Halfling missile bonus

[harlandski]

I refereed my first game of OD&D today with players (rather than playing solo), and it was fun, though extremely deadly until the players got the hang of things.

I was using the alternative combat system, though I am considering changing to the Man-to-Man and Individual Missile fire tables from Chainmail.

How do people rule the enigmatic reference to halflings' "deadly accuracy with missiles" in Men & Magic? Chainmail has, "every two halflings firing count three on the missile fire table", but presumably this is for mass combat, and for the regular missile fire table. But how can this be applied to the Individual Missile Fire or Alternative Combat System tables?

Thanks in advance! I am grateful for the friendliness and helpfulness of people on these boards. I did try googling this forum first but couldn't find specific discussion of this point.

[verhaden]

I think the most common implementation is a +2 bonus on the to-hit roll. (My go-to is usually Delta's OED rules.)

Edit: Or +3

Edit edit:

Per Greyhawk

((CORRECTIONS))

Page Corrections or Addition
5 Hobbits: All hobbits add +3 to hit probabilities when using the sling.

Per Holmes, Page 7

"Halflings are extremely accurate with missiles and fire any missile at +1."

[harlandski]

Jan 4, 2019 17:37:49 GMT -6 verhaden said:

I think the most common implementation is a +2 bonus on the to-hit roll. (My go-to is usually Delta's OED rules.)

Edit: Or +3

Edit edit:

Per Greyhawk

((CORRECTIONS))

Page Corrections or Addition
5 Hobbits: All hobbits add +3 to hit probabilities when using the sling.

Per Holmes, Page 7

"Halflings are extremely accurate with missiles and fire any missile at +1."

Ok, I winged it and went for +2, which is an average, though it seemed like a lot, especially with the +1 from Dexterity.

[waysoftheearth]

There are a lot of variables but if we can assume that we want adjust hit probability ("accuracy" as opposed to rate of fire or damage) in order to meet Chainmail's position that every two hobbits firing count for three, then we probably need to consider D&D's range adjustments.

Later prints of OD&D adjust missile attacks by +2 at short, +1 at medium, and 0 at long range, whereas AD&D has 0 at short, -2 at medium, and -5 at long range. A compromise position for OD&D is sometimes 0 at short, -1 at medium, and -2 at long range. There are other options too, but let's just look at these for now.

If we can further assume "normal" hobbits/men with THAC2 17 (as opposed to veterans), and that all target ACs occur equally frequently, then we can calculate the average d20 adjustment necessary to give D&D normal hobbits 50% more hits than normal men (assuming this would kinda-sorta align D&D-Hobbits with Chainmail-Hobbits). We can do this for short range only (assuming almost all dungeon missile fire will be at short range), and also across all ranges assuming all ranges occur equally frequently. It turns out like this:

Range Adjustments	Short Only	All Ranges
OD&D (+2, +1, 0)	+7	+5
0, -1, -2	+4	+3 (+3.25)
AD&D (0, -2, -5)	+4	+3 (+2.65)

Here's the more detailed numbers in case I screwed up:

[Zakharan]

Theoretically, one could use Chainmail's 1:20 missile table as well. Though not the likeliest source, the Fantasy Combat section alludes to it with the "3-for-2" language. You'd roll on the "Missile Fire" table, with the "Number Firing" equal to the "# Men" under Fighting Capability.
For the sake of OD&D's attack bonus based on distance, I suppose you could add +3 to Number Firing at Medium range and +5 up close.

You'd also end up having to roll d6 a lot, since rolling by "Men" leads to a lot of potential hits. Good for the Halfling no doubt, but perhaps too slow for easy play.

As for how Dexterity bonus possibly applies, I don't have many ideas. You could get cute and interpret "any missile" as one d6 per volley, or just flatly allow +1 on every d6 (which would be absolutely crazy with a Halfling's firepower).

[verhaden]

I'm half awake at the moment so bear with me:

Jan 5, 2019 0:08:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

There are a lot of variables but if we can assume that we want adjust hit probability ("accuracy" as opposed to rate of fire or damage) in order to meet Chainmail's position that every two hobbits firing count for three, then we probably need to consider D&D's range adjustments.

...

It would be interesting to look at a damage bonus instead of an accuracy bonus though:

Chainmail - Fantasy Supplement, Page 29

"... for every two Halflings firing count three on the Missile Fire table."

Chainmail, Page 11


| Number Firing | Target Die - Unarmored: 1-2 | 3-6 | 1/2 Armor or Shield: 1-3 | 4-6 |
| ------------- | --------------------------- | ----| ------------------------ | --- |
| 1-2           | 0                           | 1   | 0                        | 0   |
| 3-4           | 1                           | 2   | 0                        | 1   |



***

So we have a situation where Halflings effectively double their kills against unarmored opponents regardless of their roll, double their kills against 1/2 armor or shield on high rolls, and no change against fully armored opponents.

