that the attacker won't simply run his enemy through on the first attack, therefore possibly several blows (one by the attacker and one by the surviving defender...and possibly into multiple rounds if both are nutsty swordsmen...). It is not implying that an individual gets multiple attacks per round* (see below).


MOVING ON:
First attack always goes to the attacker (who's probably charging) and then the second to the defender (assuming the defender isn't dead) unless:

defender has higher ground.
defender has a much longer reaching weapon (class size 2 or more higher than attacker)

In which case, the defender will go first.

Now in round 2 things are slightly different. Whereas in the closing round (round 1) where the two combatants are moving into position the benefit goes to the longer weapon (spear vs. dagger for instance), but in the 2nd and subsequent rounds the benefit goes to the fighter with the shorter weapon/lower class size as it's easier to stab someone with a dagger when you're wrestling on the ground or very close to each other.

So, in the 2nd and subsequent rounds the first attack will go to the attacker unless:

defender has higher ground
defender has a much shorter weapon (class size 2 or lower than attacker.)


*NOW... if the difference between weapons is 4 or more, then the shorter faster weapon gets 2 attacks per round, if the difference is 8 or more then the shorter weapon gets 3 attacks per round (after the initial first round of combat). This is because once people are pressed up close, a guy with a 10 foot halberd is in a real pickle vs. a guy with a short sword. Once that guy with the short sword gets in close, your halberd is almost useless this is reflected in the lethality of the above rule.

These became the d&d charging rules where longer weapon went first and the weapon speed rules where if the difference in weapon speed were X or more the faster weapon would gain multiple attacks, even though nobody on dragonfoot believes me and they think it only applies on a tie roll

[cooper]

If you're on a horse your attack roll is 2d6+2 in the first round and 2d6+1 in later rounds.

If you're foot attacking horse your attack roll is 2d6-1 (unless you declare to unhorse him, then simple 2d6 attack.)

In subsequent rounds your horse will also attack. Light horse gains one attack using the mace chart. Medium gets 2 attacks, heavy gets 2 attacks in addition to the rider using the flail chart for weapon vs. AC.

So Aragorn with a lance riding a heavy horse attacking a Troll with a 2 handed sword.

2d6+3 (+2 for first round attack, +1 for being a ranger)

troll
2d6-1

aragorn
2d6+2
2d6
2d6

[cooper]

PARRY: Parrying is for defenders.

1) Instead of attacking you can parry. If the defenders weapons are about the same (1 higher to 3 classes lower) simply subtract two from the attackers roll (2d6-2) and forgo your attack.

2) if you have a very long weapon (2 higher than the attacker) you can't parry (because you are now the attacker. See first post above).

3) if you have multiple attacks because you're weapon is much more agile and smaller than the attackers you may chose to parry with some, none, or all of your attacks (charging round doesn't count).

[Alex]

Okay, here are some places where my sample battles in chainmail man-to-man system went south.

The rules seem to assume that two combatants engage each other and it's that simple, despite using the term "melee." The rules talk about attacker/defender attacks then parries, the opponent, etc. But the whole combat order is thrown out the window when it comes to a proper melee. I had this problem in every battle I've run so far. The number of side A != number of side B, and inevitably some attackers all want to gang up on a single defender. In this situation rules that read "the order of attacks is attacker then defender" fall apart. A attacks B but B attacks C. B is both an attacker and defender but based on weapon lengths the order of attacks and parries can be anything but clear!

Then I had some trouble with number and order of attacks just between two foes. But that's not all important because I don't like the way weapon size plays in OD&D. Small weapons become the most powerful. Chainmail was a one-hit-kill system so getting first attack in round 1 meant something. But OD&D most foes will not die in a single hit and then the guy with the dagger will get 3 attacks on your two-handed fighter every round, but he'll do 3x the damage your heavy fighter does. So the guy with the dagger will probably win, provided he can survive one blow as he approaches.

