Attack Matrix+Multiple Attacks vs. Normal Foes.

[sepulchre]

Bargle posted this at the Alehouse, but surprisingly got no feedback, so I thought I would post it here:

I would like to talk about what I consider to be the "double dipping" of Thac0 and multiple attacks vs. 0-level foes.

This system is based upon the defensive and offensive capabilities of the combatants; such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed in the matrixes. There are two charts, one for men versus men or monsters and one for monsters (including kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc.) versus men (9 Men&Magic).

This is a great explanation of the attack matrices. To understand how "ferocity, speed, and weaponry" were represented before this (not "the") optional combat system a trolls ferocity and speed were represented by an attack for each of it's hit die and a heroes was represented by his number of levels, and crucially at the same hit chance as a normal man.

However, the problem is no longer does a hero fight as "4 men" when he attacks 4 times with a 17 thac0 (actually thaco), but actually he is attacking as 6 men! This is because a 17 thaco is +2 more than the "normal mans" 19 thaco. This is further exacerbated at level 7 when the super hero fights with a thaco of 14. his 8 attacks per round are the equal of not "8 men" but of 18! This is a wild distortion!

What I am saying is that one shouldn't combine the ferocity and speed subsumed within the attack matrix with the ferocity and speed assumed in the level as it distorts and magnifies the explicitly listed powers of heroes, trolls, and superheroes et al. When a hero is attacking orcs, or an ogre is attacking a group of hirelings, if you are to use multiple attacks and if you are going to use the d20 attack roll, you should use a thac0 of 20 (or the equivalent of a "normal man" depending on what edition you are using) with a number of attacks equal to the hero/monsters level and not a modified thaco with number of attacks equal to the hero/monsters level.

Is there a distortion here, if so what are your thoughts and why do you believe this occured?

[tombowings]

Hu. Just playing off the idea, I think it could be interesting to allow characters to make one additional attack for each step down they decide to take on the "Men vs Men & Monsters" chart.

[norse]

Interesting idea tombowings! It doesn't match up to the way I run my games, but interesting nonetheless.

[kesher]

I have to confess, I don't really understand the original post. Sepulchre, if you're reading this, would you be willing to clarify? Anyone else?

[tombowings]

I don't either, to be honest.

[cooper]

Using 1:1 mass combat a 4th level fighter has 4 attacks let's say 4d6/5-6. Each blow has a 33% chance of scoring a hit. A single man at arms rolls 1d6/5-6--a single attack with a 33% chance to score a hit.

Using the d20 attack matrix a 4th level fighter has 4 attacks and let's say 30% (thac0 17 vs AC 2 let's say) for each blow whereas the man at arms has 1 attack and and 15% chance to score a hit (thac0 20 vs AC 2).

The alternate system makes the 4th level fighter more than "4 men". Giving thac0 17 and 4 attacks is "double dipping" if you will.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree that it is a mechanical problem in principle, if it is important to you game that you can intermix both combat systems. However, if you use one combat mechanic exclusively, then the imbalance seems less important to me. Also, (I can't seem to locate the passage of text but I'm sure I recall that...) fighting-Men are entitled to multiple attacks per round only versus foes of 1 or fewer HD.

If that is true, then the problem exists only against the least of foes, and higher level fighters are progressively more likely to spend much of their time facing greater opposition.

[sepulchre]

Kesher and Tombowings thanks for the curiosity, I think Cooper pretty much nailed it. As Waysoftheearth noted this strictly affects combat vs. 'the least of foes'. I find it to be compelling as it is an exaggeration (i.e. powercreep) of where we began in Chainmail. Otherwise it appears that the integration of the Attack Matrices and the ruling on multiple attacks against normal men might have just gotten lost in the translation.

[aldarron]

Seems less an issue of power creep, than one of power reduction for the man at arms.

[sepulchre]

Aldarron wrote:

...one of power reduction for the man at arms.

What purpose does that serve? Was there something previously wrong with men-at-arms?

[aldarron]

Apr 23, 2011 17:41:16 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

Aldarron wrote:

...one of power reduction for the man at arms.

What purpose does that serve? Was there something previously wrong with men-at-arms?

I doubt there was much thought put into such things when the charts were worked up. I don't think it was intentional.

[sepulchre]

Thanks Aldarron, I imagine you are probably correct here, though I realize the game and its evolution is organic, I am often rather disappointed when I come to such a conclusion - sort of like comig to a random dead-end in a dungeon - no searching for secret doors will change the outcome...