LBB Combat -- just noticed this

[Finarvyn]

I was running a Chainmail-style combat in my summer OD&D campaign and wasn't so happy with it, so I turned back to my LBB and re-read them again. I swear that almost every time I do this I have an "ah ha" moment. Maybe I just don't read and think at the same time often enough.

Bear with me on this, it takes a bit to explain:

Observation #1
Look at M&T page 5. There is a wonderful example which states that

Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter fo 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.

This appears to be similar in philosophy to the "fighting capability" rating for player characters. So, for example, if a 5th level cleric (Curate) has a FC of 3+1 he gets two regular attacks and a third +1 attack. One could write his combat bonus as +1/+0/+0.

Observation #2
Rather than rating characters by the Chinmail system of "light foot", etc, I chose to wander over to the "alternate combat system" of M&M page 19.
* Note that as AC gets better by a point, the to-hit number gets better by a point as well.
* Note that for fighters, at levels 1-3 it takes a 10 to hit an unarmored foe. For levels 4-6 it takes an 8 (which is like fighting at +2), levels 7-9 fights at +5, 10-12 at +7. Other classes get similar plusses, only the range of levels isn't the same.

Now, put these together:
As with anything in the LBB, one can never be certain which systems are supposed to fit with one another. However, if you take the two observations and combine them you get a stunning result. That example Curate from before gets a combat line more like +3/+2/+2.

This gets pretty impressive as a Super Hero (L8 fighter) gets a combat line like this: +5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5.

Of course, that's supposed to be only against foes of 1 HD or fewer. I was thinking of applying it for both players and monsters in an adventure to see how it works out. I'm guessing that blood would be spraying everywhere, characters would be screaming "medic!" in the first real encounter, and death would happen in a hurry!

I suppose that's why a Hero in Chainmail has to take 4 hits in the same turn in order to die, and a Super Hero needs t take 8.

What do you think?

[coffee]

I'm not sure what to think, because I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Are you going to use the combat system from Chainmail? If so, which one?

Or are you going to use the Alternate System? If so, are you going to use the table or the additions you've described above?

Clearly, you've had some sort of revelation (which is always good). But I'm having a hard time seeing where you're going with it, even though I really do want to.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 16, 2008 11:35:51 GMT -6 coffee said:

Clearly, you've had some sort of revelation (which is always good). But I'm having a hard time seeing where you're going with it, even though I really do want to.

Well, I'm not entirely certain where this is going, either. :-)

I've been pondering "Fighting Capabity" for a while and I'm not sure that M&M ever says that it has to be used with the Chainmial combat system only. FC would appear to be applicable to the "alternate" system as well.

Now, I know that in the "alternate" system when you fight a big nastie you get one attack and if you're above 1 HD the big nastie gets one attack back. This seems to present a combat situation where there is little risk and I think this has always been one of the big objections to having huge hit point totals.

Suppose you're a 6th level fighter and have 6 HD (so you get around 21 hit points) and are fighting an ogre you know that you can take somewhere around 6 hits before you die. In the same way, the ogre "knows" that he has 4+1 HD so can take around 4 hits before he dies. Not much concern because it takes several rounds before you get damaged enough to really sweat it, and you know that you can try to run or something before you die. We slug it out for a while and eventually someone runs out of hit points.

Now suppose that ogre with 4 HD gets 4 attacks. With four hits that ogre could cause d6+d6+d6+d6 damage, or a maximum of 24 points. You probably won't die in a single round, but it's possible. Now you feel the risk.

The Chainmail system said that when big nasties go toe-to-toe they use the handy-dandy "big nasty" table where you roll 2d6 to kill it and it rolls 2d6 to kill you. Could be one round and out for either one of us. You feel the risk here, that's for certain. The problem is that there are significantly more monsters in the books than there are in the table, so the table isn't worth much unless you are fighting only certain monsters.

Back to the main point: if a 6th level fighter has a fighting capability of "hero+1 or 6 men", doesn't that imply that he gets 6 attacks? If the monster can take "one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks", then shouldn't the ogre get 4 attacks? This model would certainly put the risk factor back into the game.

[coffee]

Okay, that's which way you're going.

I agree, that would present an interesting melee. It would really make giants the true danger they should be -- 8 - 12 attacks, doing 2 - 3 dice each? Ouch!

Obviously, the way to fight such things is to swarm them. Get enough player characters on that giant, and he's screwed. On the other hand, get two giants on one player character and HE is toast.

If you want to do this with the Alternate combat system, I would suggest that you just use the table as is, and not interpolate the +5/+5/+5... of which you spoke earlier. Sure, it might be fun, but what are you adding that +5 to? That's what I don't understand.

