Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 5, 2011 4:38:08 GMT -6
Noted something interesting today with regard to how the Chain Mail attack and defence ratings of humanoids differ from those of demi humans in terms of conversion into hit dice: Type | Attack | Defence | Hit Dice | Goblin | Heavy Foot | Light Foot | 1−1 | Orc | Heavy Foot | Heavy Foot | 1 | Hobgoblin | Armoured Foot | Heavy Foot | 1+1 | Halfling | Light Foot | Light Foot | 1−1 | Dwarf | Heavy Foot | Light Foot Foot | 1 | Elf | Heavy Foot | Heavy Foot | 1+1 |
So, for the humanoids a step up in attack ability is +1 and a step down in defence ability is −1, but demi-humans are converted at a better rate, so that what is −1 for humanoids is +0 for demi-humans.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 5, 2011 14:16:07 GMT -6
Cool chart.
My thought was in the transition from cm to d&d gygax fleshed out the "giant orcs" and wanted a smooth comparison gob=half, Orc=dwarf, hob=elf.
Because as it stood in cm the great orcs were superior to elves (AF vs. HF). So instead of making elves and hobgoblins AC 2 1hd, they kept them both as heavy foot (AC5) but made them elite units (1+1hd). This freed dwarves up to be heavy foot(AC5) instead on HF/LF (1hd AC 7) and bumped halflings up to 1hd lightfoot. We are then left with kobolds as the only 1/2 hd with perhaps sprites/pixies or perhaps gnomes as their counterpart (LF/LF)
This I think I must quibble with you on. I believe CM elves are 1 HD AC 5, a "wood elf" if you will. HF/HF elf is not the same as the 1+1 HF elf. I believe if you were to take the D&D dwarf for example (1 HD AC 5) he would be written as HF/HF not HF/LF. HF/LF is a weaker dwarf of 1 HD AC 7. (hill dwarves vs. mountain dwarves perhaps). So, personally I don't look at the CM races literally as a 1:1 from CM to D&D conversion if you get my drift. Again the Great Orc being a good example. In CM it's a 1HD AC 2 creature, but the hobgoblin is a slightly different creature of 1+1 HF (AC 5)
Indeed the d&d elfs +1 to hit with longswords can be seen directly as a result of being a 1+1 elite unit in CM as the +1 pip applied to their attack roll as well.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 5, 2011 19:10:50 GMT -6
Cool chart. My thought was in the transition from cm to d&d gygax fleshed out the "giant orcs" and wanted a smooth comparison gob=half, Orc=dwarf, hob=elf. Because as it stood in cm the great orcs were superior to elves (AF vs. HF). So instead of making elves and hobgoblins AC 2 1hd, they kept them both as heavy foot (AC5) but made them elite units (1+1hd). This freed dwarves up to be heavy foot(AC5) instead on HF/LF (1hd AC 7) and bumped halflings up to 1hd lightfoot. We are then left with kobolds as the only 1/2 hd with perhaps sprites/pixies or perhaps gnomes as their counterpart (LF/LF). That is one possibility, but I do not think that is what the table above suggests. Indeed, what is postulates is that hit dice were assigned before armour class was considered for the game, which seems very plausible to me. That is to say, variable hit points and damage were introduced to the Chain Mail systems (perhaps both mass scale and man-to-man) as a precursor to the development of the alternative combat system. The argument that hit dice and armour class were introduced together seems more unlikely to me, especially given such things as dwarves (heavy foot/light foot) being presented as AC 4; HD 1. Even gnomes are AC 5; HD 1, so for there to be a plausible correlation between Chain Mail and Dungeons & Dragons we need to explain these oddities with the least assumptions. That armour class was a subsequent consideration is the obvious recourse, given the relationships shown in the table above. This I think I must quibble with you on. I believe CM elves are 1 HD AC 5, a "wood elf" if you will. HF/HF elf is not the same as the 1+1 HF elf. I believe if you were to take the D&D dwarf for example (1 HD AC 5) he would be written as HF/HF not HF/LF. HF/LF is a weaker dwarf of 1 HD AC 7. (hill dwarves vs. mountain dwarves perhaps). So, personally I don't look at the CM races literally as a 1:1 from CM to D&D conversion if you get my drift. Again the Great Orc being a good example. In CM it's a 1HD AC 2 creature, but the hobgoblin is a slightly different creature of 1+1 HF (AC 5). This seems highly doubtful to me and involves a great deal of circular logic. Basically what you are saying is that because the dwarf and elf entries in Dungeons & Dragons do not correlate with those in Chain Mail when both hit dice and armour class are considered we must conclude that they are not conversions of one to the other, but weaker versions thereof. In fact, it is a good deal more plausible to conclude that they are conversions of one to the other, but that the conversion work only considered hit dice, and that armour class was at the time not a consideration of interest since it was not used. Bearing in mind that the alternative combat system is radically different from any of the combat systems in Chain Mail, this seems a reasonable conclusion. The "giant" or "great" orc is an interesting case, because they do not feature in Dungeons & Dragons, but given their point value of 2½, the note that they fight as armoured foot, and the comment that "orcs are nothing more than overgrown goblins" it seems most likely that hobgoblins and giant orcs are one in the same in Chain Mail parlance, or at least so close that they were not considered different for the purposes of Dungeons & Dragons. Indeed the d&d elfs +1 to hit with longswords can be seen directly as a result of being a 1+1 elite unit in CM as the +1 pip applied to their attack roll as well. Well, in fact elves in Dungeons & Dragons have +1 damage with long swords, not +1 to hit. However, an interesting item to consider about demi-humans versus humanoids is that in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons they use the fighter attack matrix and not the monster attack matrix. If this was also the unstated but intended case in the original game it would go some way to explaining how the differences correlate. That is to say, the differences in combat levels are: Hobgoblin versus Elf = Armoured Foot versus Heavy Foot / Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot (+1) Hobgoblin versus Dwarf = Armoured Foot versus Light Foot / Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot (+2) Hobgoblin versus Halfling = Armoured Foot versus Light Foot / Light Foot versus Heavy Foot (+3) Orc versus Elf = Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot / Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot (+0) Orc versus Dwarf = Heavy Foot versus Light Foot / Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot (+1) Orc versus Halfling = Heavy Foot versus Light Foot / Light Foot versus Heavy Foot (+2) Goblin versus Elf = Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot / Heavy Foot versus Light Foot (−1) Goblin versus Dwarf = Heavy Foot versus Light Foot / Heavy Foot versus Light Foot (+0) Goblin versus Halfling = Heavy Foot versus Light Foot / Light Foot versus Light Foot (+1) In AD&D THAC0/Fighting Ability perfectly mirrors this relationship: Hobgoblin versus Elf = [THAC0 18 / FA 3] / [THAC0 19 / FA 0] (+1) Hobgoblin versus Dwarf = [THAC0 18 / FA 3] / [THAC0 20 / FA 0] (+2) Hobgoblin versus Halfling = [THAC0 18 / FA 3] / [THAC0 21 / FA 0] (+3) Orc versus Elf = [THAC0 19 / FA 2] / [THAC0 19 / FA 0] (+0) Orc versus Dwarf = [THAC0 19 / FA 2] / [THAC0 20 / FA 0] (+1) Orc versus Halfling = [THAC0 19 / FA 2] / [THAC0 21 / FA 0] (+2) Goblin versus Elf = [THAC0 20 / FA 1] / [THAC0 19 / FA 0] (−1) Goblin versus Dwarf = [THAC0 20 / FA 1] / [THAC0 20 / FA 0] (+0) Goblin versus Halfling = [THAC0 20 / FA 1] / [THAC0 21 / FA 0] (+1) As you can see this perfectly correlates with the Chain Mail system and even explains why elves go from +1 damage to +1 to hit with swords (and bows). Coincidence? I doubt it very much.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 5, 2011 22:58:12 GMT -6
Good and fair points.