[thegreyelf]

Except that the dagger will have a much harder time penetrating heavier armor than a sword or axe will...

[cooper]

...Small weapons become the most powerful.

Concerning your second point. The guy with the dagger actually isn't expected to get 3 attacks per round per se; the rule is there to encourage someone with a pike to drop the pole arm after the first attack and draw a melée weapon to engage in hand to had combat as was done historically.

My analogy is that while a musket is good for ranged combat, at somee point you "fix baonets" and stop trying to reload.

Pole arms and two handed swords have a purpose (charging, attacking mounts, etc, hand to hand close quarter combat is not one of them--Gygax wasn't re-creating wushu chinese martial artists--but historical european foot soldiers). Extra attacks is garys way of telling you if you use a pike in close combat vs. someone with brass knuckles, "you're doing it wrong."

I had this problem in every battle I've run so far. The number of side A != number of side B, and inevitably some attackers all want to gang up on a single defender. In this situation rules that read "the order of attacks is attacker then defender" fall apart. A attacks B but B attacks C. B is both an attacker and defender but based on weapon lengths the order of attacks and parries can be anything but clear!

1) Concerning this point we can look to Ad&d. In mass melee gygax makes clear that you cannot single out a foe and that attacks are done randomly, if a foe can be singled out, then the two are locked into combat and cannot change targets until one is defeated.

2) Nothing in the man to man rules say that initiative is not rolled. Whomever wins initiative is considered the attacker. Initiative is rolled once at the start of battle only, not every round. In fact, it specifically states, "...all preceeding rules apply except where amended below." The only amendments are that the attacker aka initiative winner, will not attack first if:

higher ground
weapon length
flanking

3) Positioning is an important determinant see [flanking] and [rear] on page 25 (3rd edition). You don't normally line up 3 guys vs. 1 guy in a straight line after round 1 unless the outnumbered opponent has a defensible position, to whit: were 1 guard with sword attacked by 3 others with daggers (A, B, C), in the opening round (closing) the swordsman would go first against one of the daggerers, then the daggerers attack.

G
A
B
C

In round two--some positioning would take shape, there would--in addition to 1 dagger wielder facing the swordsman, there would be 1 flanking dagger, and perhaps 1 rear/flanking dagger which are automatically granted first strike and he [the swordsman] would be barred from attacking the anyone behind him.

B
C
G
A

so, If our city guard (G) w/sword --having previously won initiative against 3 ruffians with daggers (one facing-A, one flanking-B 13 dex, one behind-C 11 dex) would maintain his status as "attacker" in round 2, however the behind and flanker would go first, then the guard--who could then attack the front or flanker, then the front dagger wielder goes last...How to determine if the flanker or behinder went first? I donno? Perhaps borrow from 0d&d and let the higher dexterity go first.


Now, say there is another guard "g" fighting another ruffian "d" mere feet away. Because the guards won initiative they go first; since there is no segmented combat however, the striking of the blows between the two guards don't have to be simultaneous (1 minute rounds and all that).

g
B
C
G
A
d

could be the attack order. Remembering that the closing round (round 1)--if everyone is meeting head long, it is especially simple to determine attack order.

Changing the guards from swordmen to pikemen and granting the ruffians with daggers the initiative (making them the attackers):

The ruffians charge in with the initiative, but because of the weapon difference, the defenders (pikemen) now are granted the status of first attack anyway. Assuming the ruffians survive the first round, in round two it would behoove the ruffians to flank their opponents (to grant the abovementioned benefits) and it would behoove the guards to draw swords. The guards in round 2 would still be considered the "attackers" as they held initiative in round 1 due to having the longer weapon, however any flanking ruffians would get first strike in round 2, or if they moved to higher ground, or had a vastly shorter weapon vs. the now drawn swords.

[Alex]

It sure is easy when you use small numbers like 1:1 and 3:1. That's not what I'm talking about. Let's start with an easy one. The rules (CM3E) say the first attack goes to the attacker, with the attacker being the one that chose to enter melee (refer to the movement and melee rules, anyone entering 3" has the option to enter melee, becoming the attacker). The exceptions to this are stated and include weapon length and attacking from above.