And then you said this:

The Chainmail system said that when big nasties go toe-to-toe they use the handy-dandy "big nasty" table where you roll 2d6 to kill it and it rolls 2d6 to kill you.

There's another way to look at this: My copy of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures says:

LAND COMBAT:
The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one
man or creature. Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in Volume
I or by the CHAINMAIL system, with scores equalling a drive back or kill equal
only to a hit. Battles involving large numbers of figures can be fought at a 20:1
ratio, with single fantastic types fighting separately at 1:1 or otherwise against
but a single 20:1 figure.

(emphasis added)

Note that this way, when you fight the dragon, it still takes many many hits for either of you to go down.



Anyway, that's my two coppers on the matter (so far).

[Finarvyn]

Jun 16, 2008 15:16:14 GMT -6 coffee said:

If you want to do this with the Alternate combat system, I would suggest that you just use the table as is, and not interpolate the +5/+5/+5... of which you spoke earlier. Sure, it might be fun, but what are you adding that +5 to? That's what I don't understand.

Oh, I was looking at the "Men attacking" chart on p.19 of M&M, only making it into a general "to-hit" number rather than reading the chart. I was trying to simplify combat, not make the example less understandable.

I'm assuming that the to-hit number can be generated as 19-AC for first level fighters. Each one step better on the AC chart makes it one number harder to hit. On the chart it takes a 17 to hit AC 2, which is the same as 19-2=17 from the equation.

So ... I see that a level 1 fighter takes a 10 to hit someone with AC=9. Same for levels 2-3. Levels 4-6 require an 8 to hit, which is like giving the fighter a +2 on the roll to hit compared to the 1st level guy and I stick with a 10 to hit. For levels 7-9 the chart says it takes a 5, which is +5 on the roll (again assuming that a 10 will hit).

So, if an 8th level fighter gets 8 attacks and each require a 5 to hit, it's like having +5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5 as their attack line.

Better?

[busman]

Back to the main point: if a 6th level fighter has a fighting capability of "hero+1 or 6 men", doesn't that imply that he gets 6 attacks? If the monster can take "one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks", then shouldn't the ogre get 4 attacks? This model would certainly put the risk factor back into the game.

I was reading this again after reading mythmere's talk about 1d6 and 2d6 max damage for any monster in the pre-GH edition of the game.

My take on the text was that against "normal men" they got to do 1d6 per HD of the monster but that PCs weren't normal men. But, I had a brief thought along the lines you are going of letting monsters do 1d6 per HD and Players do FC HD worth of d6. But then I saw a shiny quarter or something and moved on.

It would certainly ramp up up the deadliness off the charts, especially Hydras.

[busman]

So, if an 8th level fighter gets 8 attacks and each require a 5 to hit, it's like having +5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5 as their attack line.

Better?

Yes, that follows.

So "to Hit" would be:
19 - AC + Level Mod
With level mod being:
+2, +2, +3 every block of 3 levels for F-M, every 4 levels for Clerics and every 5 levels for M-U.

I don't think I clarified anything for anyone but myself there.

[badger2305]

This is actually similar to the combat system that we used in the first D&D campaign I played in. High-level fighters tended to demolish opposition, but it took a long time for characters to advance (my highest level character after a year of weekly play was 6th level).

[coffee]

Okay, I'll have to ask you to pardon me for being stupid, but what exactly is the advantage of a whole string of +5's, or even a formula like 19-AC (shades of THAC0!), when you can just look at the "Men Attacking" table?

I really don't get it.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 17, 2008 9:17:29 GMT -6 coffee said:

Okay, I'll have to ask you to pardon me for being stupid, but what exactly is the advantage of a whole string of +5's, or even a formula like 19-AC (shades of THAC0!), when you can just look at the "Men Attacking" table?

Well, I'm not entirely sure that any of this has a point, really.

1. The string of +5's were part of my thinking on how to use the WB mechanics to look like the 3E SRD but keeping it OD&D. 3E uses a string such as this, but I would be more inclined to simply write "8 attacks at +5" or some such. That long string just was typed in to emphasize what a nasty combatant the fighter would become.

2. You can certainly look at the chart instead of the eqution. I've done the 19-AC thing for years (long before THAC0, actually) and it's not like you ever use that equation in play. I rate my armor class where big numbers are better (I called it "armor rating" and simply re-did my monster charts to reflect it) and I have found that it makes my combats go faster. Armor of 15 means roll a 15 to hit. The 19-AC thing is just when you are converting from one system to another.

[Stormcrow]

One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables.

The alternate combat system does take your hit dice into account already, so rolling on it multiple times is like multiplying your level times itself. You're taking it into account twice.

[coffee]

Jun 17, 2008 11:56:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables.

The alternate combat system does take your hit dice into account already, so rolling on it multiple times is like multiplying your level times itself. You're taking it into account twice.

