Combat round and movement

[bestialwarlust]

With the abstract round of combat for one minute how do you adjudicate moving and attacking in the same round? It seems unlikley to me that one can only attack or move in a one minute combat round.

Say a character is encumbered enough for a move of 9" during a combat do you allow a full movment of 9 or do you only allow half rate for combat ?

[talysman]

Since there are two moves per round, I figure you move once and attack once, or move twice, or (if you are an archer with a clear shot and not being attacked) fire arrows twice.

This can be a full 60 feet to 120 feet per move, but you rarely have that much space in a melee.

[waysoftheearth]

There are two moves per ten minute "exploration turn" for sure, but are there also two moves per one minute "melee turn" (a.k.a. "melee round")? There may well be, but I've never used them so I'm not aware of them.

One minute "combat rounds" (I'll call them that to conveniently distinguish them from ten minute exploration turns) are sufficiently abstract that they should, IMHO, include movement and fighting without requiring overly much detail.

We're told in the surprise section that 3" (30ft underground) is melee distance, so therefore we know that at least 30ft of movement has no significant impact on one's ability to attack.


How do I adjudicate it? I don't worry too much about the specifics once melee has commenced; the outcome of attack rolls each round determines who is getting the upper hand/better positions and so on. I usually only concern myself with which routes are being held/blocked off, and by whom. Others are assumed to be moving with the ebb and flow of battle.

The more participants there are, the less precise I get. E.g., in a two or three per side fight I might pay careful attention to relative positions. But when I have 60 Orcs versus 10 PCs + 10 hirelings, it's far more practical to draw abstract battle-lines and simply note which side of "the line(s)" character are on, rather than painstakingly recording the position of every figure. Or, in the case of a completely unformed melee, it's quite appropriate to determine who can attack who randomly.

[verhaden]

Here's what Philotomy has to say on the subject:

web.archive.org/web/20120629181141/http://www.philotomy.com/#initiative

web.archive.org/web/20120629181141/http://www.philotomy.com/#movement

web.archive.org/web/20111012014620/http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html

Here's the simple sequence:

1.) Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.
2.) Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3.) Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
4.) Both sides move
5.) Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect; archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again
6.) Melee

(Though, I prefer to flip #5 and #6 and rule that spells cast from scrolls go into effect with 'book' cast spells level 3-6.)

This combat sequence is a slightly modified version of the combat rules in Swords & Spells (which is based on the original Chainmail medieval miniature combat rules). I find these rules satisfying for a number of reasons. First, they use precise positioning and miniatures to give a tactical feel to combat. Second, they provide a simple way to include spell casting times into the combat. Third, they provide rules for firing multiple missiles in a combat round. Fourth, I like the way movement is divided up so that opposing forces "meet in the middle" rather than one side closing all the distance on their turn. Lastly, I like the way these rules pull together and work with concepts from D&D (rate of fire, weapon reach, facing, spell-casting time, et cetera), and that they are firmly rooted in the traditional sources of the game. Special thanks to T. Foster (and his posts on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse forums) for the suggestion to use this sequence with OD&D, and for his assistance and advice in compiling and adapting these rules for man-to-man combat.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2013 21:51:40 GMT -6 verhaden said:

Here's what Philotomy has to say on the subject:

web.archive.org/web/20120629181141/http://www.philotomy.com/#initiative

web.archive.org/web/20120629181141/http://www.philotomy.com/#movement

web.archive.org/web/20111012014620/http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html

Here's the simple sequence:

1.) Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.
2.) Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3.) Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
4.) Both sides move
5.) Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect; archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again
6.) Melee

(Though, I prefer to flip #5 and #6 and rule that spells cast from scrolls go into effect with 'book' cast spells level 3-6.)