Ex 1: Party of 4 is attacked by 2 unarmed foes (say monsters with dangerous touch, men with brass knuckles, or martial artists). I've given unarmed WC 0. Party consists of WC 1(M), 3(C), 4(f), 10(F). u is first to enter melee and selects C as target but C is doing something other than attacking. Does u get multiple attacks since C is armed with WC 3 (WC 3 - WC 0 = 4 steps = 2 attacks) or not because he's not fighting back and his mace isn't in hand? f and F attack u, but u doesn't get to counter attack I assume since he's taking his attack(s) on C. Next round U enters melee and attacks F, but f/F/C attack u who attacks C. Third round M moves behind U and attacks with two daggers. Does he get two attacks? In round 3, M attacks U from behind, C attacks u, u attacks C, f attacks U, U attacks F, and F attacks u. There is a lot of cross-combat going on. What is the proper order of attacks for rounds 1, 2, and 3?

This was my simple combat. It gets really ugly when the melee involves 2x as many combatants per side and everyone has a different WC. (in case you don't recognize that, I use WC as weapon class, like AC is armor class)

I do not accept your "look to AD&D" answer. Chainmail is 1971 and AD&D is 1979. You can't look to a game from almost a decade later. There is nothing in Chainmail saying you can't pick your targets in melee and that seems totally illogical to me. Sure, in a 40 man bar brawl you can't pick your target, but 2 vs 4 you better be able to! Even in 4 vs 8 it should be reasonably easy to pick your target (the tough part is then avoiding the other person trying to hit you). Even so, I've never in 30 years heard of any AD&D DM having every attack rolled randomly to determine who it is against. That would take 99% of the fun out of D&D if my party engaged a mixed group of monsters and my fighters couldn't pick who they killed first but instead just rolled to hit and hoped the DM randomly selected someone they wanted to get rid of sooner rather than later. I don't think that rule has ever been adhered to in any RPG/edition.

[arcadayn]

I think part of the issue is that man to man was designed to be just that - man to man. It starts to break down when it becomes more than one on one (as you have obviously noticed ).

In larger battles, the Troop Type system becomes the better choice. I don't know if you have had a chance to check out Jason Vey's (aka thegreyelf) Forbidden Lore supplement, but he very eloquently explains the rationale for using all three combat systems in Chainmail (Man to Man, Troop Type, and Fantasy Combat Table) for various situations in OD&D. You can find the supplement at Jason's site: www.grey-elf.com/dnd/

Another resource I would highly recommend is the OD&D Chainmail Rules Compilation compilation by Aldarron available here: stores.lulu.com/boggswood
Without these two books, I would be completely at a loss trying to use Chainmail.

[thegreyelf]

You are WAY overcomplicating this, Alex. I've been using the M2M system for months in my Age of Conan game and have had none of the brick walls into which you're running.

Multiple attacks are determined between whatever combatants are exchanging blows in that particular moment. Thus, if a WC1 character is in melee with two characters with weapons of WC2 and 4, respectively, he will get an additional attack when attacking the WC4 enemy, but not when attacking the WC2 enemy.

It's not that complicated.

Now, if he wants to split attacks it's a bit touchier, but really...make a ruling and move on. The rules do not have to--nor are they intended to--cover every eventuality. I would rule in this case that the WC1 cannot split attacks--the WC2 character cancels out the extra attack he'd get against the WC4 enemy. So if he attacks the WC4 enemy, he gets 2 attacks but cannot attack WC2. If he attacks WC2 he gets 1 attack but cannot attack WC4.

It's really basic.

