Reworked Chainmail Man-to-Man Table for OD&D

[tombowings]

After a brief discussion with Mushgnome on the OD&D CHAINMAIL rules compilation tread, I began to think that a new man-to-man table might be advised if Chainmail was to be used as the OD&D combat system.

The basis of the argument is that certain weapons, the flail, morning star, and two-handed sword, and just too powerful when compared to the rest and actually service to limit a player's choice of character concept.

So I created a draft of a reworking of the Man-to-Man Melee table.

The assumption I'm working with is that since lower classed weapon gain additional attack, higher classed weapons need to be more likely to hit. While the table is not completely balance in all respects and, I'm sure, contains a number of glaring typos, it may help to at least begin to level out the playing field in regards to weapon choice.

Enjoy, critique welcome.

[norse]

I praise you for taking on the idea, but personally (just me, not going to argue you out of doing it) I think the Chainmail man to man rules are fine as they are. If it matters to you that weapons behave reasonably realistically, then use Chainmail Man to Man. If you prefer people to have absolute freedom with their weapons then use the Alternative System.

To be honest, without wanting to offend Mushgnome, the spear finds it difficult to hit a moving and defensible plate armoured opponent for a reason. The numbers are horrific. But they are horrific for a reason! Gygax was well aware of the distribution of numbers on 2 dice rolls. Note that if the target is not mounted and is prone then you hit on 7's...

Also a flail isn't uniformly the best foot weapon to use (not your words I know). Take a look at the two-handed sword. The numbers are much better. It's very important to realise that a two-handed sword isn't used like a great metal club. When using a two-handed or hand-and-a-half sword you have to treat it mentally more like a pole-arm. Indeed, against plate-armoured opponents you would spend a lot of your time half-swording; that is to say, gripping the blade about half-way up it's length with one hand, the other remaining on the hilt. This provides fantastic leverage and will allow you to deal with plate much more effectively than trying to cut at it. Also, in order to pierce plate you will find that a thrust (the motion produced by a spear) has difficulty penetrating. A stabbing motion is required to penetrate, and if a stab is made successfully against a plate armoured opponent that you have managed to keep still (another reason to half-sword, armoured combat is all about controlling the opponent, you know it today as wrestling) you *will* penetrate.

Also historically spear wouldn't often be facing plate armour, only chainmail. Polearms become more important. Weapon and armour technology progress together.

My point is, the numbers are the way they are for a reason. Those that care, care. Those that don't wouldn't be using the Man to Man tables.

What I think *would* be a good idea, is essentially the alternative combat system but redone for 2 dice and fitting into Chainmail terminology, as a replacement for the Man to Man table for those that wish it.

Another point: the interaction of weapon to weapon (not a matter of speed as suggested by chainmail, but a matter of utility and shape) is vastly more important the interaction of weapon to armour with the only major exception being plate (which changes things utterly). So I'd quite like to see a Man to Man table working on this assumption instead!

[tombowings]

I think you brought up some valid and interesting points there, norse, and I agree with you on most accounts.

I think you're right about weapons acting very similar vs. most armor types and plate being the exception to the rule. I hadn't really thought about it before. But, I also understand that what I'm attempting to create is NOT realism nor anything remotely of the kind. My goal was to keep with Chainmail as the base and make it playable as one of three combat systems in an OD&D game.

Also, if you look at the table, I created, I actually did keep the spear terrible vs. plate armor. I do admit, however, that I completely BSed the to hit number of horse (with and without barding), though, which is why this is primarily a draft.

[norse]

I noticed that I'm glad you did. Good work either way, and it's definitely valid. I'm just not sure how much use it would get! I might take a look at working out that weapon vs weapon table I mentioned later on. It's much too early in the morning now!

[tombowings]

I think you're really on to something there, Norse. I'm not sure I know enough about weaponry to stat one up on my own, but I'm doing just about everything I can to avoid studying for finals.

[Mushgnome]

Very nice work! I don't have time right now to compare line-by-line with the original, but the big improvement that jumps out at me is that wearing armor in your revision is generally better and never worse than not wearing armor (except for the halberd; not sure if you missed that one). Your new probabilities fit a little better with my expectation of how armor "should" work in D&D. Personally I would make the sword and spear a little better than currently (though I see you gave the spear a nice little boost vs. horses) based on their prevalence in mythology and the fantasy genre (not based on "realism").