CHAINMAIL Halflings LF/LF ---- no chaos Dwarf HF/LF ------goblin HF/LF Elf HF/HF----------Orc HF/HF No good --------giant orc/hobgoblin AF/AF
This is what's compared in CM. Elf is equal to Orc and the hobgoblin has no equal. Personally I like this as it pairs racial enmity well between dwarves and goblins elf/Orc.
0d&d No good--------------kobolds 1/2hd ac7) halfling?--------------goblin (1-1 ac6) Dwarf (1hd ac4)------Orc (1hd ac6) Elf (1+1hd ac5)---------hobgoblin (1+1hd AC 5)
It seems like a no brainer that the forces of good were buffed up to match the giant Orc/hobgoblin and that the giant Orc/hobo was adjusted from 1AF to 1+1 HF. What am I missing?
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 3:44:43 GMT -6
I am not sure that you are missing anything, though we may be talking at cross purposes. The main points I am making here are these:
1) When armour classes were assigned to the demi-humans and humanoids for the Dungeons & Dragons alternative combat system, Chain Mail attack and defence classifications were given virtually no consideration.
2) When hit dice were assigned to the demi-humans and humanoids, Chain Mail attack and defence classifications were given equal weight, so that troops attacking as armoured foot counted as +1, whilst troops defending as light foot counted as −1.
3) For an unknown reason, but as you note possibly to put them on even footing with humanoids, demi-humans were treated as one grade or "pip" higher than would otherwise be imagined when hit dice were assigned.
4) Gygax noted this change when reworking hit dice and fighting ability for AD&D and rather than adjust their hit dice rolled demi-human THAC0 one pip back by having them use the fighter attack matrix.
The salient point for converting anything back and forth between CM and D&D is that armour class is a red herring with regards to troop classifications. It was assigned later under a very different paradigm than Chain Mail classifications.
It is also worth noting that the −1 that goblins, orcs and hobgoblins (no note in Chain Mail renders them immune) suffer in full daylight renders them equivalent to the demi-humans that oppose them. That is to say:
Hobgoblin versus Elf = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per figure, 6 kills (+0) Hobgoblin versus Dwarf = 1 die per figure, 5-6 kills / 1 die per figure, 6 kills (+1) Hobgoblin versus Halfling = 1 die per figure, 5-6 kills / 1 die per two figures, 6 kills (+2)
Orc versus Elf = 1 die per two figures, 6 kills / 1 die per two figures, 6 kills (−1) Orc versus Dwarf = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per figure, 6 kills (+0) Orc versus Halfling = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per two figures, 6 kills (+1)
Goblin versus Elf = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per figure, 5-6 kills (−2) Goblin versus Dwarf = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per figure, 5-6 kills (−1) Goblin versus Halfling = 1 die per figure, 6 kills / 1 die per figure, 6 kills (+0)
This is also true in AD&D, of course. Of course, it may well be that when hit dice were assigned this feebleness in daylight was already taken into account and that is why humanoids and demi-humans are converted at seemingly different ratios.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 6, 2011 10:56:11 GMT -6
Brilliant analysis Matthew. I find I don’t have the time to take a close look at the crunch, but a few thoughts might be helpful anyhow. ... hit dice were assigned before armour class was considered for the game, which seems very plausible to me. That is to say, variable hit points and damage were introduced to the Chain Mail systems (perhaps both mass scale and man-to-man) as a precursor to the development of the alternative combat system. Both Arneson and his players have mentioned repeatedly that HD and HP were added almost immediately in response to complaints of dying to easily. (Edit, actually having looked at some of the references it is specifically Hit Points, not HD that are mentioned) Its unclear when AC was “bolted on” to quote Arneson, but it could well have been several months later. In the FFC, Arneson writes “As the player progressed, he did not receive additional Hit Points, but rather he became harder to Hit. All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player revived a ''Saving Throw" against any hit that he received”. In light of what you have uncovered here, that sentence could easily refer to a system wherein a matrix was set up for LF/HF/AF vs Flunky/Hero/superhero or equivalent titles like flunkies/captains/Lords or perhaps levels. Armor Class, perhaps, wasn’t a factor in the matrix, but fighters got a saving throw- whch would have been with 2d6 in CM fashion with lower target numbers for higher levels. If this was anything like the “remain in battle” saving throw CM p17, the range would have run at least 4-8. To “bolt on” AC to such a system one would only need to change the Saving throw range to an AC range. AC is obviously somewhat redundant/confusing with LF/HF/AF and would naturally replace them in the Matrix, reducing combat to a single roll instead of two and granting the benefit of armor to everybody, not just fighters. The "giant" or "great" orc is an interesting case, because they do not feature in Dungeons & Dragons, but given their point value of 2½, the note that they fight as armoured foot, and the comment that "orcs are nothing more than overgrown goblins" it seems most likely that hobgoblins and giant orcs are one in the same in Chain Mail parlance, or at least so close that they were not considered different for the purposes of Dungeons & Dragons. I have suspected giant orc = bugbear (goblin bear), but haven’t looked closely at the numbers. When armour classes were assigned to the demi-humans and humanoids for the Dungeons & Dragons alternative combat system, Chain Mail attack and defence classifications were given virtually no consideration. …The salient point for converting anything back and forth between CM and D&D is that armour class is a red herring with regards to troop classifications. It was assigned later under a very different paradigm than Chain Mail classifications. Completely agree. FFC has “AC was determined by description of the creature (Hide, scales, etc.)”. No hint of converting CM stats.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 14:44:39 GMT -6
Come on. A giant is 12 HF in cm and has 12hd and ac5 in d&d. An ogre is heavy foot and has AC 5. A dragon is heavy horse (read: plate armored) and has AC 2.
I'm certainly not saying AC is related to HD. I will say flat out that LF/HF/AF have no bearing on a monsters HD. HD is totally dependent o how many "men" the creature fought as. For example a troll fights as 6 men. This gives us 6hd. The troll fights as heavy foot means AC 4-6 generally. If trolls in CM happened to have been described as 6 LF, they would have ended up with 6 HD and AC 7. Perhaps we're talking past each other.
For Demi humans and humanoids though and only for Demi-humans and humanoids, I think the idea was:
LF/LF = 1/2 hd HF/LF = 1-1 hd HF/HF = 1 hd
This was done only to finely differentiate between HF/HF and HF/LF for example.
But I don't believe that it was intended as a universal system for translating monsters. A werewolf in d&d has 4 HD because he fought as 4 men in CM. he has a 5 AC because he "defended" as heavy foot. I don't believe the HF did anything to effect his eventual hit die, heavy foot merely informs armor class which can be seen to be used in the man to man tables in Chainmail.