[aldarron]

Oct 6, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

Ex 1: Party of 4 is attacked by 2 unarmed foes (say monsters with dangerous touch, men with brass knuckles, or martial artists). I've given unarmed WC 0. Party consists of WC 1(M), 3(C), 4(f), 10(F). u is first to enter melee and selects C as target but C is doing something other than attacking. Does u get multiple attacks since C is armed with WC 3 (WC 3 - WC 0 = 4 steps = 2 attacks) or not because he's not fighting back and his mace isn't in hand?

How can your cleric be weapon class three if he is using no weapon? It hardly matters if he has a bazooka in his backpack if he is facing two attackers bare handed, he is as unarmed as the attackers. Not fighting back?! If your cleric is truly ignoring slashing claws and fangs then it’s a free attack and should be treated the same as an attack from behind.

Oct 6, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

f and F attack u, but u doesn't get to counter attack I assume since he's taking his attack(s) on C. Next round U enters melee and attacks F, but f/F/C attack u who attacks C. Third round M moves behind U and attacks with two daggers. Does he get two attacks? In round 3, M attacks U from behind, C attacks u, u attacks C, f attacks U, U attacks F, and F attacks u. There is a lot of cross-combat going on. What is the proper order of attacks for rounds 1, 2, and 3?

Proper order? I’m not sure there is such a thing. Combat is a messy business and you might have situational reasons for how you order the fight, but you can rank by WC if you want to, regardless of who attack who, or use dexterity or just go around the table. In his example of combat for OD&D in Strategic Review Vol. 1, No. 2, Gygax had the combatants roll initiative each round. www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12232

I’m not seeing much “cross-combat” in your example except for F who is attacking u while being attacked by U. U might have a flanking advantage here or not, depending on how you see it, but there is no reason a skilled fighter couldn’t be defending against one foe while attacking another in a one minute round.

Oct 6, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

I do not accept your "look to AD&D" answer. Chainmail is 1971 and AD&D is 1979. You can't look to a game from almost a decade later. There is nothing in Chainmail saying you can't pick your targets in melee and that seems totally illogical to me .

I’ve also been critical of Coopers use of later material, but there is no harm in looking to rules from Gygax that cover aspects of play not dealt with in the original Chainmail booklet. Not being able to VOLUNTARILY change targets after being locked in melee is a logical rule, it seems to me. In any case combatants certainly cannot jump from target to target, round to round, without something or someone facilitating the disengagement

Oct 6, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

Sure, in a 40 man bar brawl you can't pick your target, but 2 vs 4 you better be able to! Even in 4 vs 8 it should be reasonably easy to pick your target (the tough part is then avoiding the other person trying to hit you). Even so, I've never in 30 years heard of any AD&D DM having every attack rolled randomly to determine who it is against. That would take 99% of the fun out of D&D if my party engaged a mixed group of monsters and my fighters couldn't pick who they killed first but instead just rolled to hit and hoped the DM randomly selected someone they wanted to get rid of sooner rather than later. I don't think that rule has ever been adhered to in any RPG/edition.

I agree that players should get to pick their initial target, but that’s not how Gygax explained it – again from the Strategic Review example, “ Hero: 19; 01; 16; 09. Two out of four blows struck. There are 8 orcs which can be possibly hit. An 8-sided die is rolled to determine which have been struck. Assume a 3 and an 8 are rolled. Orcs #3 and #8 are diced for to determine their hit points, and they have 3 and 4 points respectively. Orc #3 takes 6 damage points and is killed. Orc #8 takes 1 damage point and is able to fight.”

[thegreyelf]

I've noticed that people tend to run into problems when trying to apply realism to Chainmail/D&D combat, which is HUGELY abstracted. What applies "in real life" doesn't apply in Chainmail, wherein one roll of the dice counts as a full minute's worth of combat.

[Alex]

That's very interesting. Earlier I was wondering about this. What if Chainmail isn't like D&D where you get one attack per round, but instead one per target? In other words, a melee round is 1 minute long. If there are 4 bad guys in a melee then each good guy is man-to-man against _each one_. He can parry (or not) each bad guy and counter strike (or not if dead or parry precludes this). It can certainly get messy with a lot of attacks that way, but probably fits the system better. Yet I still feel there would be some kind of ordering of attacks between pairs which isn't covered in the rules but would affect who can attack whom (due to deaths from earlier blows).