This combat sequence is a slightly modified version of the combat rules in Swords & Spells (which is based on the original Chainmail medieval miniature combat rules). I find these rules satisfying for a number of reasons. First, they use precise positioning and miniatures to give a tactical feel to combat. Second, they provide a simple way to include spell casting times into the combat. Third, they provide rules for firing multiple missiles in a combat round. Fourth, I like the way movement is divided up so that opposing forces "meet in the middle" rather than one side closing all the distance on their turn. Lastly, I like the way these rules pull together and work with concepts from D&D (rate of fire, weapon reach, facing, spell-casting time, et cetera), and that they are firmly rooted in the traditional sources of the game. Special thanks to T. Foster (and his posts on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse forums) for the suggestion to use this sequence with OD&D, and for his assistance and advice in compiling and adapting these rules for man-to-man combat.

Speaking of Philotomy, whatever happened to his website?

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 12, 2013 21:51:40 GMT -6 verhaden said:

Here's the simple sequence:

1.) Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.
2.) Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3.) Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
4.) Both sides move
5.) Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect; archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again
6.) Melee

One implication of this sequence is that only spell casters who win the initiative can be have their spells interrupted by enemy missile fire

Another implication of this sequence is that missile weapons can attack twice per round. Given that missile attacks already have the highest attack adjustments in the game (due at least partially, IMHO, to their rate of fire)... doubling their firepower as well might be considered by some to be a bit over the top!

But each to his own

[Zenopus]

Is there any authority in the LBBs for spell disruption?

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 12, 2013 23:20:00 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Is there any authority in the LBBs for spell disruption?

We discussed this one over here:

odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=adventures&action=display&thread=7015

[Zenopus]

My head must be full, I'm forgetting threads I've actively participated in.

Further question: Is there anything in the LBBs that implies you must declare your actions (such as casting a spell) before a combat round begins? Or can you simply decide to cast a spell when it's "your turn" (however that is decided) and it goes off right then?

[runequester]

We run movement pretty abstract. I generally permit quite a bit of running about, but since we're usually fighting at close quarters in the dungeon, you can pretty much move anywhere in a room in one round, unless someone is interfering with it.

You can move and engage in melee in the same round, no problem. Since a round is a long time, I don't penalize switching weapons and similar either

[verhaden]

Feb 12, 2013 23:19:41 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 12, 2013 21:51:40 GMT -6 verhaden said:

Here's the simple sequence:

1.) Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.
2.) Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3.) Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
4.) Both sides move
5.) Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect; archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again
6.) Melee

One implication of this sequence is that only spell casters who win the initiative can be have their spells interrupted by enemy missile fire

Another implication of this sequence is that missile weapons can attack twice per round. Given that missile attacks already have the highest attack adjustments in the game (due at least partially, IMHO, to their rate of fire)... doubling their firepower as well might be considered by some to be a bit over the top!

But each to his own

Spellcasters who win the initiative don't have their spells interrupted, as it states that they finish their spells at the end of 'phase one' before enemy archers or spellcasters can begin their sequences in 'phase two' (assuming low level spells). I would rule that missiles loosed in phase one would disrupt spellcasters during phase two, and that if, during 'phase one', a spellcaster decided to cast a higher level spell or read from a scroll, they could become disrupted if they were hit or engaged before it could come into effect.

An archer can only fire two missiles per round if he chooses not to move or does not become engaged in melee. Elves can move at half their rate and fire once. If you choose to move your full rate you do not fire.

And I think it nicely subsumes with the concepts of "bows have a 2/1 rate of fire" and "crossbows have a 1/2 rate of fire".

Pulled from Delta's D&D Hotspot and modified, I only allow short ranged missile fire in underground situations (no attack bonus), and have a -4/-8 penalty for medium/long ranges outdoors.

--

That being said, I don't use this sequence all the time. I usually allow characters to move and 'take an action' during a 10 second combat round. Actions don't include talking, but would include attacking, reloading, digging through your backpack and drinking a potion, casting a spell, etc.

And I don't really consider movement rates or encumbrance much, unless you're being chased or something. I let characters move as much as can reasonably be expected.

--

Feb 12, 2013 23:17:02 GMT -6 @sirravd said:

Speaking of Philotomy, whatever happened to his website?

Still posts on K&K -- probably just forgot or didn't want to renew the domain/webhost.

