Number of Attacks vs. Increase to hit

[drskull]

BACKGROUND:
If one used "Chainmail" to determine "to hit" in OD&D then the key fact that determined what you chance to hit was was the equipment that you used.

Using the regular system you'd compare "troop type"--so a fighter in Plate attacking a thief in leather would be Armored Foot vs Light Foot.

Using the Man-to-Man system, you'd compare attacker's weapon to defender's AC.

So, regardless of level, the chance to hit would be the same. The way characters would differ in combat power was simply the number of attack rolls they would get. So, a hero had the same "to hit" number as a Veteran, but would swing 4 times.

In the "Alternate System", the D&D system we all know and love. Those multiple swings were largely removed. Instead, you'd reference the Level or HD of attackers vs the AC of the defender and then roll a single attack.

Proposition:
Would have been better to have kept the multiple attacks and left the chance to hit be the same from level to level?

If there were little or no modifiers to AC (AC=Armor Type), then the "to hit" number for everyone, including the monsters, might be the same, say the one used for 1st level characters. It could be printed right on the character sheet, and the only other thing you'd need to know would be the number of attacks you'd get per level.

I know that players love to attack many times. It would also get rid of the problem later versions of D&D had where you needed to keep pumping up AC for creatures and characters as they advanced in level, which made armies of orcs and humans negligible in the face of heroes and monsters. I know I would much prefer to have a 10th level fighter having to be worried about whether 10-15 orcs might indeed wear him down.

As an alternative, there could be a d20 based table of Weapons vs. AC, like the Man-to-Man melee table for monsters, with a few extra entries, like "Fangs", "Claws", "Tentacles" to round out some monster attacks.

[dwayanu]

My own inclination is in the other direction! I'd rather adjust a straight probability of a "hit" (which in Chainmail terms is a kill) most of the time. Turning from 2d6 to 1d20 for D&D facilitated that.

Adjusting damage rolls is great for representing the might of giants, enchanted weapons, and so on.

I'm not big on multiple rolls to hit even in the "claw/claw/bite" scheme that has prevailed since Supplement I. It seems to me not merely more work but out of keeping with the basic premise of the combat model.

Multiple attacks -- yielding a chance of multiple kills per combat turn -- well model the terrible power of supernormal foes cutting down normal men en masse.

[apparition13]

I've actually been thinking about this recently, and thought it might be interesting to have the player role all the PCs dice at once, and then allocate them to attacks and parries (a parry would have to be a roll = or > a successful to hit roll on the PC). Unfortunately, while the idea is interesting, I also think it might take a fair bit of effort to get the kinks out of it, which would take time I don't really have right now.

[Finarvyn]

I've done some extensive playtests in an OD&D campaign heavily based on the Chainmail rules, and here's what I found.

1. Using the d6 sounds great, but doesn't work that well. A +1 is simply too significant. (A +1 on a d6 is +16.7%, which is more like a +3 on a d20. You can't add STR bonuses and such with the d6 becasue it gets too crazy, unless you use a simplified +1 for 15-18 STR like Gary proposed in some of his house rules. But I think Gary was using the d20.)

2. Using the light/heavy/armored designations for AC sounds simple, but is too limiting. "I'm light? Okay, I go buy a shield. What does that do? Can I add a helmet? Greaves? Armored socks?" (Oh, and I thought at light/medium/heavy sounded better so I typed up my p.40 chart with those categories but forgot to edit my monster list, so the word "heavy" was medium on one page and high on the other. Not good.)

3. The Combat tables on p.40 of Chainmail (which give multiple or fractional dice, based on the AC) gets confusing when combined with multiple attacks. "Um, you get 1/2 dice for your attack but you have a FC of 3+1, so you get 3/2 dice this round."

4. If you do use the p.40 table, rate characters seperately by Offense and Defense. There is precident for this if you look at the monster list in Chainmail.

5. If you do you the p.40 table, simplify the chart for dungeon play by removing all of the "horse" parts. You don't ride horses in the dungeon and that cuts out 75% of the options.

6. If you use the p.40 table, you might re-do the designations for the attackers by class instead of by weapon. Magic-users would automatically be "light" and fighters "armored". Clerics and Thieves could be "heavy".

7. Multiple attacks are a lot of fun, but should go for the monsters as well as the characters. Monsters get deadly fast, and my players of 3rd-level characters said they really felt that they could die at any moment.

They liked some parts of this combat system, but disliked others. Overall, the group was interested in doing more with the system, but I decided to shift to the "alternate" combat rules for my next game simply because the Chainmail one was driving me crazy.

That's all that occurs to me at the moment. :-)

[dwayanu]

The end result can be about the same whether higher levels get one roll with a higher chance or multiple rolls at a lower chance each. If you're rolling damage for multiple "hits" in the latter case, you might end up with higher average damage.

With high levels, having lots of hit points, the alternate to a high average per round is really long fights. An alternate to increasing the chance to hit would be increasing the damage. That way, you don't need multiple rolls. Excess damage could be applied to other targets (as in Empire of the Petal Throne), allowing one high-level attack to sweep away several low-level foes.

The drawback of a low chance to hit and high damage is that luck can be a big factor. Instead of high levels getting gradually worn down, and thereby having a chance to see and respond to the trend, they may face a situation that "goes south" suddenly (more like a gunfight than a sword fight).