Based on my earlier comments in the other thread, I now realize I critiqued Chainmail based on only a partial grasp of its rules. I haven't taken into consideration the rules regarding parrying, multiple attacks, etc. I see now there is more depth to the system than I'd originally assumed based solely on reading the tables.

[tombowings]

Even taking the tables into account, you issues are still the big ones and actually even more prevalent in some case (the morning star, for example).

[norse]

Currently ruminating on the Weapon vs Weapon table idea.

My thoughts at the moment:

Extra weapons to put in the defending columns would be Shield and Plate. Added to both Attacking and Defending lists would be combinations of Dagger, Hand-Axe, Mace, and Sword with Off Handed Parrying Weapon (namely Buckler or Dagger).

Higher weapon class attacks first (i.e. a Pike attacks before a Dagger), and the lower class weapon does not get to attack until his opponent fails to hit him. At which point they close the distance and the higher class weapon may not attack until his opponent fails to hit, whereupon he disengages by moving 1" backward and regains the initiative. If both weapons are of the same class this does not apply and initiative is diced instead.

There would be a possibility of a "bind" (where both weapons are too close to attack, but both parties dare not risk disengaging without getting attacked) and the consequences of it:

A safe disengage requires a roll of 2d6 and attempting to roll equal to or higher than your weapon class (funnily enough, pikes find this difficult). If both opponents take this option then the lowest successful dice roll gains the initiative and may make an immediate attack (making daggers excellent at these close fights, but horribly deadly in dagger vs dagger fights).

You might decide to just throw your opponent instead. In which case roll 2d6. If your roll is higher than your opponents roll to either disengage or to throw, you throw your opponent to the ground, gain the initiative and are now hitting on 5's until they get up (if they do). You gain a +2 to this if you are wielding a two-handed weapon and your opponent is not (yay, leverage!).

It's going to be more extensive than the standard Weapon to Armour table because of the necessity of counting Shields, Plate Armour and Off Hand Weapon combinations as separate weapons. And if you start doing this, the stuff about binds and things becomes quite important too. But I never said this was going to be the easy option! It should run quite smooth, I just haven't thought about language that isn't clunky yet!

[aldarron]

Its a lot of fun to play with these tables but Weapons v. AC (alone) just isn't a valid way to model combat. The numbers on the table are all arbitrary and unrealistic anyway and there's no way to "fix" it without adding a great deal of modifiers that take the more important factors into account.

Imagine modeling olympic fencering matches by rolling 2d6 rapier vs cloth armor.

Nice work though.

[norse]

Hence playing with a weapon vs weapon table instead From direct experience this is a more accurate way of simulating it. Changing only when plate or a shield is in use.

[aldarron]

Mar 15, 2011 8:29:07 GMT -6 norse said:

Hence playing with a weapon vs weapon table instead From direct experience this is a more accurate way of simulating it. Changing only when plate or a shield is in use.

Definetly an interesting approach Norse and looking forward seeing what you come up with. Not convinced the principle of weapoon v weapon is any more "realistic" but its still a cool idea.

In archaeology we have a saying - Don't loose sight of the indian behind the artifact.

[norse]

Well, the main difference between two opponents is that of skill. Enough practice with a weapon will allow you to overcome it's disadvantages against certain other weapons, but you're still working against it.

So skill level is taken care of by level/hit dice etc in D&D, and ignored like any wargame in pure Chainmail. Leaving only the interaction advantages and disadvantages between weapons to be worked out. Armour doesn't alter this interaction until you get to full plate, at which point the system changes; anything less than plate just makes it easier to turn a blow.

Weapon interaction is much more "realistic" because it *does* make a difference. Much more so than weapon vs armour interaction, but less so than practice. A man with a dagger fighting a long spear will be more likely to hit the long spear wielder than a man with a flail, because the dagger wielder has an off-hand free to catch the spear and close. This man with a dagger, however, will find it difficult to land a hit on a man wielding a longsword because they are unlikely to be able to close before being cut in twain (or to want to) and so must attempt something difficult (there are ways, but they take practice, and no good if your opponent has the practice too...). Daggers are rather useful against shields, because the shorter length allows the right angle to stab in on the shield side into the arm or torso. An axe of course can chop at the shield, and also makes an excellent hook if you have an off hand weapon. These difficulties take psychological factors into count, as well as physical leverage and shape.

