The explaination for 1+1 HD

[cooper]

chainmail man-to-man rules pg. 26

"It is suggested leaders be given +1 on all their dice and their type of armor be considered best for their origin and time period."

1st level fighters would then be considered "leader" types. Not to be strictly conflated with "army commanders/heroes" which are 4th level.

This explains the +1 to hit and the +1 hit points.


Could an ogre then (4+1 HD) be considered a "leader type" of 4HD monsterous enemies? Of Flinds/gnolls/half-ogres etc? I'm thinking of the cave troll with all the orcs in the mines of moria.

[aldarron]

what's a flind?

The +1 is indicative that the "veteran" is better than the average fellow. Could be derived from CHAINMAIL as you suggest, but it might be coincidence. There is nothing in the early rules I know of to suggest 1st level characters would automatically lead 0 level folks. If anything, Charisma seems to have determined that.

Arneson seems to think that the monsters usually encountered were "hero" types, not leaders per se by HD. "The following facts should be borne in mind for most creatures encountered in small groups. That is that these represent "Hero" type monsters. Thus, divide all Hit Dice by 1/2, (AC and the rest stay the same)." FFC 1980 print, p52

[jacar]

In the explanation of Trolls in Monsters and treasures, the +1 (+3 for the Troll) is an indicator of combat strength. They get that number as a bonus for one of their dice rolled.

The Ogre, for example, has a 4 dice +1. They count as four men and get +1 on the first die rolled. Makes them somewhat more likely to score a hit.

Sadly, the game is not so clear. Sometimes the +1 can mean a bonus on morale die or dice. In the case of multiple dice being rolled, that actually amounts to +1 for each die.

[cooper]

Oct 26, 2010 12:54:08 GMT -6 aldarron said:

what's a flind?

The +1 is indicative that the "veteran" is better than the average fellow. Could be derived from CHAINMAIL as you suggest, but it might be coincidence. There is nothing in the early rules I know of to suggest 1st level characters would automatically lead 0 level folks. If anything, Charisma seems to have determined that.

A flind is a to a gnoll what a hobgoblin is to a goblin.

I'm not suggesting that 1st level characters are leaders of 0-level men per se, although the use of hirelings by 1st level characters is expected. Merely, I'm drawing the parallel between the 1st level fighters difference in Thac0 and extra hit point in chainmail this would have been a +1 to hit on the man to man chart (2d6)...the extra hit point? Well, that would only apply if you used variable damage in MtM combat, which is easy to do.

Therefore, the idea of the 1st level hero was not born from the common soldier, but indeed, was indicative of a "veteren" soldier, a seargant surrounded by privates if you will. If nothing else at all, to me, this adds flavor to the relationship between a 1st level fighter and his hirelings. A dungeon crawl is made up of characters eerily similar to Ridley Scott's, "Alien" movie. Grizzled marines going face to face with heretofore unknowable horrors!

It was the "leader" type from chainmail that created the split between common soldier and 1st level fighter is all I'm putting forth for contemplation. The bit about the ogre doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

[Matthew]

I think it needs to be realised just how different Chain Mail is from the Alternative Combat System. Although ideas and even mechanisms were borrowed from one to the other, they are truly like chalk and cheese in terms of how they fit together (which is to say, they do not). A concept borrowed from one is not translated into the other, rather it is redesigned. A good place to look for the difference between 1−1, 1 and 1+1 is in the goblin, orc, hobgoblin entries, and halflings, gnomes/ dwarves, elves:

Goblin = Heavy Foot/Light Foot
Orc = Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot
Hobgoblin = Armoured Foot/Armoured Foot

Halfling = Light Foot/Light Foot
Dwarves/Gnomes = Heavy Foot/Light Foot
Elves = Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot

These are patterns clearly being represented in the Alternative Combat System, but not with any direct translation. For instance, although dwarves defend as light foot in Chain Mail they have a lower armour class than elves in the Alternative Combat System, which is not offset by the average extra hit point elves enjoy. Furthermore, whilst both fight as heavy foot in Chain Mail, elves have a better fighting ability than dwarves in the Alternative Combat System.

