Chainmail Combat with OD&D

[scogle]

Excellent work! This is all very interesting; I think we really are closer than ever to knowing exactly how D&D was played in the first campaigns.

I've been reading through the Chainmail Rules myself, and it's really nice how all the rules are starting to "click" together. I do have a note about using the Fantasy Combat tables though, based on something I found in a TSR issue.

On the "Man-to-Man" tables you get as many dice/bonuses as the "fighting capability" tables say; I think that's settled. I also think that use of these tables was probably the original intention: references that seem to refer to the 1:20 combat rules may just be typoes, or may be able to be reconciled with the Man-to-Man system or happily ignored. Despite this, of course, I think the 1:20 rules were probably used fairly often by the few gamers who used Chainmail rules, if not more often than Man-to-Man. I still prefer the Man-to-Man system myself, but whatever, that's what's great about this game - so many options!

Anyway, this aside, in Chainmail, when you would have a character fighting a monster considered "fantastic", you moved to the Fantasy Combat rules. These tables only include entries for Hero and Super-Hero (plus Wizard and maybe some others I forget), hence the problem: D&D has a more complicated level system. But why can't we just interpolate the proper values from the combat matrices by comparing the values of Hero and Super-Hero? This hardly sounds difficult.

The second thing that must be realized is that when characters fought fantastic creatures they *only got one hit*. A superhero only gets 1 hit/round against a Dragon, by the Chainmail rules, even though against normal men he'd get 8. I think this is extremely important, particularly considering the note in TSR.

They give a combat example of a man fighting orcs. They say to use the Man-to-Man system for less important combats (like on a battlefield) and the Alternative system for "important melees involving principal figures"; this is just another cryptic reference to someone's campaign, and I doubt this was used by many. But what's really interesting is what follows. I could never understand this until I realized that you just had to take it at face-value; it went against my d20 biases.

They give a combat example and they use the alternative system *as well as* giving the character multiple hits as per/ the fighting capability tables. They go on to explicitly note that in combats involving "fantastic monsters" characters make *only one hit per/ round*, no matter their fighting capability. This seems to me a "missing link" that illustrates much about how Chainmail and D&D fit together.

From this I think we can deduce four "periods" of D&D development, somewhat imaginary no doubt but illustrative:
1. Original Chainmail rules - characters were Heros or whatever, no level development, combat used Man-to-Man or 1:20 rules for normal combat and the Fantasy Combat tables for fantastic combat.
2. D&D + Chainmail: Characters used either the Man-to-Man rules or 1:20 rules in conjunction with the Fighting-Capability tables which gave one's number of attacks. In fantastic combat either things proceeded as normal by converting D&D monsters' ACs to their chosen system *or* they'd use those same Man-to-Man/1:20 rules allowing characters only 1 attack per/ round (or, maybe on occasion, the actual Fantasy Combat tables).
3. D&D Alt. Combat + Chainmail: Seemed to exist in some game in '75, they used the d20 combat but still gave characters multiple attacks while preserving the "1 attack per/ round in fantasy combat", and using the Man-to-Man rules only in unimportant combats.
4. Pure Alt. Combat: The usual system that you're all familiar with, preferably with some of the more workable ideas from Chainmail brought in (like Initiative, Morale for NPCs, Turn Sequence, etc.).

Now - which one is preferable? The Chainmail Man-to-Man system cleverly incorporates weapon-type in some detail, which I like, while still allowing for compatibility with level-progression through the F-C tables. However, when it comes to "fantastic combat", it kind of falls apart. The one-attack-per/-round rule is cool when you had an actual Fantasy Combat table, but how to do the same with Man-to-Man tables while still being accurate? I like the TSR solution a lot actually, since it uses the more familiar alternative system while still giving the characters multiple attacks and such, but it's kind of obscure. The naked alternative system is a little "blah" for me now that I'm familiar with Chainmail; I don't think it really came into its own until Greyhawk, but to each his own

What we really need to do - and I may very well do myself - is to do a mathematical analysis of these conflicting combat systems. Let's see how they stack up to eachother; that should give a lot of help as to which is easier or harder in what situations and by how much. We also need to find a way to "update" the Fantasy Combat table or find some other way to reconcile fantastic combat with incomplete Chainmail rules without resorting to the Alternative System.

Thanks for reading!

