|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 15, 2012 17:12:59 GMT -6
I have had difficulty figuring out exactly which rules from Chainmail I should use with OD&D's alternative combat system. Currently I am using a modified version of the Chainmail turn sequence, together with Chanimail's missile weapon ranges and some of Chainmail's rules for movement and missile attacks, such as halt-move, indirect fire, pass-through fire, split-move and fire, and the rules for rate of fire of missile weapons (though I am in the process of changing some of these to fit with a 10-second combat round).
Has anyone created a list of the rules from Chainmail which are required in order to play OD&D, even if one is using the alternative combat system? As far as I can tell, OD&D has no rules for initiative (or turn sequence), missile weapon ranges, charging movement, and morale. At a minimum, I would assume that every game of OD&D at least needs a rule for initiative and a rule for missile weapon ranges. It's hard to keep Chainmail out of one's OD&D, even when using the alternative combat system!
Another question I have relates to using Chainmail for rates of fire. Does Chainmail give rates of fire for hand-thrown missile weapons, such as axes, daggers, and spears?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 18:00:24 GMT -6
Keep an eye on this thread JM. I'm not one of them but we have some posters here who are pretty savvy when it comes to Chainmail. You should get the answers you seek.
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Jul 15, 2012 19:10:28 GMT -6
I don't know that there's anything in Chainmail that's strictly necessary to make the alternative combat system work, but there are some neat bits.
Chainmail on horsed combat:
"On the 2nd round of melee the horse as well as its rider attack [...] and able to attack a different opponent than its rider, but only footmen"
"When fighting men afoot mounted men add +1 to their dice for melees and the men afoot must subtract -1 from their melee dice. Men may be unhorsed by footmen if they specifically state this is their intent before dice are rolled. A score equal to a kill, with no subtraction for their being afoot, indicates a successful unhorsing. An unhorsed man is possibly stunned [...] Remounting requires one-half turn, as does voluntary dismounting."
The morale rules, as you mentioned, are useful.
If your party encounters a fighting-man in his castle, they may need to engage in a joust (as per U&WA). Chainmail has a fun little jousting mini-game that can be used as-is.
There are some Chainmail rules that could significantly change the character of D&D melee, if you were to use them. This would get parties wielding far more polearms (not a bad thing, in my opinion):
"All troops formed in close order, with pole arms, can only suffer frontal melee casualties from troops armed with like weapons. While a Knight armed with a lance could attack a halbard formation, he could not attack a formation of pikes."
Certainly none of the things are required, but they could be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 15, 2012 20:30:22 GMT -6
Paulg: I agree that all the Chainmail rules you mentioned would be fun in D&D. I'm currently using the Chainmail rule for unhorsing, for example (though it hasn't come up yet in actual play).
For this thread, I am mainly interested in figuring out which Chainmail rules must be used with D&D, though (even if one is using the alternative combat system). Don't get me wrong--it's also interesting to think about the relative merits of adding various bits of Chainmail to a D&D game which uses the alternative combat system.
I had forgotten all about D&D's rule for lords in castles jousting with passerby. That's another example of a Chainmail rule which one "must" use even with the alternative combat system.
The Chainmail jousting rule is pretty neat. Even though it is a clear example of a Chainmail rule that us ACS folks are supposed to use, I wonder about how well it would work with D&D, since as far as I can tell the jousting rule does not take into account the combat ability of the jousters. I would want a 9th level Lord (for example) to have an advantage when challenging a low level character to a joust.
In any event, I still think that some Chainmail rules really are required for playing D&D, rather than being just fun but optional additions. Above, I suggested the list of such rules would include at least some portion of Chainmail's turn sequence, together with its rules for missile weapons ranges. I think I would add to that Chainmail's rules for rate of fire of missile weapons. (Though not a definitive reason for adding them to the list, Chainmail's rules for missile weapon rate of fire do show up in modified form in AD&D, which suggests at least that Gygax was using Chainmail ROF rules in his D&D campaign.)
D&D also carries over Chainmail's rules for movement rates, but I think these are already present in D&D, in the encumbrance table on page 15 of Men and Magic, and in the monster statistics table on pages 3-4 of Volume 2: Monsters & Treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 15, 2012 21:37:21 GMT -6
Truly required?: none.