That's a good point.

[Finarvyn]

Ah. Stormcrow is wise.

So I could justify either (1) multiple attacks in my system or (2) going "up the chart" with level advancement, but not really both. I guess that takes care of my original "just noticed" thing and makes this discussion rather moot. I "just noticed" something I thought I had missed because I had read it wrong.

Drat. :-(

(But thanks for the clear-up.)

[badger2305]

Jun 17, 2008 11:56:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables.

Well, that's not quite true - see the explanation of combat in D&D in Strategic Review #1 or #2. There, against certain kinds of opponents, you do get multiple attacks.

The alternate combat system does take your hit dice into account already, so rolling on it multiple times is like multiplying your level times itself. You're taking it into account twice.

...which you could if you wanted to, extending the logic from the example I've cited before. It would also make more sense, particularly if combat rounds are one minute long, as heroic typoes would find multiple opportunities to attack their opponents.

Not saying that this is how it must be done, but that you can construct a logic for a multiple attacks approach.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 17, 2008 20:30:00 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Jun 17, 2008 11:56:06 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables.

Well, that's not quite true - see the explanation of combat in D&D in Strategic Review #1 or #2. There, against certain kinds of opponents, you do get multiple attacks.

Oh, sure. D&D made a special exception in the case of fighters against very low-level opponents, to give fighters the special "hack your way through a sea of foes" concept that Heroes and Superheroes had in Chainmail.

It would also make more sense, particularly if combat rounds are one minute long, as heroic typoes would find multiple opportunities to attack their opponents.

That's quite an ironic spelling error you made!

Now you're trying to use the logic of realism to justify an effect. That simply doesn't work in D&D.

[badger2305]

Jul 1, 2008 10:48:58 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Now you're trying to use the logic of realism to justify an effect. That simply doesn't work in D&D.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If you are suggesting that what's being suggested is somehow broken in mechanical terms, that might be worth looking at, but more explanation is needed. I'm not sure where the combat system gets broken if you allow multiple attacks per round - sure, more damage gets done, but it cuts both ways - monsters may get more attacks per round (or not, depending on the decision of the referee). If you're suggesting that you can't use realism in D&D, though, that's simply beating a dead equine (and I'm not going there).

But on a deeper level, I think you're missing some of the zeitgeist of odd74. "That simply doesn't work in D&D" - perhaps for you, but one of the acknowledged assumptions of OD&D is that you can change the rules to fit how you want your game to run - and that's okay.

My point was that if a referee wanted to do that, it was possible to come up with an explanation for how it might work. If that involves using the logic of realism, that's fine - but that's not what I was arguing. I'm simply noting that the combat system could allow for multiple attacks, if you accept the logic of being able to cleave through multiple foes in a heroic fashion (not sure where the "logic of realism" is here, though).

One way this might work is to subtract the number of attacks provided to the lesser combatant from the number of attacks provided to the more powerful combatant. This would provide a gradient in combat effectiveness that would be more even than the system of 1 HD or less = fighting-man level determines number of attacks, while greater than 1 HD = one attack per round. This is simply off the top of my head, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

If that's not how you want to run your game, that's fine - but there's no fixed idea of what is the rule. Go back and re-read the end of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures if you doubt me.

[dwayanu]

Here's one of those cases in which I've become pretty reactionary. I don't like "critical hits" and other approaches that increase the randomness.

It seems to me that the whole point of giving higher-level characters more hit points is to increase the number of decision points before death. The longer you play a character, the less vulnerable it is to sudden removal from the game due to bad sheer bad luck.

Undermining that can make for an interesting game, but to me it's a notably different game from D&D. I found that true of the hit point system in Arduin Grimoire III, which greatly increased first-level HP and greatly reduced the difference made by gaining levels.

[badger2305]

Jul 11, 2008 14:39:13 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Here's one of those cases in which I've become pretty reactionary. I don't like "critical hits" and other approaches that increase the randomness.

It seems to me that the whole point of giving higher-level characters more hit points is to increase the number of decision points before death. The longer you play a character, the less vulnerable it is to sudden removal from the game due to bad sheer bad luck.

Undermining that can make for an interesting game, but to me it's a notably different game from D&D. I found that true of the hit point system in Arduin Grimoire III, which greatly increased first-level HP and greatly reduced the difference made by gaining levels.

I can understand why you would feel that way. For myself, I'm less inclined to use a multiple-blow-per-round model simply because all of my memories of something similar were that it got tricky to determine when a blow landed, etc. These days, I'm more inclined to cut down the length of a combat round because I think a minute is a freakin' long time in either realistic or heroic combat.

[Deleted]

Fascinating discussion, I had to go back and read it all again myself. It reminds me again, why I don't usually try to did that deep.