Later on when discussing Dwarves:

Chainmail - Fantasy Supplement, Page 29

"... so count one-half normal kills when Dwarves and Gnomes fight with [larger creatures], ..."

And in the Dwarves section of Monsters & Treasure:

Dungeons & Dragons - Volume II: Monsters & Treasure, Page 16

"... so score only one-half the usual hit points when a hit is scored."

We have an equivalence created between kills and damage (d6).

***

So what if Hobbits dealt double damage on missile fire against targets AC 9-6 (Unarmored, Shield Only, Leather Armor, Leather & Shield)? No change for opponents wearing Chainmail and up. Or perhaps AC 9-7, giving those in Leather Armor & Shield a boost into "fully armored."

If I would use this house rule, I would not use "stock" ranged penalties. Once again leaning on Delta's wonderful blog:

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/08/lack-of-scale-considered-harmful.html

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/11/archery-revisited.html

I would adopt either his current -1 to hit per 10' range, or adopt something like a stacking -4 or -5 to hit per range increment, etc.

Edit:

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/01/halfling-weapons-through-ages.html

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 5, 2019 8:01:03 GMT -6 verhaden said:

So we have a situation where Halflings effectively double their kills against unarmored opponents regardless of their roll, double their kills against 1/2 armor or shield on high rolls, and no change against fully armored opponents.

This is an interesting point, essentially testing the assumption that "every two Hobbits firing count three on the Missile Fire table" (CM 3ed. p29) implies Hobbits firing are indeed 150% as effective as Men firing.

It's true that there are "anomalous step changes" on the missile fire table. E.g., 2 men firing are identical to 1 man firing, then 3 or 4 men firing are about are three times as effective as 1 or 2 men firing. These step changes are a result of "chunking" the numbers of men firing across a broader continuum, so it's probably not representative to focus on the "edge effects", unless of course there is more "edge" than continuum! I'm not sure this really is the case here. Either way, I suspect we could smooth out some of these edge effects--if desired--by increasing the granularity of the missile fire table but that's a whole different topic

Meanwhile, to quantify how effective CM-hobbits firing really are, I expanded the missile fire table out for all groups of 1 to 20 "men" (as in: figures representing men), and calculated the mean number of kills they would yield when firing assuming targets of all three armor types occur equally frequently.

Then I did the same for "hobbits" (figures representing hobbits).

Then I summed the mean kills caused by all groups of 1 to 13 "men" firing, to all groups of 1 to 13 "hobbits" firing. The result is that, across the spectrum of group sizes examined, hobbits firing are on average 153% as effective as the equivalent number of men firing. Which is pretty close to our initial assumption.

See the table of figures below:

[doublejig2]

Samwise Gamgee did not miss Bill Ferny with the apple...

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 5, 2019 8:01:03 GMT -6 verhaden said:

If I would use this house rule, I would not use "stock" ranged penalties. Once again leaning on Delta's wonderful blog:

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2018/08/lack-of-scale-considered-harmful.html

deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/11/archery-revisited.html

I would adopt either his current -1 to hit per 10' range, or adopt something like a stacking -4 or -5 to hit per range increment, etc.

I agree that OD&D's "stock" range adjustments may be questionable, and also that delta's blog is full of wonderful D&D posts. However, as always a lot depends on what your objective is. Do you want a 1970s-like game experience, or an amalgam today's leading game design wisdom? Do you want to simulate reality or a game of fantasy?

Not suggesting any particular option is better or righter, just that these preferences will likely frame the solution that works best for your game. To touch specifically on missile fire, this quotation (from that other game) re: rangers comes to mind:

The ranger...

has uncanny ability with missile weapons of all types and rarely misses a target. He can shoot a bird on the wing, a fly off an ear, the eye of a hopping rabbit. His ability to hit any target within range is beyond uncanny. In fact, it's a kind of magic.

That's the difference between fantasy and reality

[harlandski]

Interesting discussion waysoftheearth and verhaden, particularly whether we want increased hit probability or increased kill probability (the two things being inseparable in Chainmail as a wargame). I've decided now to use the Individual Fire with Missiles table, where the hit probability thing becomes more problematic to convert into a bonus due to the non-linear nature of probabilities of 2d6 rolls.

2d6 roll probability
2 1
3 0.97
4 0.92
5 0.83
6 0.72
7 0.58
8 0.42
9 0.28
10 0.17
11 0.08
12 0.03

I'm impressed with your calculations waysoftheearth, though I would lean towards calculating these things on the fly (so actually giving a 50% boost rather than an average). That would be relatively easy to do on the OCS, but harder with 2d6s.