Now, when we come to the OD&D breakdown of Fighting-Men levels to fighting capability we are met with an attempt to progress levels 1 to 8 with level 8 being 8 men, but level 1 being better than 1 man. This is strange indeed when it is noted that the Alternative Combat System at this stage treats a normal man and a level one fighting man as having the same fighting ability. The obvious thing to have done would have been to go:

Level 1 = 1 Man +1
Level 2 = 2 Men +1
Level 3 = 3 Men +1
Level 4 = 4 Men +1

et ecetra. Yet, because "superhero" is a sort of "top out" point they decided not to do this (though, I imagine they could have continued in the form 8+2, 8+3, 8+4, which is sort of what AD&D actually does). Obviously there is some thinking behind this that we are not privy to, as the only time "minuses" appear are when characters are of hero or superhero fighting capability.

The only time that a qualitative status comes into play in Chain Mail is for morale where elite troops have a rating one better than normal troops of their type (usually meaning they function as the next better grade, heavy foot as armoured foot).

That is not to say that the notation "1 man +1" might not be derived from the suggested place in the Chain Mail rulebook, it probably is to some degree, but then the +2 for berserkers was similarly transferred directly across, and normal men eventually reduced to THAC0 20 in Swords & Spells. It does not actually explain much of anything, because these things are more inspiration than translation, as we can see in the mathematics of Swords & Spells and its division between "0 HD" and "1 to 1+1 HD" or "Up to 1 HD and 1+1 HD", even though the logical difference between 1−1, 1 and 1+1 should have been self evident from their usage in Chain Mail (which, we should note, does become the way they are used in AD&D, and unusually so in the context of rest of the Combat Matrices).

[cooper]

Oct 28, 2010 13:17:30 GMT -6 Matthew said:

I think it needs to be realised just how different Chain Mail is from the Alternative Combat System. Although ideas and even mechanisms were borrowed from one to the other, they are truly like chalk and cheese in terms of how they fit together (which is to say, they do not). A concept borrowed from one is not translated into the other, rather it is redesigned. A good place to look for the difference between 1−1, 1 and 1+1 is in the goblin, orc, hobgoblin entries, and halflings, gnomes/ dwarves, elves:

Goblin = Heavy Foot/Light Foot
Orc = Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot
Hobgoblin = Armoured Foot/Armoured Foot

Halfling = Light Foot/Light Foot
Dwarves/Gnomes = Heavy Foot/Light Foot
Elves = Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot

These are patterns clearly being represented in the Alternative Combat System, but not with any direct translation. For instance, although dwarves defend as light foot in Chain Mail they have a lower armour class than elves in the Alternative Combat System, which is not offset by the average extra hit point elves enjoy. Furthermore, whilst both fight as heavy foot in Chain Mail, elves have a better fighting ability than dwarves in the Alternative Combat System.

Thanks for popping in and talking about this Matthew! With that...I think it's wrong to look at the mass combat designations for the above fantasy creatures and compare it to the "alternate combat system". The alterante system should be compared to the MtM, as the "leader" type's use is implied for use in the MtM rules and therefore the weapons that individuals wield can vary (explaining the dwarves lower AC to that of elves for example).

But look at the d&d elf compared to the d&d dwarf. Elves have more hit points than dwarves (1+1 vs. 1hd), this is no different from chainmail. I ask you not to look at the armor class of the dwarf as a comparison of AC, but the use of armor as hit dice as used in chainmail. In mass combat, an armored foot could take 2 hits from a heavy foot. The chances of being struck a killing blow in man to man combat if you were wearing chain armor vs. full plate could be as much as 50% higher (8 vs. an 11 against a sword rolling a 2d6). Clearly, even though dwarves in d&d have a "lower AC" by a small margin, this is balanced by the elves ability to mathematically take an average of 2 hits to kill with a sword (4.5 average damage with a d8 weapon against 5 hit points, whereas the average dwarf will die in 1 hit.)

