|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 22, 2014 4:22:31 GMT -6
More food for the table:
S&S (p6) groups veterans, elves, hobgoblins, and gnolls together as as elite guard type troops; and also declares explicitly that bugbears are not considered elite guards.
So S&S draws a line between 2 HD gnolls and 3+1 HD bugbears.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 23, 2014 7:33:28 GMT -6
I read this as meaning: 1. When the ratio of attacker's:defender's HD is 4:1 combat is treated as "normal". This means an 8HD fighter treats 2HD enemy as "normal", a 12 HD fighter treats 3 HD enemy as "normal", and so on. 2. When the defender has base 1 HD (or fewer) combat is treated as "normal" (even if the attacker has fewer than 4 HD). 3. When combat is "normal" the attacker is allowed one attack roll for each of his "combat levels" (e.g., his HD). I'm not 100% "sold" on this interpretation, but I like what it does for multiple attacks and may experiment with this. ......................Defender HD Attacker HD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1...........1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2........... 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3........... 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4........... 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5........... 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6........... 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7........... 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8........... 8 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9........... 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.......... 10 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.......... 11 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12.......... 12 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Okay, so my table is bad, but I kind of like the idea. The way I see this working (for example) is that a 10th level fighter might get 10 attacks against a 1 HD foe, or 5 attacks against a 2 HD foe, or 3 attacks against a 3 HD foe, or 2 attacks against a 4-5 HD foe, or 1 attack against a 6+ HD foe. I would base it off of HD (or "fighting capability") so that a single chart could be used for all classes. Of course, monsters would get the same multiple attack advantage. An alternate would be to give a single attack but instead have the number in the chart be the number of dice damage done to the opponents, with the notion that damage might "cleave" from one foe to the next. (E.g. the 10th level fighter might do 10d6 against a 1 HD foe, 5d6 against a 2 HD foe, and so on.)
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 23, 2014 8:26:11 GMT -6
Normal vs. fantastic mattered to Arneson in the FFC. When building an army for a barony or kingdom, for the most part, you could only spend 10% of your resources on "fantastic troops". This was heroes, anti heroes, wizards, trolls, dragons, et al.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 15:38:01 GMT -6
Normal vs. fantastic mattered to Arneson in the FFC. When building an army for a barony or kingdom, for the most part, you could only spend 10% of your resources on "fantastic troops". This was heroes, anti heroes, wizards, trolls, dragons, et al. Yes, but those lists were for Chainmail where the distinction was built into the rules. Dave also used the distinction early on when using his Chainmail derived combat system in the Blackmoor dungeon. However, he didn't make such a distinction in his AiF so at some point during the 70s he moved away from the idea whereas Gary stuck with it through AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 23, 2014 16:16:37 GMT -6
I'm not 100% "sold" on this interpretation, but I like what it does for multiple attacks and may experiment with this. ......................Defender HD Attacker HD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1...........1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2........... 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3........... 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4........... 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5........... 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6........... 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7........... 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8........... 8 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9........... 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.......... 10 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.......... 11 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12.......... 12 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Okay, so my table is bad, but I kind of like the idea. Your table is a smoother and "nicer" approach, and also rather EPT-like FWIW -- the above FAQ interpretation strictly means this: Attacker Defender HD HD | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ----+----------------------------------------------- 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 | 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 | 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 | 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 | 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 | 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 | 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 | 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 | 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 | 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 | 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 | 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Which has the more obvious "break points" which many folks don't view favourably. An alternate would be to give a single attack but instead have the number in the chart be the number of dice damage done to the opponents, with the notion that damage might "cleave" from one foe to the next. (E.g. the 10th level fighter might do 10d6 against a 1 HD foe, 5d6 against a 2 HD foe, and so on.) This is (said to be) the Dave Arneson approach, and is also what appears in EPT. Based on my "on paper" analysis, I was initially skeptical of this approach. One attack roll with multiple damage dice seemed (to me) to be overly coarse compared to multiple attack rolls each doing one damage die. I have been testing both approaches in my games over the last couple of years. So with the benefit of my "practical" analysis, I now conclude that DA's method is actually "better" at the game table for a number of reasons. It is genuinely quicker to throw fewer attack rolls. But more significantly, doing so also encourages play to remain at the "right" level of abstraction for one minute combat turns. Rolling lots of attack dice tends to encourage the "one attack roll = one attack" mode of thinking, while rolling only one attack die tends to suppress this temptation. The "cleave through" mode of scratching off hit points is also very convenient (as a ref), because it saves you from bothering with all the fuss over "who hit who"? In a massed melee you don't need to worry who hit who, you can just start at one end of the monster roster and scratch off "collective" hit points; it's a huge time saver. So, by trial and error, I now have a much fuller appreciation for Dave's method.
|
|