|
|
Post by galadrin on Feb 9, 2011 23:49:21 GMT -6
I was browsing a few different threads on these forums, and it seems the prevailing interpretation for using OD&D with Chainmail is that normal men simply cannot harm fantastic opponents, as only "Hero" and "Superhero" may roll on Chainmail's Fantasy Combat Table.
What is the argument for this, again? Chainmail clearly states that many monsters can be harmed by normal men (the entry for Ogre, for instance, gives that monster 6 hits by normal men, or one hit by a hero). There are certainly are monsters that are described as being impervious to normal attack, but not all fantastic opponents carry this description.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 10, 2011 1:19:55 GMT -6
Any creature who is listed in Appendix D (Fantasy Reference Table), under Attack and Defend, as "Special" can only be fought on the Fantasy Combat Table (Appendix E) (or through their own special rules, such as Wizards).
Other creatures, such as the Ogre, can be fought by normal men.
In other words, the "fantastic opponents" to which you refer are the ones on the Fantasy Combat Table.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Feb 10, 2011 10:14:35 GMT -6
And if there's an "argument" at all, it was most likely along the lines of, "Well, only a Hero or a Wizard should be able to fight a Balrog!" And on that table, only the Wizard would have much of a chance...  |
|
|
|
Post by galadrin on Feb 10, 2011 13:10:48 GMT -6
Ok thanks for the clarification! I thought there must be some distinction...
So what is the consensus on Monsters versus Men? If you have a Swordsman (who can fight as a Hero), does an attacking Troll roll on the Fantasy Combat Table or on the Man-to-Man table to harm him? And does a success on the Fantasy Combat Table equal one hit (with 1-6 points of damage), or one kill?
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 10, 2011 13:17:49 GMT -6
So what is the consensus on Monsters versus Men? If you have a Swordsman (who can fight as a Hero), does an attacking Troll roll on the Fantasy Combat Table or on the Man-to-Man table to harm him? And does a success on the Fantasy Combat Table equal one hit (with 1-6 points of damage), or one kill? I don't know about consensus (or even if there IS a consensus), but it seems to me that combat between a Swordsman and a Troll would indeed be done on the Fantasy Combat Table. And yes, the attack would do 1-6 points of damage, as seen here: D&D Volume III, p. 25: |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 10, 2011 13:24:35 GMT -6
Ok thanks for the clarification! I thought there must be some distinction... So what is the consensus on Monsters versus Men? If you have a Swordsman (who can fight as a Hero), does an attacking Troll roll on the Fantasy Combat Table or on the Man-to-Man table to harm him? And does a success on the Fantasy Combat Table equal one hit (with 1-6 points of damage), or one kill? Hero vs. Ogre rolls on the Fantasy Combat Table. Roll equal to the target number pushes the defender back one square, greater than the target number kills the defender. The text is unambiguous in my opinion. [edit: thanks to Coffee for the quote suggesting otherwise!] Against normal troops, the Ogre attacks and defends as 6 heavy foot. True Trolls are a special case and can only be killed in Fantasy combat, where they fight as Giants, as stated in their descriptive text. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 10, 2011 13:34:00 GMT -6
The text of Chainmail as a wargame is indeed unambiguous. But based on the first post, I assumed we were using Chainmail with D&D for purposes of this discussion.