[thegreyelf]

Hah. Once you start into mathematical analyses, I'm out. I do everything intuitively; I am utterly AWFUL at math.

But have an Exalt! Your readings match mine (except that mine didn't account for the alternative system at all).

[scogle]

Oh yeah as for MtM + the 1:20 references, since now I realize they're pretty significant, I think characters get 1 hit per/ fighting-capability tables, enemies that are rated as "Hvy. Foot" or whatever would simply have a ref-abjudicated armor on the MtM tables and fight with one attack per/ round. Now multiple hit-die monsters that required the Fantasy Combat tables - what to do?

[scogle]

K I've been thinking about it some more . . . here are some new things.

First off as far as converting 1:20-type statistics ("orcs defend as lt. foot attack as hvy. foot") stuff just port it over to the Man-to-Man tables just like OP did with porting D&D AC -> 1:20 troop classifications. A "heavy foot" on attack has better weapons on the m2m tables - or you treat him like he has better weapons even if, stylistically, you describe him as only carrying a sword or whatever. I think that's reasonable but I haven't tried it yet, just an idea. As for defense values, divide 'em up just like OP did with AC. Shouldn't be too hard; there will be some variability as to the armor and weaponry of a "lt. foot" or whatever depending on ref-decided dungeon situations, but they fit into generally defined classes.

Secondly I'm starting to think that the TSR solution is best regardless of its obscurity. The d20 system is the *only* totally satisfactory equivalent to the Fantasy Combat tables at this time, and anything we "extrapolate", while interesting, would never have actually existed. Without doing any maths I think it's obvious that this TSR solution - using alternative combat *with* multiple hits rules excepting fantastic combat - will result in characters being much more powerful against normal man-types at higher levels, but this doesn't seem so crazy. After all look at the Conan stories. He was only a level 8 and he could easily kill 8 men in 1 minute! If you use this TSR hybrid (or the actual man2man/1:20 rules) your higher level characters won't be much challenged by normal man-types and have to fight harder stuff to really be challenged: you can safely swarm pcs with man-types and not be too worried about it, which sounds like a lot of fun to me (and a different "feel" from the purely Gygaxian system).

Obviously the TSR solution goes against the 3LBBs which seem to have strictly delineated Chainmail and Alt. combat matrices, but it's the only solution that makes total sense to me at this time while being fully compatible with D&D. The Man-to-Man rules would still be used in less important combat, but it'd be mostly this TSR hybrid.

Idk everytime I read this thread I realize something I forgot to consider, so go ahead and pick this apart if you want

[Finarvyn]

May 28, 2009 15:18:51 GMT -6 snorri said:

1. 1d6+ 1
2. 1d6, 1d6 + 1
3. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6-1
4. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
5. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
6. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6

any think about this?

My "Ringmail Variant" uses a progression similar to this, except that I define the +1 as an extra attack die instead of a +1 to one of the rolls.

For example,

May 28, 2009 15:18:51 GMT -6 snorri said:

3. 3 Men or Hero -1

If a "Hero" equals 4 men, then Hero-1 could be interpreted as 4-1=3 men. That makes the dice balance out better, IMO.

[Matthew]

Jun 2, 2009 19:43:32 GMT -6 scogle said:

("orcs defend as lt. foot attack as hvy. foot")

Orcs attack and defend as heavy foot, you are thinking of goblins.

Jun 2, 2009 19:43:32 GMT -6 scogle said:

Idk everytime I read this thread I realize something I forgot to consider, so go ahead and pick this apart if you want

Seriously, though, this is all very interesting. The maths behind it all would certainly be interesting to see.

Jun 2, 2009 20:47:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

If a "Hero" equals 4 men, then Hero-1 could be interpreted as 4-1=3 men. That makes the dice balance out better, IMO.

That old troll example from p. 5 of Monsters & Treasures (which I am sure you are familiar with) is always a bit tricky for me on this idea:

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

What that has to do with defence, I have no idea. I do think that "fighting-men" when facing "normal-men" attack with a number of dice equal to their level, as you say. My best guess is that the +1/−1 stuff applies to fantastic combat somehow.

It is notable that in the alternative combat system, fighting-men and normal-men have the same fighting ability, but that Gygax changed this in Swords & Spells, so that normal-men need 20 to hit AC 0.