I played many mass combat test battles and I really did not like the feel of the system in play. I'm now play testing man-to-man. I decided a few months ago to give all the systems a fair go.

[cooper]

Oct 6, 2010 7:37:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

It sure is easy when you use small numbers like 1:1 and 3:1. That's not what I'm talking about. Let's start with an easy one. The rules (CM3E) say the first attack goes to the attacker, with the attacker being the one that chose to enter melee (refer to the movement and melee rules, anyone entering 3" has the option to enter melee, becoming the attacker). The exceptions to this are stated and include weapon length and attacking from above.

Well, since order of movement is determined by initiative...technically, the person with the opportunity to "enter melee" is the person who won initiative and moved into striking range. If they didn't, they set for a charge, in which case they were wielding a spear/pike and therefore gained first strike anyway, or they moved out of range (fled). Either way, winning initiative means first strike opportunity.

Ex 1: Party of 4 is attacked by 2 unarmed foes (say monsters with dangerous touch, men with brass knuckles, or martial artists). I've given unarmed WC 0.

I would council against this. WC 0 is no more logical than WC 1 for man sized creatures, after all a dagger is a close combat weapon that is used in brawls and for dispatching prone foes. Where did you get the idea of WC 0? Ad&d ? WC 0 only causes problems. unarmed or claw attacks by man sized foes should be the same as a dagger. In fact this is even more logical for monsters as their claws are very much like daggers!

Party consists of WC 1(M), 3(C), 4(f), 10(F). u is first to enter melee and selects C as target but C is doing something other than attacking. Does u get multiple attacks since C is armed with WC 3 (WC 3 - WC 0 = 4 steps = 2 attacks) or not because he's not fighting back and his mace isn't in hand?

No, if he's not wielding a mace than his WC would be the same as the unarmed yes? Either way, it shouldn't be WC 0 and no there won't be multiple attacks.

f and F attack u, but u doesn't get to counter attack I assume since he's taking his attack(s) on C.

You misunderstand counter attack. It is merely another way of saying the initiative loosers attack routine. You don't get to counter attack everyone who attacks you any more than a fighter would gets 3 attacks just because a dragon hit him with a claw/claw/bite.

Third round M moves behind U and attacks with two daggers. Does he get two attacks?

I'd say no, but it's not covered in the rules, so have at it.

In round 3, M attacks U from behind, C attacks u, u attacks C, f attacks U, U attacks F and F attacks u. There is a lot of cross-combat going on. What is the proper order of attacks for rounds 1, 2, and 3?

What's the order of combat in Ad&d when one side rolls 3 and the other rolls a 4 and one loosing fighter spends 2 segments charging and a wizard casts a 5 segment spell, does the loosing fighter finish his charge on segment 2 and and thereby hit the opposing fighters spear before the other fighters action or does his charge take place on 4+2=segment 6?

Ad&d is complex as well, but most people don't bother with segmented combat. It is easy enough to incorporate segmented Ad&d combat into chainmail if you really want to (see DM Prata's ADDICT PDF on dragonsfoot for more info--although he gets this exact section wrong as he didn't know about how it works in chainmail). Why is it so easy? Because gygax translated most of chainmails combat into ad&d which is what he neglected to do in 0d&d...just look at the DMG combat section on weapon speed determinants in order of attack (page 65?)...lifted right from chainmail.

I do not accept your "look to AD&D" answer. Chainmail is 1971 and AD&D is 1979. You can't look to a game from almost a decade later.