Otherwise it would be a kill, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 10, 2011 13:45:29 GMT -6
The text of Chainmail as a wargame is indeed unambiguous. But based on the first post, I assumed we were using Chainmail with D&D for purposes of this discussion. Otherwise it would be a kill, yes. I've never actually played D&D plus Chainmail, so it is a theoretical discussion for me. I always assumed that if you played D&D using Chainmail as the combat system, one hit = one kill. However the quote you found suggests otherwise, thanks! But now is there any place in the D&D books where it actually says whether to use the Troop, Man-to-Man, or Fantasy tables (or all 3)? Or is the text ambiguous? |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 10, 2011 14:25:31 GMT -6
But now is there any place in the D&D books where it actually says whether to use the Troop, Man-to-Man, or Fantasy tables (or all 3)? Or is the text ambiguous? Ambiguous is putting it mildly ;D Here's the entire paragraph I quoted from above: I always read that as using the Man-to-Man portion of Chainmail, but others on this forum believe it means to use the Mass Combat (with Fantasy Supplement) for individuals, instead of 20:1 ratio. (And the last part, with one fantastic type against a single 20:1 figure -- I still don't know how that would work.) Anyway, that's the way I read it. Hope this helps! |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 10, 2011 15:30:07 GMT -6
Aye, ambiguous. I think the answer depends on whether or not you're using the Greyhawk Supplement with its weapon vs. armor type and damage vs. larger opponents tables. If you're playing with just the 3 "LBB's" then take a look at a 3rd-level F-M (Swordsman): his "Fighting Capability" is "3 men or Hero -1." It's clear to me that these refer to the mass combat table (used for resolving combat between groups of men) and the fantasy combat table (since it is the only table that references heroes, superheroes, and wizards). I interpret this to mean that, vs. any normal opponent, he fights as 3 men (anywhere from light foot to heavy horse, depending on equipment) on the mass combat table at 1:1 scale. And when facing creatures explicitly marked as Special on the Fantasy Reference Table (Balrogs and the like), he fights as hero -1 on the Fantasy table. This has the consequence that, in normal combat, weapon type is irrelevant (as it is in the 3 LBBs) and only armor type matters. (All that's missing is a table converting leather/chain/plate/shield to light/heavy/armored foot.) But it also has the side effect that, on the fantasy table, weapon and armor types are completely irrelevant! This gives a wonderful "pulp" element whereby heavy arms and armor are effective against an army of orcs, but when facing a dragon, your best bet is to strip down to your loincloth, oil yourself up, clench your dagger between your teeth, and jump onto its back. It also has the side effect that 1st level characters simply cannot harm fantastical creatures without magical aid. I like this but YMMV. But if you are using the Greyhawk Supplement, then I agree there is a case for using M-t-M. Furthermore, I think the weapon-damage-vs-large-creatures rule replaces the Fantasy Combat Table by giving Fighting Men a boost vs. dragons, balrogs, etc. All you'd need to do to make it work is assign various creatures a corresponding weapon and armor type (tough hide is like leather and claws are like daggers) and in fact I think I've seen something like this done before on these forums. It somewhat "demystifies" fantastical creatures by imagining them as a collection of teeth, scales, and talons, rather than a single terrifying entity as the Fantasy Table. What I would never do is mix M-t-M and Fantasy within a single campaign, since the math is just weird. For example a Super Hero wielding a sword has an easier time hitting a dragon (10 on the FCT) than hitting an orc with plate & shield (11 on MtM). In summary I would probably choose mass combat+fantasy table for a freewheeling, pulp/weird, rules-lite 3 LBB campaign, and MtM for a "realistic," medieval-Europe-style Greyhawk campaign. (edit: assuming a parallel universe where the D&D rules don't exist and d20's haven't been invented, of course!) |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 10, 2011 16:48:16 GMT -6
Well...
As far as the Superhero vs. the Dragon, sure that would be on the Fantasy table. I wouldn't see any reason to do it on the MtM table.
But how about the Superhero vs. 6 normal men? The progression holds on the Fighting Capability column, so the Superhero would fight as 8 men. That means he gets 8 attacks on the MtM table against those 6 men. He could possibly kill all 6 of them!
It's like the example of the Troll, on p. 5 of V. II:
Again, that's how I've always read it.
