Fighting Capability in DD v5

[multiarms]

I really enjoy Delving Deeper as a reference. As I have stated before, reading my compiled paperback of DD v4 was like turning a key in my mind that allowed me to understand OD&D.

I've been occasionally looking through the drafts of v5 posted on the Immersive Ink forum. I'm happy to see fighting capability return to the character class tables. This wonderful forgotten stat accomplishes 2 very good things, as far as I can tell:

1. It apparently supplants the "normal type" vs. "heroic type" categories used in previous versions of DD.

2. It allows the use of CHAINMAIL with DD (along with the 2d6 tables and more granular combat turn order which are currently in draft form in book 2 of v5).

A question for waysoftheearth regarding the FC values listed in DD book 1... The fighter FC values and progression rate seem to hew fairly close to Men & Magic, whereas the Cleric and MU FCs are significantly increased. I know that in previous versions of DD you have altered the d20 attack matrices from the "Men Attacking" tables in M&M, which appears to be primarily in an attempt to smooth out the progression. But I can't figure out the FC values. In annotation #126 I find this sentence which may be a clue: "DD aligns the hero, superhero, and wizard fighting capabilities neatly with the player-type level bands on Attack Matrix I." Is it something to do with this?

TLDR: Can you explain some more about the design behind the FC values chosen in DD v5?

Thanks as always,

Nick

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks for your interest in DD5 multiarms

In reply to your questions above:


1. Yes. heroic/fantastic FC (the ability to contest on CM's FCT) has always been the root of the normal/heroic figure distinction. In V4 I had this important feature (of proto/early D&D) built right into number of HD. Hence V4 needed to impose an "artificial" hard line that said: figures with <3 HD were normals, and figures with 3+ HD were heroic/fantastic. This kinda-sorted worked, but it's not as true to the source material, nor as useful, as having an independent FC stat. So FC returns with V5

I also feel that FC is an important piece of proto/early D&D that gets wiped from the record in many OD&D emulations, so it's kinda important that it's preserved somewhere!


2. Yes. Having explicit FC stats enables players to use the original "default" attack matrices (CM's 1:1 scale M2M and FCT matrices) if they have them. Or, if they don't happen to have a copy of CM, players can use the near-emulations of these matrices provided in the DD5 appendices.


(implicitly) 3.

The fighter FC values and progression rate seem to hew fairly close to Men & Magic, whereas the Cleric and MU FCs are significantly increased.

Well spotted Yes, DD5 alters the M-U and cleric FC progression compared to the original. This was done to "standardise" the Hero and Superhero FCs on the (iconic!) fighting-man HD values.

If you look closely at the original you'll see that the cleric achieves heroic FC at 6 HD, while the M-U achieves heroic FC at 5 HD (sooner than the cleric in HD terms). This is despite the iconic CM definition of heroic FC being that of the Hero figure himself, who has 4 HD. So that's a quirk. Notice also that in the original, the cleric doesn't achieve heroic FC until Bishop (6th level) and the M-U doesn't achieve heroic FC until Enchanter (7th level). That's notwithstanding that lesser Wizards could function on CM's (2nd Ed) FCT as a Wizard-1, Wizard-2, or Wizard-3 (which I won't go into here).

Then you might also notice that a Vicar, for example, has 4 HD but fights as only 3 men, rather than the 4 men implied by 4 HD. This seems to be another design quirk insofar as the (otherwise) golden rule of 1 HD = 1 normal man = 1 normal attack is broken for clerics alone. It means that (enemy) high-level clerics are the only figure in the game that don't abide neatly by the M&T p5 rule concerning multiple attacks. That's a tad inconvenient

So... considering these quirks in combination with the necessity that DD introduce subtle changes in order to comply with the OGL, I'm reasonably happy with the DD5 approach re: FC for player types. So far.

This also means that the original's "level bands" for player types on Attack Matrix I can be more easily related to FC tiers in the equivilent DD5 matrix, like this:


The "XX FC" term is still being kicked around, but a couple of contenders are "Warlord FC" (to tie in with the proposed name level title for top fighting-men, "Warlord") or "Demigod" FC (to tie in with the FC of the Demigods described in Supplement IV, GDG&H, who--off the top of my head--have an average FC equivalent to a 14th level fighter). Still thinking about this one, but either way it's more a footnote than something for the main text.


