Dexterity Missile Fire Bonus & the Alternative Combat System

[magremore]

Just curious if anyone who runs their OD&D game using the alternative combat system has translated the +1 “fire any missile” bonus to +3. That would seem to be the technically correct way to handle it, but maybe I am missing something? Or any general thoughts on that?

I’m not particularly familiar with Chainmail combat, but thanks to the supplements by aldarron and thegreyelf, I understand (or think I understand) that missile fire in Chainmail combat comes down to using either the Chainmail mass combat rules or the man-to-man rules, which in either case uses d6’s.

I’m familiar with delta ’s posts over the years detailing the problems with extrapolating the Chainmail mass combat rules to specific-target ranged attacks, and how that led to D&D failing to represent more realistic ranged combat results, and I’m sympathetic to those conclusions, but if one wanted to run a d20-based OD&D campaign that embraced fantasy over realism and adhered as much as possible to the rules as written (I’m not saying that was the intent of the game’s authors, I think Gygax was pretty clear in Vol 1 that he was presenting guidelines), it seems to me this would be the literal way to do it (along with interpreting things like the Berserker +2 against normal men as a whopping +6) and if anyone has done this would like to hear how it went (especially if combined with a +2 or +3 for hobbits, oh my).

[retrorob]

I used to run OD&D with alternative combat system and haven't changed the bonus, so +1/0/-1 on d20. Remember about range modifiers (+2 at short, +1 at medium).

As much as I don't like so-called bonus inflation, I agree that +/- 1 makes more sense if you use 2d6, Chainmail-based combat system.

[Deleted]

He died, slain by Paris and skewered through the arm pit by a death delivering, poisonous arrow. Dice and modifiers at it again.

[delta]

Interesting question (and thanks for the shout-out!). I know for me I usually don't see any need to boost modifiers actually given for the first time in the LBBs, which were presumably tested with the alternative combat system in the first place. Although I do give an extra +2 bonus for ability scores in the upper 16-18 range. It's the situational modifiers that first appear in Chainmail that I'm prone to double or triple for that dice-scaling issue.

[linebeck]

One thing to perhaps consider is that characters are already often already more likely to hit using the tables in the alternate combat system than they are in chainmail.  

For example, in chainmail short bow at long range hits an opponent wearing chainmail and shield on 10 (rolled on 2d6) which is 16.67%
of the time.


In alternative combat, a level one fighting man hits an opponent wearing chain and shield on 15 (rolled on d20) which is 30% of the time.  

[magremore]

Jun 13, 2020 8:29:33 GMT -6 retrorob said:

I used to run OD&D with alternative combat system and haven't changed the bonus, so +1/0/-1 on d20. Remember about range modifiers (+2 at short, +1 at medium).

As much as I don't like so-called bonus inflation, I agree that +/- 1 makes more sense if you use 2d6, Chainmail-based combat system.

Thanks. And that’s a good point, I didn’t stop to recall the short/medium range bonuses in OD&D (probably because in most recent games we’re just penalizing long range).

[magremore]

Jun 13, 2020 10:04:45 GMT -6 @doublejig2 said:

He died, slain by Paris and skewered through the arm pit by a death delivering, poisonous arrow. Dice and modifiers at it again.

[magremore]

Jun 13, 2020 21:08:17 GMT -6 delta said:

Interesting question (and thanks for the shout-out!). I know for me I usually don't see any need to boost modifiers actually given for the first time in the LBBs, which were presumably tested with the alternative combat system in the first place. Although I do give an extra +2 bonus for ability scores in the upper 16-18 range. It's the situational modifiers that first appear in Chainmail that I'm prone to double or triple for that dice-scaling issue.

Thanks, that makes sense. It’s actually what I think is a shared distaste, more generally, for bothering with a 5% bump one way or the other that sort of raised this question for me in the first place. I have nothing specifically against the dex –1/+1 modifier, and in practice theory I follow your 13–15/16–18 for modifiers (in real practice, I’ve only been playing in one campaign for last year+ and it’s B/X-based, not that any character has as 18 anyway).

[magremore]

Jun 13, 2020 21:24:44 GMT -6 linebeck said:

One thing to perhaps consider is that characters are already often already more likely to hit using the tables in the alternate combat system than they are in chainmail.  

For example, in chainmail short bow at long range hits an opponent wearing chainmail and shield on 10 (rolled on 2d6) which is 16.67%
of the time.


In alternative combat, a level one fighting man hits an opponent wearing chain and shield on 15 (rolled on d20) which is 30% of the time.  

Perfect. Hadn’t occurred to me to consider the relative chances for any hit in each system. That is a definite mark in the category for not overthinking the –1/+1 dex modifier and how it has always been used. Thanks.

[delta]

Jun 14, 2020 5:45:32 GMT -6 magremore said:

Jun 13, 2020 21:08:17 GMT -6 delta said:

Interesting question (and thanks for the shout-out!). I know for me I usually don't see any need to boost modifiers actually given for the first time in the LBBs, which were presumably tested with the alternative combat system in the first place. Although I do give an extra +2 bonus for ability scores in the upper 16-18 range. It's the situational modifiers that first appear in Chainmail that I'm prone to double or triple for that dice-scaling issue.

Thanks, that makes sense. It’s actually what I think is a shared distaste, more generally, for bothering with a 5% bump one way or the other that sort of raised this question for me in the first place. I have nothing specifically against the dex –1/+1 modifier, and in practice theory I follow your 13–15/16–18 for modifiers (in real practice, I’ve only been playing in one campaign for last year+ and it’s B/X-based, not that any character has as 18 anyway).

I'll share your distaste in terms of situational modifiers that you need to remember when they come up in play. In terms of the ability bonus to attacks (or armor), we can usually add that in advance and have it fixed in the listing for the ranged weapon attacks. But I agree that something like "+1 vs. orcs" I don't want to fiddle with unless the bonus is at least +2.