As I just mentioned above, your opinion is at odds with what gygax did. He literally moved whole portions of chainmail into Ad&d and why wouldn't he? He didn't rethink dragon hit dice or giants, or what a hero was, or spells or a host of things. Gygax had a great game with chainmail and used it constantly to flesh out dungeons and dragons, a game which after all is only a fleshed out version of man to man rules. Ad&d's segmented combat round is his attempt to flesh out the chainmail rules right down to weapon speed minus casting time = determinant of attack is a variation and convolution of the optional spell fizzle rules from chainmail.

In fact, Ad&d segmented combat rules (initiative determines the literal segment of telling blows, all other actions happen on segments determined by the time taken to perform said actions) would be a brilliant addition to chainmail man to man rules and nothing would be lost. The When Weapon Speed are a determinant in order of attack rules found in the dungeon masters guide fix all the problems you would have using weapon classes. If I may say so, I would call it a genius idea of mine, except it's Gary Gygax's idea and he was obviously thinking the same thing I am when he wrote it...which also explains why most d&d players don't use them, because they don't like miniature positional wargaming combat!

I'm sure gygax encountered the same problem you are (everyone would) have trying to figure out precise moments of telling blows. Viola! Segmented Ad&d combat rules with weapon speeds translated directly from weapon classes from man-to-man rules. (again having been left out of 0d&d).

Ironically, the man-to-man rules are easier to use without minatures than the ad&d segment rules.

[Alex]

Oct 7, 2010 0:19:20 GMT -6 cooper said:

I would council against this. WC 0 is no more logical than WC 1 for man sized creatures, after all a dagger is a close combat weapon that is used in brawls and for dispatching prone foes. Where did you get the idea of WC 0? Ad&d ? WC 0 only causes problems. unarmed or claw attacks by man sized foes should be the same as a dagger. In fact this is even more logical for monsters as their claws are very much like daggers!

Despite your insistence, WC 0 makes a lot more sense for attacking unarmed than WC 1 dagger. First, the dagger attack chart is representative of a sharp weapon for chance to hit/kill. Attacking with a fist will surely be harder, and not by -1 or -2, but by varying amounts since the dagger is better against heavy armors than a bare hand, I'd believe. Second, WC 1 indicates a "reach" where defined by Chainmail the higher the WC the longer the weapon. A fist has less reach than a dagger. Recall daggers are up to a foot long. I'm on my way out so more refutation will have to wait. But you are not more right than everyone else, I don't like your style of thinking or your arrogant way of answering. This is a game which is definitely unfinished and unclear in many areas. I'd like to hear how people answer these problems I encounter, but I do not want some arrogant jerk telling me my solutions are stupid and wrong and he has the only True answer in his house rules. For future answers like the ones you've been giving, please bite your tongue!

[aldarron]

Lets keep it civil Alex. Cooper may indeed be too sure of himself at times (or not, depending on your view), but I think your are interpreting his "voice" in ways he may not have intended. Tone is in the eye of the reader when it comes to interpreting text. I'm quite sure he never said your ideas were stupid or even wrong, but rather that he held to other ideas for other reasons. BTW I agree with your WC0 approach, but will admit that man to man is my least favorite combat variation as I personally think the whole weapon vs AC idea is a bad one.

[cooper]

Alex you're way off base in the interpretation of my tone, no worries. I'm still learning chainmail just like everyone else and make lots of mistakes that I hope you all correct me on when they occur.

firstly, lets correct an understandable mistake you made with weapon classes. A WC 0 vs. WC 3 is not four classes difference (fist vs. mace) it is only three.
WC 0 vs. WC 0 is zero
WC 0 vs. WC 1 is one
WC 0 vs. WC 2 is two
WC 0 vs. WC 3 is three categories difference.

Therefore, even in your example the unarmed opponent would not receive extra attacks, but lets ask ourselves, historically, should an unarmed opponent receive an advantage on the second round of combat vs. a sword?


WC 0? What's the punching reach of an elf compared to a very large man? A halfling? You yourself show that WC 0 causes problems, yet insist to use it. It is well within verisimilitude to have "1" be the fasted WC as daggers and mens arms are of enough variety as to not require rules that make normal play a head ache.