You can have a 1+1 hd AF elf just as you can have a HF or LF elf would not effect hd.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 17:24:54 GMT -6
Brilliant analysis Matthew. I find I don’t have the time to take a close look at the crunch, but a few thoughts might be helpful anyhow. Both Arneson and his players have mentioned repeatedly that HD and HP were added almost immediately in response to complaints of dying to easily. Its unclear when AC was “bolted on” to quote Arneson, but it could well have been several months later. In the FFC, Arneson writes “As the player progressed, he did not receive additional Hit Points, but rather he became harder to Hit. All normal attacks were carried out in the usual fashion but the player revived a ''Saving Throw" against any hit that he received”. Thanks; useful to have that confirmed in context. In light of what you have uncovered here, that sentence could easily refer to a system wherein a matrix was set up for LF/HF/AF vs Flunky/Hero/superhero or equivalent titles like flunkies/captains/Lords or perhaps levels. Armor Class, perhaps, wasn’t a factor in the matrix, but fighters got a saving throw- which would have been with 2d6 in CM fashion with lower target numbers for higher levels. If this was anything like the “remain in battle” saving throw CM p17, the range would have run at least 4-8. To “bolt on” AC to such a system one would only need to change the Saving throw range to an AC range. AC is obviously somewhat redundant/confusing with LF/HF/AF and would naturally replace them in the Matrix, reducing combat to a single roll instead of two and granting the benefit of armor to everybody, not just fighters. Exactly so. The idea that the plus and minus signs following hit dice originally referred to differences of classification strongly appeals, as it would explain an otherwise quite confusing notation. Perhaps as the game system developed the significance of armour increased beyond what was possible with three defensive classifications, or it may simply reflect a trend towards a desire for greater player character survivability. I have suspected giant orc = bugbear (goblin bear), but haven’t looked closely at the numbers. I had considered that, but now I think if there ever was a "giant orc" converted to D&D then it was the gnoll, which is also suggested in their sharing of a line with hobgoblins in the monster lists. Completely agree. FFC has “AC was determined by description of the creature (Hide, scales, etc.)”. No hint of converting CM stats. Interesting. That would certainly go some way towards explaining why dwarves have a better armour class than elves, for instance. Come on. A giant is 12 HF in cm and has 12hd and ac5 in d&d. An ogre is heavy foot and has AC 5. A dragon is heavy horse (read: plate armored) and has AC 2. Well, actually giants defend as armoured foot and have AC 4 in D&D, so there we see again another problem with your conjurations. Or take rocs who defend as heavy horse and yet have AC 4. The list of exceptions is extensive, is it so hard to surmise that in fact armour class and troop classifications are in fact largely unrelated? I'm certainly not saying AC is related to HD. I will say flat out that LF/HF/AF have no bearing on a monsters HD. HD is totally dependent on how many "men" the creature fought as. For example a troll fights as 6 men. This gives us 6hd. The troll fights as heavy foot means AC 4-6 generally. If trolls in CM happened to have been described as 6 LF, they would have ended up with 6 HD and AC 7. Perhaps we're talking past each other. Nobody is saying AC is related to HD, but I think the above is pretty conclusive that troop classifications have little bearing on actual armour classes. The number of exceptions are too many and the alternative explanation compelling. For Demi humans and humanoids though and only for Demi-humans and humanoids, I think the idea was: LF/LF = 1/2 HD HF/LF = 1-1 HD HF/HF = 1 HD This was done only to finely differentiate between HF/HF and HF/LF for example. But I don't believe that it was intended as a universal system for translating monsters. A werewolf in d&d has 4 HD because he fought as 4 men in CM. he has a 5 AC because he "defended" as heavy foot. I don't believe the HF did anything to effect his eventual hit die, heavy foot merely informs armor class which can be seen to be used in the man to man tables in Chainmail. You can have a 1+1 HD AF elf just as you can have a HF or LF elf would not effect HD. Well, belief is one thing, but where is your evidence? Let us take a look at these supposed correlations, as this over persistent myth deserves to be thoroughly exploded: Creature | Defends As | Armour Class | Dragon | n/a | 2 | Elemental | n/a | 2 | Treant | n/a | 2 | Wraith | n/a | 3 | Pixies | 1 Light Foot | 6 | Basilisk | 4 Heavy Foot | 4 | Lycanthrope | 4 Heavy Foot | 5 | Ogre | 4 Heavy Foot | 5 | Giant | 12 Armoured Foot | 4 | Troll | 3 Armoured Foot | 4 | Ghoul | 1 Heavy Horse | 6 | Roc | 4 Heavy Horse | 4 | Wight | 1 Heavy Horse | 5 |
Now the first thing to note from this table is that dragons, elementals, treants and wraiths are not actually vulnerable to conventional weapons in Chain Mail, indeed they are immune and have no defence classification. Notably they are also the only creatures to have AC 2 or 3. The second thing to notice is that the other armour class values are all in the range 4-6 and run the gamut from light foot to heavy foot to armoured foot to heavy horse with no apparent correlation between them other than what one might wish to imagine. The absolute bottom line here is that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that these creatures were assigned armour classes ranging from 9 to 2 in keeping with their Chain Mail defence classes, it is a dead end.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 17:52:29 GMT -6
If it's a dead end the 0d&d itself makes no sense as Gygax and Arneson specifically allow for backwards compatability. Backwards compatability with the mass combat rules, backwards compatability with the man to man rules, and backwards compatability with the fantasy combat table. That's why each character class is listed as how many men they fight as in addition to how they fight on the FFC and also why gygax specifically explains that some men fight as heavy foot or light foot in the "men" entry in the monsters section of the book. So where the bandit is literally listed as, "Light Foot (leather and shield)". So obviously gygax thought that AC 7 or so was considered "light foot".
The argument that gygax would have used Arneson's combat system is ludicrous, given that d&d was designed to be used with the pre-existing CM rules.
CM matches d&d: Dragon: defends as heavy horse which in the same paragraph as bandits is 1 class of armor heavy than medium horse which he calls "chain+shield" in men and magic. Dragon is AC because it's Plate+shield.
CM matches d&d Treant "treants melee as 6 armored foot". 0d&d AC? 2. Gygax simply gave them 2 more HD on a whim.
CM matches d&d Wraith: "defend as 2 armored foot" AC 3 (plate). The fact that normal men without magic items couldn't melee the above 3 in 1:1 mass combat has no bearing on a hero or someone with a magic weapon meleeing them in 1:1 mass combat or man to man or the fantasy table.
CM 1 point off d&d pixie: "defends as light foot" AC 6.
CM matches d&d basilisk "defends as lycanthrope ( heavy foot) AC 4.
CM matches d&d ogre "defends as heavy foot" AC 4
CM is 1 point off off d&d giant defends as AF AC 4
D&D retro-changes true trolls no longer 3 AF but 6+3 HF (AC 4)
D&d retro-changes ghoul no longer 1 HH (3 AF) now 2 HF
D&D retro-changes Roc 6/12/18 HD AC 4. In CM 4 HH (12 men AC 3).
CM is 1 point off of d&d wight ghould weakend in order to differentiate. heavy horse is 3 HD AC 3 in d&d wight is 3 HD AC 5.
For pete's sake, the character classes are literally listed in mass combat rules (2 men, 3 men, 4 men+1). A 4th level fighter would literally fight as 4 LF, 4HF, or 4 AF were he so armed. The fact that gygax tweaked the numbers in d&d notwithstanding, why doesn't a giant have 37HD and AC 9? Because he was looking at the chainmail stats when he was making the d&d stats. It's hardly even worth pointing out it is so bleedingly obvious.
