|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2014 2:34:57 GMT -6
On top of generous to hit adjustments, most players kinda expect bows to fire twice per turn.
This idea comes originally from Chainmail's mass battle rules which inform us (bottom of p11) that bowmen who don't move and are not meleed during the turn can fire twice. Everyone else can fire once per turn.
Everyone else, that is, except for heavy crossbowmen.
Chainmail goes on to say that heavy crossbowmen can fire only every other turn. This same information later appeared in AD&D's ROF statistics for missile weapons (although the detail about not moving or being meleed appears to have been omitted).
Almost everyone remembers all that, but the rest of the paragraph seems to be widely overlooked (perhaps because it finishes overleaf at the top of p12?). Chainmail also says that while heavy crossbows are horribly slow, they also add 1 to missile fire rolls.
I did some figuring and I reckon this adjustment gives heavy crossbows ~110% as much punch as the other missile weapons in mass combat shooting (actually a bit less than I was expecting). I also looked at MtM's shooting table and observed that heavy crossbows have ~126% as much punch as the average of the other missile weapons. But what about the ACS? According to the ACS all attacks which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted (M&M p19). Unless otherwise noted!
It seems to me that heavy crossbows are clearly noted as being more deadly than the other missile weapons.
So, how do folks out there play crossbows?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Apr 17, 2014 3:54:33 GMT -6
I wrote about crossbows recently on my blog, specifically here. A light crossbow should be the device that a fighting-man can draw back by hand; heavy crossbows are the ones requiring a winch or other device to draw. From my perspective at least, crossbows are best for sniping or keeping at tension to get off a single volley at the start of combat. If someone was reloading a crossbow in the midst of combat, I'd say that a heavy crossbow should definitely have a rate of fire of 1 shot per 2 rounds, with 1 round being used to reload the weapon and 1 to aim and fire. Light crossbows can reload and fire in the same round. Given the ACS, the best thing I think would be for heavy crossbows to give +2 to hit against armored individuals. They were used specifically for their armor-penetrating capabilities, and this simulates that, moving each type of armor down 1 grade - leather becomes totally ineffective, chain as good as leather, and plate as good as chain. I'd rather use that than change the damage type, since once you've punched through armor, trauma is trauma.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2014 4:58:25 GMT -6
I wrote about crossbows recently on my blog, specifically here. That's an interesting post, for sure. Worth mentioning, perhaps, that crossbows also have to be fired at 45 degrees upward to achieve maximum range and the body of the crossbow can then obstruct the view of the target, which is not the case for bows. But once we start talking about "long" or "maximum" range, then we're no longer talking about accurate shooting at individuals anyway. Re: having a bolt "on tension" ready to fire--we could allow these to fire before bows; before initiative is determined even? As for armour penetration, I've been contemplating the notion that heavy crossbows should simply ignore armour. All targets would be AC9 or AC8 (with shield). It might be too much, perhaps, but then again: weigh a crossbow's one shot vs AC9 against a bow's four shots vs AC9-AC2. In that light it it's almost worth thinking about? Another thing is the training since birth (for bows) versus training since last month (for crossbows) issue, which isn't really represented in D&D. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Apr 17, 2014 5:12:10 GMT -6
Another thing is the training since birth (for bows) versus training since last month (for crossbows) issue, which isn't really represented in D&D. Hmm... A simple solution for this lies in the weapon restrictions. Make crossbows available for everyone, but bows only for fighters and their sub-classes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 11:15:46 GMT -6
What is the "acs"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 11:20:37 GMT -6
I wrote about crossbows recently on my blog, specifically here. A light crossbow should be the device that a fighting-man can draw back by hand; heavy crossbows are the ones requiring a winch or other device to draw. From my perspective at least, crossbows are best for sniping or keeping at tension to get off a single volley at the start of combat. If someone was reloading a crossbow in the midst of combat, I'd say that a heavy crossbow should definitely have a rate of fire of 1 shot per 2 rounds, with 1 round being used to reload the weapon and 1 to aim and fire. Light crossbows can reload and fire in the same round. Given the ACS, the best thing I think would be for heavy crossbows to give +2 to hit against armored individuals. They were used specifically for their armor-penetrating capabilities, and this simulates that, moving each type of armor down 1 grade - leather becomes totally ineffective, chain as good as leather, and plate as good as chain. I'd rather use that than change the damage type, since once you've punched through armor, trauma is trauma. You can't keep a crossbow at nock forever; especially in a humid environment like a dungeon, the string will start to stretch after time. Ten minutes or half an hour, sure; if you keep it drawn for several hours it will lose much of its power.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Apr 17, 2014 11:36:49 GMT -6