Weapon Classes deal with 14' pikes compared to 4 foot swords, creating a weapon class of 0 just to make the difference between a punch and a dagger thrust is overkill. Secondly, can daggers be considered grappling weapons in historical context? Yes, they can. So I see no reason why other grappling weapons (fists, hands) shouldn't share the same category.

I am by no means advocating that fists use the same attack chart as daggers in any case unless said hypothetical unarmed attack uses natural weapons resembling such weapons.

Let's look at the problem of WC 0. If-- as I mentioned previously, that multiple attacks from differences in WC are there to show how historically one would fight (dropping spears after a charge and drawing a sword) then what purpose does it serve to introduce something ahistorical, such as a man with brass knuckles having advantage over a man with a sword?

Your choice is between two instances of verisimilitude.

A) that of fists being faster than 1 foot daggers (true)

B) maces being a superior weapon vs. A pugalist (also true). No one would expect a man with a lead pipe to think it advantageous to abandon such weaponry in a bar brawl.

Sadly we must choose between the two. It is my opinion that the second is most satisfying to keep.

[Alex]

cooper said:

Alex you're way off base in the interpretation of my tone, no worries.

Good. Then lets get on to debating the merits rather than poo-pooing the very use of choices made.

cooper said:

firstly, lets correct an understandable mistake you made with weapon classes. A WC 0 vs. WC 3 is not four classes difference (fist vs. mace) it is only three.

I'm really bad with math. I can't subtract, which is why I don't do the THAC0 approach to D&D but instead use tables. Your math is better than mine. I bow to your correctness...this once.

cooper said:

multiple attacks from differences in WC are there to show how historically one would fight (dropping spears after a charge and drawing a sword) then what purpose does it serve to introduce something ahistorical, such as a man with brass knuckles having advantage over a man with a sword?

I see what you are saying. Chainmail M2M combat is a pretty good way to simulate historical one-on-one fighting. The question you pose here, however, is less cut and dried. What purpose introducting something ahistorical? Why to play the game of Dungeons & Dragons, of course! D&D is completely ahistorical, and in that game it says to use the combat system presented in Chainmail (an alternative is presented for people who don't own Chainmail, but since I've found a copy I want the originally printed words to mean something and am giving it a try). So while Chainmail is very historical, it's being used for a very ahistorical game which requires additional ahistorical, um, additions to complete the fantasy theme. It is quite regular to have unarmed monks and undead with superhuman strength in modern fantasy, so using Chainmail requires making concessions to represent this. In my example "u" was a wraith and "U" was a mummy (the other undead were destroyed in round 1 when "C" turned them, hence the not-using-his-mace-or-fighting-back).

And the earlier question about "where did [ I ] get WC 0, AD&D?" No, I just needed a place on the table for a new weapon-vs-armor row that was shorter in length than a dagger. The logical solution is 0, even if it presents some oddities during play. This was just play testing with one friend and I'm still making adjustments. I don't and never have played AD&D. Owned it in the early 80s but couldn't understand it. I'm moving from Mentzer back to OD&D.

[cooper]

If I wanted to know the exact order of attacks I would do the following:

10 segments to a turn, each segment equals 6 seconds.

if within 3" (man to man rules for melee range).
roll d6, high roll wins (as per mass combat rules for initiative). This high roll represents the segment of the round the loser's telling blow will land.

If multiple allies are tied to the same initiative roll, adjudicate the order of their attacks based on the WC from highest to lowest in round #1 and lowest to highest in round #2+

In round #1, The high roll represents the segment of the round the loser's telling blow will be struck, unless the losers weapon is 2 WC or more higher, or is attacking from a higher position, in which case they strike on the winning segment (the lower roll).

In round #2 the high roll again represents the segment of the round of the loser's telling blow, unless the loser's weapon is 2 WC or more lower, or is attacking from a higher position, in which case they strike on the winning segment (the lower roll).

