|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Apr 1, 2015 18:15:00 GMT -6
With the advantages of loads of experience in RPG games; the Internet and the Internet community; and modern word processing... My home brew rules continue to change weekly. It's impossible to blame anyone for not playing RAW, even if they themselves wrote it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Apr 25, 2015 4:34:38 GMT -6
Hey, ya wanna know how Gary REALLY did it? A 4th level fighter versus orcs... he rolled a d4 to see how many orcs got killed. A 6th level fighter versus orcs... he rolled a d6 to see how manh orcs got killed. Et cetera. Just a question for clarification, lord Gronan: did Gary Gygax make the player roll to hit, then roll the number of victims, or did he just roll the "slaughter-dice" at every round? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 11:32:07 GMT -6
He just rolled for kills.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 11, 2015 11:19:56 GMT -6
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. Can I assume this is a carry over from Chainmail? Obviously further carried over to AD&D for Fighter types but not for the monsters...subsumed I guess by the later occurrence of multiple monster attacks? In 1973/74 OD&D, yes, the basic combat mechanics are from Chainmail, and the "Alternative" attack matrices you see in M&M are alternatives to the Man-to-Man and Fantasy Combat attack matrices in Chainmail. In particular, the distinction between normal and fantastic/heroic types, and the dichotomy between normal and fantastic combat is from Chainmail. As time went by the rules matured until we had AD&D instead, so if you want to include all the D&D rules up to 1977, it might not be so clear cut. Notice also that the last part of the quoted rule implies that 1+1 HD types attack at +1 vs normal types too. I.e., veterans, elves, hobgoblins and the like would add one to their hit probability vs normal types  I want revisit what WotE said here regarding hit probabilities versus normal types and compare to a statement in the Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn Manuscript. First, a curious fact about BTPbD is that unlike the 3lbb's, the manuscript never references CHAINMAIL. There is no expectation in BTPbD that a Referee should have a copy of CHAINMAIL, or even know that it exists. This is an important thing to consider because BTPbD still includes that infamous statistic "Fighting Capability", which we are told in the 3lbb's is a stat meant to be used with CHAINMAIL. I think it is a bit of a challenge, mentally to divorce FC from CHAINMAIL, because we are so used to thinking of them as linked, but it is important to do so when reading the definition for FC in the BTPbD mss, which is: "Fighting Capabilities: The numbers (Table 4) indicate the player's ability to handle more than one opponent in combat on an equal basis. For example, a Veteran could take on any ordinary non-veteran man and have a +1 advantage" Book II page 6. Notice that the example is a veteran against a man. "Man types" also seems to be the idea in mind regarding those multiple opponents handled on an equal basis. It seems unlikely that the rule was intended to apply to "supernormal" or "fantastic" opponents. In other words, a hero (FC 4 men) might simultaneously fight 4 men equally, but probably not 4 medusae. This I think is pretty clear when you look at BTPbD's Fighting Capabilities table. The stats are all in "men" e.g. 3 men, 4 men, 5 men (-1) etc. much the same as the lists in the 3lbb's with the hero (-1), superhero, etc., language taken out. Then there is also the meaning of "handle". Does it mean the hero can defend against 4 opponents? Or does "handle" mean the hero gets 4 attacks? Since the example veteran is attacking we must take handle to mean attack, at least. Now I'm beginning to think this is also what Gygax meant by one attack per "combat level" in the FAQ discussed earlier. Meaning that perhaps "combat level" could be a shorthand for either Hid Dice in the case of monsters or Fighting Capability in the case of leveled characters. In any case, it is my view that Fighting Capability was originally created solely as a statistic to indicate the number of multiple attacks all leveled characters posses against "ordinary men" opponents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 17:20:01 GMT -6
In any case, it is my view that Fighting Capability was originally created solely as a statistic to indicate the number of multiple attacks all leveled characters posses against "ordinary men" opponents. So, a hero fighting four orcs will be able to make four attacks, one each against four different orcs. But if fighting one orc, he'll still only make one attack, or two attacks against two orcs, etc. How does a Veteran's "+1 advantage" work when attacks are rolled on d100s? Also, should his +1 apply if he's fighting more than one opponent? Your quote seems to show that if a fifth level fighter is fighting five men, he's at a -1 disadvantage. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 11, 2015 21:15:23 GMT -6