Initiative - nah, players always go first (ala Arneson) or use the dex score, just like it says in the dex score description. Morale? there's the reaction table, but if you don't like that, try DGUTS. Missile ranges? - crib something from your Napoleonics game. Even the rules for jousting don't have to come from CHAINMAIL. The DM is free to use whatever means of adjudication they think best - mind you, Gygax was actively trying to get people to buy CM., and wanted people to use it with D&D, but D&D was sold as a wargame to a wargaming audience who were expected to use thier own preferences for resolving combat.
But in the general spirit of the question, here's a couple combat related things for which CHAINMAIL usefully fills in gaps.
Catapults - you need these rules both for catapults and you need them as the rules for thrown objects, such as when giants hurl rocks.
Structure damage in sieges and such.
Elves wielding magic swords get an additional +1
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2012 22:17:26 GMT -6
I have had difficulty figuring out exactly which rules from Chainmail I should use with OD&D's alternative combat system. Hi Jonathan, and welcome to the boards  I created a summary of the Alternative Combat System a while back. It includes sources for each "rule" -- including those from Chainmail -- which may (or may not) be helpful in your search. That aside, I think most of your specific questions about the Alternative Combat System are covered in the 3LBBs and/or the FAQ, if only obliquely in some cases. E.g., OD&D is loose on the notion of a turn sequence; implying only that it up to the referee to determine the order in which stuff happens. Initiative is thus specified by the referee, or else determined by 1d6 roll adjusted by dexterity (as explained in the FAQ). Movement rates are explicitly given throughout M&T, and also mentioned elsewhere in the 3LBBs. However, complex movement rules (including orders, halt moves, split moves, charges, etc.) are not "required" for skirmish scale OD&D combats (although I don't doubt that some players might employ these table top battle-like systems). I think it is generally assumed that OD&D combat is more abstract than these systems of troop movements might imply. Regarding the supposed "maximum missile ranges", these are irrelevant underground and hence are not required for dungeon-based games. Even in the wilderness maximum missile ranges are not practical for accurate shooting (except by massed missile troops) and hence are not really necessary where small companies of adventurers with mixed weaponry are concerned. Despite various ROFs being given in Chainmail, and again in AD&D, none are given explicitly in OD&D. This is a "very good thing" considering that missile fire is already overrated in OD&D, having an unmatched +2 to hit adjustment at short range, and +1 to hit adjustment at medium range (which was changed in AD&D to -2 at medium and -5 at long). Hence, I prefer to stick to just one attack roll per round for missiles. One Chainmail rule that does persist into OD&D is the notion that missiles cannot be fired into melee. Another is the idea that firing missiles on the move is disadvantaged: Chainmail states missilemen on the move may fire only if they beat a die roll made by the opponent (p11). This is not explicitly translated into OD&D terms, but I reconcile it by applying a -2 penalty for any non-stationary missile fire (excepting Elves, who are allowed to move and fire without penalty). Morale is determined with a roll of 2d6 and is adjusted by loyalty. Poor rolls will cause intelligent foe to surrender. Once again, it is up to the referee to adjudicate what is a "poor" roll -- although the reaction table is a great place to start. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 16, 2012 12:51:39 GMT -6
