"Fixing" Fighting Capability

[Finarvyn]

Here's how Fighting Capability works for monsters:

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.

The above quote from Monsters & Treasure seems like a pretty simple rule: Fighting Capability = Hit Dice. Since the OD&D combat system is very abstract (no dodge or parry rolls, just roll and hit or don't), a simple rule such as this seems to work quite well.

In general, character classes are built so that FC=HD. For example, a 3rd level Fighting-man has 3 HD and fights like 3 men. This pattern works well for most character classes, with fighter types gaining FC faster and other types gaining FC slower. A 6th level Magic-user has 3+1 HD and fights as "3 men +1", for example.

So why doesn't this always work? The cleric in particular is all messed up, with a 3 HD cleric fighting as "2 men" and a 4 HD cleric fighting as "3 men" and so on.

So ... what's the best way to "fix" Fighting Capability, and why?

[foster1941]

Clerics having more HD than they do FC suggests they're stronger on defense than they are on offense, which fits the archetype of the class. I say it ain't broke so there's no need to fix it.

[crimhthanthegreat]

foster1941 said:

Clerics having more HD than they do FC suggests they're stronger on defense than they are on offense, which fits the archetype of the class. I say it ain't broke so there's no need to fix it.

I agree with this, I don't think it is broke either and it does fit the class.

[Deleted]

I like the idea of one number that represents all of fighting ability, so I'd say keep the FC the same but adjust the HD to match FC. The slower FC progression for Clerics represents the fact that they aren't as good a fighter as a Fighting Man, but since Clerics can wear heavy armor that accounts for the defensive ability.

[raithe]

Sorry to necro up a thread for my first post but this is something I was running probability calculations on just last night.
I agree with the statement that the cleric is more defensive than offensive so leave it alone.
What's really buggy here (and I doubt fully thought out by EGG as he was focusing on the alternate system) is when you use those charts with Chainmail as they were intended to be. If the progression WAS just 1 man/HD or any whole man it would work. The problem lies in the +1 modifiers make a MUCH bigger difference in bell curves than linear distributions. The loss of a +1 (ex. 2men+1 to 3men) actually causes the chance to hit to drop even though the number of attacks goes up!

ex. fighting man with std sword vs plate armor (tn 10 on 2d6 per M2M table) 1 attk/man
FC % to hit (once over ALL attacks)
man+1 = 41.67%
2men+1= 58.34%
3men = 50.01%
That's assuming +'s only add to the last roll as the troll's example in M&T states.


It gets real bad if you only apply the +'s or -'s to every roll:

dagger vs leather tn 7
magician 3men+1 = 125.01%
enchanter Hero(4men)-1= 66.8%

I wouldn't do that anyway but some might.

Therefore If you were going to use Chainmail combat you'd probably better rewrite this table.

Jack

edit- that's assuming I'm remembering the formula for multiple roll probability right. I'm not sure if it was calc each individually and add them all up for the total % or if you add the individual rolls and then divide by the number of rolls for an average. Actually tests with dice seem to support the first method. (which is the formula I used for the figures I posted) If anyone knows for sure I'd appreciate the info.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I agree with both foster1941 & Crim; The ratio used works fine--no need to tinker. Combat has always been an abstract thing in D&D, & like Fin mentioned, you just roll & either (a) hit or (b) don't hit. Dodge & parry options work fine for "newer" editions or even for other RPG's, but for D&D (IMO) I'll keep it the same. It's all about simplicity for me.

[crimhthanthegreat]

raithe said:

Sorry to necro up a thread for my first post but this is something I was running probability calculations on just last night.

I'm not much of a math man so I can't really comment on your analysis, but while I don't sweat it, if you are inclined to check your calculations and then post a revised table, that would be quite interesting.

As for necroing a thread, an Exalt for you, since none of our thread here are even a year old yet, I for one am happy to see any thread gather more discussion. Besides I think Fin will agree that if you are adding new substance to a thread it will be cool anyway, and you certainly did. In addition, a lot of the older threads may not have been seen by our rapidly growing membership.

[coffee]

crimhthanthegreat said:

In addition, a lot of the older threads may not have been seen by our rapidly growing membership.

And some of these older threads might have been completely forgotten by some of us older members (like me). (I tend to just look at what's new, although I really should go back and re-read these older threads.)

[jrients]

From my current house rules draft:

Fighting Capability, Fighters

Level, # Normal Men Attacked, To-Hit Adjustment

1, 1 Man, +1

2, 2 Men, +1

3, 4 Men, -1
or 3 Men, 0
or 2 men +1

4, 4 Men, 0
or 2 Men, +1

5, 5 Men, 0
or 4 Men, +1

6, 6 Men, 0
or 4 Men, +1

7, 8 Men, -1
or 6 Men, 0
or 4 Men, +1

8, 8 Men, 0
or 4 Men, +1

9-10, 8 Men, +1

I'm using the bonus/penalty in the Fighting Capability chart as a to-hit bonus when fighting the number of men indicated, where Hero is defined as the ability to attack 4 Men at no penalty and Superhero as 8 Men with no penalty. What I like about this interpretation is that it gives most characters some sort of option when fighting large groups of Normal Men.

[crimhthanthegreat]

jrients, if you are going to do that, then does the higher level get a bonus against lower levels? If the 8th level Superhero can fight 8 normal men at no penalty, or 4 normal men at a +1; what happens if the 8th level is fighting 2 normal men or 1 1st level or 1 2nd level? How many attacks does the 8th level have per melee round in all of these scenarios, both the one your table covers and the ones that I am asking about? Does the +1 apply to all attacks in that situation?

I am curious as to how you are running this in play.

[dwayanu]

Raithe, about the maths:

To figure the chance of getting at least one hit, reduce the miss chance in proportion for each attempt.

Example:
If you start with 40% to hit and roll twice, the chance of missing both rolls is 60% x 60% = 36% = 64% chance of a hit. A third try reduces the chance of missing all three to 36% x 60% = 21.6% = 78.4% chance of a hit.

You never actually reach 100% chance of a hit (much less "125%," which would mean what?), although it may get close enough for practical purposes.

[jrients]

crimhthanthegreat said:

jrients, if you are going to do that, then does the higher level get a bonus against lower levels? If the 8th level Superhero can fight 8 normal men at no penalty, or 4 normal men at a +1; what happens if the 8th level is fighting 2 normal men or 1 1st level or 1 2nd level? How many attacks does the 8th level have per melee round in all of these scenarios, both the one your table covers and the ones that I am asking about? Does the +1 apply to all attacks in that situation?

Against 1 to 4 Normal Men an 8th level Fighter would get one attack at each foe at +1 to-hit. Against 5 to 8 Normal Men he could take one attack each at no adjustment. A 1st level character counts as a Normal Man if a Cleric or human Magic-User. Under my rules an Elf always counts as a Fantastic Personality and Veterans are not Normal because they get 1+1 Hit Dice. Hobgoblins are also Fantastic under my system, because of that one bonus pip. Against a Veteran, or any 2nd level or greater character the rules described above do not apply and the 8th level Fighter would get one attack on the level/armor type "alternative" chart, doing d6 damage if a hit is scored.

Does that answer your question sufficiently?