As long as your interpretation works for you, I have no beef with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 10, 2011 17:31:17 GMT -6
As far as the Superhero vs. the Dragon, sure that would be on the Fantasy table. I wouldn't see any reason to do it on the MtM table. Agreed, and that's probably how I'd do it at my table. However a Greyhawk-style group that enjoys weapon-vs-armor "realism" might find the Fantasy table over-simplified. So for this style of play, you could say maybe the dragon fights on MtM as barded horse with teeth like a dagger and claws like battle axes, or something like that. This means pikes, lances, and plate armor are the best (melee) tools for fighting dragons, sounds "realistic" to me I suppose. But how about the Superhero vs. 6 normal men? The progression holds on the Fighting Capability column, so the Superhero would fight as 8 men. That means he gets 8 attacks on the MtM table against those 6 men. He could possibly kill all 6 of them! I agree, except that I would not use MtM for an 8-on-1 fight. I would use mass combat, so if the combatants are equally armed, the Superhero rolls 8 dice and gets a "kill" (or 1d6 damage) for each 6, while the men roll 6 dice hitting on 6. If one side has better armor, then the number of dice changes; at the extreme, if the 6 normal men are heavy horse and the Superhero is light foot, he rolls 2d6 and they roll 24d6! I do see the argument for using MtM for this fight, but rolling 2d6, adding the dice, comparing it vs. the chart, then repeating 8 times for the Superhero and 6 times for the men, then rolling damage.... too clumsy at the table, IMHO. As long as your interpretation works for you, I have no beef with it. As I said, I've never used this in a game, so I'm just thinkin' out loud here. Personally I have never used weapon vs. armor tables and so therefore I would not personally use MtM. Also I want to get the point across to the OP that, by my reading, regular combat and fantasy combat are totally distinct systems; fantasy combat is, indeed, limited to Heroes and Wizards and has no basis in "reality" whatsoever. Fantasy combat allows Bard to slay Smaug with a single arrow or Conan to punch a swamp beast in the snout, and that may or may not be appropriate for all styles of play. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 15, 2011 8:24:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Feb 15, 2011 8:41:27 GMT -6
Thanks for the excellent links! I will give both documents a read to enhance my understanding of Chainmail and OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by galadrin on Feb 18, 2011 22:56:16 GMT -6
Ok, so new question. When fighting a Giant, for instance, does a Hero use the Fantasy Table or does he attack as 4 men? If he gets his choice, why wouldn't he always choose to fight as 4 men (which has better odds to do damage)? If he is forced to make a single attack on the Fantasy Table, why should a Warrior be more dangerous to a Giant than a Hero?*
*This is based on the logic that a Warrior (2nd level Fighting-Man) cannot roll on the Fantasy Table, but gets 2+1 attacks against mundane enemies and thus deals far more damage to a Giant than a 4th level Hero would.
|
|
Alex
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by Alex on Feb 20, 2011 20:59:33 GMT -6
My personal preference, not necessarily supported by quotes in OD&D, is that if you don't want to play "evolved" D&D with a d20 for most things, then go with Mass Combat tables all the way and no dice on your table but a billion d6's. I've run some tests with a friend on this and it was interesting but gave me some pause. I found the number of dice can be excessive if you have a large monster, as the number of hit dice will already be high and then you'll be multiplying that by the heavy horse factor in many cases (dragons, giants, etc). In one trial combat the player made the mistake of letting the giant enter melee with the magic-user (who failed to polymorph him the round earlier). BAM!!! "Uhh, do you really want me to roll 48 dice to count the hits or just declare the MU dead?" (I had accidentally written down the giant as heavy horse instead of heavy foot...as heavy foot it should have only been 12 dice).
Now that I read this thread and look at the tables again I see it would work perfectly well as described, although the 2d6 vs table for "special" entries is inconsistent and slow and doesn't take into account armor or weapon. I'd still prefer to treat the "special" as mass combat and toss the table and 2d6 mechanic. Particularly since playing a real D&D adventure or campaign (of medium to high level) the party is more likely than not to encounter creatures mostly treated as "special" for which you'd have to make up more rows and columns on the table. A real headache. That table would grow out of control quickly. The solution is to only worry about heroes/superheroes/wizards on one axis and the new monsters on the others. Monster vs monster rarely comes up in my games (but I don't use Monster Summoning spells or monster hirelings as mentioned in M&M).