Aldarron: Thanks for the reply. Very informative as always. Truly required?: none. Initiative - nah, players always go first (ala Arneson) or use the dex score, just like it says in the dex score description. Morale? there's the reaction table, but if you don't like that, try DGUTS. Missile ranges? - crib something from your Napoleonics game. Even the rules for jousting don't have to come from CHAINMAIL. The DM is free to use whatever means of adjudication they think best - mind you, Gygax was actively trying to get people to buy CM., and wanted people to use it with D&D, but D&D was sold as a wargame to a wargaming audience who were expected to use thier own preferences for resolving combat. I guess what I mean by a rule being "required" is not that the game can't be played without them, but that there is a gap in the game which requires filling, whether from Chainmail or from a ruling by the referee. I assumed that gaps in the OD&D combat rules were meant to be filled in by Chainmail wherever possible, but that might have been a false assumption. Men and Magic does mention the influence of Dexterity on order of action, although this does not cover all cases, since monsters lack Dexterity scores. If the Chainmail turn sequence or some variant is not used, the referee would have to make a ruling to figure out how to apply the Dexterity rule for monsters (one thinks of Holmes' rule to roll 3d6 for monster Dexterity on the spot, which always seemed ad hoc to me, though potentially fun nevertheless). But in the general spirit of the question, here's a couple combat related things for which CHAINMAIL usefully fills in gaps. Catapults - you need these rules both for catapults and you need them as the rules for thrown objects, such as when giants hurl rocks. Structure damage in sieges and such. Elves wielding magic swords get an additional +1 Thanks for pointing those out. I have puzzled over what to do with grenade-like missile weapons in OD&D; it makes sense to adapt the rules for catapults from Chainmail. However, a ruling is still required to determine the range for grenade-like missile weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 16, 2012 13:11:20 GMT -6
Hi Jonathan, and welcome to the boards Thanks. It's been awesome to discover the community here. I created a summary of the Alternative Combat System a while back. It includes sources for each "rule" -- including those from Chainmail -- which may (or may not) be helpful in your search. This looks great, and answers a lot of questions. Sorry for missing that. OD&D is loose on the notion of a turn sequence; implying only that it up to the referee to determine the order in which stuff happens. Initiative is thus specified by the referee, or else determined by 1d6 roll adjusted by dexterity (as explained in the FAQ). I was aware that the FAQ mentions the initiative roll: "Surprise naturally allows first attack in many cases. Initiative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round. Dice scores are adjusted for dexterity and so on." ( The Strategic Review, #2, p. 3). The FAQ only says higher score gains first attack. It doesn't say that higher score gains first move, nor does it say when spells occur. However, the most straightforward way of interpreting this is probably that a side performs all of its actions in order of initiative--dispensing with Chainmail's more elaborate turn sequence. (This is a side issue, but for my own game, I am considering giving the simpler version of initiative a whirl during our next session.) I think it is generally assumed that OD&D combat is more abstract than these systems of troop movements might imply. That sounds right. Regarding the supposed "maximum missile ranges", these are irrelevant underground and hence are not required for dungeon-based games. Even in the wilderness maximum missile ranges are not practical for accurate shooting (except by massed missile troops) and hence are not really necessary where small companies of adventurers with mixed weaponry are concerned. Well, I agree that Chainmail's missile ranges make an awkward fit for OD&D. But I think it is presumed that those ranges will be used, with or without the ACS. (They show up in AD&D 1st edition, for example, and in other early versions of D&D.) This is a separate issue, but my way of handling missile weapon ranges in OD&D is to use the Chainmail ranges, but to reinterpret the distance of a scale inch such that one inch equals 5 feet. This reinterpretation makes the ranges more applicable to a dungeon setting, and also reflects the increased difficulty of targeting a single opponent in comparison to a mass of troops. Despite various ROFs being given in Chainmail, and again in AD&D, none are given explicitly in OD&D. This is a "very good thing" considering that missile fire is already overrated in OD&D, having an unmatched +2 to hit adjustment at short range, and +1 to hit adjustment at medium range (which was changed in AD&D to -2 at medium and -5 at long). Hence, I prefer to stick to just one attack roll per round for missiles. Previously I used the Chainmail rules for ROF, but I prefer your ruling, with the addendum that one or more rounds must be spent reloading heavy crossbows or arquebuses. In any event, thanks for the reply, Ways. You've given me a lot to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 16, 2012 13:14:51 GMT -6