FYI, if anybody ever wants to look for cheap hosting, check out Lithium Hosting for $10 a year. I've been using and recommending them for years with very little problems.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 12, 2013 23:34:34 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Further question: Is there anything in the LBBs that implies you must declare your actions (such as casting a spell) before a combat round begins?

(Going from memory) I believe that declaration of player intent is implied by the 3LBBs, rather than stated explicitly. Therefore, it's not absolutely stated when any such declaration should fall. There was some discussion about this over here.

Feb 13, 2013 7:10:32 GMT -6 verhaden said:

Spellcasters who win the initiative don't have their spells interrupted ... (assuming low level spells).

True, but I was referring to the higher level spells.

Feb 13, 2013 7:10:32 GMT -6 verhaden said:

And I think it nicely subsumes with the concepts of "bows have a 2/1 rate of fire" and "crossbows have a 1/2 rate of fire".

I don't have them in front of me right now, but I'm pretty sure this notion doesn't appear in the 3LBBs.

FWIW -- a +2 "to hit" adjustment is approximately equivalent of +1 damage in terms of average damage caused over time. Hence:

1d6 dam @+2 to hit ~= 4.5 dam ~= 1d8 dam @+0 to hit,
1d6 dam @+4 to hit ~= 5.5 dam ~= 1d10 dam @+0 to hit,
1d6 dam @+6 to hit ~= 6.5 dam ~= 1d12 dam @+0 to hit, etc.

Given OD&D's +1 to hit with >12 dexterity, +2 to hit at short range, and (possibly) a further +1 for Halflings (or +3 if you use GH's modifier), then missiles are already ~150% as deadly as regular weapons. Allowing two shots per round makes them ~300% as dangerous. That's off the charts in OD&D terms.

And (as I previously posted in the linked thread) the one minute combat round is abstract. It's not meant to be a blow by blow account of a combat. Instead, one attack roll represents a series of feints, parries, blows and counter blows. The same applies equally to missile fire, so there is no need to make multiple attack rolls for multiple shots; these are assumed in any case in the one attack roll.


But as always, each to his own

[verhaden]

Chainmail, page 11

Crossbowmen, Archers, and Longbowmen may fire every turn. If Archers or Longbowmen do not move and are not meleed at the end of a turn they may fire twice. If Crossbowmen, Archers and Longbowmen are moved up to one-half of their normal movement (excluding charging) they may fire once; and if they are moved over one-half of their normal movement rate they may fire once only if they beat their opponent's die roll. Heavy Crossbowmen fire every other turn.

And in the AD&D Player's Handbook on page 38.

Doesn't appear in either Holmes or Moldvay, as far as I can tell, though.

[talysman]

One of the reasons why I like applying the two moves per turn rule to melee turns as well as exploration turns is because it makes it easier to judge order of actions without needing to use a sequence list (like Chainmail's, or Philotomy's.) Just allow players to trade one move for one attack or one action, with a limit of one melee attack per round. It gives some flexibility, since instead of making everyone move, then resolving all attacks, you can allow a player to attack, then move.

Since each move represents about 30 seconds, under that scheme, combat is still abstract, with a roll representing multiple attacks and feints. And allowing up to two missile attacks in one round doesn't boost the effectiveness of missile attacks much because the archers will almost always wind up in melee, anyways, so you're talking 1 or 2 attacks at the most before they have to start bashing people.

(I rule that cranking up a crossbow counts as a move, so they only get one attack per round anyways. )

I think there's some slight justification in following Chainmail missile rules in that Monsters & Treasure mentions that elves get to split move and fire. There's no *requirement* to allow elves to fire while moving on foot as in Chainmail, but it's suggested... which sets a precedent for using the other Chainmail missile rules.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 13, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

combat is still abstract, with a roll representing multiple attacks and feints. And allowing up to two missile attacks in one round

I guess I don't understand why a melee attack roll should represent multiple attacks, but then a missile attack roll not? IMHO it's just neater to go one way or the other, for all attack rolls.