[scogle]

Jun 2, 2009 22:24:08 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Jun 2, 2009 20:47:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

If a "Hero" equals 4 men, then Hero-1 could be interpreted as 4-1=3 men. That makes the dice balance out better, IMO.

That old troll example from p. 5 of Monsters & Treasures (which I am sure you are familiar with) is always a bit tricky for me on this idea:

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

What that has to do with defence, I have no idea. I do think that "fighting-men" when facing "normal-men" attack with a number of dice equal to their level, as you say. My best guess is that the +1/−1 stuff applies to fantastic combat somehow.

It is notable that in the alternative combat system, fighting-men and normal-men have the same fighting ability, but that Gygax changed this in Swords & Spells, so that normal-men need 20 to hit AC 0.

This means that when fighting normal men - not fantastic monsters like dragons or powerful wizards - you get multiple attacks based on either the "Fighting-Capability" tables or you get one attack per/ hit die (bonuses to hp included), bonuses added to the last attack in both cases.

Defence depends on the system used. Chainmail would use either the 1:20 rules, Man-to-Man rules, or fantastic combat rules. The alternative combat system merely uses different matrices. The +1/-1 stuff applies to calculating hp and Fighting-Capability if using Chainmail rules: you add it to your last die-roll.

This quote you remind me of really supports the TSR interpretation, now that I think about it. It is information that isn't specific to Chainmail *or* alt., so it seems that the alternative system is merely a set of different combat matrices, still using multiple attacks. This reference suggests that you would get one attack per/ hit die rather than using the FC tables, which makes sense to me.

Until I hear something to the contrary (which I probably will) I'm going to think that the best system is this: multiple attacks + alternative combat matrices. We can make out how Chainmail worked but there are big gaps requiring a lot of Referee judging. There is only one combat matrix for normal man-to-man combat and it's based on weapon vs. armor, not level vs. armor (men vs. men) nor hit dice vs. ac (monsters vs. men). Levels are factored in by number of attacks, but, in terms of accuracy, the specifics of weaponry and armor are more important in the M2M system. M2M was really only intended for "normal" combat; in this alternative system level is factored into accuracy while weaponry is ignored (for now).

Then in "fantastic" combat you use the alt. system but the PC only gets 1 attack roll; how many attack rolls do the monsters get? That's something I wonder and hope you'll help me figure out. The Chainmail rules handle this with the Fantasy table but it's not compatible with D&D; the man-to-man rules are usable in man-to-man D&D combat if you wish but fantastic combat requires the alternative matrices.

That's my take on it for now.

Some questions:
I assume monsters get one attack per/ hit die, but when is combat with monsters considered "fantastic"? When are characters considered "fantastic" in respect to monsters? I suppose lvl. 4 is as good a point as any, and which monsters to consider fantastic should be pretty easy by looking at the sort of stuff in Chainmail. In Chainmail it's pretty clear that if monsters vs. heroes the monsters only get one attack roll (with the fantasy tables) as well, so this should be ported to this TSR/alt. system.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 2, 2009 22:24:08 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Jun 2, 2009 20:47:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

If a "Hero" equals 4 men, then Hero-1 could be interpreted as 4-1=3 men. That makes the dice balance out better, IMO.

That old troll example from p. 5 of Monsters & Treasures (which I am sure you are familiar with) is always a bit tricky for me on this idea:
"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

Yeah, that part always bothered me as well, and it does contradict my interpretation.

The way I handle 6+3 in my "Ringmail Variant" is actually to interpret the attack value more like "6+" (meaning slightly better than 6) and give one extra die instead of three extra dice. This doesn't get around the contradiction that you quoted, however.

I do still award the +3 HP for the Troll's HP roll as per standard convention.

[scogle]

Jun 3, 2009 7:50:18 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jun 2, 2009 22:24:08 GMT -6 Matthew said:

That old troll example from p. 5 of Monsters & Treasures (which I am sure you are familiar with) is always a bit tricky for me on this idea:
"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

Yeah, that part always bothered me as well, and it does contradict my interpretation.

The way I handle 6+3 in my "Ringmail Variant" is actually to interpret the attack value more like "6+" (meaning slightly better than 6) and give one extra die instead of three extra dice. This doesn't get around the contradiction that you quoted, however.

I do still award the +3 HP for the Troll's HP roll as per standard convention.

Hmm I can see why your system works better but I think the note on trolls is pretty clear; the "alternative numbers" (hero - 1 vs. whatever etc.) aren't really explained I guess, but I think the "troll system" is the so-called "correct" by-the-book interpretation.