I guess what I mean by a rule being "required" is not that the game can't be played without them, but that there is a gap in the game which requires filling, whether from Chainmail or from a ruling by the referee. I assumed that gaps in the OD&D combat rules were meant to be filled in by Chainmail wherever possible, but that might have been a false assumption. Yeah, I think that's about right, too. Thanks for pointing those out. I have puzzled over what to do with grenade-like missile weapons in OD&D; it makes sense to adapt the rules for catapults from Chainmail. However, a ruling is still required to determine the range for grenade-like missile weapons. In CoZ I basically change yards to feet, and adapt the bombing rules, which are basically an expansion on the CM catapult rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 19:48:36 GMT -6
Well, my #1 priority would be for morale. This was so obvious to us as miniatures wargamers we were surprised when people didn't just know about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 18, 2012 22:00:20 GMT -6
I agree, Gronan, morale is important for OD&D--or at least, it ought to be. It's surprising to me that Gygax downplayed morale in the FAQ: "This is a factor which is seldom considered" (TSR, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 3). The 2d6 method which Gygax proposes is vague at best. On the other hand, Chainmail's relatively complex rules for morale do seem somewhat out of place for OD&D. I prefer something along the lines of Gygax's 2d6 rule, but with a little more guidance about when to check morale and about what number different types of troops or monsters need to roll in order to pass the morale check.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2012 4:59:20 GMT -6
The 2d6 method which Gygax proposes is vague at best. Hmm, I don't know if it really is that vague. Let's have a look, shall we? Here's what the 3LBBs have to say about morale, loyalty and panic (and later, sudual): M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p13 M&M p32 M&T p6 M&T p6 M&T p6 M&T p7 M&T p7 M&T p7 M&T p7 M&T p7 M&T p8 M&T p8 M&T p9 M&T p15 M&T p15 M&T p20 M&T p32 M&T p34 M&T p37 U&WA p33 So what does it all amount to?* Intelligent NPCs check morale with a throw of 2d6. * Unintelligent NPCs do not check morale. * Morale throws are adjusted by loyalty rating. * Loyalty rating is not static but varies over time according to treatment, rewards, length of service and so on. * The "right now" loyalty rating of any encountered men or monsters varies; "normally" adjusting morale checks by between +2 and -2, but occasionally enemy will flee immediately or will fight to the death. The referee should determine the monsters' loyalty modifier "on the spot" if it is not known prior to an encounter. * A morale check is required if ever: 1) extra-hazardous duties are required (i.e., combat), 2) dangerous or unnerving circumstances occur (i.e., encounter traps, monsters, the threat of combat), 3) unfair treatment is received, 4) regular pay is not received, 5) bonuses are not received for taking part in an adventure. * The morale roll is adjusted for loyalty, and also as follows: 1) A bless spell will adjust morale checks by +1, 2) Berserkers, dervishes, mermen, orcs defending their lair and not outnumbered at least 3 to 1, minotaurs, skeletons, zombies, purple worms (and presumably other, similarly huge-sized monsters) do not check morale, 3) Cavemen, and kobolds, orcs, goblins and hobgoblins in daylight, suffer a -1 morale penalty, 4) Brigands and hobgoblins have +1 morale, 5) Gnolls have +2 morale. * Consult the following (re-worded, combat-centric) reaction table to interpret the result:
....2d6........Morale
...Score......Reaction
---------------------------------
.2.or.less....Surrender,.subdued, captured
....3-5.......Back.off, withdraw, flee
....6-8.......Uncertain,.hold.the.line
....9-11......Press.the.advantage.strategically
12.or.more....Charge.impetuously!