Giants in CM are 12 AF/HF giants in d&d are 8-12HD HF. How is that not gygax trying to adhere closely to the CM numbers? The fact that Gygax gives someone an AC 4 instead of an AC 3 by your words is evidence that gygax totally ignored the stats from CM because AC 4 is HF and AC 3 is AF and therefore giants in CM had no weight on how gygax was statting them up in the fantasy supplement to his own wargame. (aka d&d)
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 18:05:57 GMT -6
If it's a dead end the 0d&d itself makes no sense as Gygax and Arneson specifically allow for backwards compatibility. So where the bandit is literally listed as, Light Foot (leather and shield). So obviously Gygax thought that AC 7 or so was considered light foot. Not the same thing, though, Bargle. All that amounts to is a D&D armour class for a specific case. We also find in OD&D "medium foot", which have no analogue in Chain Mail. It is a dead end to try and use defensive class to derive armour class because you start with an assumption and then try to get the data to match, ignoring it when it does not. This is a terrible methodology! CM matches d&d: Dragon: defends as heavy horse which in the same paragraph as bandits is 1 class of armor heavy than medium horse which he calls chain+shield; in Men and Magic. Dragon is AC because it's Plate+shield. equivalent. CM matches d&d Treant treants melee as 6 armored foot. 0d&d AC? 2. Gygax simply gave them more HD on a whim. CM matches d&d Wraith: "defend as 2 armored foot" AC 3 (plate) None of these beings defend as anything in Chain Mail, they are all specified as being immune to normal missile and melee attacks. What the rules say is that they attack at those values. CM 1 point off d&d pixie: "defends as light foot" AC 6. CM matches d&d basilisk "defends as lycanthrope (heavy foot) AC 4. CM matches d&d ogre "defends as heavy foot" AC 4 CM is 1 point off off d&d giant defends as AF AC 4 D&D retro-changes true trolls no longer 3 AF but 6+3 HF (AC 4) D&d retro-changes ghoul no longer 1 HH (3 AF) now 2 HF D&D retro-changes Roc 6/12/18 HD AC 4. In CM 4 HH (12 men AC 3). CM is 1 point off of d&d wight ghould weakend in order to differentiate. heavy horse is 3 HD AC 3 in d&d wight is 3 HD AC 5. The thing is "1 point" is significant when you are dealing with a three point range of armour classes! The fact that OD&D changed these monsters should be our first clue as to the significance (and 3 AF = 6 HF, indeed making a Troll's HD at some point likely 3+3). When you have heavy foot with AC 4-6, armoured foot with AC 4 and Heavy Horse with AC 4-6 you must realise something is not quite right with correlating defence ratings to armour class. For pete's sake, the character classes are literally listed in mass combat rules (2 men, 3 men, 4 men+1). A 4th level fighter would literally fight as 4 LF, 4HF, or 4 AF were he so armed. The fact that gygax tweaked the numbers in d&d notwithstanding, why doesn't a giant have 37HD and AC 9? Because he was looking at the chainmail stats when he was making the d&d stats. It's hardly even worth pointing out it is so bleedingly obvious.Christmas and Carebears! What has that got to do with the price of butter? What we are talking about here is the development underlying the OD&D system. Of course the classes have Chain Mail equivalents spelt out! And yet, the magic-user class does not correspond with the wizard...
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 18:13:39 GMT -6
No, treants are listed as immune to "normal" melee and missile fire and can of course be attacked by heroes or those wielding magic weapons. This applies to dragons and wraiths as well.
Are you seriously using a typo (a miss match of heavy foot and medium horse) to prove a point about the rules?
Listen, I can tell you exactly what gygax did and he didn't use some convoluted methodology. "treant in CM is 6 AF"....ok, 6 HD AC 2 or 3 or 4, what do you think guys?....'how 'bout a range from 6-8 boss and lets give them AC 2."
That's about as deep as gygax was thinking. But it's a moot point, because regardless of how gygax came up with the d&d treant or the d&d werewolf, or the d&d elf, what is absolutely true is that when playing CM with d&d the treant is 8AF and the werewolf is 4HF , the elf is 1+1 HF, and the troll is 6+3 HF.
So how all of the above works out to be arneson's combat system is beyond me.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 18:18:37 GMT -6
No, treants are listed as immune to "normal" melee and missile fire and can of course be attacked by heroes or those wielding magic weapons. This applies to dragons and wraiths as well. Yes, and quite what do you think that means? See the note "the only exception is heroes and superheroes on the fantasy table. They have no defence ratings because they will never need them, as they are immune to all normal melee and missile attacks. Are you seriously using a typo (a miss match of heavy foot and medium horse) to prove a point about the rules? What I am seriously trying to get you to realise is that OD&D is a system that was not cohesive. It is as likely to be a typo as it is that Arneson actually used medium foot. Listen, I can tell you exactly what Gygax did and he didn't use some convoluted methodology. "treant in CM is 6 AF"....ok, 6 HD AC 2 or 3 or 4, what do you think guys?....'how 'bout a range from 6-8 boss and lets give them AC 2." You certainly think you can, which is what is so worrying, because you nonetheless are ignoring the evidence by making exceptions and excuses to fit your own model. That's about as deep as Gygax was thinking. But it's a moot point, because regardless of how Gygax came up with the D&D treant or the D&D werewolf, or the D&D elf, what is absolutely true is that when playing CM with D&D the treant is 8AF and the werewolf is 4HF and the elf is 1+1 HF. In what way is it a moot point? Taking hit dice and then appending a defence class from your imagination does not make something absolutely true. Quite the opposite in fact. So how all of the above works out to be arneson's combat system is beyond me. What we are looking for here are patterns within the rules that can be identified, correlated with other elements and their significance speculated on. What we see in the first post in this thread is a pattern, whereby attack and defence values correlate with hit dice allocation for humanoids and demi-humans, but the two types are at the same time delineated between. Who assigned the hit dice? We do not know, that is speculation. How does it accord with other elements of the game? As we have seen it correlates with AD&D THAC0, suggesting a possible inspiration for the change Gygax made to the fighting ability matrices.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 18:28:08 GMT -6
You guys continue to think that d20 was the driving force behind 0d&d and that just shows a myopic view. d&d was designed around CM, the MtM section, and FCT and were assumed to be used even at the time of the Greyhawk supplement by it's users, regardless of which system gygax seemed to prefer in his own games.
Somehow the true troll is immune to normal melee attacks, yet can be killed in MtM combat or 1:1 CM combat by an elf with a magic sword. So I don't see that as evidence that true trolls don't have a Defense" rating as immune to normal combat, yet "attack as 3 AF when attacking or being attacked by normal men. What you're saying is that treants can attack in 1:1 mass combat, yet somehow it's "against the rules" for a hero to attack them in 1:1 mass combat. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 18:31:25 GMT -6
What the hell do you mean "from my imagination". How else was someone suppose to run creatures in chainmail using d&d? You mean Gygax listed bandits as light foot (leather+shield) yet because he only listed the werewolf as AC 5 that it would be a fantasy out of my imagination to use the werewolf as 4 HF if I were to run it using chainmail? Or that a stone giant with 10 HD and AC 4 would be a fantasy of my imagination if I assumed gygax expected me to run it as 10HF?
If you're saying the stone giant could be 10AF you and I are arguing over a ridiculous nuance of rules. Of course AC 4 could be interpreted as AF or HF, but what you won't find or expect is for gygax to list something as 3HD AC 9 and then find it fights as 12 AF.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 18:35:28 GMT -6
You guys continue to think that d20 was the driving force behind 0d&d and that just shows a myopic view. d&d was designed around CM, the MtM section, and FCT and were assumed to be used even at the time of the Greyhawk supplement by it's users, regardless of which system Gygax seemed to prefer in his own games. Again you fly in the face of the actual evidence and what the designers have had to say in retrospect. D&D was not designed around CM, rather it was developed from it, which meant taking ideas from it and using them and changing them to suit a different sort of game. By the time Gygax was putting together OD&D he was no longer looking to Chain Mail to frame the system, which is why we get Swords & Spells. Somehow the true troll is immune to normal melee attacks, yet can be killed in MtM combat or 1:1 CM combat by an elf with a magic sword. So I don't see that as evidence that true trolls don't have a Defense" rating as immune to normal combat, yet "attack as 3 AF when attacking or being attacked by normal men. What you're saying is that treants can attack in 1:1 mass combat, yet somehow it's "against the rules" for a hero to attack them in 1:1 mass combat. Which makes no sense whatsoever. No, what I am saying is that if a hero attacks a "true troll" he can use the fantasy table, but that non-fantastical combatants can also use magical weapons to kill "true trolls", for which they need an 8+. Elves have this ability, for instance, see p. 29 of CM. However, true trolls are not immune to normal missile or melee combat. What the hell do you mean "from my imagination". How else was someone suppose to run creatures in chainmail using d&d? You mean Gygax listed bandits as light foot (leather+shield) yet because he only listed the werewolf as AC 5 that it would be a fantasy out of my imagination to use the werewolf as 4 HF if I were to run it using chainmail? Or that a stone giant with 10 HD and AC 4 would be a fantasy of my imagination if I assumed gygax expected me to run it as 10HF? If you're saying the stone giant could be 10AF you and I are arguing over a ridiculous nuance of rules. Of course AC 4 could be interpreted as AF or HF, but what you won't find or expect is for Gygax to list something as 3HD AC 9 and then find it fights as 12 AF. What I am saying is that whilst bandits are light foot and bandits have AC 7, it does not follow that light foot = AC 7 or that heavy foot = AC 4, or that Armoured Foot = AC 2. These are conjurations of your own imagination. They may not be far off the mark in specific cases, but the formula is of your own devising.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 18:48:17 GMT -6
If you included...."while maintaining backwards compatability" you would be almost right. It wasn't a "different sort of game." " orcs: #appearing 30-300 + catapults"/castle construction/followers/etc. A different sort of game is Holmes or B/X. Od&d was absolutely written for wargamers and people who would continue to use chainmail. The fact that gygax discovered that selling his product to people who weren't wargamers would make him more money (holmes b/x then 1e) doesn't change the fact that 0d&d was the "2nd edition" fantasy supplement to CHAINMAIL.
