Get yer Fighting Man Back (from Chainmail)

[waysoftheearth]

A while back I put together a summary of The Humble Fighting Man's advantages. All that stuff was right out of the 3LBBs. It seemed "reasonable enough" so I had no need to look any further.

Since then a number of other discussions have touched on the fighting man's capabilities, chiefly Greyhawk's Legacy in which the fighting man's worth is debated, and Combat Rounds and Movement in which the rate of missile fire and melee attacks are discussed.


These (and other) threads are cause to re-consider the fighting-man -- in light of the capabilities/functions that don't appear in the 3LBBs, but which are implied by their presence in Chainmail.


[Note that I'm no Chainmail buff; most of this information comes second or third hand. But here is as good a place as any to get it all together in one place for discussion.]


So then.

What are these "mythical" capabilities that the OD&D Fighting-Man is owed from Chainmail?


(I'll list them first, then discuss the sources in detail below...)


At 1st Level:
1. (and presumably thereafter) a fighting-man is +1 to hit and +1 to damage rolls,

2. a fighting-man can have any one set of armour (presumably for free),

At 4th Level:
3. He is immune to fear and/or panic (such as that caused by a wand of fear, drums of panic, a terrifying dragon, and so on.),

4. He adds +1 to morale rolls of any troops he is leading in combat,

5. He is not subject to randomised missile or melee hits unless there are no other targets available,

6. He can hit (ordinarily impervious) dragons with normal weapons.
If dragons are not impervious to normal weapons in your game, then he is instead +4 to hit dragons.

At 8th Level:
7. He causes "normal" types to check morale when he charges them.
Normal types includes clerics up to 5th level, M-Us up to 6th level, fighters up to 2nd level, and (presumably) most other man-like types with up to ~3 HD.

8. He is +2 to hit (ordinarily impervious) dragons with normal weapons.
If dragons are not impervious to normal weapons in your game, then he is instead +6 to hit dragons.

At ALL Levels:
9. He has multiple melee attacks per one minute combat round versus ALL opponents.
Regardless of HD. Yessiree.



Read on for the the nitty-gritty details and grossly unjustified assumptions, etc., etc.,...



Points 1 & 2:
1. At 1st level (and presumably thereafter) a fighting-man is +1 to hit and +1 to damage rolls,
2. a fighting-man can have any one set of armour (presumably for free),

Leaders: It is suggested that leaders be given a +1 on all of their dice, and that their type of armor be considered the best for their origin and period.

(CM p26)

While "levelled" fighting-men do not exist in the historical massed battle rules, the "+1 on all their dice" translates exactly to the 1+1 HD of the Veteran (1st level fighter). So one might assume that an OD&D 1st level fighter is equivalent to a Chainmail Leader, and hence the Veteran should have all benefits ascribed to the Leader.


Points 3, 4, & 5:
3. He is immune to fear and/or panic (such as that caused by a wand of fear, drums of panic, a terrifying dragon, and so on.),
4. He adds +1 to morale rolls of any troops he is leading in combat,
5. He is not subject to randomised missile or melee hits unless there are no other targets available,

Heroes (and Anti-heroes) need never check morale, and they add 1 to the die or dice of their unit (or whatever unit they are with). They are the last figure in a unit that will be killed by regular missile fire of melee

(CM p30)
"need never check morale" is straight forward.
"add 1 to the die or dice of their unit" presumably implies the morale dice, which would make this function similar to the clerical Bless spell.
"the last figure in a unit that will be killed by regular missile fire" is again, straight forward; heroes don't die randomly. They must be struck down purposefully.


(Point 6 is combined with point 8, below)


Point 7:
7. He causes "normal" types to check morale when he charges them.

When a Super-hero approaches within his charge movement of the enemy, all such units must check morale as if they had taken excess casualties.

(CM p30)
This is straight forward.
Presumably this function is only applicable versus "normal" types (we already know from above that Heroes are not subject to this kind of intimidation).


Points 6 & 8:
6. He can hit (ordinarily impervious) dragons with normal weapons.
If dragons are not impervious to normal weapons in your game, then he is instead +4 to hit dragons.
8. He is +2 to hit (ordinarily impervious) dragons with normal weapons.
If dragons are not impervious to normal weapons in your game, then he is instead +6 to hit dragons.


These require somewhat more convoluted justification.

Firstly, regarding dragons:

They melee as if they were four Heavy Horse being impervious to missile or melee hits in normal combat (see Hero and Super Hero sections for the only exceptions ).

(CM p35)
Note that Chainmail positions dragons as "being impervious to missile or melee hits" except versus non-normal (aka Heroic) opponents.

Chainmail goes on to say...

A Hero-type, armed with a bow, shoots a dragon passing within range overhead out of the air and kills it on a two dice roll of 10 or better, with 2 plus 1 on the dice firing an enchanted arrow. Rangers are Hero-types with a +1 on attack dice.
...
A Super-hero, armed with a bow, shoots a dragon passing within range overhead out of the air and kills it on a two dice roll of 8 or better

(CM p30)
Detailing how heroes and super-heroes can kill (but see below) dragons with missiles. We must presume either that heroes can also kill dragons in melee combat, or that missile fire is the only way for heroes to kill dragons. The former seems more plausible to me.