* Subdued monsters are captured, and will obey for a time. * All of the morale reactions are subject to referee's judgement. * Horses and mules (and presumably other ordinary animals) are panicked by fire and strange smells, unless they are battle trained. Panic is very probably synonymous with rout in this context. * potion of heroism improves morale by an unspecified degree (it is not made clear how a 4th level fighter's morale differs from a 1st level fighter's -- however, it seems reasonably to rule that this quaffing this potion means morale need not be checked at all). * wand of fear and drums of panic are magic items that cause a morale failure if a saving throw versus spells is not made. It is also worthwhile noting the rules for subdual: M&M p13 Here we see that surrender and subdual are considered more-or-less equivalent, in either case the enemy is captured. Therefore, the rules given explicitly for subdual might be thought to be applicable to morale tests in general. This is what M&T says about subdual: M&T p12 Most notably, the referee is instructed to test for subdual in every combat round in which the Dragon is hit. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that morale should likewise be checked in every combat round that damage or losses are suffered. So, the 3LBBs do give quite a lot of detail on morale... it's just not all in one place. Enjoy |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 19, 2012 5:36:52 GMT -6
Hey, Jonathan -- welcome to the boards. Just a warning that the topic that you brought up has the potential to explode on us. Not your fault; you had no way of knowing. Just thought you'd appreciate the heads-up. There are two main camps: the "Chainmail is essential" group and the "you can play without Chainmail" group. Both are right in their own way, as you can interpret the OD&D rules with a couple of different styles in mind. I know of some folks who have essentially never heard of Chainmail who have played OD&D just fine, others who feel that the rules are incomplete without Chainmail. I'd say listen to waysoftheearth and aldarron because they have both played the game with Chainmail. If you decide you don't like what they have to say, you can do just fine without. Everybody wins.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 9:27:24 GMT -6
It's surprising to me that Gygax downplayed morale in the FAQ: "This is a factor which is seldom considered" My reading of that is that EGG is cautioning the reader not to overlook the use of morale, rather than his downplaying its importance. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 19, 2012 12:29:00 GMT -6
Very nicely done Wote, as always. The 2d6 method which Gygax proposes is vague at best. ..... * Consult the following (re-worded, combat-centric) reaction table to interpret the result:
....2d6........Morale
...Score......Reaction
---------------------------------
.2.or.less....Surrender,.subdued, captured
....3-5.......Back.off, withdraw, flee
....6-8.......Uncertain,.hold.the.line
....9-11......Press.the.advantage.strategically
12.or.more....Charge.impetuously!
Nevertheless, I think the vagueness JM alludes to is a very real issue for many readers, precisely because of the lack of a table like the one you created above. Not having it spelled out that or some similar way has led to many ignoring Morale entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 19, 2012 16:05:30 GMT -6
Hmm, I don't know if it really is that vague. Let's have a look, shall we? .... Enjoy Thanks for putting that together, Ways. Do you have a digitized copy of the rules that you can search? You're quite adept at finding all of the references in the text to a given term or topic. There are more rules about morale in the 3BB's than I realized. When I said the rules seem vague at best, I was actually thinking of two questions which they don't seem to answer (at least, if one is expecting the answer to come in a certain form). The first question is: When should the referee check for monster or NPC morale? The answer I was expecting was something along the lines of "when one third of the monster's party has been captured or killed," or "when the monster is reduced to 50% or less of its total hit points," or in any event something with a degree of precision that we get from Chainmail about when to check for morale. As you show, Men and Magic does talk about when to check the morale of an NPC henchmen in the employ of a PC, but this does not seem to be meant to cover all cases in which morale can and should be checked. Also, you point out the subdual rules, but I think these are meant to apply to dragons specifically, and not to all of the NPCs or monsters which may take part in combat. The second question I wanted an answer to was: How do the morale rolls of tougher monsters or NPCs compare with the morale rolls of weaker monsters or NPCs? In seeking an answer to this question, I was assuming that some creatures should have better chances at making a morale check than others, and for reasons other than their treatment by a PC employer. I would imagine that a kobold should have a lower chance to make a morale check than a balrog, all else being equal. But the rules don't seem to directly support that. You do a great job of showing all of the instances in the rules regarding monsters which receive a bonus to morale, or a penalty to morale, or regarding monsters which need not check morale. It's not clear to me this is meant to be a complete set of rules or guidelines for morale, though. Kobolds and goblins receive a -1 penalty to morale in full daylight, but other than that they have the same morale as balrogs, hydras, you name it; hobgoblins receive a +1 morale bonus, but vampires, wights, etc. do not. On the other hand, maybe that's all the rules there were intended to be for morale in OD&D. Monsters either never check morale, or they have similar chances when a morale check is called for, apart from a small bonus or penalty every now and again (the gnoll appears to be the rare exception with a +2 morale bonus). I think my expectations for what a D&D morale rule is supposed to look like were conditioned by Gygax's AD&D 1st edition rule, and by the Moldvay Basic D&D rule. I suppose I can live without much differentiation between adjustments to morale dice for monster type, but I would like more specific guidance about when to check for morale for monsters and NPCs not in a PCs employ. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful and content-rich post. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 19, 2012 16:14:36 GMT -6
My reading of that is that EGG is cautioning the reader not to overlook the use of morale, rather than his downplaying its importance. I think that the sentence is ambiguous and can be read in the way you suggest. The reason why I don't read it that way is because the context of the sentence seems to suggest otherwise: Gygax's second sentence in the quotation above explains why it is not necessary to check morale for PCs and "a few others" (presumably their henchmen); his third sentence explains that unintelligent monsters fight until death and thus never check morale. This implies that in many D&D combats, morale does not need to be checked, which favors interpreting "morale is seldom considered" in the way I suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 19, 2012 16:22:26 GMT -6
* Consult the following (re-worded, combat-centric) reaction table to interpret the result:
....2d6........Morale
...Score......Reaction
---------------------------------
.2.or.less....Surrender,.subdued, captured
....3-5.......Back.off, withdraw, flee
....6-8.......Uncertain,.hold.the.line
....9-11......Press.the.advantage.strategically
12.or.more....Charge.impetuously!