Still yours is fine if not better; it's a good house-rule, and those things are totally encouraged as you know so it's all good

[Matthew]

Here is the Fantasy Combat table using the idea of "Hero +1" etcetera as a modifier:

Level	Dragon	Elemental	Treant	Giant	Hero	Lycanthrope	Roc	Super Hero	Troll/Ogre	Wight/Ghoul	Wizard	Wraith
Swordsman	13	11	13	12	8	9	11	11	10	7	12	12
Hero	12	10	12	11	7	8	10	10	9	6	11	11
Swashbuckler	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Myrimidon	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Champion	11	9	12	10	6	7	9	9	6	5	10	9
Super Hero	10	8	11	9	5	6	8	8	5	4	9	8
Lord	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7
Lord 10th Level	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7

One incongruity is that a "Super Hero −1" has less chance of slaying a Treant than a "Hero +1". Otherwise, though, the numbers work out quite nicely (probably Treant slaying did not come up much either).

Anyway, if we then understand that a fighting-man otherwise gets as many attacks as he has levels with the understanding that if he makes only 1 or 2 then he gets a +1 bonus to hit on one attack.

Under this interpretation it is imagined that the fighting-man can choose to fight as though at a lower level than his current one.

[scogle]

Jun 3, 2009 18:44:38 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Here is the Fantasy Combat table using the idea of "Hero +1" etcetera as a modifier:

Level	Dragon	Elemental	Treant	Giant	Hero	Lycanthrope	Roc	Super Hero	Troll/Ogre	Wight/Ghoul	Wizard	Wraith
Swordsman	13	11	13	12	8	9	11	11	10	7	12	12
Hero	12	10	12	11	7	8	10	10	9	6	11	11
Swashbuckler	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Myrimidon	11	9	11	10	6	7	9	9	8	5	10	10
Champion	11	9	12	10	6	7	9	9	6	5	10	9
Super Hero	10	8	11	9	5	6	8	8	5	4	9	8
Lord	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7
Lord 10th Level	9	7	10	8	4	5	7	7	4	3	8	7

One incongruity is that a "Super Hero −1" has less chance of slaying a Treant than a "Hero +1". Otherwise, though, the numbers work out quite nicely (probably Treant slaying did not come up much either).

Anyway, if we then understand that a fighting-man otherwise gets as many attacks as he has levels with the understanding that if he makes only 1 or 2 then he gets a +1 bonus to hit on one attack.

Under this interpretation it is imagined that the fighting-man can choose to fight as though at a lower level than his current one.

Interesting work Matthew and thanks for taking the time to do it!

One problem that this chart reveals is that 2d6 combat doesn't really provide a lot of range for differences in "to-hit" ability based on level and whatnot. Still I think you can take the patterns even further: in general there seems to be a difference of about 2 between lvl. 8s and lvl. 4s, so that means the "to-hit" value should go down about once every 2 levels.

I'm also interested in how these values for fantastic monsters line up for their "factor in hit-die" method. Which monsters were more/less powerful, etc, or if Gygax actually faithfully followed the Fantasy Combat Matrix when designing his, merely bumping it up to d20 to expand range.

[Matthew]

It is worth noting that the groupings in the OD&D alternative combat table very closely mirror the 2 point reductions:

Levels 1-3: Man +1, 2 Men +1, Hero −1
Levels 4-6: Hero, Hero+1, Hero +1
Levels 7-9: Superhero −1, Superhero, Superhero +1

It is also interesting to note this sort of thing when "level ranges" are considered for AD&D adventures, such as 4-7 for the A1-4 series, which makes them "hero tier", if you see what I am saying. Not many modules work like that, but some do.

Here is the fantasy table taking into account heroic ability:

Level	Swordsman	Hero	Swashbuckler	Myrimidon	Champion	Super Hero	Lord	Lord 10th Level
Swordsman	7	8	9	9	10	11	12	12
Hero	6	7	8	8	9	10	11	11
Swashbuckler	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Myrimidon	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Champion	5	6	7	7	8	9	10	10
Super Hero	4	5	6	6	7	8	9	9
Lord	3	4	5	5	6	7	8	8
Lord 10th Level	3	4	5	5	6	7	8	8

It is possible that a "+3" after the hit dice number of the Troll indicated it was to be treated as a Troll three steps better than that on the fantasy table, both in defence and offence. An Ogre, after all, is only 4+1, and reference is made in Chainmail to "true" Trolls being more powerful than ogres. Of course, 6+3 is actually four steps higher than 4+1, not three, but you could tentatively build a fantasy table based on hit dice if you were so inclined. Trolls and Ogres normally need an "8" to drive back a hero, whilst the hero needs a "9" to drive back an ogre.