I suppose another way might be to allow a reroll no more often than every other roll, but that's no longer sounding very old school...

If you go down the damage route the calculations become easier - damage x 1.5 (like the thief's backstab damage x 2).

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 5, 2019 23:01:24 GMT -6 harlandski said:

I would lean towards calculating these things on the fly (so actually giving a 50% boost rather than an average). That would be relatively easy to do on the OCS, but harder with 2d6s.

I think it would be basically the same procedure to calculate a mean 50% boost to accuracy on 2d6 as I did above for 1d20; just different probability of hits. The additional complexity I see is that in M2M combat each missile weapon has its own "to hit" figures versus each armor type, so you'd have to work out an average benefit for each weapon (assuming targets of each armor type are encountered equally frequently). This is a bit awkward because you'll likely end up with different adjustments for each weapon unless you want to work with a single average across all weapons (which also assumes all weapons are used equally frequently, which is unlike players I've seen who tend to stick to a favoured weapon). (FWIW--I'm pretty sure I've worked this out previously, but I can't immediately find it. Oh well).

All this intuitively leads us down the path of modifying damage instead of hit accuracy (since 1 hp of damage is the same thing regardless of which weapon caused it).

That said, adding exactly 50% damage may not be quite as trivial as it sounds, because exactly 150% of 1--6 damage is 1.5--9 damage. So, how do you want to handle the awkward 0.5 hp damage? Probably the nicest options are to either:

* Use 1d6+1d3 (2--9) damage, or
* Use 1d6 damage and multiply the throw by 1.5 (rounding down?)

Neither is perfectly 150% of 1--6 but I think I prefer the second option. I'd have to test them both to be sure

[clownboss]

The point is to get a Halfling to shoot three times in two turns, right? I gamify it.

When a Halfling in my game tries to make a range attack, I tell him to flip a coin, heads or tails. Heads means he gets an extra ranged attack.

[delta]

Jan 5, 2019 0:08:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

There are a lot of variables but...

Great discussion and thanks for sharing that great post! I agree that mathematically a to-hit bonus of +3 seems quite justified (in relation to source Chainmail odds), and also lines up with the Sup-I errata. For me it just seems a bit heavy-weight in-game, and in the context of a list of other +1, +2, +4 bonuses, the solitary +3 sticks out and makes my mini-OCD start to itch. That's principally why I currently use the +2 bonus.

[asaki]

According to BTPBD:

Hobbits using a sling have a 90% accuracy of hitting exactly what they aim at, and a 97% accuracy just to hit.

...which both sound rather deadly compared to +3.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 17, 2019 21:17:02 GMT -6 delta said:

Great discussion and thanks for sharing that great post! I agree that mathematically a to-hit bonus of +3 seems quite justified (in relation to source Chainmail odds), and also lines up with the Sup-I errata. For me it just seems a bit heavy-weight in-game, and in the context of a list of other +1, +2, +4 bonuses, the solitary +3 sticks out and makes my mini-OCD start to itch. That's principally why I currently use the +2 bonus.

In the context of OD&D's btb range adjustments (+2, +1, 0) I think hobbits need a +5 adjustment on a d20 in order to hit 50% more often then men. That does seems a bit weighty, for sure, but them's the numbers.

re: the "solitary" +3 adjustment, worth noting that the 3LBBs also include a +3 loyalty adjustment, +3 hp adjustments for high level fighters and wizards and trolls (which produces a +3 attack adjustment in normal combat, per M&T p5), and +3 shields, +3 swords, +3 hammers, +3 spears, and +3 daggers all occur in M&T. (GH introduces +2 arrows and the possibility that a +1 bow firing a +2 arrow produces a +3 attack adjustment).

FWIW, I do like clownboss' suggestion (kinda-sorta reminiscent of the CM rule for determining whether archers would fire twice in a turn). Nice one!

[Lord Cias]

Alternatively you could simply increase rate of fire by 50%. So a weapon with a normal rate of fire of 1/round would allow a hobbit to attack 3 times in 2 rounds, and a weapon with a normal rate of fire of 2/round would be fired 3 times per round in the hands of a hobbit. This would not apply to crossbows, however.

That's close to how I would do it.

[delta]

Jan 18, 2019 7:10:29 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In the context of OD&D's btb range adjustments (+2, +1, 0) I think hobbits need a +5 adjustment on a d20 in order to hit 50% more often then men. That does seems a bit weighty, for sure, but them's the numbers.

Yeah, I guess I consider the +2/+1/0 modifiers as so unreasonable that my eye only looked at your other tables above that imply around a +3 bonus.

My other comment about +3 being a weird number was in respect to things you'd see on a list of PC class abilities.