I forgot to comment on this table. It's actually a very helpful re-working of the reaction table for the purpose of a morale check. I would be tempted to interpret a result of 2 as immediate surrender, a result of 3-5 as a rout or disorderly retreat (which enables attacks from the rear by opponents in melee with routing combatants), and a result of 6-8 as an orderly retreat (what is called a "fighting withdrawal" in David Cook's Expert D&D book and in his AD&D 2nd edition books), which doesn't allow attacks from the rear by opponents in melee. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2012 16:46:29 GMT -6
Thanks for putting that together, Ways. Do you have a digitized copy of the rules that you can search? Thank you for giving me a reason to investigate morale Yes, I have scanned my 1st and 6th prints for exactly that purpose. One day (if I ever get them) I'm hoping to be able compare each print exactingly via the same method. The first question is: When should the referee check for monster or NPC morale? ... but this does not seem to be meant to cover all cases in which morale can and should be checked. ... Also, you point out the subdual rules, but I think these are meant to apply to dragons specifically The 3LBBs are rarely exhaustive, instead giving a few example from which the referee can extrapolate to other cases. Morale is no different in this regard. Concerning subdual, I am convinced that the subdual rules are generally applicable. Sure, there is a detailed section on "Subduing Dragons" in volume 2, which begins by stating: Note that it clearly states that ANY attack may be to subdue? Volume 1 also states: Again, telling us that monsters in general, not just dragons, can be subdued. Other monster descriptions in M&T mention subdual, too. E.g., Lycanthrope young are automatically subdued if the parents are slain. Balrogs cannot be subdued (also addressing part of your next question). And so on. The second question I wanted an answer to was: How do the morale rolls of tougher monsters or NPCs compare with the morale rolls of weaker monsters or NPCs? Morale varies, monster to monster, by the "loyalty adjustment", which is typically +2 to -2, or in some cases meaning morale checks are never taken. I believe this sets a precedent encouraging the referee to adjust monster morale within this range, more or less at his whim. If the referee is so inclined, he can rule that Kobolds (and perhaps all monsters with less than 1 HD?) have a -2 morale adjustment compared to Men. If the referee desires that tougher monsters have higher morale (as you imply above), he might rule that monsters in general adjust morale by +1 for every 4 HD, or something to that effect. It is all perfectly within the referee's rights and responsibilities to make the game his own. Regarding some of the monsters you specifically named; vampire and wights and so on are never hurt by mundane weaponry, and thus are never required to take a morale check under mundane attacks. Meanwhile, Kobolds (occurring in their hundreds) might be routed by a single stone throw. Balrogs cannot be subdued, and therefore by implication need not take morale tests. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful and content-rich post. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my post |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 18:17:18 GMT -6
This implies that in many D&D combats, morale does not need to be checked, which favors interpreting "morale is seldom considered" in the way I suggested. Well put. Thank you for the cogent, rational analysis. Good gaming! ETA: And, have an exalt for being such a gentleman!  |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 20, 2012 20:55:19 GMT -6
Well put. Thank you for the cogent, rational analysis. Good gaming! ETA: And, have an exalt for being such a gentleman! Hey, thanks, and no problem. I figure we can accomplish a lot more here if we're civil. In any event, I look forward to learning more from reading these boards. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 22, 2012 15:34:45 GMT -6
* Consult the following (re-worded, combat-centric) reaction table to interpret the result:
....2d6........Morale
...Score......Reaction
---------------------------------
.2.or.less....Surrender,.subdued, captured
....3-5.......Back.off, withdraw, flee
....6-8.......Uncertain,.hold.the.line
....9-11......Press.the.advantage.strategically
12.or.more....Charge.impetuously!