You can't keep a crossbow at nock forever; especially in a humid environment like a dungeon, the string will start to stretch after time. Ten minutes or half an hour, sure; if you keep it drawn for several hours it will lose much of its power. Well, that would be an issue, yes. I was picturing drawing and nocking an arrow before opening an unknown door, for instance, or using it to get a precision shot on a far-off opponent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 12:55:11 GMT -6
You can't keep a crossbow at nock forever; especially in a humid environment like a dungeon, the string will start to stretch after time. Ten minutes or half an hour, sure; if you keep it drawn for several hours it will lose much of its power. Well, that would be an issue, yes. I was picturing drawing and nocking an arrow before opening an unknown door, for instance, or using it to get a precision shot on a far-off opponent. Yeah, that would be a good use; make sure your crossbow is ready just before combat. Getting one good powerful shot in helps. Personally, I prefer to carry a hand axe; though a thrown axe doesn't have the range or punch, if you're surprised and melee starts, it's a better thing to be holding than a crossbow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 12:56:18 GMT -6
On top of generous to hit adjustments, most players kinda expect bows to fire twice per turn. This idea comes originally from Chainmail's mass battle rules which inform us (bottom of p11) that bowmen who don't move and are not meleed during the turn can fire twice. Everyone else can fire once per turn. Serious question: How in Crom's seven frozen Hells did people pick up THAT rule from CHAINMAIL, and not the others like oh, morale, flanking, et al?
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Apr 17, 2014 12:59:31 GMT -6
It's this board's acronym for the Alternate Combat System as laid out in OD&D. Basically it means "how OD&D combat worked."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 14:08:52 GMT -6
Ah. We always just called that "the combat system." Thanks for the translation.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2014 20:10:27 GMT -6
It's this board's acronym for the Alternate Combat System as laid out in OD&D. Basically it means "how OD&D combat worked." It's more correctly the Alterantive Combat System (M&M p19) I'd also add that the "alternative" part of it is largely to do with "how hits are resolved" in OD&D combat. I.e., OD&D assumes the basic combat framework of Chainmail's MtM rules but, as an alternative to resolving hits with the MtM/FCT tables, the 3LBBs offer Attack Matrices I & II instead. These were hugely popular (not leastwise because they were right there in M&M!) and became "the combat system" as Gronan has just said. Serious question: How in Crom's seven frozen Hells did people pick up THAT rule from CHAINMAIL, and not the others like oh, morale, flanking, et al? Perhaps it's partly that many folks becoming interested in OD&D nowadays don't have access to Chainmail? And/or that many folks have subconscious expectations of OD&D based on their experience of AD&D?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 21:22:01 GMT -6
Serious question: How in Crom's seven frozen Hells did people pick up THAT rule from CHAINMAIL, and not the others like oh, morale, flanking, et al? Perhaps it's partly that many folks becoming interested in OD&D nowadays don't have access to Chainmail? And/or that many folks have subconscious expectations of OD&D based on their experience of AD&D? But up at the top you said "On top of generous to hit adjustments, most players kinda expect bows to fire twice per turn. This idea comes originally from Chainmail's mass battle rules " I'm trying to figure out how this came forward from CHAINMAIL but so much other stuff didn't.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2014 22:10:22 GMT -6
I'm trying to figure out how this came forward from CHAINMAIL but so much other stuff didn't. Perhaps what I should have wrote in the original post was: " Whether folks are aware of it or not this idea comes originally from Chainmail's mass battle rules..." But I agree; how so much great stuff from CM gets left out is still a fascinating and (IMHO) very relevant question for OD&D players.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2014 4:46:11 GMT -6
It's this board's acronym for the Alternate Combat System as laid out in OD&D. Basically it means "how OD&D combat worked." Michael, I was wondering the same thing and wasn't brave enough to ask. Obvious, once it's explained.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2014 4:56:40 GMT -6