Feb 13, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

allowing up to two missile attacks in one round doesn't boost the effectiveness of missile attacks much

Remind me of that next time your starter PCs are queuing up to be slaughtered by Orcs and brigands with bows

There are usually a couple of PCs in a PC party carrying missile weapons, sure, but they could all too easily encounter 20 Orcs, or 30 Goblins, or two dozen Bandits with bows. IMHO -- overpowered missile weapons can ultimately wind up hurting the players way more than they help them.

Feb 13, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

I think there's some slight justification in following Chainmail missile rules in that Monsters & Treasure mentions that elves get to split move and fire. There's no *requirement* to allow elves to fire while moving on foot as in Chainmail, but it's suggested... which sets a precedent for using the other Chainmail missile rules.

I agree 100%; it's a matter for each ref to determine how he wants to run it -- that's the glory of OD&D ;D

All I'm highlighting is that rules designed for massed shooting at bodies of troops don't necessarily translate directly into rules for accurate, individual shooting at mobile, man-sized targets.

[talysman]

Feb 14, 2013 6:29:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 13, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

combat is still abstract, with a roll representing multiple attacks and feints. And allowing up to two missile attacks in one round

I guess I don't understand why a melee attack roll should represent multiple attacks, but then a missile attack roll not? IMHO it's just neater to go one way or the other, for all attack rolls.

They *do* represent multiple attacks, at least from my point of view. Didn't we have the discussion a while back about tracking arrows? I know I posted stuff here, and then posted it to my blog, about using 1d6 arrows per volley and allowing recovery of up to 2/3rds of that.

But I actually don't roll 1d6 per missile attack in actual melee, just to be less punitive on the players.

[quote author=waysoftheearth
Remind me of that next time your starter PCs are queuing up to be slaughtered by Orcs and brigands with bows

There are usually a couple of PCs in a PC party carrying missile weapons, sure, but they could all too easily encounter 20 Orcs, or 30 Goblins, or two dozen Bandits with bows. IMHO -- overpowered missile weapons can ultimately wind up hurting the players way more than they help them.
[/quote]

Unless we're talking wilderness encounters, massive volleys of arrows are only going to happen in very restricted situations, like the party entering a hallway that opens up into an area with galleries on either side where archers can pin them down, or a choke point controlled by a sniper. The way *those* play out is the archers take a shot and the PCs run back for cover, then spend time figuring out what to do. Basically, there's only one warning volley. It's not like the PCs just going to traipse out and wait for the archers to whittle 'em down with multiple volleys.

Other underground missile fire is just going to be before closing to melee range. The *players* can risk firing twice per round into a melee, but presumably the 20 orcs are going to be a bit smarter and not fire at their own troops... so what normally happens is missiles, then melee, then orc archers pulling back if the melee seems to be turning against them, then the archers set up sniper points further along the path and we have the situation previously described. There's certainly going to be a risk for the PCs, but I don't think two missile attacks per round unbalances things.

[cooper]

Supplement III also has a detailed system for movement during combat, basically breaking up the round into 6 segments (with a pre and post round). The following assumes a dexterity of 10.



dexterity penalties or bonuses would effect missile weapons (an exceptional dexterity means the arrow could be launched in the "pre" phase or that a 2nd level spell could occur during segment 1. Supplement III also has modifiers for being wounded, wearing armor or being encumbered etc. Supplement III's initiative is Ad&d's segmented initiative in all but name--and in a 6 segment round instead of 10.

When it comes to spell interruption. CHAINMAIL already has a system in place. The left hand column is the level of the spell (1 - 6). To use this chart in d&d simply roll a 2d6 when the magic-user is attacked at any point in the round. If an "I" is rolled, then the spell goes off normally, if a "D" is rolled, then the attacker was able to delay the casting of the spell by 1 round, an "N" means the spell is ruined.



Here is the version I made specifically for d&d.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[verhaden]

If I may ask, why did you switch from 2d6 to 1d12?