I forgot to comment on this table. It's actually a very helpful re-working of the reaction table for the purpose of a morale check. Another thing to consider is that the Turn Undead ability is actually a morale check for undead. Undead do not otherwise check morale, but the commanding presence of cleric causes them to check morale at 2d6 + 2 x (cleric level - monster HD). An adjusted reaction of Good or better (9+) means the undead creatures flee the cleric's presence. This is sort of the inverse of the table WotE provides, since troop morale is usually expressed in terms of the troop's reaction to the master's orders. Another thing to consider is the command control rules in the ship-board mêlée section of U&WA. When the leader issues an order in the middle of the chaos of combat, there's a chance that the troops won't obey the order immediately; it may take them a while to become aware of the order and react to it. This roll is a 1d6 roll. I use that in combination with the 9+ ond 2d6 rule, adjusting this to 5+ on 1d6 and adding morale modifiers to the target number instead of the roll, so that I can use damage rolls directly as some of my morale rolls and simplify the number of dice I roll. In other words, if you do 5 or more points of damage to a bandit during an ambush, some of the bandits have lost morale and will retreat. If damage is adjusted, a 7+ means pure panic. Since I have Chainmail, but don't play it and haven't studied it thoroughly, I use morale checks in a couple situations that approximate the conditions listed in Chainmail without adhering to any strict rules: - When first encountering a superior force (separate roll;)
- On first injury (use damage roll;)
- When leader is first injured (use damage roll;)
- When losing half their force to casualties (use the last damage rolled;)
- Again at 2/3 casualties;
- When leader is killed (use damage roll;)
- When confronted with something feared, or when there is a sudden shift of power ("We didn't know they had a REAL WIZARD!")
I alter the results of morale failure based on the nature of the creature and the desires of the leader; morale failure means the creature does what comes naturally, while morale success means the creature obeys the last order they remember their leader giving. So, I actually *do* roll morale for berserkers who are told to "hold the line" or merely strike to subdue; morale failure means they push forward to slaughter the enemy mercilessly, and the extreme failure means s foolhardy charge. Different situations can trigger different effects. For example, a goblin shieldwall may flee when they take half casualties, or they may break ranks and charge when they deal half casualties to the enemy. Plus, creatures that are listed as "never check morale" may have to check morale in situations other than battle; it depends on how I interpret the reason behind the creature's fearlessness, sort of like the situation with the undead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2012 15:34:01 GMT -6
I agree, Gronan, morale is important for OD&D--or at least, it ought to be. It's surprising to me that Gygax downplayed morale in the FAQ: "This is a factor which is seldom considered" ( TSR, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 3). The 2d6 method which Gygax proposes is vague at best. On the other hand, Chainmail's relatively complex rules for morale do seem somewhat out of place for OD&D. I prefer something along the lines of Gygax's 2d6 rule, but with a little more guidance about when to check morale and about what number different types of troops or monsters need to roll in order to pass the morale check. 1) Like others, I read "is seldom considered" to mean "people forget about it." 2) We just used the "Morale due to excess casualties" from CHAINMAIL and ignored the "Post Melee Morale" every turn. So Orcs were like heavy foot, check at 1/3 casualties and need 8 or 9 (I forget which) to hold, Kobolds are light foot, check at whatever casualties light foot check at, etc. EDIT: 3) "Unintelligent" monsters did not check morale, but while an Ochre Jelly would fight to the death, a semi-intelligent giant lizard -- or anything with "animal level intelligence" -- might break off combat if it was badly hurt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2012 15:38:07 GMT -6