In any case, it is my view that Fighting Capability was originally created solely as a statistic to indicate the number of multiple attacks all leveled characters posses against "ordinary men" opponents. So, a hero fighting four orcs will be able to make four attacks, one each against four different orcs. But if fighting one orc, he'll still only make one attack, or two attacks against two orcs, etc. I don't see any reason to think the number of opponents matters. The hero gets 4 attacks. That could be 4 attacks on one opponent or 1 attack on 4 opponents, etc. How does a Veteran's "+1 advantage" work when attacks are rolled on d100s? Also, should his +1 apply if he's fighting more than one opponent? Good question. It's an issue that pops up in Dalluhn with these sort of bonuses, for example, the Bless spell grants a +1 to "attack dice", which makes no sense if you are rolling percentiles. Probably these rules were written with a d20 or d6's in mind. I suppose the bonus always applies against the "men" the character is able to attack. Your quote seems to show that if a fifth level fighter is fighting five men, he's at a -1 disadvantage. In Dalluhn/BTPbD a 6th level fighter has an FC of 5 -1, a 5th level fighter has an FC of 4 +1. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 11, 2015 22:05:55 GMT -6
How does a Veteran's "+1 advantage" work when attacks are rolled on d100s? Also, should his +1 apply if he's fighting more than one opponent? Good question. It's an issue that pops up in Dalluhn with these sort of bonuses, for example, the Bless spell grants a +1 to "attack dice", which makes no sense if you are rolling percentiles. Probably these rules were written with a d20 or d6's in mind. I suppose the bonus always applies against the "men" the character is able to attack. If I recall correctly, Chainmail specifies that a magic sword will give the wielder a +1 adjustment to his roll versus fantastic opponents (2d6 on the FCT) or enable him to throw one additional die against normal opponents (an additional 1d6 in normal combat). (Again if memory serves) this is also spelled out explicilty in the case of Elves with magic swords in normal combat. So, is it plausible that "+1 to attack dice" versus men implies "+1 to the number of attack dice" versus men? Then it wouldn't matter whether you use hundred-sided, or twenty-sided, or six-sided dice to resolve hits. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 12, 2015 4:56:15 GMT -6
........ So, is it plausible that "+1 to attack dice" versus men implies "+1 to the number of attack dice" versus men? Then it wouldn't matter whether you use hundred-sided, or twenty-sided, or six-sided dice to resolve hits. Right. Yeah I think that could be it, but it becomes problematic when you have to subtract a die. <shrug> |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 12, 2015 6:20:14 GMT -6
As in for a cursed magic sword?
I don't think that need be a problem; any heroic figure would have sufficient dice available, but even a normal figure who somehow got a cursed sword could possibly have the basic one die to start with, plus one die for the magic sword, minus one die for the curse, resulting in just the one die. Or else just be unable to attack effectively.
If a chaotic normal type were attacking normal men shielded by, say, a protection from evil spell, with a normal weapon then he might simply not be able to attack them at all. Would that genuinely be a problem?
(The text of Protection from Evil in M&M says "taking a -1 from hit dice"; is it the same in Dalluhn/BTPbD?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 7:36:56 GMT -6
I don't see any reason to think the number of opponents matters. The hero gets 4 attacks. That could be 4 attacks on one opponent or 1 attack on 4 opponents, etc. I can't see the full text but what the quote says is handling multiple figures on a equal basis. Equal to me means that both the PC and opponent each make an exchange of blows. If the PC hero get's four attacks versus a single opponent's one, that certainly isn't an equal basis. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 12, 2015 13:02:13 GMT -6
I don't see any reason to think the number of opponents matters. The hero gets 4 attacks. That could be 4 attacks on one opponent or 1 attack on 4 opponents, etc. I can't see the full text but what the quote says is handling multiple figures on a equal basis. Equal to me means that both the PC and opponent each make an exchange of blows. If the PC hero get's four attacks versus a single opponent's one, that certainly isn't an equal basis. I see what you are saying but I don't think that is the sense of the text. I read it as meaning the "players" attack rolls are equal; meaning each roll the player makes against any "ordinary man" they are fighting, is the same, with the same bonus, up to the number of men indicated for FC. The rule is indicating that there is no penalty or caveats to any of the attack rolls allowed. Each attack rolled by the player is done on an equal basis. BTW you can see the full text. I quoted the whole thing. That's all there is. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 12, 2015 13:48:02 GMT -6
(The text of Protection from Evil in M&M says "taking a -1 from hit dice"; is it the same in Dalluhn/BTPbD?) Yes, exactly the same line. As in for a cursed magic sword? I don't think that need be a problem; any heroic figure would have sufficient dice available, but even a normal figure who somehow got a cursed sword could possibly have the basic one die to start with, plus one die for the magic sword, minus one die for the curse, resulting in just the one die. Or else just be unable to attack effectively. If a chaotic normal type were attacking normal men shielded by, say, a protection from evil spell, with a normal weapon then he might simply not be able to attack them at all. Would that genuinely be a problem? Well I was thinking more of the Fighting Capabilities table itself, which has 3 examples of "men -1" stats. For reference the given FC in Dalluhn are MU: 1) Man 2) Man +1 3) 2 Men 4) 2 Men +1 5) 3 Men 6) 3 Men +1 7) 4 Men -1 8-11) 4 Men FM: 1) Man +1 2) 2 Men +2 3) 3 Men 4) 4 men 5) 4 Men +1 6) 5 Men -1 7) 5 Men +1 8) 6 Men -1 9) 6 Men +1 Cl: 1, 2) Man 3) Man +1 4) 2 Men 5) 2 Men +1 6-8) 3 Men |
|
