Implementing Multiple Attacks in OD&D

[sonicracer100]

I know in Chainmail that player characters get multiple attacks and become real forces of nature as they otherwise prove themselves exceptional in most instances of combat.

But I've been wondering how to implement it into just standard OD&D without chainmail, and to give weapons different chances against AC akin to that.

Allowing Fighters multiple attacks per hit die, and only fighters is one(in ratio with creatures HD). Until they fight truly fantastical creatures where only one attack is made. To accomplish the after mentioned AC with different weapons providing bonuses to such, I would use the Greyhawk tables.

But for other creatures, they still attack 1 per hit die(in ratio with the characters HD), and the other classes don't get this option as their role in a party lies elsewhere.

I'm still trying to smooth it out to implement it into my games. How does it sound so far?

[retrorob]

use Damage Dice table from Empire of the Petal Throne. this rule is imho far better than multiple attacks.

[graelth]

In my house rules (q.v.), a character or monster only ever gets a single attack, but a hero counts his damage roll as HD of normal men (1 HD creatures) defeated. Superhero rolls 2d6 to determine normal men defeated and defeat 2 HD creatures at one monster per two pips. So a 9th level Patriarch fights as Superhero-1 and wields a +2 mace. If he rolls a 5 on the dice, this means 6 men defeated or 3 Ghouls (2 HD each).

[talysman]

I just have fighters roll one attack vs. groups of faceless minions. If successful, they do the same damage to a number of minions equal to their level, or twice as many if the hit dice are 1-2, 1d6/2, or less.

I don't give extra attacks to fighters vs. opponents of 1+1 dice or more, partly because an attack roll does not represent one swing or stab, and partly because I allow them extra damage at higher levels. However, if they do more than 1 die of damage, I'm thinking they could train in a special technique that splits their damage roll across multiple identical targets. But this would not be an automatic fighter ability.

[Deleted]

I've found that increasing fighter damage and allowing damage to roll-over from one monster to the next to be the cleanest way of implementing "extra attacks". It speeds up combat significantly. And you don't have to worry about things like "fantastic combat" or ratios of hit dice.

[graelth]

Nov 4, 2019 8:22:10 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've found that increasing fighter damage and allowing damage to roll-over from one monster to the next to be the cleanest way of implementing "extra attacks". It speeds up combat significantly. And you don't have to worry about things like "fantastic combat" or ratios of hit dice.

Yep, EotPT did this as retrorob mentioned and it works really well!

[aldarron]

Nov 4, 2019 8:22:10 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've found that increasing fighter damage and allowing damage to roll-over from one monster to the next to be the cleanest way of implementing "extra attacks". It speeds up combat significantly. And you don't have to worry about things like "fantastic combat" or ratios of hit dice.

Yeah, and for damage, roll d6 equal to the character's Fighting Capability. Sort of the D&D version of the EPT rule.

[Fearghus]

Nov 4, 2019 8:22:10 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've found that increasing fighter damage and allowing damage to roll-over from one monster to the next to be the cleanest way of implementing "extra attacks". It speeds up combat significantly. And you don't have to worry about things like "fantastic combat" or ratios of hit dice.

Do you still allow fighters increased chance to hit, or does their chance to hit stay the same through all levels?

[sonicracer100]

Nov 4, 2019 8:22:10 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I've found that increasing fighter damage and allowing damage to roll-over from one monster to the next to be the cleanest way of implementing "extra attacks". It speeds up combat significantly. And you don't have to worry about things like "fantastic combat" or ratios of hit dice.

I should try this with my group and see how it works as it's a good way to ensure the Fighter stays balanced with whatever he fights.

What about for other creatures? Do you just add damage based on their hitdice as well with one attack?

What about other classes, or is it purely in the realm for the Fighter?

[countingwizard]

Oct 31, 2019 7:45:39 GMT -6 sonicracer100 said:

I know in Chainmail that player characters get multiple attacks and become real forces of nature as they otherwise prove themselves exceptional in most instances of combat.