not true. Why list the benefits of magic weapons and armor in 1:1 mass combat unless they are allowed to be used there? You've got too much 1e on your mind Matthew-. There is no "allowed" or "not allowed" in 0d&d. This isn't tournament d&d. All combat systems were usable for any type of combat "BtB". A hero had means of attacking a treant or dragon in 1:1 CM, MtM, or FCT.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2011 18:52:14 GMT -6
If you included...."while maintaining backwards compatability" you would be almost right. It wasn't a "different sort of game." " orcs: #appearing 30-300 + catapults"/castle construction/followers/etc. A different sort of game is Holmes or B/X. Od&d was absolutely written for wargamers and people who would continue to use chainmail. The fact that Gygax discovered that selling his product to people who weren't wargamers would make him more money (holmes b/x then 1e) doesn't change the fact that 0d&d was the new fantasy supplement to CHAINMAIL. You are wrong. What D&D represents is a development of Chain Mail that allows you to use two different systems: 1) The Chain Mail System 2) The Alternative System They are not directly interchangeable, and certainly not designed to be, despite your best efforts to find a direct correlation (which is admirable, and interesting, but leads you frequently into narrow errors of perspective). Of course, it is possible to switch between systems, but the results will be inconsistent. Not true. Why list the benefits of magic weapons and armor in 1:1 mass combat unless they are allowed to be used there? You've got too much 1e on your mind Matthew-. There is no "allowed" or "not allowed" in 0d&d. This isn't tournament d&d. All combat systems were usable for any type of combat "BtB". A hero had means of attacking a treant or dragon in 1:1 CM, MtM, or FCT. A hero can certainly attack a true troll using the normal melee rules, if he so chooses. True trolls are not after all immune to normal melee and missile attacks, unlike dragons, elementals, treants, and wraiths. I am not talking about allowed or permitted here, you read too much into "has" above, which I changed after rereading it earlier and realising it could be misconstrued (as you have done). Giants in CM are 12 AF/HF giants in d&d are 8-12HD HF. How is that not gygax trying to adhere closely to the CM numbers? The fact that Gygax gives someone an AC 4 instead of an AC 3 by your words is evidence that Gygax totally ignored the stats from CM because AC 4 is HF and AC 3 is AF and therefore giants in CM had no weight on how gygax was statting them up in the fantasy supplement to his own wargame. (aka d&d) What I am saying is that the giants in OD&D have HD 8-12+2 because they are developed from Chain Mail where they are rated as 12 HF/AF. The reason they have AC 4 is that Gygax or Arneson felt it was appropriate, but it has no more to do with them defending as 12 AF than does the AC 4 of dwarves have to do with them defending as 1 LF.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 6, 2011 22:07:02 GMT -6
If it's a dead end the 0d&d itself makes no sense as Gygax and Arneson specifically allow for backwards compatability. Backwards compatability with the mass combat rules, backwards compatability with the man to man rules, and backwards compatability with the fantasy combat table. That's why each character class is listed as how many men they fight as in addition to how they fight on the FFC and also why gygax specifically explains that some men fight as heavy foot or light foot in the "men" entry in the monsters section of the book. So where the bandit is literally listed as, "Light Foot (leather and shield)". So obviously gygax thought that AC 7 or so was considered "light foot" We've been over this ground before. First, Gygax isn't the only one to write OD&D and not every thing in there is his idea. Look closely at the FFC and you will see that. Second, while it's very handy to break things down as ac x = x foot, and I do so myself, it is very clear there was no such rule or intention. I've been through this with Stormcrow and his recent posts regarding Wizards, where he insisted Armored Foot = AC2. Cut and paste from that thread: Attack/defend as AF: Ent , Giant Orc, true troll, wraith Attack as AF, defend as heavy: Lycanthropes, Hobgoblins, Giant In OD&D: (includes strat review battle of 5 armies) Ent – AC2 Giant Orc? – Same as Ogre or Hobgoblins? both are AC5 True Troll (D&DTroll) AC4 Wraith – AC3 So monsters with AC2, 3, 4 and maybe even 5 were all being were categorized as Armored Foot for defense. And this from Supplement II, Temple of the Frog (1975) "First level of the Dungeon - Barracks Room ...All men are as heavy infantry with either leather and shield and/or studded leather and shield with either swords or spears.” as opposed to "Example of Bandits: ... Composition of Force: Light Foot (Leather Armor & Shield) Monsters and Treasure, P. 5 So same armor - leather and shield - classed as Light Foot in one instance and Heavy in another. What's the difference? <shrug> perhaps it is that on one hand we have professional soldiers - the temple guards, and on the other we have bandits. The argument that gygax would have used Arneson's combat system is ludicrous, given that d&d was designed to be used with the pre-existing CM rules. Clearly it was not. Clearly D&D uses a completely different magic system. Clearly a great deal was added and changed at the whim of the creators with little concern for faithfulness to CHAINMAIL. I can assure you that in the draft copy I have of the OD&D rules, a great deal of influence from CHAINMAIL is evident. The Jousting rules, for example, are copied verbatim as is the Man to Man initiative rules. But a great deal more of it has nothing to do with CHAINMAIL, and perhaps more importantly, neither CHAINMAIL nor Outdoor Survival are mentioned anywhere in the text. Gygax decided to add in those "compatibility" elements and CHAINMAIL references - as Rob Kuntz said on this very board - to sell copies of CHAINMAIL to D&Ders and vice versa. It wasn't ever a case of "D&D is an expansion of CHAINMAIL" CM matches d&d: Dragon: defends as heavy horse which in the same paragraph as bandits is 1 class of armor heavy than medium horse which he calls "chain+shield" in men and magic. Dragon is AC because it's Plate+shield. CM matches d&d Treant "treants melee as 6 armored foot". 0d&d AC? 2. Gygax simply gave them 2 more HD on a whim. CM matches d&d Wraith: "defend as 2 armored foot" AC 3 (plate). The fact that normal men without magic items couldn't melee the above 3 in 1:1 mass combat has no bearing on a hero or someone with a magic weapon meleeing them in 1:1 mass combat or man to man or the fantasy table. CM 1 point off d&d pixie: "defends as light foot" AC 6. CM matches d&d basilisk "defends as lycanthrope ( heavy foot) AC 4. CM matches d&d ogre "defends as heavy foot" AC 4 CM is 1 point off off d&d giant defends as AF AC 4 D&D retro-changes true trolls no longer 3 AF but 6+3 HF (AC 4) D&d retro-changes ghoul no longer 1 HH (3 AF) now 2 HF D&D retro-changes Roc 6/12/18 HD AC 4. In CM 4 HH (12 men AC 3). CM is 1 point off of d&d wight ghould weakend in order to differentiate. heavy horse is 3 HD AC 3 in d&d wight is 3 HD AC 5. Reminds me a bit of the Dungeon boardgame CM relationship. Anyway, obviously its not logical to say something is meant to be a direct correlation of X, but tweaked intuitively. Either it correlates and follows a set pattern for deviation or it does not correlate and deviates randomly. Since the AC and troop type do deviate randomly, and since we know at least two different people were assigning monster stats - probably more - there's just no reason to think CHAINMAIL was a gold standard they were attempting to adhere to.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 6, 2011 23:55:38 GMT -6
How can anyone say they "deviate randomly". As if a light foot is ever described as AC2 or as if any entry in d&d mentions things like, "wears plate armor and fights as light foot.". Look at the the entry for cavemen. They are described as fighting, "with flails" as if that mattered at all with the alternate system and was a direct reference to the MtM table of CM.