A goblin, orc, and a hobgoblin all have "1 hit" in Man to Man combat. The goblin (from their classification in mass combat as heavy/light) would probably wield a sword, but wear leather armor and shield, the hobgoblin would--as armored foot, wield a 2 handed sword and plate perhaps. All that the leader type does is add another classification between "goblin" and "goblin hero" to whit using variable hit points and the 2d6 attack matrix which I'll call "thac0" for ease of reference.

wielding sword and leather+shield aka attacks as heavy defends as light foot
goblin: hit points: 3 (d6) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6)
goblin leader: hit points: 4 (d6+1) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6+1)
goblin hero: hit points 12 (4d6) attacks: 4 Thac0: (2d6)

now the hobgoblins "higher hit dice and better attack matrix" codified in D&D if you will is taken into account with their heavier weapon and armor, but lets also include the hero-1 designation.

wielding 2 handed sword and plate aka attacks as armored foot

hobgoblin hit points: 3 (d6) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6)
hobgoblin leader: hp: 4 (d6+1) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6+1)
hobgoblin hero-1: hp: 9 (3d6) attacks: 3 Thac0: (2d6)
hobgoblin hero: hp: 12 (4d6) attacks: 4 Thac0: (2d6)

all we're missing is a hero-2 or a leader+1, but I'm drifting off topic...The hobgoblin, despite having the same "stats" as a goblin is much more powerful, not by hit dice and thac0, but by the system of weapon and armor that predates and presages HD and Thac0.

The only time that a qualitative status comes into play in Chain Mail is for morale where elite troops have a rating one better than normal troops of their type (usually meaning they function as the next better grade, heavy foot as armoured foot).

Not quite true. In man to man combat a hero would roll 2d6+1. That is quite the qualitative difference if you have 10 leaders defending a breech vs. 10 normal men.

That is not to say that the notation "1 man +1" might not be derived from the suggested place in the Chain Mail rulebook, it probably is to some degree, but then the +2 for berserkers was similarly transferred directly across, and normal men eventually reduced to THAC0 20 in Swords & Spells. It does not actually explain much of anything, because these things are more inspiration than translation, as we can see in the mathematics of Swords & Spells and its division between "0 HD" and "1 to 1+1 HD" or "Up to 1 HD and 1+1 HD", even though the logical difference between 1−1, 1 and 1+1 should have been self evident from their usage in Chain Mail (which, we should note, does become the way they are used in AD&D, and unusually so in the context of rest of the Combat Matrices).

I've not read swords & spells, but my impression is that it was an evolutionary offshoot of chainmail, as such I don't feel it is entirely worthwhile to bring up (similar to talking about a becmi elf or an Ad&d elf. Both are examples of where d&d went and have the same lineage, but it's like comparing dogs and wolves as they share the same ancestor if you will allow the analogy).

[Matthew]

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

Thanks for popping in and talking about this Matthew! With that...I think it's wrong to look at the mass combat designations for the above fantasy creatures and compare it to the "alternate combat system". The alternate system should be compared to the MtM, as the "leader" type's use is implied for use in the MtM rules and therefore the weapons that individuals wield can vary (explaining the dwarves lower AC to that of elves for example).

I think if you are doing that then you have no point of reference for HD 1+1, since the only characteristics for them presented in Chain Mail is in the 10:1 or 20:1 scale systems. Since the system itself reflects the pattern then ignoring it is a mistake.

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

But look at the d&d elf compared to the d&d dwarf. Elves have more hit points than dwarves (1+1 vs. 1hd), this is no different from chainmail. I ask you not to look at the armor class of the dwarf as a comparison of AC, but the use of armor as hit dice as used in chainmail. In mass combat, an armored foot could take 2 hits from a heavy foot. The chances of being struck a killing blow in man to man combat if you were wearing chain armor vs. full plate could be as much as 50% higher (8 vs. an 11 against a sword rolling a 2d6). Clearly, even though dwarves in d&d have a "lower AC" by a small margin, this is balanced by the elves ability to mathematically take an average of 2 hits to kill with a sword (4.5 average damage with a d8 weapon against 5 hit points, whereas the average dwarf will die in 1 hit.)

