|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 18, 2011 13:12:19 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Can you expand on this? I have been thinking about HD and normal men in the alternative combat system and looking back to Chainmail. How does this square with the alternative combat system in AD&D in which these units could be 0 or 1st lvl. Does variable weapon damage make up for this discrepancy? Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 26, 2011 23:54:39 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Yet, a hero in normal combat uniquely requires simultaneous hits (heroes/lycanthropes/anti-heroes) to be brought down, unlike an ogre or troll who only takes cumulative hits. A hero can harm creatures that normal men cannot (before the rule changed to being hit by magic weapons). It is for these very reasons I might consider reading the passage as written. Not trying to be cheeky here, just trying establish a valid motive for a possible reading of the hero in the way in question.
Here I am confused. The berserker quality of this figure would be obscured or rather assumed by that of the anti-hero; no need to check morale and the modifier is not applicable on the FCT. Granted, never ceasing the fight 'until either they have killed all of their opponents or they are themselves killed' (26 Chml.)would be additional.
Agreed, and the granularity is plain to see. However, as above, it is not clear to me that the berserker barring his 'kill everyone' quality, would even be recognizeable against a hero on the FCT. There doesn't seem to be anything that can be assumed or made less granular about the berserker in fantastic combat. This just appears to be a non-starter. However, maybe I have missed something...
Well, in MTM fantastic combat they don't appear to be any different. In MTM normal combat it appears they get a modifier on the dice. However, with the publication of Men & Magic the definition of a normal man has changed its appearance. Berserkers (in the way that I am reading this up to this point) receive this modifier against 'normal men', not 'supernormal men', heroes. What could this accomplish? It might possibly stand in place of or loosely approximate the hero's unique quality of death by simultaneous blows from Chainmail. It, then, underscores the difference between heroes and normal men types as well. This is more or less a statement deriving from the rule set's rather organic feel and conception, not from any kind of hard-and-fast mechanical perspective.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 26, 2011 12:56:35 GMT -6
The nomenclatures of 'normal men', 'supernormal men', 'normal troops', a 'normal figure', 'above normal men', a 'normal target', 'normal missile fire', 'normal combat', 'normal attacks', 'Fantastic opponents', 'Fantastic figures', 'Fantastic combat', are used throughout Chainmail and the 3LLBs. I do not see a particular reason to rule that a berserker "when fighting normal men they add +2 to their dice" is a typo as it does not deviate from the wording of much of the text...so here's my question:
Are not heroes and superheroes considered 'fantasic opponents' or are they otherwise 'normal combatants' who may melee with 'fantastic opponents'?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 23, 2011 23:06:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Nov 1, 2010 10:15:26 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
...Arriving at this conclusion intuitively, got it, very interesting, thanks!
I understand, again, very interesting.
I had not connected the damage vs. large creatures with Chainmail until now. Thanks! I find all this really fascinating.
Aldarron wrote: Thanks, Aldarron.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 29, 2010 23:45:46 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: I realize the two are conceptual antecedents of variable weapon damage but from what mathematical basis did you arrive at this? I was not aware of this, in AD&D, anyone may score weaon damage vs. a large creature . Why do you think this ruling changed to included all classes? Provactive statement, not really sure I follow you here...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 28, 2010 22:39:41 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: . Thanks Cooper! Indeed, armor thus seems degraded by the shift from Chainmail's bell curved distribution to the alternate combat system's linear curve in the following ways: a. no longer based on just the weapon employed but also the level of the wielder. b. distribution represented through by a linear curve to accomodate the greater spread. ...Though the alternate combat system borrows conceptually from Chainmail, the mathematical application of that concept is entirely different and thus it seems to me one becomes a very different game from the other.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 20, 2010 9:36:16 GMT -6
Finarvyn wrote:
That seems like a fair estimation.
Jacar wrote:
I understand the correlation being 2d6 and the strong inclusion of chance with greater granularity (d20 or 3d6) as you both note. My concern here is how armor is conceived of mathematically beginning in Chainmail's 'man-to-man' combat.
In Chainmail's Appendix d there are 'all those different numbers' based on weapon type for landing a telling blow against a particular armor type. This matrices uses a bell curve (2d6) to determine an outcome. Heavy armor is difficult to hit: a. based on the weapon employed b. the distribution represented through a bell curve. The move to the alternate combat system assumes different numbers based on weapon type mirroring Chainmail 'man-to-man' but does not keep with the curviture. The latter decision appears to me to undercut the protection afforded by heavier armor, unless the weapon vs. armor type modification in the alternate system assume this dual-gravity (A and B above). That is where my confusion lies.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 12, 2010 21:56:50 GMT -6
Do the weapon modifiers vs. armor type in AD&D (d20) make up for the loss of a bell curve and weapon vs. armor type probability (2d6) [dagger: roll 6 vs. no armor, a 7 vs. leather or padded etc.] in the 'Man to Man' combat table in the 'Appendix B' of Chainmail?
Otherwise it seems that switching to a d20 platform merely offers a flatter distribution and large spread so as to allow for more armor types and more randomness to be involved and without a curved distribution, which seemed integral to describing the armor numerically in combat matrices as initially conceived. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 29, 2010 9:20:07 GMT -6
Waysofthearth wrote:
Ok, but the "+2" modifier for berserkers is included in Chainmail and Gygax's Classical Warfare...which predate the alternative combat system.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2010 9:38:34 GMT -6
Tombowings wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, my focus has been AD&D since the early eighties, so lately I have been trying to integrate and familiarize myself with OD&D to get more of a sense of the games roots (being a proponent of the less is more perspective as well). So that is interesting, point taken.
Waysofthearth:
Point taken, thanks Ways, still gathering the differences between OD&D and AD&D, appreciate it, especially in the context of the berserker.
Understand your point of view, and appreciate the levity. I believe there still something to this, but realize one may need to tread lightly in how this ruling is interpreted...
Snorri wrote:
Hmmm. Reminds me a bit of how Eowyn felled the Nazgul. Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 27, 2010 0:37:08 GMT -6
Coffee wrote:
This seems to bear out in AD&D as fighters are alotted a number of attacks vs. 'normal men', that is 0-lvl types, equal to their level, i.e, 4th lvl fighter may dice for times against one or multiple opponents.
Yesterday wrote:
I sympathize with underscoring the nature of the berserker in this way. I do, however, think that D&D distinguishes normal men from PCs even 1st level ones...
Tombowings wrote:
The association with heroes and fighting men begins at 4th lvl...you may have a valid point. AD&D, however, presents the normal man as being 0-lvl...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 26, 2010 12:27:46 GMT -6
Coffee wrote:
This too has been my reading as well. This definition of 'normal men' (0-lvl.) seems to bear out in AD&D as well.
What I find confusing is that this qualification of 'normal man' to the 'berserkergang' is not mentioned in other renderings of the game, beginning with 'the Fantasy Supplement' of Chainmail through Holmes Dungeons & Dragons, Classic editions, and the 1st. edition manuals of AD&D. It also makes me wonder if the other static abilities of man groups, say like those found in the MMI (i.e, fanatacism +1 to hit, +1 damage) should only apply against 'normal men'? Any thoughts?
Nice.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 26, 2010 0:21:15 GMT -6
In Monsters & Treasure to receive a modifier 'to hit' a berserker may only do so when engaging 'normal men'. Since PC's in OD&D are not considered 'normal men' does this mean that beserker of does not receive a modifier when engaging a PC or creature?
|
|