Secondly, since d&d was absolutely attempting to be backwardly compatable with Chainmail, of course people who were responsible for writing up the new stats were looking at either replacing or updating the old stats.
I honestly feel ridiculous even arguing this. To say that The entry for men when they describe light foot AC 7 or medium horsemen (AC 4) as "random" is odd to say the least.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 7, 2011 4:23:26 GMT -6
How can anyone say they "deviate randomly". As if a light foot is ever described as AC2 or as if any entry in d&d mentions things like, "wears plate armor and fights as light foot.". Look at the the entry for cavemen. They are described as fighting, "with flails" as if that mattered at all with the alternate system and was a direct reference to the MtM table of CM. Nobody is saying that Gygax closed his eyes and randomly picked an armour class for each entry, what we are saying is that it is not based on their defence class in Chain Mail, which is evident unless you close your close your eyes to evidence. Nor is anybody saying that the D&D game books cannot be used with two separate systems and contains notes for both, what we are saying is that those systems are not directly interchangeable and that Chain Mail was the lesser concern. Secondly, since d&d was absolutely attempting to be backwardly compatible with Chainmail, of course people who were responsible for writing up the new stats were looking at either replacing or updating the old stats. D&D was intended to be compatible with Chain Mail, but the alternative combat system was not intended to be backwards compatible. It is not a new edition or version of Chain Mail, but rather a system inspired by it designed to play differently. I honestly feel ridiculous even arguing this. To say that the entry for men when they describe light foot AC 7 or medium horsemen (AC 4) as "random" is odd to say the least. Nobody is suggesting that armour classes were assigned randomly, only that they are not concerned with Chain Mail defence classes and so the apparent "deviation" seems random. Since there is nothing to actually deviate from, though, the apparent randomness is misleading, because there is a pattern it is just not based on Chain Mail defence classes. It is not a case of one or the other, rather armour classes were assigned according to common sense and with a view towards the intended capabilities of the creature or combatant. It is no coincidence that all the creatures immune to normal combat in Chain Mail have AC 2 or 3 in the Alternative Combat System, nor that no other creatures enjoy such effective armour classes.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 7, 2011 12:21:21 GMT -6
Well said Matthew. 'zactly what I meant. Random may not be the best word but couldn't think of a better term at midnight last night for AC choice based on "arms and situations" rather than rule.
There's additional support for your thesis, I suspected, but wanted to check out first before mentioning.
Hit Dice is a bit confusing regarding Arneson in that he often used the term to mean damage dice, and in the FFC "How to become a bad Guy" section he says "our combat system did not really use Hit Dice", Yet he has said elsewhere that Hit Dice and HP were the first thing he added to play. How to reconcile? The way I've come to see this is that he probably meant he didn't use the term HD for hit points but rather simply referred to "hits" which were fixed ranges of HP often but not always divisible by 6. Damage for monsters was (I think) usually only 1d6 or 2 or 3 (as in OD&D) for the largest of beasts (no "hit dice") but warriors got one "hit die" to roll for damage per level as indicated in the "Infamouse Characters" section. Further, the "values" of "hits" and damage dice, could be "doubled" or "tripled" depending on ferocity etc.
As such "hits" and multiple "values" are fairly generic, and can be (and were) applied to any of the CM combats systems or the alternate d20 system.
So, if the above is correct, and if you are correct about AC coming in later, any early references to combat stats for non PC's should not contain info for HD or AC.
So here's the interesting bit in regards to HP/HD predating AC: The last couple pages of the FFC is a kind of "Monster Manual" that's clearly pre D&D, prolly 1971 or '72. There is no mention of Armor Class. The monsters are those of CHAINMAIL. Bandits and Nomads are broken into percentages of LF/HF etc. Orcs have a light catapult (and guard wagons as in OD&D). The list then assumes that CM is being referenced and is giving additional info. For combat, only one non CM stat is given - "hits".
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 7, 2011 16:26:13 GMT -6
I've been through this with Stormcrow and his recent posts regarding Wizards, where he insisted Armored Foot = AC2. I did what? I don't remember that. And I don't agree with it. I remember saying that Wizards, with the "fighting capability" of Wizard, attack and defend in mass combat as 2 Armored Foot. So, I asked, how do Wizards roll on the man-to-man tables? No one had an answer. There were arguments, and the usual putting of words in my mouth, but no answers. Perhaps you can quote me insisting this?
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 7, 2011 16:46:16 GMT -6
Very interesting, indeed. So, if I am following you correctly a bandit entry in the FFC would contain information such as:
Attack: Light Foot Defend: Light Foot Hits: 4
Would it also contain their damage capacity? I suppose it probably defaults to 1-6, but interested to know all the same. Also, does such an entry contain the sort of armour and weapons used? I expect that would be useful for "man-to-man" encounters.
Another question that springs to mind is if one of these proposed bandits encountered a hero character with the characteristics:
Attack: Armoured Foot Defend: Armoured Foot Hits: 14
...would it be a reasonable interpretation to imagine that it would be necessary for there to be at least three light foot figures for him to be under threat of injury, do you think? That would be interesting indeed, given the large number of guards in something like Temple of the Frog, it would certainly build a tendency towards high body counts (I believe that was normal in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign).