But I've been wondering how to implement it into just standard OD&D without chainmail, and to give weapons different chances against AC akin to that.

Allowing Fighters multiple attacks per hit die, and only fighters is one(in ratio with creatures HD). Until they fight truly fantastical creatures where only one attack is made. To accomplish the after mentioned AC with different weapons providing bonuses to such, I would use the Greyhawk tables.

But for other creatures, they still attack 1 per hit die(in ratio with the characters HD), and the other classes don't get this option as their role in a party lies elsewhere.

I'm still trying to smooth it out to implement it into my games. How does it sound so far?

I'm pretty sure multiple attacks are standard in OD&D. Here is a more detailed argument I just made:

odd74.proboards.com/post/224701/thread

Basically, I think that any player class or monster gets a number of attacks equal to their HD against "normal" types, using the lowest level row on the monster charts for each attack, and adding the HD bonus to the first attack. There is some argument about what classifies as "normal". M&T does use a sprinkling of language to differentiate between normal types, supernormal types, or above-normal types (but not most of the time). The best indicator seems to be whether the creature defends as a creature listed on the Chainmail Fantasy Combat Table. Giant Wolves for example do, even though they don't attack as a fantastic type. I think a good rule of thumb is 1 HD or 1+1 HD and less, or monsters that appear as part of large groups.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 28, 2020 14:51:27 GMT -6 countingwizard said:

There is some argument about what classifies as "normal". M&T does use a sprinkling of language to differentiate between normal types, supernormal types, or above-normal types (but not most of the time). The best indicator seems to be whether the creature defends as a creature listed on the Chainmail Fantasy Combat Table. Giant Wolves for example do, even though they don't attack as a fantastic type.

That's a plausible case c.w.

Here's another possible reading of the Giant Wolf entry that leans the other way for your amusement:

These creatures are equal to Light Horse in attack (implies normal combat as LH don't typically feature in fantastic combat) and Medium Horse in movement (18" unmounted). They can bear small creatures like Goblins on their backs, but this reduces their speed to that of Heavy Horse (12" mounted). In combat against fantastic opponents give them (presumably "them" now refers to mounted giant wolves) two attacks as men (implies the mounted giant wolf is considered a normal type because; 1. there is no concept of an attack as a man in fantastic combat, and 2. any combat between a fantastic opponent and a normal type is resolved with normal combat where attack as a man makes sense. A goblin mounted on a wolf is then much like a man mounted on a horse. The goblin and the wolf notionally contribute 1 man of FC each, resulting in two attacks as a man). They (the "fantastic opponent") require a score equal to that necessary to kill a Wight (which defend as Heavy Horse) to kill them ("them" being the mounted giant wolf. So this is effectively a round-about way of saying: mounted giant wolves defend as heavy horse).

I'm not suggesting "it is so". I'm just saying it's another tyre to kick.

Final point--it may be worth noting that Giant Wolves (giant orcs too FWIW) were added to Chainmail 3rd Ed in 1975 (post D&D), so it's plausible that may have influenced the way it was written. Or maybe the fact that wights are the very next entry in the text made the reference seem obvious?

Enjoy

[retrorob]

In "Battle of the five armies" Chainmail scenario ("Dragon" #1) wolves attack as 2 daggers.

[countingwizard]

Jan 29, 2020 5:07:38 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jan 28, 2020 14:51:27 GMT -6 countingwizard said:

There is some argument about what classifies as "normal". M&T does use a sprinkling of language to differentiate between normal types, supernormal types, or above-normal types (but not most of the time). The best indicator seems to be whether the creature defends as a creature listed on the Chainmail Fantasy Combat Table. Giant Wolves for example do, even though they don't attack as a fantastic type.

That's a plausible case c.w.