When should the referee check for monster or NPC morale? The answer I was expecting was something along the lines of "when one third of the monster's party has been captured or killed," or "when the monster is reduced to 50% or less of its total hit points," or in any event something with a degree of precision that we get from Chainmail about when to check for morale. The second question I wanted an answer to was: How do the morale rolls of tougher monsters or NPCs compare with the morale rolls of weaker monsters or NPCs? 1) The assumption was that the CHAINMAIL table for excess casualties would be used in addition to the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Section rules where various fantasy critters are given human equivalents -- i.e. Kobolds are light foot, Orcs are heavy foot, etc. 2) See 1, pretty much. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 25, 2012 19:46:49 GMT -6
1) Like others, I read "is seldom considered" to mean "people forget about it." 2) We just used the "Morale due to excess casualties" from CHAINMAIL and ignored the "Post Melee Morale" every turn. So Orcs were like heavy foot, check at 1/3 casualties and need 8 or 9 (I forget which) to hold, Kobolds are light foot, check at whatever casualties light foot check at, etc. EDIT: 3) "Unintelligent" monsters did not check morale, but while an Ochre Jelly would fight to the death, a semi-intelligent giant lizard -- or anything with "animal level intelligence" -- might break off combat if it was badly hurt. Hello, Mike, and thank-you for your answers. It's always of great interest to hear how about how the game was originally played. It does seem like using the instability due to excess casualties rule would be sufficient for morale in D&D, except that then you have to decide what troop type intelligent monsters count as (EDIT: I mean, the intelligent monsters not already covered in Chainmail). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2012 22:19:28 GMT -6
Hello, Mike, and thank-you for your answers. It's always of great interest to hear how about how the game was originally played. It does seem like using the instability due to excess casualties rule would be sufficient for morale in D&D, except that then you have to decide what troop type intelligent monsters count as (EDIT: I mean, the intelligent monsters not already covered in Chainmail). You're welcome. As far as major PC-type monsters -- Balrogs, dragons, etc, that were intelligent -- I evaluated things like the monster was my PC. "Crap, I'm below half hit points (or 1/3 hit points) and I haven't killed a single one of these clowns. Time to beat cheeks!" When I'm a player, there's a point at which I'll try to cut my losses and get away, and that point is subjective. I just play monsters the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 30, 2012 12:20:11 GMT -6
Very nicely done Wote, as always. ..... * Consult the following (re-worded, combat-centric) reaction table to interpret the result:
....2d6........Morale
...Score......Reaction
---------------------------------
.2.or.less....Surrender,.subdued, captured
....3-5.......Back.off, withdraw, flee
....6-8.......Uncertain,.hold.the.line
....9-11......Press.the.advantage.strategically
12.or.more....Charge.impetuously!
Nevertheless, I think the vagueness JM alludes to is a very real issue for many readers, precisely because of the lack of a table like the one you created above. Not having it spelled out that or some similar way has led to many ignoring Morale entirely. That's for sure. I've been trying to run the game recently, and the rules are sorely missing a table like this. I get it now! Thanks to all who helped explain morale in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Aug 23, 2012 16:31:43 GMT -6
2) We just used the "Morale due to excess casualties" from CHAINMAIL and ignored the "Post Melee Morale" every turn. So Orcs were like heavy foot, check at 1/3 casualties and need 8 or 9 (I forget which) to hold, Kobolds are light foot, check at whatever casualties light foot check at, etc. Seems like this simple idea (2d6 vs. a target number) is the basis of the morale rules in B/X > BECMI > RC, albeit in reverse, no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2012 20:30:05 GMT -6
Don't know, I've never looked at any of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 1, 2012 8:12:15 GMT -6
To me, it's no surprise that loyalty is a 3d6 roll. I treat it as the "7th stat". It does so much to help define an NPC. Combined with a morale score it is simple to construct an idea of who this NPC henchman is. (high loyalty and low morale in a fight?, low loyalty, but fearless in combat? etc).
For monsters, I like the idea that a dragon or vampire might have a morale of 2...and therefore wish to parlay at the first sign of danger. A dragon that wimpers and crys after the first blow is struck. Likewise a group of fanatical kobolds must be guarding something or someoneone important if I randomly roll a 12 morale! The random allocation of morale is great for getting the DM's ideas flowing in directions he might not have.
|
|