If armour and weapons are specified, then it might be that in such hero encounters the man-to-man table was made use of in some way. If the mass combat rules were being used on the other hand, then an encounter between an armoured foot hero might look something like:
12 Bandits (Light Foot) versus 1 Hero (Armoured Foot)
Bandits roll 1d6 for every three of them, so a total of four dice needing 6+ to score a hit, which does 1d6 damage to the hero. The hero rolls 1d6 four times (since he is worth 4 armoured foot) needing 4+ to hit, and each hit doing 1d6 damage.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 7, 2011 20:33:42 GMT -6
I've been through this with Stormcrow and his recent posts regarding Wizards, where he insisted Armored Foot = AC2. I did what? I don't remember that. And I don't agree with it. I remember saying that Wizards, with the "fighting capability" of Wizard, attack and defend in mass combat as 2 Armored Foot. So, I asked, how do Wizards roll on the man-to-man tables? No one had an answer. There were arguments, and the usual putting of words in my mouth, but no answers. Perhaps you can quote me insisting this? As you wish I don’t know that any conclusions can really be drawn here but it doesn’t look good for getting a clear picture of Armor Class to AF for MTM but is precisely in keeping with the much favored theory that AF ranges from AC2-4. If you want to know what LF, HF, and AF represent, go to page 14 of Chainmail. If you don't know how Normans, Saxons, etc. are armed, look at the section on Historical Characteristics, starting on page 18. Looking at the lists of who's who, we have: Light Foot = No armor Heavy Foot = "1/2 armor," which is armor other than full suits of plate mail and better. This includes leather, padded, shield only, and chainmail. Armored Foot = Fully armored knight and the like. Plate mail and better. Their weapons can vary greatly. Light Foot might be archers or pikemen or peasants with axes. Armored Foot might be a knight with a lance, or that same knight unhorsed and fighting with a sword. Possibly I've overdrawn your intent, and apologize, but your post seemed fairly definitive to me.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 7, 2011 20:47:26 GMT -6
Very interesting, indeed. So, if I am following you correctly a bandit entry in the FFC would contain information such as: Attack: Light Foot Defend: Light Foot Hits: 4 Would it also contain their damage capacity? I suppose it probably defaults to 1-6, but interested to know all the same. Also, does such an entry contain the sort of armour and weapons used? I expect that would be useful for "man-to-man" encounters. Another question that springs to mind is if one of these proposed bandits encountered a hero character with the characteristics: Attack: Armoured Foot Defend: Armoured Foot Hits: 14 ...would it be a reasonable interpretation to imagine that it would be necessary for there to be at least three light foot figures for him to be under threat of injury, do you think? That would be interesting indeed, given the large number of guards in something like Temple of the Frog, it would certainly build a tendency towards high body counts (I believe that was normal in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign). If armour and weapons are specified, then it might be that in such hero encounters the man-to-man table was made use of in some way. If the mass combat rules were being used on the other hand, then an encounter between an armoured foot hero might look something like: 12 Bandits (Light Foot) versus 1 Hero (Armoured Foot) Bandits roll 1d6 for every three of them, so a total of four dice needing 6+ to score a hit, which does 1d6 damage to the hero. The hero rolls 1d6 four times (since he is worth 4 armoured foot) needing 4+ to hit, and each hit doing 1d6 damage. Here is the Nomad entry so you can see what the deal is. Nomad': Found in the desert, these Nomadic peoples will rarely be found encamped (15%) but more often (85%) as a raiding force. Raiding forces will be composed of one standard type of Cavalry. 65% Horse Archers, 25% Medium Cavalry, 10% Heavy Cavalry. Each force will have a Chieftan leading it or Several Chieftans for a larger force. A ratio of 10% chance of a Hero-type per ten raiders and 10% per 100 for Superhero. Each Nomad carries his personal wealth with him (0 = 1, 100 = 2, 200 = 3, 300 = 4, 400 = 5, 500 = 6) and can lake from 1 - 6 Hits. Prisoners may be sold as Slaves. In the rare times when a Nomad camp is found 15% of the time, more wealth will be found in the camp (100 -600 GP per defender) with a mixed Cavalry/Infantry force; 5% Light Foot,5% Heavy Foot, 5% Armored Foot, 55% Horse Archers, 20% Medium Horse, 10% Heavy Horse. Roll 2 die per 5% of types to gain number of men. Roll 5 for Hero and Superhero types a, with raiding force. For each defender, there are 1 - 6 non-combatants which may also be captured and sold if camp is taken. Each Nomad Hero and Superhero type has a 10% chance of wielding a Magic Weapon. In the desert sand storms, Nomads fight at double Value and can prevent forces they maintain contact with from finding water." as a comparison, here is a couple of the shorter monster entries: "Trolls and Ogres: These creatures are worth 18 points (or Hits) with varialions. Elves get double value Hits while Hero types and Magic Weapons get Hits times six. Generally these creatures are encountered as raiders but about 1/6 of the time, they will be in their lairs. At "Home",they will have from 6 - 36,000 GP value in loot. etc. with protection similiar to. ''Gatehouse'' and Galte in their underground lairs entrance. Will take prisoners on raids for food." "True Trolls: Always alone, 36 - 72 Hits and regenerate 3 Hits every turn they are not attacked. Must be burned or dumped in acid to kill permanently. Wealth 1 - 6,000 GP and 1/3 chance of haviing Magic Weaponry."
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 7, 2011 22:07:46 GMT -6
Possibly I've overdrawn your intent, and apologize, but your post seemed fairly definitive to me. You have, if I understand what you mean by "overdrawn your intent." I gave a general list of which armor types correspond to which fighting capabilities in Chainmail, which is what was under discussion. I've also said elsewhere that there is not an absolute correspondence between the two; see the section in Chainmail that describes different troop types and you'll see that one type of armor doesn't always correspond to one type of fighting capability. It's simply that those troops that are classified as Armored Foot are usually those that wear full armor, and so on. In any case, I didn't "insist" anything, certainly not that Armored Foot = AC 2! I think it's pretty clear that the alternative combat system does not derive from anything in Chainmail, and any patterns one thinks one sees simply come about due to the different systems modeling the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 8, 2011 8:31:25 GMT -6
Possibly I've overdrawn your intent, and apologize, but your post seemed fairly definitive to me. You have, if I understand what you mean by "overdrawn your intent." I gave a general list of which armor types correspond to which fighting capabilities in Chainmail, which is what was under discussion. I've also said elsewhere that there is not an absolute correspondence between the two; see the section in Chainmail that describes different troop types and you'll see that one type of armor doesn't always correspond to one type of fighting capability. It's simply that those troops that are classified as Armored Foot are usually those that wear full armor, and so on. In any case, I didn't "insist" anything, certainly not that Armored Foot = AC 2! I think it's pretty clear that the alternative combat system does not derive from anything in Chainmail, and any patterns one thinks one sees simply come about due to the different systems modeling the same thing. Okay, we're seeing pretty much eye to eye then. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 8, 2011 10:22:22 GMT -6
...Would it also contain their damage capacity? I suppose it probably defaults to 1-6, but interested to know all the same. Also, does such an entry contain the sort of armour and weapons used? I expect that would be useful for "man-to-man" encounters. That's an interesting question. As you can see from the couple I posted, they do not contain any weapon info that would apply to the man to man table. Seems a strong indicator that the Man to Man table wasn't expected to be used. I presume Arneson was using whatever his "alternate" table was at this point, but the entries could also work on the FCT. Initially, he tried to expand the FCT by adding new monsters - found it unwieldy and scrapped it to create a new table. My sense is that this new approach was a percentile based flunky/Hero/Superhero (flunkie/captain/lord) vs Armor Class table. Hit Dice were damage dice (at least) - that much is pretty clear. What's unclear is whether player characters progressed through "levels" on the chart exactly as they do in D&D. I think they did gain more HD - one at a time - judging from the infamous characters entry where "captains" and "barons" do not have the same HD. So a "hero" level character would advance through 4-7 HD before reaching the next "level" (tier) of Superhero, but all "heroes" may have had the same "to hit" number on the table. Maybe. In anycase it is interesting to note that in D&D draft I have from a Twin Cities source there are two tables - one for monsters and one for "fighters". I seriously wonder if that first monster table had no reference to "HD", but was instead flunky/Hero/Superhero monster vs Armor Class. FFC makes several references to "hero type" and "full value" monsters. I'm also thinking that 'twas Gygax who assigned the HD to monsters and expanded the monster table accordingly. Would explain the closer conformity to CM. So, the historical sequence might be: 1 ) Hits (HP) assigned to monsters and characters. 