Regarding "hits" and "kills":

Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Volume I or by the CHAINMAIL system, with scores equaling a drive back or kill equal only to a hit.

(U&WA p25)
So, dragons are said (by CM) to be impervious to normal missiles and melee, but can be "hit" by heroes with a 2d6 roll of 10+ (16.67% chance of a hit), or super-heroes on a 2d6 roll of 8+ (41.67% chance).

M&T gives dragons as AC 2 so Attack Matrix II implies that a "normal" type (1 HD monster) could hit a dragon on a d20 roll of 17 (20% likely). However, CM has already told us that dragons are impervious to normal missile fire, so (by Chainmail reckoning) normals should require an impossible d20 roll of 21. I.e., their regular d20 attack roll should be adjusted by -4.

Attack Matrix I also tells us that 4th and 8th level fighters would require d20 rolls of 15 and 12 to hit an AC 2 dragon. Adjusting these by the same -4 "factor" means they would actually need rolls of 19 and 16, respectively.

Those are 10% and 25% odds. However, Chainmail has already stated that heroes and super-heroes hit dragons 16.7% and 41.7% of the time. Hence, heroes and super-heroes are 6.7% and 16.7% more likely to hit dragons than Attack Matrix I otherwise suggests.

We could round these +5% and +15% or to +1 and +3 adjustments on a d20, respectively.

We might also assume that the Chainmail style hero would probably have a high dexterity, for which OD&D already allows a +1 to hit with missiles. Hence, the hero needs no further adjustment versus dragons, while the super hero adds +2.

Thus:
. At 4th level a fighting-man can hit dragons (ordinarily impervious to normal attacks).
. At 8th level a fighting-man is +2 to hit dragons (ordinarily impervious to normal attacks).
Or, if dragons are not impervious to normal attacks in your game, then these figures should instead be:
. At 4th level a fighting-man is +4 to hit dragons.
. At 8th level a fighting-man is +6 to hit dragons.




Point 9:
9. He has multiple melee attacks per one minute combat round versus ALL opponents.


The Big One. And likely the most contentious one.


Read on at your own peril...



Over in the discussion of Chainmail Melee Rounds our resident Chainmail buffs discussed the matter of turns and rounds in Chainmail, and concluded (as far as I can tell) that in Chainmail:

One minute "turns" include as many "rounds" of melee as are necessary to resolve the combat.

But let's start at the beginning...

The ratio of figures to men assumed is 1:20, the ground scale is 1":10 yards, and one turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle.

(CM p8)
So Chainmail "turns" are one minute long.

Later the terms "round" and "melee round" also appear numerous times. However, the summary of fatigue alone is enough to convince us that turns and rounds are not one and the same thing:

FATIGUE
Continued activity brings on weariness:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing.
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds.
4. Meleeing three rounds.

(CM p11)

The notion of "melee rounds" (as distinct from one minute "turns") is repeated frequently, for example:

Miscellaneous Melee Information:
...
4. After the first round of melee excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks or from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formation's flanks...

(CM p16)

Then, from the opening section of the Man-to-Man Combat rules we have this:

When using the Man-To-Man combat system all preceding rules apply, except where amended below:
...
Melee: When two figures are within melee range (3"), one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent.
1st Round:
First blow is struck by —
a) the attacker, unless
b) the defender has a weapon which is two classes higher, or
c) the defender is fighting from above (castle wall, rampart, etc.).
2nd Round and thereafter:
First blow is struck by —
a) the side which struck first blow previously, unless
b) the opponent has a weapon which is two classes lower, or
c) the opponent is fighting from above.
...

(CM p25)

So, it's apparent that:

1. Melee rounds are distinct from 1 minute turns,
and that:
2. Hand to hand combat is resolved in "one or several" melee rounds.

The exact number of rounds is not stated explicitly; it's whatever number of rounds are required to get a result.

(See the linked discussion for the full details).


This is largely ignored by (or unknown to) D&D players who generally allow just a single attack roll per one minute combat turn.

This is despite the 3LBBs repeatedly suggesting that Chainmail be the basis for combat resolution. I.e., where alternate mechanics are not stated explicitly then one should presume that the Chainmail rules are applicable.


The side-effect of this oversight is that the importance of melee is drastically diminished compared to missile-fire and spell casting.



But How Many Melee Rounds Are There?

Without an exhaustive study of Chainmail in action it's impossible to say. However, there are several hints in the linked thread that "three" melee rounds per one minute Chainmail turn might be the magic number. Chainmail states that combatants are downgraded by fatigue after three rounds of melee (p11). Howandwhy99 notes that "WS&IM" (whatever that is?) uses 3 minute "naval turns", each having three 1 minute combat rounds. And Chogowiz reported that three was the maximum number of rounds he played out in a Chainmail turn.

If we are prepared to assume (for the sake of this argument) that three is the "golden number" of melee rounds per one minute turn, then an OD&D fighting-man should make three attack rolls per melee round!

If we care to "grade" fighting-men according to their experience level, then we might finesse this bold assertion further, e.g.:

Fighting	Attack
-Man	Rolls
Level	/Round
1-3	2
4-7	3
8+	4

Note that Chainmail's Mass Battle and Man-to-Man rules are concerned with fighting-types only. AFAIK the Fantasy Supplement doesn't suggest otherwise -- but whether the same advantage should be applicable to the other types is a whole different argument. It's worth noting, however, that AD&D made it clear that multiple attacks per "combat round" were made by fighters only.