Naturally this expands the size of the table a bit, and slightly complicates the system. But I'm not going to claim this is the best table for everyone to use at the table. Just an experiment with an alternate approach

[aldarron]

Completely agreed, with the partial exception of "purpose built" weapons which will perform better or worse on particular kinds of armor. Like, for example, the narrow stiff arrow tips designed to punch through ring mail, but trying to factor in all those kinds of oddities would make a really unwieldy table.

[norse]

Well, missile weapons are different entirely. The vital interaction there is missile vs armour, so the standard chainmail system would be fine. As for weapons such as the warhammer, horsemans hammer or the estoc they would count as their nearest equivalent weapon for the purposes of hitting (polearm; mace or possibly axe considering the beak; and longsword respectively), with a penalty to the targets armour saving throw. Armour in this system would allow a saving throw on two dice to survive a hit, representing it's capacity to assist in turning a blow. If used in conjunction with d&d it might represent armour better with a damage reduction instead. Not because the armour 'soaks up' the blow, although there is an element of this involved with the padding, but because hit points represent more your ability to not be hit by a deadly blow in this first place, and armour just makes this easier.

[aldarron]

Mar 16, 2011 11:14:21 GMT -6 norse said:

Well, missile weapons are different entirely. The vital interaction there is missile vs armour, so the standard chainmail system would be fine. As for weapons such as the warhammer, horsemans hammer or the estoc they would count as their nearest equivalent weapon for the purposes of hitting (polearm; mace or possibly axe considering the beak; and longsword respectively), with a penalty to the targets armour saving throw. Armour in this system would allow a saving throw on two dice to survive a hit, representing it's capacity to assist in turning a blow. If used in conjunction with d&d it might represent armour better with a damage reduction instead. Not because the armour 'soaks up' the blow, although there is an element of this involved with the padding, but because hit points represent more your ability to not be hit by a deadly blow in this first place, and armour just makes this easier.

Much the same as the Armor save in my Dragons at Dawn. Thats 2d6-2 against Arnesons ascending scale of 1-10, but 2d12 on the AC 2-9 works just as well. The difficulty is the bell curve mathmatics that really favors better armors, of course you can change that if you prefer by just using a d 12.

[norse]

I'm really looking forward to taking a look at Dragons at Dawn. Alas, I am poor and unlikely to be able to get it for a bit. We'll see what happens next pay day

I knew vaguely that Arneson used armour saves, but for some reason I had always assumed they used percentile pairs. Now I think on it, I haven't the faintest idea why I was under that impression! The saves I'd be recommending with this would not be based on the armour class. Because in this you would not get one if you aren't wearing armour, and shields would not count toward your save either, the numbers would then be different (and fewer). I'd be using 2d6 *because* of the bell curve, allowing me better control over the odds than you get with a single dice.

[aldarron]

Mar 17, 2011 4:36:20 GMT -6 norse said:

I'm really looking forward to taking a look at Dragons at Dawn. Alas, I am poor and unlikely to be able to get it for a bit. We'll see what happens next pay day

I knew vaguely that Arneson used armour saves, but for some reason I had always assumed they used percentile pairs. Now I think on it, I haven't the faintest idea why I was under that impression! The saves I'd be recommending with this would not be based on the armour class. Because in this you would not get one if you aren't wearing armour, and shields would not count toward your save either, the numbers would then be different (and fewer). I'd be using 2d6 *because* of the bell curve, allowing me better control over the odds than you get with a single dice.

Ah no, your impression is correct. Adventures in Fantasy (1978) has an armor save (kinda complex) and AiF is all percentile dice. I transported the idea into Dragons at Dawn because in 1971 Arneson did have an unspecified saving throw to avoid combat damage that may or may not have been against Armor, and at that point all his saving throws were 2d6 based.

[norse]

Ah, that explains that then Been a long time since I read AiF.

I think that in order to make my table more feasible I'm going to begin with period specific ones. Dark Age and early Mediaeval first, to avoid the difficulties with player. And I s'pose I have to do an Elizabethan one too really.