Attack matrices in S&W and IF

[beniliusbob]

Hi folks,

I'm curious how the attack matrices were derived for Swords & Wizardry and Iron Falcon. As far as I can tell, both of them are more generous than the table in Men & Magic, and I don't see anything that would've changed those tables in Greyhawk... which I thought would be the only other influence on how Iron Falcon was written, at least (whereas S&W might've taken something from the other supplements). Was there something in the Strategic Review or another zine that bumped the tables? Am I reading something incorrectly? Or was it just a stylistic/legal choice by the authors of the clones?

[jeffb]

Both Authors have stated over the years they specifically changed numbers on various tables for OGL reasons.

[machfront]

Jeff’s answer is really more than enough if one is speaking generally, yes.

I myself do wonder why thieves were given far less ability in S&W by ‘attacking as MUs’ as opposed to ‘attacking as clerics’ as in OD&D/Holmes/BX/etc 🤷‍♂️

A point or level away is one thing. This is another thing, entirely. Especially since, if not regular OD&D but Holmes held that thieves had Fighter saves…best saves thieves have had in nearly any old edition of the game. Heheh. Even in OD&D thieves had the same saves as MUs…also better than they held later. So, sheesh…let them attack as they always have had at least…goodness,
But…easily house ruled.

[waysoftheearth]

Advancement on attack matrix I is not all that much of a big deal in OD&D. I'd hazard that the majority of play is had in the first 2, or maaaybe 3 columns. The second column gives only a 2 pip (10%) advantage. The third column--probably fighter only territory in most games--gives another 3 pip (15%) advantage. Nice to have, but no be-all-and-end-all in a 20 pip range.

Moreover, an advantage is only really an advantage if you can have it while your competition doesn't. So it's perhaps worth remembering that the thief levels up quicker than the other classes; even the cleric. This means he gains that advantage quicker. So, when GH says <<Treat thieves as clerics for purposes of advance in steps--four levels/group (1-4, 5-8, 9-12)>> the upshot is that thieves advance sooner than do clerics because they require fewer XP.

E.g., Clerics will advance a column on the attack matrix at 12k, 200k, and 600k exp.
Whereas a thief (advancing as a cleric) will require only 9.6k, 90k, and 500k exp for that same advantage.

This seems at odds with a class that is "not meant to fight" (per the GPGPN#9 thief; a preview of the Warlock rules which predate GH and which Holmes played before D&D).

This might, perhaps, be why thieves were later toned down somewhat to advance as M-Us do. Or maybe not.

For comparison:
A fighter advances a column on attack matrix I at 8k, 64k, and 480k exp (thankfully ahead of even the GH thief, at playable levels)
M-Us advance at 35k, 300k, and 1,800k exp.

A thief (advancing as a M-U) advances at 20k, 250k, and 875k exp, which puts them in neatly between the cleric and the M-U.

[beniliusbob]

Thanks all, this is great info. I had a moment after posting this where I thought the clone matrices were “smoothed” or more granular versions of the original tables, but the math doesn’t add up in every case, as machfront points out. I guess I was hoping there was some glorious canonical solution that would see fighters advance their capability more quickly without reference to AD&D… no such luck!

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 13, 2023 19:18:50 GMT -6 beniliusbob said:

I guess I was hoping there was some glorious canonical solution that would see fighters advance their capability more quickly without reference to AD&D… no such luck!

It's true that in OD&D fighters advance in fighting capability more quickly than do the other classes.
On the Alternative Attack Matrix because they require the least experience of any class to advance to each new attack column. And in normal combat because--excepting a few hundred XP either way vs clerics early on--they require the least XP to gain more HD (and therefore attacks versus normal types).
Fighters are also far more likely than the other classes to find magic weapons they can use--assuming magic weapons occur according to the btb treasure tables.
IIRC, GH didn't change the attack matrices, but added high strength to hit/dam adjustments for fighters only, and low strength penalties for all classes.
Presumably a good clone would preserve (or even emphasise) these advantages for fighters. If not... that would be a why not moment

[beniliusbob]

Jun 14, 2023 4:50:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jun 13, 2023 19:18:50 GMT -6 beniliusbob said:

I guess I was hoping there was some glorious canonical solution that would see fighters advance their capability more quickly without reference to AD&D… no such luck!

It's true that in OD&D fighters advance in fighting capability more quickly than do the other classes.
On the Alternative Attack Matrix because they require the least experience of any class to advance to each new attack column. And in normal combat because--excepting a few hundred XP either way vs clerics early on--they require the least XP to gain more HD (and therefore attacks versus normal types).
Fighters are also far more likely than the other classes to find magic weapons they can use--assuming magic weapons occur according to the btb treasure tables.
IIRC, GH didn't change the attack matrices, but added high strength to hit/dam adjustments for fighters only, and low strength penalties for all classes.
Presumably a good clone would preserve (or even emphasise) these advantages for fighters. If not... that would be a why not moment

Hahaha… I feel like I am being subtly guided towards the one true gospel as expounded in three little brown books!!

[waysoftheearth]

Well, IMHO the 3LBBs do not expound one true gospel (unless it's that each campaign is its own unique work). Rather, they provide a loose framework around some fantastic-medieval principles that establish general expectations for how a fantastic-medieval wargame should play. The core expectation is that refs (and players!) will develop that loose framework into their own, unique game campaign.

Nitty gritty details such as the exact numbers in an attack matrix don't matter overly much. What matters more, IMHO, is that the details maintain and/or align to the principles.

As an example, the LBBs are not even prescriptive about which attack matrices you should use to determine hits/kills, but instead offer several. Of these, the d20 matrix discussed above is positioned as an "Alternative" to the default, 2d6-based, CM-matrices. Referees are free to use either or substitute their own, or whatever. What matters is not which dice you roll or the target numbers, but that the fundamental principles (e.g., that heroes fight better than men, that superheroes fight better than heroes, and that fighters fight better than clerics or M-Us) are, broadly, delivered.

ymmv of course