No, it is really not. An elf in OD&D has 2-7 hit points, AC 5, and FA 2, as compared to a dwarf that has 1-6 hit points, AC 4 and FA 1. The damage is always d6 regardless, and one should not confuse Greyhawk with Men & Magic. These are characteristics completely unrelated to Chain Mail, except in the sense that elves have a higher hit die, which is the pattern we have observed.

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

A goblin, orc, and a hobgoblin all have "1 hit" in Man to Man combat. The goblin (from their classification in mass combat as heavy/light) would probably wield a sword, but wear leather armor and shield, the hobgoblin would--as armored foot, wield a 2 handed sword and plate perhaps. All that the leader type does is add another classification between "goblin" and "goblin hero" to whit using variable hit points and the 2d6 attack matrix which I'll call "thac0" for ease of reference.

You are summoning details from multiple sources there. Determining the armour worn by a goblin based on OD&D and then ignoring it for the hobgoblin. In OD&D there is basically no difference between one-handed and two-handed weapons. The probabilities on the man-to-man tables do not even come close.

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

wielding sword and leather+shield aka attacks as heavy defends as light foot
goblin: hit points: 3 (d6) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6)
goblin leader: hit points: 4 (d6+1) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6+1)
goblin hero: hit points 12 (4d6) attacks: 4 Thac0: (2d6)

now the hobgoblins "higher hit dice and better attack matrix" codified in D&D if you will is taken into account with their heavier weapon and armor, but lets also include the hero-1 designation.

wielding 2 handed sword and plate aka attacks as armored foot

hobgoblin hit points: 3 (d6) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6)
hobgoblin leader: hp: 4 (d6+1) attacks: 1 Thac0: (2d6+1)
hobgoblin hero-1: hp: 9 (3d6) attacks: 3 Thac0: (2d6)
hobgoblin hero: hp: 12 (4d6) attacks: 4 Thac0: (2d6)

all we're missing is a hero-2 or a leader+1, but I'm drifting off topic...The hobgoblin, despite having the same "stats" as a goblin is much more powerful, not by hit dice and thac0, but by the system of weapon and armor that predates and presages HD and Thac0.

Yes, hobgoblins would be more powerful in that scenario; unfortunately it has absolutely no bearing on their representation in OD&D. Here is the probability of an orc versus a hobgoblin in the OD&D alternative combat system:

Orc: AC 6; HP 1-6; FA 1; D 1d6.
Hobgoblin: AC 5; HP 2-7; FA 2; D 1-6

The probability of a hobgoblin killing an orc is:

0.45 x 21/36 = 0.2625

The probability of an orc killing a hobgoblin is:

0.35 x 15/36 = 0.14583


In Chain Mail, whether using accumulative hits based on dice or not (and using the man-to-man tables you should not be) the probabilities are wildly different. Way, way higher for a hobgoblin using a pole-arm versus leather and shield [i.e. 21 in 36] and for an orc using a sword versus mail [i.e. 15/36].

Now the probabilities look like they have a similarity before hit probabilities are factored in, but that is because I cherry picked them so that they would, just as you are doing, and that is a bad way to look at things. In fact, an orc could be carrying a battle axe, hand axe, spear or pretty much anything, and the same is true of the hobgoblin.

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

Not quite true. In man to man combat a hero would roll 2d6+1. That is quite the qualitative difference if you have 10 leaders defending a breech vs. 10 normal men.

That has nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with heroes, which is a completely different issue. That is to say a unit of veterans or elites in Chain Mail have no advantage, but a unit of levies accompanied by a hero all get +1 to hit (whether using 1:1, 1:10 or 1:20 scale)

Oct 28, 2010 16:36:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

I've not read swords & spells, but my impression is that it was an evolutionary offshoot of chainmail, as such I don't feel it is entirely worthwhile to bring up (similar to talking about a becmi elf or an Ad&d elf. Both are examples of where d&d went and have the same lineage, but it's like comparing dogs and wolves as they share the same ancestor if you will allow the analogy).

You really ought to read Swords & Spells if you are to have any hope of understanding the development of D&D, it is like trying to solve a puzzle without having all the pieces. What S&S represents is Chain Mail for the Alternative Combat System, that is to say it illustrates plainly why there is no equivalence between the two systems offered for OD&D.