|
|
|
|
Post by Harbinger on Feb 20, 2011 23:35:35 GMT -6
Ok, so new question. When fighting a Giant, for instance, does a Hero use the Fantasy Table or does he attack as 4 men? If he gets his choice, why wouldn't he always choose to fight as 4 men (which has better odds to do damage)? If he is forced to make a single attack on the Fantasy Table, why should a Warrior be more dangerous to a Giant than a Hero?* *This is based on the logic that a Warrior (2nd level Fighting-Man) cannot roll on the Fantasy Table, but gets 2+1 attacks against mundane enemies and thus deals far more damage to a Giant than a 4th level Hero would. I'm not speaking from experience here, but if playing 'a hit kills' then 12 hits are required in a round to kill a giant, while a hero can do it with one hit. If playing with 'a hit does 1d6' then if the hero hits, have him cause 4d6 damage if using the fantasy table. But really if he can attack on the mass combat table, that does seem a better bet. |
|
|
|
Post by galadrin on Feb 21, 2011 20:36:45 GMT -6
I like the "one hit kills" idea. Alternatively, I might rule that hits on the Man-to-Man table do only 1 point of damage, whereas hits on the Fantasy Table do 1d6 (although this means the average Hill Giant can soak 28 arrows, and the average Ogre can absorb 15 spear stabs). I'm open to other suggestions too, of course.
How would you rule Hero vs Hero combat? Fight on just Man-to-Man Table, just Fantasy Table or choice of either?
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 22, 2011 7:53:03 GMT -6
Ok, so new question. When fighting a Giant, for instance, does a Hero use the Fantasy Table or does he attack as 4 men? If he gets his choice, why wouldn't he always choose to fight as 4 men (which has better odds to do damage)? If he is forced to make a single attack on the Fantasy Table, why should a Warrior be more dangerous to a Giant than a Hero?* *This is based on the logic that a Warrior (2nd level Fighting-Man) cannot roll on the Fantasy Table, but gets 2+1 attacks against mundane enemies and thus deals far more damage to a Giant than a 4th level Hero would. Sounds like another sad case of AD&Ditis.  The Cure - quotes like this one from UW&A "In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!" |
|
|
|
Post by galadrin on Feb 22, 2011 16:02:01 GMT -6
Well I guess I can rephrase... how have you guys judged these situations?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 22, 2011 18:43:45 GMT -6
Well I guess I can rephrase... how have you guys judged these situations? The concept of the attack matrix is a good one, but there are worthy ideas in the 3 original attack tables. Personally, I might do the following: 1) Use MtM tables when facing creatures 2 HD (maybe 3) and below and the fighting-man wishes to make as many attacks per round as he has levels, other classes receive as many attacks as is listed for them in men and magic (I would probably modify those charts a bit.) 1a) use a d12 instead of a 2d6 (easier to throw and read multiple attacks at the same time, and gives the poor d12 some lovin') 1b) damage is never rolled, each hit simply does "1 hit die" of damage; I can't be arsed to roll hit points for each nameless goblin, I just assume they have 3.5 hit points and PC's do 3.5 damage) 2) For "fantastic opponents" of 4HD or more I would use the d20 attack matrix and use variable weapon damage and strength bonus. 2a) Fighting men would have 2/1 attacks at level 4 and 3/1 attacks at level 7. Since each +4 on the d20 attack matrix is mathematically the same as an extra attack, a 4th level fighter with a thac0 17 and 2 attacks+strength bonus, and 1d12 dmg with a long sword when fighting an Ogre is very close to the 4x attacks per round at d6 damage that a hero would get on the MtM tables. The d20 attack matrix is interesting: This is why monsters improved faster than PC classes, is that an orcs ferocity and speed was greater than that of a similar 1 HD human. I find the attack matrix really is best for fantastic opponents when combined with variable damage. 3) Use mass combat for mass combat only (keeps things special) |
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 24, 2011 11:11:09 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
I would submit that the probability distribution of the 2d6 is part of the 'implied landscape', the abstraction that is. 2d6 subsumes part of how difficult it is to vanquish armored opponents.
Cooper I am probably a little dense on probabilities sometimes, could you expand on the 'extra attack' part?
|
|