Here's another possible reading of the Giant Wolf entry that leans the other way for your amusement:

These creatures are equal to Light Horse in attack (implies normal combat as LH don't typically feature in fantastic combat) and Medium Horse in movement (18" unmounted). They can bear small creatures like Goblins on their backs, but this reduces their speed to that of Heavy Horse (12" mounted). In combat against fantastic opponents give them (presumably "them" now refers to mounted giant wolves) two attacks as men (implies the mounted giant wolf is considered a normal type because; 1. there is no concept of an attack as a man in fantastic combat, and 2. any combat between a fantastic opponent and a normal type is resolved with normal combat where attack as a man makes sense. A goblin mounted on a wolf is then much like a man mounted on a horse. The goblin and the wolf notionally contribute 1 man of FC each, resulting in two attacks as a man). They (the "fantastic opponent") require a score equal to that necessary to kill a Wight (which defend as Heavy Horse) to kill them ("them" being the mounted giant wolf. So this is effectively a round-about way of saying: mounted giant wolves defend as heavy horse).

I'm not suggesting "it is so". I'm just saying it's another tyre to kick.

Final point--it may be worth noting that Giant Wolves (giant orcs too FWIW) were added to Chainmail 3rd Ed in 1975 (post D&D), so it's plausible that may have influenced the way it was written. Or maybe the fact that wights are the very next entry in the text made the reference seem obvious?

Enjoy

The irony is that was the argument in my original response to you in the other thread. I deleted the part about considering it a mount because I thought you would point out the period between the two sentences. The part that broke my brain was that in the course of a single round of combat against a fantastic opponent, the giant wolf would roll two attacks on the Man-to-Man Table, and then roll to defend on the Fantasy Combat Table. It really does seem like that monster is intended to fight as a Light Horse (cavalry) in mass combat, and I guess with one attack as Light Horse in man-to-man (how? use the mounted combat rules?) against normal opponents. I don't see enough connection in the rule to say that would defend as a Heavy Horse though. Other entries are very specific when the monster attacks as one thing but defends as another, and the wording is very specific that it is referencing the Wight on the Fantasy Combat Table.

[waysoftheearth]

Agree the giant wolf entry is written rather differently. That's why I pointed out it was written at least a year later, and possibly (total speculation) without the same level of diligence from both the original authors. I think the early prints of CM are presented in clearer language than D&D, whereas the giant wolf entry seems more like the grammar of D&D. Or I could just be plain wrong.

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2020 16:58:35 GMT -6 Fearghus said:

Do you still allow fighters increased chance to hit, or does their chance to hit stay the same through all levels?

I treat this as a replacement for extra attacks. As such it stacks on top of chance to hit.

Jan 27, 2020 8:52:41 GMT -6 sonicracer100 said:

What about for other creatures? Do you just add damage based on their hitdice as well with one attack?

I use a general rule: Anything with 4 hit dice gets two dice of damage, three dice at 8 hit dice, four at 12, etc. This applies to all classes and monsters. I find this gives things like Ogres, Giants, and Dragon some extra oomph while also eliminating the need for a separate damage stat.

This isn't a fighter only thing either but they will get generally be getting their extra damage sooner as they earn hit dice faster (this is one of the reasons that using the original hit die scheme).

What I found after implementing this extra damage combined with the damage roll-over, is that fighters become very good at dealing with lots of lower level monsters. This not only removed the need for wizards to constantly pack fireballs, but it also means that I can keep using things like orcs and goblins as the party levels up. Previously, when making adventures, I used the "monster upgrade" stocking rule: basically, as the party leveled up I had to swap goblins for orcs, then orcs for gnolls, then gnolls for bugbears, etc. Now I can throw 20 goblins at a mid level party or 20 gnolls at a high level party and the combat can be resolved quickly. This was the main benefit to gameplay as it gives me a wider variety of options to for enemy choice. As large combats with the vanilla AD&D rules was typically avoided.