All this is still in development at this stage, but atm DD5 emphasises the "1 HD = 1 normal man = 1 normal attack", hero=4 men, and superhero=8 men "standards" for all figures (including the player types and monsters). This has some advantages, but as a consequence, it does mean that clerics and M-Us will achieve hero FC at 4 HD, exactly per the Fighting-Man progression. Of course, they will still achieve heroic FC later than do Fighting Men (in terms of both levels and experience points), just not quite so much later as in the original.


I hope that helps some?

[Mushgnome]

"1 HD = 1 normal man = 1 normal attack" is an elegant and easy-to-explain solution. Nice work!

DD5 is looking good.

[multiarms]

Aug 5, 2021 20:09:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I also feel that FC is an important piece of proto/early D&D that gets wiped from the record in many OD&D emulations, so it's kinda important that it's preserved somewhere!

Yes, THIS!

Thank you for the detailed reply and explanation. Your visual charts are helpful, as a picture is worth a thousand words in this case. I get it. It is definitely a big change from the original, significantly pumping up the power of the Cleric and MU, relative to the Fighting-Man. Which could be a good thing or bad, depending on how you look at it.

One of the best features of the original fighting-man (at least as far as Chainmail based combat is concerned), is that he is uniquely positioned to battle powerful monsters, being able to use magical swords and engage on the Fantastic Combat table at level 3 (as Hero -1). Whereas the Cleric and MU may not use such weapons and must wait until levels 6/7 before they can have a chance of defeating a dragon or whatever. 

It answers the questions such as "why can't a king and his hundreds of men-at-arms defeat a dragon?" Because they need a HERO (at least a mid level FM), preferably with magical sword or arrows or whatever.

With the Cleric and MU now having heroic status at level 4, it diminishes the relative power of the fighting man (just as we see in later versions of the game which stick to the alternative combat system). One of the things I love about OD&D/Chainmail is the power of the FM to slay hordes of enemies and big monsters.

On the other hand, your DD v5 chart does function a little more cohesively. And maybe for some (most?) campaigns, it is desirable to have Clerics and MUs able to fight a little stronger in mass combat and on the Fantasy Combat table.

For my own games, I use the original LBBs and Chainmail (as informed by others, particularly aldarron, thegreyelf, and Daniel Norton of Bandit's Keep podcast). I have been using the original Fighting Capability values, but I might experiment around with the DD v5 charts and see how it goes.

Keep up the good work! I'd love to see some more stuff in book 2 of v5, particularly the fleshed-out Fantasy Combat table. And of course... book 3.

Cheers!


Nick

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 7, 2021 8:22:10 GMT -6 multiarms said:

With the Cleric and MU now having heroic status at level 4, it diminishes the relative power of the fighting man (just as we see in later versions of the game which stick to the alternative combat system). One of the things I love about OD&D/Chainmail is the power of the FM to slay hordes of enemies and big monsters.

Very perceptive multiarms, nice work

I agree with your gist, and I have given it a lot of thought over a number of years. Your conclusion is ultimately correct, but I suspect it may not be quite so dire as you may fear. Here are a few other considerations that are in the mix:

* Fantastic combat is not exclusively the domain of the fighting men in CM. Wizards, and their lesser subtypes (down to Magicians in CM2e, and Seers in CM3e albeit, that's not until 1975) also contest the FCT. It's difficult to argue that CM-Seers map directly to D&D-Seers, for example, but the broader implication is that lower-level M-Us could legitimately contest the FCT, and therefore would have fantastic FC.

* In light of the above, I suspect few refs or players would be comfortable with 1st thru 6th level M-Us being limited to normal FC. Bringing the important "heroic/fantastic" milestone forward (achieving Hero-1 FC at 4th level for clerics/M-Us) softens this somewhat, hopefully making it acceptable to more potential players.