OD&D's "well known" multiple attacks versus "normal types"* would, of course, still be applicable and would work in conjunction with the "new" multiple attacks per round rule: The fighting-man presumably being entitled to whichever number of attacks is greater each round.

Thus (using my finessed table, above), a 1st or 2nd level fighting man would roll twice per round versus all opponents. At 3rd level, he would roll thrice per round versus "normal" types but twice per round versus others. At 4th level, he would roll four times versus normals, but thrice versus others. And so on.


Ouch.



Final Note on "Normal" Types

There's a lot of talk about "normal" types.

According to the Fighting Capability given in M&M (p17-18), magic-users are "Normal" (i.e., not "Heroic") until they reach 7th level, clerics are "Normal" until they reach 6th level, and fighting-man are "Normal" until they reach 3rd level.

Presumably, therefore, almost all other man-like monsters with fewer than 4 HD must also be considered "normal" (and subject to 1 attack per fighter level).

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Simon, you apparently never sleep! This is interesting stuff here. Some of which I'm reading/realizing for the first time. I'm going to have to consider which of this I may want to translate to OD&D/DD play!

[Vile Traveller]

That's just crazy, wote, I'm going to have to give you another exalt.

[Deleted]

Feb 23, 2013 5:41:24 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

At 1st Level:
1. (and presumably thereafter) a fighting-man is +1 to hit and +1 to damage rolls,

This is already factored into the alternate combat tables.

At 4th Level:
3. He is immune to fear and/or panic (such as that caused by a wand of fear, drums of panic, a terrifying dragon, and so on.),

Morale checks and magical fear are entirely different things. No PC in any version of D&D has been required to take ordinary morale checks.

At ALL Levels:
9. He has multiple melee attacks per one minute combat round versus ALL opponents.
Regardless of HD. Yessiree.

This is how Dave Arneson originally played it. This was changed before D&D was published, presumably by Gygax himself. After D&D was published, Dave used to let his original player's PCs do this while new players stuck with one attack per round.

As far as the number of rounds in a melee turn, you might be making this too complicated. When melee is joined, it is fought, round by round with each side taking one attack per round until one side flees or is wiped out. During this time there is no strategic movement nor is there any missile fire. This isn't a case of melee attacks being faster than missile attacks, just that the missile troops are holding their fire waiting the resolution of the melee (for fear of hitting their own troops). A rule forbidding missile users from firing into melee is sufficient to represent this.


While this is an interesting exercise, we know that the Chainmail rules were not used during D&D playtest period and Gary only included references to it in the printed manuscript to try and sell more copies (or, alternately, to appeal to wargamers). Rob Kuntz confirms this in his interview with Grognard Games.

[Deleted]

I like it. I don't buy into the popular thinking Fighting-Men are underpowered. OTOH I'm not against giving the F-M class advantages that make sense and fit with the class.

EXALT!

[tog]

Thet's a lot'a talkin', there, son!

At 4th Level:
3. He is immune to fear and/or panic (such as that caused by a wand of fear, drums of panic, a terrifying dragon, and so on.)

He is considered a "Hero" at that level... there's a reason that's the term Gyagax chose! In wargame terms he's, by this point, the legendary officer who rallies his men and charges them into the bunkers (thus also the immunity to randomized missile attacks). He's basically John Wayne in every WWII movie. ;D

While "levelled" fighting-men do not exist in the historical massed battle rules, the "+1 on all their dice" translates exactly to the 1+1 HD of the Veteran (1st level fighter). So one might assume that an OD&D 1st level fighter is equivalent to a Chainmail Leader, and hence the Veteran should have all benefits ascribed to the Leader.

I'd buy that. "Level" figures have always been considered exceptional, and any given suit of armor in OD&D isn't that horribly expensive, anyway. (Plate mail is only 50 GP.) An average roll on starting funds of 90 GP lets a Veteran buy a sword, a shield, a suit of plate and still have funds left for general equipment.

Stuff on Dragons is probably inspired by The Hobbit (Smaug being impervious to just about anything but an arrow fired into his weak spot) and legends in general. It does solve the question of why a Hero is needed to kill the dragon instead of raising an army to beat the snot out of it.

Melee: When two figures are within melee range (3"), one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent.

I can't pinpoint it, but there always has been the assumption, from what I'm given to understand, that the "to-hit" roll is the total of all attacks, feints, parries etc. in one round, and, as a Chainmail figure is considered as representing multiple "normal" men, that's what's being referred to - the back-and-forth of melee combat.

From The Strategic Review, issue 2:

A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).

Which implies 2 things: "Level" figures are the only ones who get multiple attacks, and such attacks are equal to one's level - therefore a Veteran still only gets 1 attack.

BTW - "WS&IM" is Wooden Ships & Iron Men, a classic sail-era wargame from Avalon Hill. It, like a lot of the old AH games, had maps mounted on heavy board, and there's a reference to it in the old Dragon article "What To Do When The Dog Eats Your Dice":

all your rules and levels are neatly arranged behind your screen of WS&IM boards (best use found for them to date)

;D

[verhaden]

EDIT:

Nothing to add except that the logic appears sound. A fighter like this would be interesting!