[cooper]

I wanted to show the d12 some love. It should totally work with a 2d6, just adjust the chart so that the -- begins where a 2 would be rolled.

Edit: Ok. Here's a chart that works with 2d6 and I think I like it more. It is more faithful to the CHAINMAIL version and makes it possible to still interrupt high level MUs.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[verhaden]

I'd probably just stretch the Chainmail tables like this:

Seer (1-2), Magician (3-4), Warlock (5-6), Sorcerer (7-8), and Wizard (9-10)

as I run with a 'soft' 10 level cap. Seems much more forgiving, as they would have a 41% chance to successfully cast a 1st level spell spell (without failure or delay) vs a 2.77 chance at first level (if using 2d6).

**

Don't have a copy near me, but I seem to remember Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay to have a nice take on it.

[cooper]

Feb 14, 2013 12:25:51 GMT -6 verhaden said:

I'd probably just stretch the Chainmail tables like this:

Seer (1-2), Magician (3-4), Warlock (5-6), Sorcerer (7-8), and Wizard (9-10)

as I run with a 'soft' 10 level cap. Seems much more forgiving, as they would have a 41% chance to successfully cast a 1st level spell spell (without failure or delay) vs a 2.77 chance at first level (if using 2d6).

I agree. Excellent point about the giving a medium a decent chance of getting a spell off in combat.

[waysoftheearth]

Whoa... that's heavy duty Cooper. I guess I'm accustomed to getting a more-or-less equivalent result out of a simple initiative roll.

Feb 14, 2013 11:27:44 GMT -6 talysman said:

They *do* represent multiple attacks, at least from my point of view.

Then, I don't get why we'd use one attack roll to represent multiple attacks in melee, but then two attacks to represent those same multiple attacks with missiles.

I guess it comes down to what level of abstraction you're aiming for. If you're targeting a level of detail that models two moves, or two attacks, or one move + one attack per combat round with bows, then it seems sensible to model everything at that granularity. I.e., allow the same two moves, or two attacks, or one move + one attack with other weapons also.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it certainly escalates the level of danger. Especially if monsters are subject to the same rules!

[FWIW -- I think this is pretty close to what is prescribed by 3E].

Feb 14, 2013 11:27:44 GMT -6 talysman said:

I don't think two missile attacks per round unbalances things.

Allowing two attack rolls at 1-6 damage is pretty much equivalent to allowing just the one attack at 2-12 damage. Why should we say bows deal 2-12 damage when a player does nothing but shoot, while a sword or axe deals only 1-6 damage when a player does nothing but hack 'n' slash?

I'd have no problem with either all players attack once per round, or all players attack twice per round, but I have trouble getting my head around allowing players with bows to attack twice, while everyone else attacks only once. To me it seems unbalanced and awkward.

Feb 14, 2013 11:27:44 GMT -6 talysman said:

Unless we're talking wilderness encounters, massive volleys of arrows are only going to happen in very restricted situations

This may be getting a bit off topic, but it's still fun (IMHO) to explore, so please excuse me if I elaborate...


The most common opportunity to loose missiles is probably by surprise.

According to U&WA the PCs will be be surprised one third of the time, all things being equal. However, all things being equal, the enemy who surprise them will also be surprised themselves one third of the time. So all told the PCs are going to be surprised, and the enemy not, 2 times in every 9 -- that's more than a fifth, but less than a quarter of all encounters.

But all things are rarely equal.

The PCs will likely be carrying a light, and so the denizens of the underworld will see them coming from afar and almost always have the opportunity to shoot first (if they carry bows) and ask questions later.

Assuming the underworlders spot the players from further than 80ft away (the distance at which the PCs can sight the enemy) then the players won't see a thing until arrows are falling among them. Following this surprise attack, the PCs might well loose the initiative in the following round and suffer further attacks before they fall back to consider their options.

All of this is "pretty bad" for the PCs (and you'd like to think they could avoid such dire circumstance by cleverness). However, PCs do tend to get themselves into some bad situations. And the above is only made worse if the enemy can fire twice per round rather than once.