On a charge, the telling blow's segment is determined by the segments of movement required to reach the target. The attacker/winner of initiative will have the first attack unless the defender's weapon is 2 WC higher, in which case his blow will be struck first (as long as he has set to receive the charge and has not used an attack already against a nearby foe.)

Ex 1: Party of 4 is attacked by 2 unarmed foes (say monsters with dangerous touch, men with brass knuckles, or martial artists). I've given unarmed WC 0. Party consists of WC 1(M), 3(C), 4(f), 10(F). u is first to enter melee and selects C as target but C is doing something other than attacking. f and F attack u, but u doesn't get to counter attack I assume since he's taking his attack(s) on C.

let's give the two parties a roll of 3 and a roll of 5 in the initiative (undead wins with the roll of 5).

On segment 3 (18 seconds into the fight) the parties get their attacks in this order:
WC 10 Fighter
WC 4 fighter
u attacks WC 3 Cleric, but C having +2 WC lands his blow first.
then u attacks once (only 3 WC difference not 4)


Finally to end round #1 (at 54 seconds into the fight)
WC 1 Magician

Round #2

Next round U enters melee and attacks F, but f/F/C attack u who attacks C.

We could treat this as a charge and have Undead reach Fighter on the segment it took to reach him, but lets just assume he steps through a door and attacks.

Segment 3
Fighter attacks Undead because this is the first blow between the two and longer weapon goes first (10 vs. 0 in this case)
now Undead attacks and gains 3 attacks against the spear/pike; he may use an attack to parry the Fighters. (had this been a charge, the Undead would have attacked only once and been unable to parry. A charge could have taken 1, 2, 3 or 10+ segments)

undead attacks Cleric.

Segment 5
Magician attack.
fighter

Round #3.

Third round M moves behind U and attacks with two daggers. Does he get two attacks? In round 3, M attacks U from behind, C attacks u, u attacks C, f attacks U, U attacks F, and F attacks u.

segment 3
undead attacks Cleric and Undead attacks Fighter 3x. He may use his 2nd or 3rd attack to parry the Fighter who is attacking him (which begs the question should unarmed be able to parry?)

Segment 5

Magician attacks (WC 1) assuming there wasn't a segment penalty added to the movement.
Cleric attacks (WC 3)
then fighter attacks (WC 4)
finally Fighter attacks (WC 10)

[Alex]

Well, you did try to address my example. But I have to say I really don't like the mixing of rules that you've chosen. You get the worst of Chainmail mixed with the worst of AD&D. I'm also thinking you missed something in round 2 because you have F attacking U, but U attacked F who attacked u. Case change. In longhand, Mummy attacks Fighter-with-big-weapon who attacks Wraith.

To answer your question about whether unarmed should be able to parry, that's up to the DM and the circumstances, but I have been saying that truly unarmed can only parry unarmed. Martial artists and users of gauntlets might parry weapons, although you don't want to risk that "weapon breaks" when the weapon is your hand!

[cooper]

In retrospect I think I would agree with you about using segments. I think the order of attack can be simply determined by weapon class irrespective of who attacks whom. The fighter with WC 10 would go first in round 1 and last in all rounds except when new enemies entered (in which case he would have reach advantage).

[coffee]

Oct 7, 2010 9:20:07 GMT -6 cooper said:

Therefore, even in your example the unarmed opponent would not receive extra attacks, but lets ask ourselves, historically, should an unarmed opponent receive an advantage on the second round of combat vs. a sword?

Ah, there goes that word "historical".

Historically throughout much of Europe (but by no means all), young squires who were training to be knights would first be taught to wrestle.

In situations where one has closed beyond the point one gains advantage from his long weapon, the rule of thumb was to "drop your weapon and grab the other man!"

Sadly, Chainmail gives no rules for wrestling. And most of the unarmed combat rules that have come up have ranged from inadequate to utterly ridiculous (in my opinion).


Other than making that one point, gentlemen, I'm happy to let the rest of you hash this out. I'll continue reading with interest.