2) Damage Dice (HD) given to characters, as increasing combat effectiveness as they advance in "level". Individual characters also get bonuses (Fant +2, Svenny +5!) for unknown reasons. 3) new combat table created and Armor Class assigned. 3) "Hit Dice" concept expanded and assigned to monsters based on thier CHAINMAIL ratings as indicator of both "hits" and "level" to match the granularity already systemitized for players. Another question that springs to mind is if one of these proposed bandits encountered a hero character with the characteristics: Attack: Armoured Foot Defend: Armoured Foot Hits: 14 ...would it be a reasonable interpretation to imagine that it would be necessary for there to be at least three light foot figures for him to be under threat of injury, do you think? That would be interesting indeed, given the large number of guards in something like Temple of the Frog, it would certainly build a tendency towards high body counts (I believe that was normal in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign). If armour and weapons are specified, then it might be that in such hero encounters the man-to-man table was made use of in some way. If the mass combat rules were being used on the other hand, then an encounter between an armoured foot hero might look something like: 12 Bandits (Light Foot) versus 1 Hero (Armoured Foot) Bandits roll 1d6 for every three of them, so a total of four dice needing 6+ to score a hit, which does 1d6 damage to the hero. The hero rolls 1d6 four times (since he is worth 4 armoured foot) needing 4+ to hit, and each hit doing 1d6 damage. Yeah, I think that's probably what they were doing, at least prior to the publication of CHAINMAIL in (March?) of '71. After the FCT came out, Arneson switched to whatever his system was, presumably the proto "alternate" table.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 8, 2011 19:20:43 GMT -6
Here is the Nomad entry so you can see what the deal is. "Nomad': Found in the desert, these Nomadic peoples will rarely be found encamped (15%) but more often (85%) as a raiding force. Raiding forces will be composed of one standard type of Cavalry. 65% Horse Archers, 25% Medium Cavalry, 10% Heavy Cavalry. Each force will have a Chieftain leading it or Several Chieftains for a larger force. A ratio of 10% chance of a Hero-type per ten raiders and 10% per 100 for Superhero. Each Nomad carries his personal wealth with him (0 = 1, 100 = 2, 200 = 3, 300 = 4, 400 = 5, 500 = 6) and can lake from 1 - 6 Hits. Prisoners may be sold as Slaves. In the rare times when a Nomad camp is found 15% of the time, more wealth will be found in the camp (100-600 GP per defender) with a mixed Cavalry/Infantry force; 5% Light Foot, 5% Heavy Foot, 5% Armored Foot, 55% Horse Archers, 20% Medium Horse, 10% Heavy Horse. Roll 2 die per 5% of types to gain number of men. Roll 5 for Hero and Superhero types a, with raiding force. For each defender, there are 1-6 non-combatants which may also be captured and sold if camp is taken. Each Nomad Hero and Superhero type has a 10% chance of wielding a Magic Weapon. In the desert sand storms, Nomads fight at double Value and can prevent forces they maintain contact with from finding water." as a comparison, here is a couple of the shorter monster entries: "Trolls and Ogres: These creatures are worth 18 points (or Hits) with variations. Elves get double value Hits while Hero types and Magic Weapons get Hits times six. Generally these creatures are encountered as raiders but about 1/6 of the time, they will be in their lairs. At "Home", they will have from 6 - 36,000 GP value in loot. etc. with protection similar to. ''Gatehouse'' and Galte in their underground lairs entrance. Will take prisoners on raids for food." "True Trolls: Always alone, 36-72 Hits and regenerate 3 Hits every turn they are not attacked. Must be burned or dumped in acid to kill permanently. Wealth 1 - 6,000 GP and 1/3 chance of having Magic Weaponry." Very interesting, indeed. The number of hits a "true troll" has been assigned is surprisingly high, but I guess it basically means 2-4 times as powerful as an ordinary troll or ogre. The lack of other combat information for monsters suggests a basic reliance on Chain Mail, should I suppose? That's an interesting question. As you can see from the couple I posted, they do not contain any weapon info that would apply to the man to man table. Seems a strong indicator that the Man to Man table wasn't expected to be used. I presume Arneson was using whatever his "alternate" table was at this point, but the entries could also work on the FCT. Initially, he tried to expand the FCT by adding new monsters - found it unwieldy and scrapped it to create a new table. My sense is that this new approach was a percentile based flunky/Hero/Superhero (flunkie/captain/lord) vs Armor Class table. Hit Dice were damage dice (at least) - that much is pretty clear. What's unclear is whether player characters progressed through "levels" on the chart exactly as they do in D&D. I think they did gain more HD - one at a time - judging from the infamous characters entry where "captains" and "barons" do not have the same HD. So a "hero" level character would advance through 4-7 HD before reaching the next "level" (tier) of Superhero, but all "heroes" may have had the same "to hit" number on the table. Maybe. Right. It is also worth noticing that the damage ratings in the AD&D Monster Manual for humanoids and demi-humans are quite close to their hit dice: Halfling: HD 1d6; D 1d6. Gnome: HD 1; D 1d6. Dwarf: HD 1; D 1d8. Elf: HD 1+1; D 1d10. Kobold: HD 1d4; D 1d4. Goblin: HD 1−1; 1d6. Orc: HD 1; D 1d8. Hobgoblin: HD 1+1; D 1d8. Of the eight entries, gnomes and hobgoblins are off by a pip each. In any case it is interesting to note that in Arneson OD&D there are two tables - one for monsters and one for "fighters". I'd bet dollars to donuts that that first monster table had no reference to "HD", but was instead flunky/Hero/Superhero monster vs Armor Class. FFC makes several references to "hero type" and "full value" monsters. I'm also thinking that 'twas Gygax who assigned the HD to monsters and expanded the monster table accordingly. Would explain the closer conformity to CM. So, the historical sequence might be: 1 ) Hits (HP) assigned to monsters and characters. 2) Damage Dice (HD) given to characters, as increasing combat effectiveness as they advance in "level". Individual characters also get bonuses (Fant +2, Svenny +5!) for unknown reasons. 3) new combat table created and Armor Class assigned. 3) "Hit Dice" concept expanded and assigned to monsters based on their CHAINMAIL ratings as indicator of both "hits" and "level" to match the granularity already systemitized for players. That seems plausible, though I imagine 1) and 2) were pretty much simultaneously implemented. So at this point we have normal men with 1-6 hit points doing 1-6 damage. I wonder if at sometime between this point and the introduction of armour class there was any distinction for damage by type? That is to say, it might be that: Light Foot = 1−1 (0-5 damage) Heavy Foot = 1 (1-6 damage) Armoured Foot = 1+1 (2-7 damage) It does not seem to have happened for hit points, which supports the idea that they were definitely separated. More likely any indication of 1+1 (such as for berserkers and the like) follows the Chain Mail paradigm. It is worth considering the numbers behind that. A heavy foot figure does: Light Foot: 1 Die per Figure, 5-6+ Heavy Foot: 1 Die per Figure, 6+ Armoured Foot/Light Horse: 1 Die per 2 Figures, 6+ Medium Horse: 1 Die per 3 Figures, 6+ Heavy Horse: 1 Die per 4 Figures, 6+ 1 Die per Figure, 5-6+ has the same probability of scoring a hit as "2 Die per Figure, 6+", but a slightly different spread (there is a 1-in-36 chance of 2 hits and a 10-in-36 chance of 1 hit, as opposed to a 12 in 36 chance of 1 hit). So likely a "+1 to hit" in cases where it is less or more than 1 Die per Figure was meant to be converted to dice, as with the note about figures armed with a halberd or pike doing "1 die more". So... hit dice 1+1 Heavy Foot would be equivalent to Armoured Foot, but it is worth noting that 1+1 Armoured Foot would not function as Medium Horse. The "Horse" combat progressions are a bit troublesome, and I think that I will outline that in a separate thread. Yeah, I think that's probably what they were doing, at least prior to the publication of CHAINMAIL in (March?) of '71. After the FCT came out, Arneson switched to whatever his system was, presumably the proto "alternate" table. Hmmn. I am not very familiar with the pre- Chain Mail situation, but I imagine you are referring to something along the lines of the Castles & Crusades society newsletter circulating with pre- Chain Mail rules? One thing that occurs to me as well now is how fractions were rounded. Say if you only had one or two figures of light foot versus armoured foot. I guess the easiest thing to do is call it an automatic morale failure! ;D
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 8, 2011 21:06:53 GMT -6
Notice the ogre and true troll only really have 3hd and 6hd respectively to the hero as the hero does extra dmg to them, 36 hd to a normal man perhaps but not a hero.
|
|