***

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

While this is an interesting exercise, we know that the Chainmail rules were not used during D&D playtest period and Gary only included references to it in the printed manuscript to try and sell more copies (or, alternately, to appeal to wargamers). Rob Kuntz confirms this in his interview with Grognard Games.

Mike Mornard also has this to say on the subject:

Jul 11, 2007 10:55:06 GMT -6 oldgeezer said:

Hi, there.

Hey, Grodog! This is "Gronan of Simmerya".

I used to play CHAINMAIL * A LOT *. I was also part of Gary's D&D group.

We never, EVER used CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Also, the varying levels of wizard in Chainmail 3rd Ed were written AFTER D&D was written.

But the Hero/Superhero was transferred from Chainmail to D&D, yeah.

Old Geezer

Though the Chainmail morale rules were referenced in D&D, though.

Right. For instance, in Volume 2, "Berserkers never check morale," when Goblins "are subjected to full daylight they subtract -1 from their attack and morale dice," Hobgoblins have +1 morale, gnolls have +2 morale.

And I'm only up to page 8.

The problem was that Gary and Dave (and the rest of us) were so thoroughly inculcated in the miniatures wargaming culture that we didn't NEED to be told to use the CHAINMAIL morale rules. We figured mentioning CHAINMAIL at the beginning was enough.

[tog]

GOBLINS, Sir Rico! Thousands of 'em!

BTW, Cameron, may I just take this opportunity to say how much this amuses me. (I'd say "kobolds", but that's just me.)

"I'm cuttin' 'em down!"

[meadmaker]

Hi, been lurking for a long while now.

First, waysoftheearth thank you for another awesome post. I enjoy your thoughts.

I Thought I would chime in on a thought I had about turns and rounds. These guys are coming from war game background, but even more important to this is just table top games in general. Which I think is key to the term Rounds. Think of playing a round of cards and having your turn.

To me the Turn is the unit that the individual acts in. As in "What are you doing for your turn?". Often you can do multiple things in a turn like move and then melee. A round is after everyone has had their turn on each side of the battle. So how many turns per round is based on how many combatants are on each side. If each side has 5 combatants then there is 10 turns per round for that encounter.

Looking at the fatigue rules this still holds together quite well with this idea. Each of those combatants still only have ONE turn they "do" something, even if there are 10 turns of action each round.


BUT, it is just a passing thought. I am NOT by any means a Chainmail or OD&D expert by any stretch of the imagination.

[Deleted]

I'm a big fan of the Fighting Man (and the Fighting Woman, too! Rowr!)(oopsie, was that my "outside my head" voice again?)

But I think this may be too much of a good thing. Fighting men in OD&D are really pretty awesome playing the LBB just as written.

[rjkuntz]

Feb 23, 2013 9:32:58 GMT -6 verhaden said:

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

While this is an interesting exercise, we know that the Chainmail rules were not used during D&D playtest period and Gary only included references to it in the printed manuscript to try and sell more copies (or, alternately, to appeal to wargamers). Rob Kuntz confirms this in his interview with Grognard Games.

Mike Mornard also has this to say on the subject:



Though the Chainmail morale rules were referenced in D&D, though.

Right. For instance, in Volume 2, "Berserkers never check morale," when Goblins "are subjected to full daylight they subtract -1 from their attack and morale dice," Hobgoblins have +1 morale, gnolls have +2 morale.

And I'm only up to page 8.

The problem was that Gary and Dave (and the rest of us) were so thoroughly inculcated in the miniatures wargaming culture that we didn't NEED to be told to use the CHAINMAIL morale rules. We figured mentioning CHAINMAIL at the beginning was enough.

Yes. What Mike said. With all the bridging going on to, presumably, lessen the tough sell of a new concept to the established wargame market (which is then noted by the rejection of the game in three instances by its publishers) EGG pulled out all the stops, including trying to appeal to Tolkien fans, even though his tolerance with the Professor stopped at The Hobbit and he had no good words for LotR.

So, bridge he did.

The idea of referencing the Chainmail rules (at least in the posted examples), in retropsect, can slice this way or that.

The history of Berserkers was known; so were the Tolkien influences for goblins in full day-light, and the Gnolls, perhaps through Dunsany's gnole as frightful, seemingly almost supernatural oddities that defied human inspection and were feared and legendary.

By extension, would one say, then, that MERPS while using Tolkien's concept of goblins in light is then influenced by Chainmail? Or that my article on Berserkers (unpublished) is influenced by Chainmail? Or is it that Gary was using common themes and these were transferred into the whole as reconceptualized? The latter is probably closer to the truth, as the amalgam of all monsters and magic for the game are for the most part drawn from literary, mythological sources. In the extension of this all, it was just easier to reinsert what had already been conceptualized as scant matter that it represents when related to the whole of the game.

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks for your comments all, and welcome to Tog and Meadmaker


While most of us are aware that Chainmail rules were not used "as is" for D&D, there's still good reason to believe that various Chainmail rules "filled the gaps" in the 3LBBs.

Whatever the true reasons for including the various Chainmail references in the 3LBBs, the fact remains: they're in there.