The way the fantasy table is set up actually explains a lot about why monsters have a different attack matrix from classed characters in AD&D, and may also help explain from where they derive their armour class scores.

[snorri]

A great inquiry into the hidden maths of d&d, Matthew! Exalt!

[Deleted]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but one thing that I feel is interesting is that the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets product only has the D&D Men Attacking, D&D Monsters Attacking, and the Chainmail Man to Man Melee tables in it.

The regular Appendix A table and the Fantasy Combat table from Chainmail are not in there.

I wonder if that is any indication of what gaming groups were doing back in the day?

[Finarvyn]

Well, Men & Magic seemed to suggest that one use the "Alternate" combat system and that's the way most groups went at the time. It was easy and followed all of the AD&D stuff that was published shortly thereafter. Also, most people had a hard time interpreting Chainmail or didn't own a copy of the game at the time.

[Matthew]

Jun 5, 2009 9:19:25 GMT -6 snorri said:

A great inquiry into the hidden maths of d&d, Matthew! Exalt!

Ta muchly!

Thinking a bit more on this, I decided to map to hit scores for the alternative combat table onto "fighting ability" (an often overlooked part of AD&D, basically a number equivalent to fighter level on the 5% increment scale).

Alternative Combat System

Hit Dice	Fighting Ability
1	1
1+1	2
2-3	3
3-4	5
4-6	6
6-8	7
9-10	8
11+	10

Fighter Level	Fighting Ability
1-3	1
4-6	3
7-9	6
10-12	8
13-15	10

Notice how 2, 5, and 7 are absent from the fighter progression? Interesting, I would say, but the range is clearly very similar (1-10). Let us see how that maps onto the Fantasy Combat Table by hit dice:

Fantasy Combat Table

Monster	Hit Dice	Hero	Super Hero	Fighting Ability	Armour Class
Ghoul	2	9	12	3	6
Wight	3	9	12	3	5
Ogre	4+1	8	11	6	5
Troll	6+3	8	11	7	4
Wraith	4	8	10	5	3
Lycanthrope	4-6	7	10	6	5, 4, 3, 2
Giant	8-12+2	6	9	7, 8, 10	4
Roc	6	5	8	6	4
Dragon	5-12	5	8	6, 7, 8, 10	2
Treant	8	4	7	7	2
Elemental	8, 12, 16	4	7	7, 10, 10	2

Notably, all the monsters have a 3 point difference to hit heroes and super heroes (meaning two places for heroes +1, and super heroes −1), except the Wraith:

Monster	Hero −1	Hero	Hero +1	Super Hero −1	Super Hero	Super Hero +1
Ghoul	8	9	10	11	12	13
Wight	8	9	10	11	12	13
Ogre	7	8	9	10	11	12
Troll	7	8	9	10	11	12
Wraith	7	8	9	9	10	11
Lycanthrope	6	7	8	9	10	11
Giant	5	6	7	8	9	10
Roc	4	5	6	7	8	9
Dragon	4	5	6	7	8	9
Treant	3	4	5	6	7	8
Elemental	3	4	5	6	7	8

It is also obvious that Giants, Ogres, and Trolls are the odd monsters out here. Their hit dice and fighting capability in the alternative system is much higher than the Fantasy Combat Table would suggest. It is also interesting to note that they are the only monsters on this list to have a "+" notation after their hit dice.

[thegreyelf]

Have an Exalt, Matthew. You guys have taken my ponderings in a direction I never would've been able to go. A bit too complex and detailed for my tastes--I think I'll stick with my original system, but excellent work, nevertheless!

[Matthew]

Jun 10, 2009 7:38:18 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Have an Exalt, Matthew. You guys have taken my ponderings in a direction I never would've been able to go. A bit too complex and detailed for my tastes--I think I'll stick with my original system, but excellent work, nevertheless!