I'm trying to figure out how this came forward from CHAINMAIL but so much other stuff didn't. Perhaps what I should have wrote in the original post was: " Whether folks are aware of it or not this idea comes originally from Chainmail's mass battle rules..." But I agree; how so much great stuff from CM gets left out is still a fascinating and (IMHO) very relevant question for OD&D players. I can give you one gamer's perspective. (1) The "two shots per round with a bow" rule is clearly a player-advantage thing. Folks who pick weapons love things like that and probably push hard to make this thing a rule in the game. (Personally, I never use it. Bows give you one attack just like every other weapon.) (2) I ignore morale rules because I figure they don't apply to players and I get to run the monsters, so I decide when monsters run or fight. I'd rather not have these things come down to a die roll. I hate to have PC's in a position where they want to fight but the dice say they wet their armor and run away, because that's not so heroic. I suppose I could apply morale to the monsters, but I like the control factor. (3) Flanking, facing, and similar rules are more miniatures-specific and not as interesting when you aren't using minis. I do allow my thieves to sneak around to the back for a sneak attack, but don't spend a lot of time worrying about facing and whatnot most of the time because it slows down the game and changes the feel of battle. I'd rather keep my battles abstract most of the time, rather than having folks count squares and the like. Other rules from Chainmail either get brought into my game or not as I see fit, but I don't play the same every time so sometimes I use a rule and other times not. (Sort of like an eternal and neverending playtest.) For example, I love the magic-user spell table where spells can be launched or held or lost based on a die roll against their complexity, but some of my players hate it so I don't use it all of the time. It's a neat rule, however. For me, rules are a guideline and I pick which I like and which I don't. I guess that means I don't play "offical" anything.
|
|
JMiskimen
BANNED
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Sagan
Posts: 53
|
Post by JMiskimen on Apr 18, 2014 6:18:53 GMT -6
Our group experimented with Spell Complexity (pg 33) and Counter Casting (pg 31)rules at one point, but the group found them to be too unwieldy in the heat of combat. Personally, I thought it gave more depth for the Magic-User.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 6:46:47 GMT -6
I use a morale check for monsters per CHAINMAIL because I don't want to have to estimate the Orcs' morale every melee round.
It's the same reason I use any rule at all rather than just adjudicating everything players do; it's easier for me.
Well, and it makes it possible for me as referee to be surprised by events too. I like the fact that I don't know when my Orcs will break and run any more than I do on the battlefield.
And I keep track of facing in my head so that I can reward players who try to use flanking. And I don't count squares or anything either; maybe I'm just good at visualizing. One of the things that frustrated the hell out of me about later editions of D&D and d20 is how unimportant positioning was.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2014 7:19:42 GMT -6
FWIW, I use OD&D's monster reaction table (M&M p12 and U&WA p12) for morale checks, for the conditions given in CM. And I agree with Gronon too; as a ref I don't want to be "in control" of outcomes--I want to be entertained by them.
For me morale is the single most important combat rule in the game. It's frequently the difference between winning and losing, and between life and death--especially for low level players. The "ultimate" quick resolution system, I think, would be to reduce entire combats to a morale check to see which side breaks first. This is really what we see in many table-top war games: a whole lot of fussing over dice for hits and kills and such, which all boil down to a morale test at the end of it.
Regards flanks and facing etc., I run very abstract combats too. The "map" exists mostly in my head but if players want a sketch of the situation, I'm happy to draw mud-maps. These usually amount to a few lines to mark out proximity of major obstructions, the extent of any melee (an oval or box), the position of a shield wall (a line), and which side of these "lines" a PC or monster is on. In the melee zone attacks are frontal unless one side has a major advantage in number or maneuverability, in which case they can use their advantage to get flanking attacks. When it's a near thing, I'll sometimes use a surprise check to determine whether someone will be flanked. It's the "right" level of detail for my games.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 18, 2014 8:56:51 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote: Well said. I have considered adapting the Post Melee Morale rules of Chainmail to do just this for a small band of adventurers, but found it not really suitable to translate a heterogeneous group as such.