Whether or not one chooses to play the rules "purely" by-the-book, by-the-book with Chainmail too, by some interpretation of some other book, or by entirely fabricated house rules is entirely up to the individual ref. Each is an equally legitimate option -- that's one of the great things about D&D!

Feb 23, 2013 9:30:37 GMT -6 tog said:

An average roll on starting funds of 90 GP lets a Veteran buy a sword, a shield, a suit of plate and still have funds left for general equipment.

The average starting funds from 3d6x10 are 105 gp

The problem isn't that the fighting man can't afford plate armour at 1st level; he can. The issue is more that so can everyone else! This effectively waters down the fighting man by handing out one of his "advantages" to everyone else (Clerics, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc.) for free.

Plenty of folks have talked about making the silver piece "standard" but leaving the price of armour "as is". I.e., increasing the cost of armour ten-fold. In this scenario, it seems plausible to let the veteran purchase armour at the "by the book" prices, while everyone else has to pay thru the nose.

Feb 23, 2013 9:30:37 GMT -6 tog said:

Stuff on Dragons is probably inspired by The Hobbit

Almost certainly, yes. CM even mentions "The Hobbit" specifically in the text on Dragons (p 35).

Feb 23, 2013 9:30:37 GMT -6 tog said:

I can't pinpoint it, but there always has been the assumption, from what I'm given to understand, that the "to-hit" roll is the total of all attacks, feints, parries etc. in one round, and, as a Chainmail figure is considered as representing multiple "normal" men, that's what's being referred to - the back-and-forth of melee combat.

That's true, but there is no reason why an arbitrary number of feints, parries, attacks and so on must be represented by exactly one roll. Multiple rolls do not need to model more individual attacks, simply more likelihood of delivering more damage in the same period of melee.

The discussion of Chainmail Melee Rounds spells it all out in excruciating detail, but you're always free to "use it or loose it"; it's your game

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Feb 23, 2013 5:41:24 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

At 1st Level:
1. (and presumably thereafter) a fighting-man is +1 to hit and +1 to damage rolls,

This is already factored into the alternate combat tables.

Unfortunately, the attack matrices suggest otherwise. A 1st level fighter requires exactly the same score to hit AC 2 (a 17+ on a d20) as does any other PC, and also any other monster with up to 1 HD. He is actually worse than other "normal" monsters with 1+1 HD (hobgoblins, elves, berserkers, dervishes, etc.) and 2-3 HD (e.g., cavemen), who require rolls of 16+ and 15+, respectively, to hit AC 2.

This appears to be contrary to the CM ruling.

A variation of the "+1 to hit" rule is also given explicitly in the 3LBBs: a Veteran has 1+1 HD (M&M p17) and M&T (p5) tells us that the HD "adds" are added to the first attack roll versus normals. Given that ALL targets were normals in the mass battle rules, this would have been universally applicable for Chainmail "Leaders".

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Morale checks and magical fear are entirely different things. No PC in any version of D&D has been required to take ordinary morale checks.

True. But PCs have always been subject to magical fear/panic, and in some iterations of the rules PCs are also subject to mundane fear/panic (e.g., when faced with a terrible dragon).

And the result of a failed morale check against mundane fear/panic is the same as the result of a failed check against magical fear/panic: in both cases you are forced to flee in fear/panic.

In the context of Chainmail (where the benefit first appears) there is no distinction between mundane morale checks and checks to resist spells -- that came along later with D&D. So from that perspective, I'm not sure it's fair to hand out an advantage specifically attributed to Heroes to all PCs. Sure the Hero still gets that advantage, but by granting it to every 1st level cleric, magic-user and thief as well, we're effectively watering down the hero.

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

This is how Dave Arneson originally played it. This was changed before D&D was published, presumably by Gygax himself. After D&D was published, Dave used to let his original player's PCs do this while new players stuck with one attack per round.

That is very good to know, thanks!

Feb 23, 2013 13:04:07 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I'm a big fan of the Fighting Man
...
But I think this may be too much of a good thing. Fighting men in OD&D are really pretty awesome playing the LBB just as written.

Depending on how literally you want to take what is in print, all/most of the above is "as written". Or, more specifically, "transcribed from what is written".

Still, I do see your point.

Thinking on it overnight I've since concluded that "three" shouldn't be considered the "typical" number of melee rounds per turn. If anything, three was reported more as a "high water mark". So there would probably have been many melee combats that were resolved in exactly one round, others that were resolved in two rounds, and (presumably) fewer that were resolved in three rounds. Some could have gone on longer, though these would (presumably) have been much scarcer.

This notion also happens to align quite closely with what appears in the AD&D PH (p 25), which allows 1, 3/2, or 2 melee attack rolls per round. UA (p 18) subsequently amended this to facilitate 3/2, 2, or 5/3 melee attack rolls per round.

So it seems that something closer to this might be a more "realistic" interpretation:

Fighting	Attack
-Man	Rolls
Level	/Round
1-3	1
4-7	3/2
8+	2

Of course AD&D talked in terms of levels 1-6, 7-12, and 13+, whereas OD&D has watermark levels at "hero" (4th) and "super-hero" (8th).


More later, after it's all sunk in...