Thanks! If you are interested, you can read my tentative reconstruction of the process by which Chainmail became the Alternative Combat System over at Knights & Knaves: One Minute Rounds and the Alternative Combat System.

[thegreyelf]

I've also just done a Chainmail-inspired saving throw system for OD&D, posted here.

[thegreyelf]

Just discovered another addendum to my rules. Chainmail DOES, in fact, give us some guidelines as to what constitutes the various troop types, on page 14:

Light Foot: Missile troops, Swiss/Landsknechte*, Peasants, Crews
Heavy Foot: Normons, Saxons, Turks, Vikings, Men-at-Arms
Armored Foot: Dismounted Knights, Sergeants, Italian City Levies and Condottiere

Light Horse: Magyars, Mongols, Saracens, Spanish, Turks, Hobilars
Medium Horse: Mongols, Norman Knights, Esquires, Saracens, Spanish Turks, Turcopoles
Heavy Horse: Knights, Reiter, Gendarmes

Extrapolating this to D&D terms, this leads me to believe that, at least for defending, Light Foot is AC 9-8, Heavy Foot is AC 7-4, and Armored Foot is AC 3-2, this breakdown based on the typical armor worn by the breakdown above. The same breakdowns would apply to Horse, though the differentiation between Light and Medium Horse also is dependent upon whether or no the horse is barded and the rider using a heavy weapon or mounted lance.

Attack ratings will still be calculated based on combination of weapons and armor as in my rules, with Class 1 or 2 weapons reducing attack value by one (to a minimum of light) and weapons of class 10 or higher increasing attack value by one (to a maximum of Armored Foot or, in the case of the mounted lance, Heavy Horse). The Man-to-Man Table should be adjusted so that hand axes are class 2 (similar to my feelings about the missile table on page 11, I suspect--though I cannot be sure--that it is a typo that the hand axe is class 1).

[greyharp]

Jason, do you have any plans to amend your Chainmail Combat System pdf with this addendum?

[benoist]

WOW. This thread is cool.

Exalt for you, Jay. Love the Forbidden Lore download! Especially now that I have a physical copy of Chainmail (wink).

[thegreyelf]

Greyharp, yes I am going to amend the PDF. When was the last one you downloaded? I just uploaded an updated one Friday. This update will probably go live Sunday or Monday.

[greyharp]

Thanks Jason, yes it's been a while since I downloaded a copy. I'll wait a few days then. The digest size is great, fits nicely in the original box.

[coffee]

I have to agree with the above; I love the digest size.

I can't say I wholly agree with the assumptions made in the text, but I do like having it in my box of old school goodies!

(Especially since I discovered that my printer at work will do duplex booklet printing -- and I already have a saddle stitch stapler...)

[thegreyelf]

Coffee, I'm curious: with which assumptions do you disagree? I really didn't make many great intuitive leaps beyond what's actually written in the text. A good 98% of what's there was pretty much just collated from what's already spelled out.

[coffee]

I disagree with the assumption that the mass combat rules were meant to be used (or even should be used) for man-to-man melees.

But that's the only thing I disagree with. I think you've done a marvelous job of taking such disparate systems and uniting them to work together. And, as I said, I'm happy to have your work in my little box of old-school goodness.

[thegreyelf]

Fair enough, then. Just curious .

If nothing else though, give the Troop Type system a look-see as a useful set of "mook" rules for OD&D.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 2, 2009 20:13:36 GMT -6 coffee said:

I disagree with the assumption that the mass combat rules were meant to be used (or even should be used) for man-to-man melees.

But if you take this away, what is the point of a hero fighting like "4 men"? Do you use this on the regular man-vs-man table and give 4 attacks?

I ask becasue my entire Ringmail Variant is based on the mass combat rules, and if my assumption there is wrong....

[thegreyelf]

Aug 3, 2009 5:53:03 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Aug 2, 2009 20:13:36 GMT -6 coffee said:

I disagree with the assumption that the mass combat rules were meant to be used (or even should be used) for man-to-man melees.

But if you take this away, what is the point of a hero fighting like "4 men"? Do you use this on the regular man-vs-man table and give 4 attacks?

I ask becasue my entire Ringmail Variant is based on the mass combat rules, and if my assumption there is wrong....

I don't think it's wrong at all. I think if you read the rules as written without any preconceptions, the only assumption you can come to is that the three systems were designed to be mixed and matched situationally like everything else in OD&D.