* Clerics have no direct precursor in CM fantastic combat (unless we consider the Elric example to be a proto-clerical figure, but that doesn't provide much) so we don't have a yardstick for clerical performance on the FCT. We have just the stats in M&M to go by, which happen to diverge from the FC patterns the other player types follow reasonably neatly. E.g., in terms of the 4 HD = hero FC "standard", the cleric has too many HD, or too little FC, or both. One explanation is the cleric is underpowered (in terms of FC per HD) compared to F-M and M-U by design. Another explanation is it's an incidental impact of under-tested authorship. DD5 smooths these differences out, for better or worse.

* In terms of normal combat, D&D-fighters and D&D-M-Us fit the 1 HD = 1 Man FC pattern neatly, at least for the normal FCs explicitly given in M&M. DD actually reduces M-U HD somewhat ("fixing" the Sorcerer HD issue; the Sorcerer's "anticipated" 5+1 HD is instead 6+1, which could so easily have been a typo! Certainly, this anomaly is smoothed out in GH), so subtly reduces M-U FC (compared to F-M) in normal combat. It's only D&D-clerics who are "quirky" (having fewer than the standard 1 man FC per 1 HD) and are, therefore, arguably underpowered in terms of normal FC. On the other hand, they do progress in HD quickly, arguably too quickly, as their lower XP requirement means they have just about as many HD as do fighters on an XP-for-XP basis. As it does for M-Us, DD5 reduces cleric HD somewhat (widening the gap to F-M HD on an XP-for-XP basis), while raising the cleric's FC somewhat to align with their new, slightly lower, HD. So in sum, DD5 has normal combat capability more consistently related to number of HD (so that 1 HD consistently = 1 man FC). DD5 also has fighting men with subtly more HD than their counterparts, relative to the original, and hence DD5 improves the FC of F-M in normal combat, relative to the other classes.

At the end of the day, your observation that DD5 shifts the FC balance is broadly true but I'm hopeful the overall impact of DD5's (OGL necessary!) changes is subtler than you might fear. I'd be very happy to hear about any real-world playtesting experience you might have with this... perhaps hit me up via PM or email?

Hope that helps some?

[thegreyelf]

I'm a big fan of Fighting Capability, so good to see this. In my Age of Conan games, I push it another step forward: while characters have to be at least Hero level to fight on the Fantasy Combat Tables, non-hero characters CAN affect such creatures using abilities specific to their class: Theives, for example, can successfully attack a fantasy creature if they can pull off a back attack (but they don't get additional damage from the back attack; it's merely a successful attack). Wizards or Clerics can cast spells that will affect them. Assassins can attempt an assassination attack (though if successful it merely does damage; it doesn't kill). In addition, those characters who CAN attack on the Fantasy Combat tables, deal 1d6 per level on a successful attack.

Monsters, likewise, deal 1d6 per hit die on a successful attack when battling on the Fantasy Combat tables.

[multiarms]

Aug 7, 2021 19:56:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Hope that helps some?

Yes, thank you for taking the time to explain in detail and talk through it. I see how the XP progression for each class has been adjusted a little bit as well, which I was not taking into consideration, favoring the FM while slowing the Cleric and MU down slightly overall. A nice balance.

One last question: Is there a reason you haven't included the "hero + 1" or "superhero + 1" FCs in any of the charts, in order to differentiate the FCs of the levels where hero or superhero repeat? If there are other benefits based on HD or men-equivalents, I guess it would not matter in FCT, since there would already be a difference in damage done by FM levels 4-6, for example (assuming one were handling it the way thegreyelf listed above, with damage based on level.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 8, 2021 15:51:51 GMT -6 multiarms said:

One last question: Is there a reason you haven't included the "hero + 1" or "superhero + 1" FCs in any of the charts, in order to differentiate the FCs of the levels where hero or superhero repeat? If there are other benefits based on HD or men-equivalents, I guess it would not matter in FCT, since there would already be a difference in damage done by FM levels 4-6, for example (assuming one were handling it the way thegreyelf listed above, with damage based on level.

Well spotted again. You seem have an eye for this

The main reason is simply that it's not really "final" yet, so the tables as they are today are likely to change here and there before it's published. I'd like to settle DD5's (emulation of the) FCT before I finalise the FC stat in the player type tables, but that is a piece of work that is further down the list of things to do.

You may notice there happens to be a perfectly-sized gap between the tiers' THAC2 values on DD5's Alternative Matrix 1 to accommodate those -1 and +1 FC values, however