Thanks again, All, for your interest and comments

[rjkuntz]

Way-of-Earth stated: "While most of us are aware that Chainmail rules were not used "as is" for D&D, there's still good reason to believe that various Chainmail rules "filled the gaps" in the 3LBBs.

Whatever the true reasons for including the various Chainmail references in the 3LBBs, the fact remains: they're in there.

Whether or not one chooses to play the rules "purely" by-the-book, by-the-book with Chainmail too, by some interpretation of some other book, or by entirely fabricated house rules is entirely up to the individual ref. Each is an equally legitimate option -- that's one of the great things about D&D!"

Never was a truer statement uttered than the last one. The logic has an obverse side, as well, so in my estimation what can be included by choice is not then clarified by discussion of minute intangibles unrelated to the action of choosing to do so but instead by the act itself. The former course can lead to assumptions whereas the other informs us of what is already the truth.

Cheers!

Robert

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks Robert ;D

Your trailing comment is lucid and dense. I had to read it several times before (tentatively) concluding that your intended meaning was:

Feb 23, 2013 23:07:14 GMT -6 rjkuntz said:

in my estimation
--what can be included by choice
----is not clarified by
------discussion of minute intangibles unrelated to the action of choosing to do so
----but instead [is clarified by]
------by the act [including something by choice] itself.
--
--The former course [discussion of minute intangibles]
----can lead to assumptions
--whereas the other [including things by choice]
----informs us of what is already the truth.

-- inserted by me to force indentation
[bracket text] inserted by me to illustrate my interpretation.

Please correct me if I've read it wrong

If that's as intended, then I agree with the implication that the "truth" of it is there, and choosing to use something is the best way to come to know the truth of it. That's effectively the process I'm going thru myself.

However, I'd also remark that with OD&D/Chainmail it's too easy for folks to miss out on the genuine truth of it due to never having a first hand opportunity to study the original texts and figure it out for themselves.

The point of my post isn't to tell people what they should or should not do, but to reveal obscure pieces of information I've happened upon for the readership. Some (not all, obviously) of our readers here might find something new and interesting... and thereby have an opportunity to choose to make use of it or not.

[aldarron]

Spot on Simon. Will reread but here are a couple quick thoughts:

• Heroes being impervious to random missile fire is a new (to me), and interesting wrinkle.
  
  
• I'm not so sure not needing to make a morale check (enthusiasm for a fight) should automatically be equated with immunity from fear, although the ghoul entry might favor your interpretation.
  
  
• 3 Rounds of combat per 1 minute Turn - each round therefore averaging 20 seconds, is exactly the rule in Arneson and Sniders Adventures in Fantasy. Curious no?
  
  
• I would argue that the # of attacks per round for the fighting man in OD&D are indicated by the Fighting Capability table. It indicates how many "men" a character attacks as and naturally every normal man gets one attack.
  

EDIT:: Posted some thoughts on Fighting Capability for those who might be interested, boggswood.blogspot.com/2013/02/fighting-capability.html

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks for your comments Aldarron.

Feb 24, 2013 8:55:04 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I would argue that the # of attacks per round for the fighting man in OD&D are indicated by the Fighting Capability table. It indicates how many "men" a character attacks as and naturally every normal man gets one attack.

Hmm, it seems to me that this capability is already represented -- at least to some degree -- in the well known "one attack per level versus normals" rule. Applying it universally might be "overkill". Literally!

[snorri]

Feb 23, 2013 5:41:24 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

6. He can hit (ordinarily impervious) dragons with normal weapons.
If dragons are not impervious to normal weapons in your game, then he is instead +4 to hit dragons.

With this reading, on which I agree,

- PCs can hit fantasy table monsters with normal weapons at hero level (4 for fighting-men, 5 for magic-users and clerics)

- Hero -1 could mean they can hit these creature, -1 to the roll to hit and damage.

- all others can't hit these creatures, not only dragons. maybe with magic weapons, but this could be discussed.

- For creatures where there are clearly a rule about magical weaponry, like most undeads, that rule apply.

It makes some creatures more terrible, as below level heros can't hit them, and some nasty tricks - dwarves and elves appears on the fantasy table, so that rule may or not apply.

[aldarron]

Feb 24, 2013 16:04:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Thanks for your comments Aldarron.

Feb 24, 2013 8:55:04 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I would argue that the # of attacks per round for the fighting man in OD&D are indicated by the Fighting Capability table. It indicates how many "men" a character attacks as and naturally every normal man gets one attack.

Hmm, it seems to me that this capability is already represented -- at least to some degree -- in the well known "one attack per level versus normals" rule. Applying it universally might be "overkill". Literally!

Yeah, it’s a good question to think about.

A first consideration would be the origin of the Fighters multiple attack rule itself. It is given by Gygax in his FAQ from Strategic Review. So, on it’s face, it might be considered an addition or house rule of only one of the games authors, or it might be a simple clarification of the intended play of the published game. In general, the FAQ appears to me to be curious mixture of clarifications and new house rules.

The multiple attack rule itself, as written in the FAQ, does appear to apply to use of the alternative d20 combat method. The illustration of the rule with the Hero fighting the orcs makes this crystal clear. It also seems to be a clarification of this rule from D&D (M&T p5)

“Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll.”