Great idea! Have never been able to incorporate positioning into non-list combat or melee in which the numbers are very close.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2014 18:57:24 GMT -6
I have considered adapting the Post Melee Morale rules of Chainmail to do just this for a small band of adventurers, but found it not really suitable to translate a heterogeneous group as such. FWIW--I don't believe the POST MELEE MORALE rules (p15) are directly useful to OD&D because they're about the pushing and shoving of battles lines during an engagement. In OD&D we may not always have distinct battle lines, and multiple rank lines are a rarity. More often it's an "all in" mixed melee. I believe it's the gist of the MORALE DUE TO EXCESS CASUALTIES rules (p17) that are more useful to us in OD&D. Basically, they tell us when a morale check should be used. The check itself can then be made with OD&D's monster reaction table (well, that's what I do anyway--you could use other ways too). When there are distinctly different "types" involved in a combat, I usually give each type its own morale throw.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 21, 2014 9:37:40 GMT -6
waysoftheearth:
Interesting distinction between battle lines and mixed melee. In this approach when a figure or unit receives a % of casualites 2d6 are rolled and the result compared with those of the reaction table rather than rolling against the figures morale and ruling 'retreat' (or surrender) for a failed roll as in Chainmal.
You had posted something like this, but the table reflects a battle line. How might you refit the results on the reaction table to fit skirmish scale melee: 2-5 retreat (or surrender) 6-8 fighting withdrawl (not subject rear attacks) 9-11 remain in combat 12 fight to the death ?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 27, 2014 1:15:54 GMT -6
Interesting distinction between battle lines and mixed melee. In this approach when a figure or unit receives a % of casualites 2d6 are rolled and the result compared with those of the reaction table rather than rolling against the figures morale and ruling 'retreat' (or surrender) for a failed roll as in Chainmal. You had posted something like this, but the table reflects a battle line. How might you refit the results on the reaction table to fit skirmish scale melee: 2-5 retreat (or surrender) 6-8 fighting withdrawl (not subject rear attacks) 9-11 remain in combat 12 fight to the death ? FWIW--this is the latest revision of that morale table: 2-12 Morale ------------------------------- 2 or less Surrender 3-5 Flee 6-8 Hold 9-11 Press for advantage 12 or more Attack impetuously! The way I play it, a "hold" result means: will fight if pressed but won't follow up or initiate combat.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Apr 30, 2014 7:52:12 GMT -6
There is the Morale Table on page 30 of the JG Wilderlands: Two Six Sided dice roll 02: Panic - Roll on Random action Table 03: Dread - Run, back to enemy 04: Fearful - Fall back in loose order 05: Apprehensive - Fall back in good order ------------------------------------------ 06: Shaky - No advance , no attack (may melee) 07: Uneasy- No advance unless attacked 08: half hearted - Slow advance, no charge ------------------------------------------- 09: Steady - Quick advance 10: Calm - Charge 11: Ready -Charge , automatic 1st round 12: Stalwart - Charge, automatic 1st two rounds
Panic, random action table: 1: Surrender, throw down weapon 2: Play dead , crawl away 3: Freeze, no attack nor move 4: Run away, random direction 5: Hied nearest place possible 6: Berserk! Attack +3 hp for next 4 rounds, -1 per round thereafter, cumulative
|
|
ratikranger
Level 3 Conjurer
It's not just Chainmail that's turning 50 this year... :-D
Posts: 67
|
Post by ratikranger on May 23, 2014 2:38:48 GMT -6
Regarding crossbows: I don't run OD&D or DD on a regular basis (yet!) but in B/X I give crossbows +1 to damage compared to bows (slings get -1 compared to bows). I don't bother with rate of fire stuff, in B/X the "ground rule" seems to be "attack once per round" (except for monsters of course) and I am happy with that.
Regarding morale: I tend to use a morale roll when about half of the monsters are down. I might also roll if their leader falls, depending on the monsters and situation in question. And I like that JG chart, never noticed it before. Thanks for pointing it out!
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on May 23, 2014 6:42:27 GMT -6
Bows, crossbows, longbows, slings, muskets, javelins, whatever, everything fires once per round.
The problem with crossbows and muskets is although they're cheap and long range, they can't arc their shots over intervening obstacles and troops. The shooter must have a clear line of fire to their target. They can shoot down over troops from a hilltop or up at troops on a castle wall, they just can't shoot over hills and walls like normal archers. Bows and longbows still take a 1/2 penalty for this type of fire.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 26, 2014 8:42:53 GMT -6
It's this board's acronym for the Alternate Combat System as laid out in OD&D. Basically it means "how OD&D combat worked." Michael, I was wondering the same thing and wasn't brave enough to ask. Obvious, once it's explained. Yeah took me a minute too. I first thought it meant Armour Classes. Too many abbreviations.
|
|