[talysman]

Feb 15, 2013 5:40:02 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 14, 2013 11:27:44 GMT -6 talysman said:

They *do* represent multiple attacks, at least from my point of view.

Then, I don't get why we'd use one attack roll to represent multiple attacks in melee, but then two attacks to represent those same multiple attacks with missiles.

All I can say is: It's not the same thing as rolling separately for two attacks. It's about the *timing* of the attacks. The order is usually missile fire, then movement and melee attacks, then additional missile fire for archers who didn't move and didn't get attacked in melee. That's not the same as breaking down the attacks into separate rolls.

And what we haven't addressed is: fighters are the only ones allowed to use bows, anyways, so do high-level fighters get multiple missile attacks against 1 HD opponents, the way they do in melee? I say no, but I don't believe the rules agree; that's just the way I balance missiles. So my missile weapons do 1d6 and in certain circumstances 2d6 per round, while my melee weapons occasionally do a whole lot more than 2d6 per round.

I just don't see it as a problem. You're *supposed* to be worried about arrows.

[cooper]

When it comes to missile weapons, 0d&d in supplement III is quite clear that there is only 1 missile fire per combat turn unless the modified dexterity of the archer is extraordinary. The way the rules explain it, an archer fires one arrow every 6 segments, An average dexterity puts the first arrow on segment 1 of the round and then on segment 1 of the next round and so on.

If a character had a 13 dexterity (+1) and had the weapon ready (+3) they could get an arrow off in the "pre move" phase and then an arrow off in the "post move" phase. Having at least an 11 dexterity and complete surprise also allowed two shots in the opening round. A low dexterity or an archer in heavy armor might fire on segment 3 of every round or later.

It gets more complicated, but basically all rules except the mass combat rules assume 1 arrow per combat turn.

[talysman]

Sure, but that's Supplement III. The LBBs weren't written with that in mind, because it wasn't written yet.

[cooper]

Feb 15, 2013 22:37:24 GMT -6 talysman said:

Sure, but that's Supplement III. The LBBs weren't written with that in mind, because it wasn't written yet.

Correct. But of the four combat systems supported in 0d&d (mass combat at 1:1 scale/man to man/fantasy combat table/attack matrix)

Only the mass combat system supports shooting arrows twice in a combat turn and even following the mass combat initiative it was two volleys of arrows with 3 or more rounds of melee! Sure archers fired twice in the turn, but melee had telling blows each round--technically making archery even worse.

If you were playing FCT (say Bard vs. smaug), then bard only got a single throw of the dice. If you were doing man to man table, it's one attack, presumably this also applies to d20 attacks.

Furthermore, comparing the mass combat initiative sequence with the initiative sequence in men and magic, it comes as no surprise that the second missile fire segment is omitted in Od&d, so if multiple missile fire does not exist in any 1:1 scale combat in CHAINMAIL and it is ommited in the initiative sequence of men and magic and in supplement III and holmes, the only place one can find a rule giving bows 2/1 attacks is from ad&d. Which:

1) ruins crossbows
2) makes missile weapons too deadly in surprise rounds

[waysoftheearth]

Nice find Cooper. I remain largely unaware of most of what appears in Chainmail and supplement III , but it seems -- on the face of it -- that the Holmes model (at least) supports the one bow shot per round model (although Holmes has 10 second combat rounds, "blow by blow" attack rolls, and also crossbows that require a round to reload).

I am curious, however, about what you mean when you refer to "the initiative sequence in men and magic". I thought initiative was only clarified later in the FAQ?


Let's remember that the combat sequence being discussed is really just a house rule too. It isn't given explicitly in the 3LBBs, so it's just one possible interpretation. The Holmes version (which is given explicitly) might be the nearest thing we have to an official combat sequence for OD&D, despite it clearly departing from the original in various ways.

Feb 15, 2013 13:24:12 GMT -6 talysman said:

So my missile weapons do 1d6 and in certain circumstances 2d6 per round

But considering the "typical" to hit adjustments for missiles, which (as I described above) can be anything from +2 to +6 sans magic-items and spells, then missile weapons are already approximately 150% as deadly as are melee weapons.