I’ll just note that this is apparently a rule intended primarily for the d20 method, since CHAINMAIL already specifies that Trolls attack as 6 Heavy Foot and True Trolls as 3 Armored Foot.

So the clarification being offered in the FAQ is that both monsters and men get 1 attack per hit die against “normal” creatures and only 1 attack against super-normal creatures, using the alternate system. Presumably then the “fighting capability” column is meant only for CHAINMAIL combat, but functions similarly. The Fighting Capability rule does say “to be used with CHAINMAIL”.

So far so good, but things get a little muddy with this line in the FAQ: “…he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as ratio [with the opponents combat levels]...” Firstly, what is a “combat level”? You might guess it just means level, like 2nd level warrior. The “combat level” of the orcs is given as 1, which is their Hit Dice, but then we know monster level is calculated by their hit dice, so that leaves an opening for either a hit die or level interpretation. If “combat level” really means character PC level, that would mean the multiple attack rule is actually not precisely the same as the one in M&T, which clearly says one roll per hit die. So that could mean monsters get multiple attacks by HD, while PC’s get multiple attacks by level. NOTE very carefully that there is nothing in the FAQ or the M&T rule that says the multiple attack rule applies only to fighters and monsters. Just the opposite, both rules are written in a way that suggests they apply to any combatants. So, the trouble with using attacks per character level is that a 5th level cleric or magic user will get 5 attacks against normal monsters – as many as a fighter would. If on the other hand, “combat level” was a mistake or a sloppy way of saying Hit dice, the 5th level cleric (HD 4+1) would have one less attack than the fighter with a plus one bonus to one roll, while the MU (HD3), would have 2 less. Hit Dices seems the more sensible way to go it seems to me. <shrug>

Secondly the idea of the ratio of “level” to hit dice, appears to be a new rule rather than a clarification – although it is suspiciously like the ratio method used for experience points on page 18 of M&M. “Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience. Let us assume he …. defeating a troll (which is a 7th level monster,as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th level one experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the monster guarding the treasure was a 7th level one experience would be awarded on a 7/8 basis ….” So, one wonders if this experience rule once reflected a similar # of attacks rule. None of this ratio business makes any sense if it only applies to 1 HD “normal” monsters. It is just a thought, but perhaps there was some experimentation with a rule wherein the number of attacks to be made in the round was always a reduction of level/HD or HD/HD.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2013 7:00:15 GMT -6 aldarron said:

If “combat level” really means character PC level, that would mean the multiple attack rule is actually not precisely the same as the one in M&T, which clearly says one roll per hit die. So that could mean monsters get multiple attacks by HD, while PC’s get multiple attacks by level.

I'll point out that there is a damage table in Empire of the Petal Throne that does increase the damage of attacks based on PC level vs hit dice.

I find the wording of the ratio comment in the FAQ interesting. It says that a ratio of 1:4 is sufficient to allow a PC to get one attack per level. This would mean that superheroes (level 8) treat 2 HD creatures as "normal men" and get 8 attacks against them. Likewise, 12th level creatures would get multiple attacks against 3 HD monsters. There has to be something like this somewhere or the comment about 1 HD monsters also being non-fantastic makes no sense. Maybe as a compromise, if the PC's level is four times the monsters hit dice, the combat is not "fantastic" and the PC gets one attack per HD.

Another thing to consider is that by the time this FAQ was written, Gary had finished the Greyhawk supplement wherein Level always equals HD (at least up to about 10).

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 28, 2013 9:14:44 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

There has to be something like this somewhere or the comment about 1 HD monsters also being non-fantastic makes no sense.

Which comment about "1 HD monsters" do you mean, Hedgebobbit?

I don't have the source material in front of me, but as far as I can recall (after 9 months of sleep deprivation) the 1 HD limit was introduced with AD&D.

I think (again from memory) OD&D talks more generally about man-types and normal-types than about a specific number of HD. If you look at what constitutes a "man" and "man-types" you'll see it includes elves, hobgoblins, dervishes, etc. with 1+1 HD, and cavemen with 2 HD. If you look at the PC class progression tables, you'll see fighters are "normal" up to 2HD, and "heroic" from 3 HD up. Clerics and M-Us are (from memory) normal up to 3 HD, and heroic from 4 HD up.

So I think there's a reasonable case that OD&D fighters have one attack roll (as distinct from attack) per HD each round versus enemy of up to around 3 HD. Certainly more than 1 HD.


What's less clear is how Chainmail's multiple rounds of melee per one minute turn should be translated to OD&D's one minute combat rounds/turns.

Given that Chainmail allows for multiple attack rolls per minute (for everyone on the battlefield) and AD&D allows multiple attack rolls per round (now explicitly for advanced fighter types only), it seems plausible that OD&D should have multiple attack rolls per minute also. Not just against the weakest sorts, but across the board.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2013 19:42:54 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Which comment about "1 HD monsters" do you mean, Hedgehobbit?

This is from the FAQ section from SR#2 (from the archive CD) ...

"Note that he [the Hero] is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less."

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 28, 2013 20:04:31 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

"Note that he [the Hero] is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less."

I think you're spot on with you comment about the 1:4 ratio Hedgehobbit. Nice!

I interpret the FAQ passage like this:

the Hero is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as
-- the ratio of Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so
-- this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee,
---- as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.

I also agree with Aldaron's conclusion that "combat levels" probably refer to HD rather than levels, for exactly the reasons he points out. It's worth noting that a 12th level fighter doesn't have 12 HD.


So, as I (now) read it, the messages in that FAQ passage are:

1. "the ratio [of HD:HD] is 1:4 so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee"
and
2. "the Hero is allowed one attack for each of his HD as this is normal (non-fantastic) melee." (see 1, above)
and
3. "any combat where one side is a base 1 hit die or less is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee".

The last point does seem (to me) to be in contradiction with what appears in the 3LBBs, but on the otherhand the FAQ is intended to clarify what's in the 3LBBs so perhaps it does "override" whatever was printed earlier.

[Deleted]

Are you quite certain combat level don't refer to combat levels as in: 1 per 3 levels of fighter, 1 per 4 levels of cleric, or 1 per 5 levels of magic-user?

[aldarron]

Feb 28, 2013 21:20:37 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Are you quite certain combat level don't refer to combat levels as in: 1 per 3 levels of fighter, 1 per 4 levels of cleric, or 1 per 5 levels of magic-user?

Interesting idea Cameron! Maybe, but you would think Gygax would have offered some explanation of that in the FAQ. It would be interesting to search out his use of the term.

[aldarron]

Feb 28, 2013 9:14:44 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

.....
Another thing to consider is that by the time this FAQ was written, Gary had finished the Greyhawk supplement wherein Level always equals HD (at least up to about 10).

Brilliant observation. It's not that the number of HD change to equal level, it's the die themselves. So (ignoring the not yet available variable weapon damage for the moment) 5 attacks for a Greyhawk 5th level Fighter (d8 damage per level) would do twice the damage of a 5 attacks for a 5th level Greyhawk MU (d4 damage per level) . Even with the variable damage rules, the results are much the same, since the damage dice for the typical weapons of each class are often the same as their hit dice. Factor in the harder "to hit" numbers and those 5 attacks for the 5th level MU don't offer much competition to the fighter's 5 attacks.

That could well be what Gygax was thinking in switching "combat levels" in the FAQ and hit dice in M&M. So the basic idea might be:

When using Greyhawk, characters get one attack per level verses normals.

When using 3lbb d6 damage, character get one attack per hit die against normals.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2013 21:20:37 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Are you quite certain combat level don't refer to combat levels as in: 1 per 3 levels of fighter, 1 per 4 levels of cleric, or 1 per 5 levels of magic-user?

Just above this, the Hero dude rolls four attacks. So, unless you can come up with some very clever math, combat levels has to be either HD or character level.

Mar 1, 2013 6:13:03 GMT -6 aldarron said:

It's not that the number of HD change to equal level, it's the die themselves. So (ignoring the not yet available variable weapon damage for the moment) 5 attacks for a Greyhawk 5th level Fighter (d8 damage per level) would do twice the damage of a 5 attacks for a 5th level Greyhawk MU (d4 damage per level) .

I hadn't considered the effect of weapon damage on the effectiveness of attacks. I do, however, suspect that variable weapon damage was added before variable hit dice mostly because it's an easier change and that's the way it is in EPT.

Perhaps, and this is me only speculating, Gary used the term "combat levels" to describe levels in Fighter or fighter subclasses. This would tie this FAQ in with how the rule eventually ended up in AD&D. This would mean that all classes get one attack her HD against 1 HD monsters while only high level fighters can get extra attacks against creatures with 2HD or more.

[Stormcrow]

You guys do realize, don't you, that the more you speculate, the less like D&D, as played or as written, your speculations become?

[Deleted]

Mar 1, 2013 10:45:40 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

You guys do realize, don't you, that the more you speculate, the less like D&D, as played or as written, your speculations become?

Sometimes great things can arise from asking "what if"? Personally, the usual way of running combat works fine for my campaign, both back in 1975 and nowadays. I still enjoy mental exercises such as this one.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Mar 1, 2013 11:20:10 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Mar 1, 2013 10:45:40 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

You guys do realize, don't you, that the more you speculate, the less like D&D, as played or as written, your speculations become?

Sometimes great things can arise from asking "what if"? Personally, the usual way of running combat works fine for my campaign, both back in 1975 and nowadays. I still enjoy mental exercises such as this one.

Yeah, I'd say that both of these statements pretty much fit me. I run games pretty loosely with a lot of fluidity of mechanics, but yet, the geek in me, likes to peek at the tweakings that underpin the system.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 1, 2013 10:45:40 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

You guys do realize, don't you, that the more you speculate, the less like D&D, as played or as written, your speculations become?

I get where you're coming from Stormcrow, but I'd note also that:

1. There are thousands of variations on "D&D, as played", and no one game is any more or less "right" than any other, and...

2. "D&D, as written" is often quite poorly understood. The rules are sometimes widely spread across source material that is not always easy to come by, and even if you do have access to it, the text can be tricky to interpret clearly.

Illuminating some of the obscure nuances of the "D&D, as written" is what these discussions are primarily about!

Whether or not anyone actually plays "D&D as written" is a whole different thing, but it's worthwhile figuring out what is written so that we can then decide whether or not we want to play our games that way