So the 1-6 and 2-12 figures quoted above are very likely conservative. Comparing apples with apples; if you play by the book then a melee weapon deals 1-6 damage, and missiles weapons are generally at around +3 to hit (which is ~=+1.5 damage per hit). So, levelling the attack adjustments, missiles weapons deal nearer to (approximately) 3-8 damage with one hit, or 5-15 damage with two hits.

Feb 15, 2013 13:24:12 GMT -6 talysman said:

I just don't see it as a problem. You're *supposed* to be worried about arrows.

Agreed, but they shouldn't be a game breaker*. I'd go further and say that you're supposed to be worried about combat in general


* I don't mean to imply your game is broken or anything like that -- you're clearly a veteran of many games and you know what you're doing. All I mean to say is that it's up to each individual referee to decide how they want to "work" their own combats.

[Deleted]

Feb 15, 2013 22:58:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

Only the mass combat system supports shooting arrows twice in a combat turn and even following the mass combat initiative it was two volleys of arrows with 3 or more rounds of melee! Sure archers fired twice in the turn, but melee had telling blows each round--technically making archery even worse.

If you were playing FCT (say Bard vs. smaug), then bard only got a single throw of the dice. If you were doing man to man table, it's one attack, presumably this also applies to d20 attacks.

The man-to-man rules use the same turn sequence as the mass combat rules. Doesn't this mean that missile troops can potentially fire twice?

Chainmail pg 25
"Missile Fire: Generally speaking, the rules for 1:20 scale apply to man-to-man missile fire"

[cooper]

Feb 16, 2013 9:31:56 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

The man-to-man rules use the same turn sequence as the mass combat rules. Doesn't this mean that missile troops can potentially fire twice?

Chainmail pg 25
"Missile Fire: Generally speaking, the rules for 1:20 scale apply to man-to-man missile fire"

Excellent point! This is still not a good argument in favor of 2 attacks per round however as the mass combat rules put missile fire at 2 per turn while melee continues each round--granted this actually happens in most games as missile fire stops once opponents enter melee, but an important point none the less.

A similar problem appears with spell casting as mass combat stipulates 1 spell per turn (not per round), with 1 spell per round games will see a drastic uptick in puissance of magic-users over the fighting-man who has seen his damage reduced by 1/10th in comparison. Greyhawk introduced means of ameliorating this by increasing the fighters damage from 1d6 per round, to (with extraordinary strength and a 2 handed sword) 3d6+6 damage per round--ad&d went one more and initiated multiple melee attacks per round.

So multiple missile attacks and spell attacks (death spell, clould kill, sleep et al are most balanced where a wizard casts once per turn as well as helping to extend the "work day" by inhibiting a wizard from blowing all of his spells in a single melee, which is similar to missile fire made moot by the fact that spell casting is nearly impossible once melee in engaged and as such spells will probably only be cast on the 1st round of combat while opponents are at some distance) only work when melee is, "fast and furious" or has had it's damage increased as in Greyhawk or Ad&d. A game will function poorly if the multiple missile fire rules from mass combat are used, while melee is reduced to once per combat turn at 1d6.


....but that is a long digression and it's all a juggling act as the rules for d&d pull in aspects of man to man, mass combat, FCT, as well as the d20 mechanic. But what is not disputable, is that when gygax and arneson stated the FCT was no longer "one hit one kill" but rather d6 damage they were attempting to lesson the lethality of the game and in that spirit this should be extended to all forms of combat equally or not at all.

[aldarron]

Fun to throw some fuel on the fire.... I don't personally play by either rule, since I use CM mass combat archery tables, so I'm not trying to advocate for either the single or double per round rule, but for those who might be interested, the Beyond This Point be Dragons manuscript does have a rule entry as follows; "...two shots per turn with a short and long bow, and one shot per turn for the light and heavy crossbows and composite bow."p24 section II. <shrug>