How Many Hits Does It Take?

[Deleted]

I wonder if someone could clear something up for me. I have just started reading through the OD&D books and came across many things that Id like to get some clarification on.
On pg 5 of M&T it says under Attack/Defense" capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit dice, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 to the die roll."
Am I to infer from this rule, that a creature ( this includes men types) get to make as many attacks per round as their Hit Die, and one of those attacks (in the case of a 3+3 monster for example) would be at a modifier. This is a rule Ive never seen in any of the later editions I own and I find very curious. This would indeed make a Troll deadly if it gets 6 attacks a round and one at +3 instead of just one attack or claw, claw, bite like later variations.

Feedback?

[Sean Michael Kelly]

If you're using the Chainmail rules, yes.

[Deleted]

Yea I dont have those rules Im running B/X

[waysoftheearth]

May 7, 2012 18:52:53 GMT -6 @yawningportal said:

I wonder if someone could clear something up for me. I have just started reading through the OD&D books and came across many things that Id like to get some clarification on.
On pg 5 of M&T it says under Attack/Defense" capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit dice, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 to the die roll."
Am I to infer from this rule, that a creature ( this includes men types) get to make as many attacks per round as their Hit Die, and one of those attacks (in the case of a 3+3 monster for example) would be at a modifier. This is a rule Ive never seen in any of the later editions I own and I find very curious. This would indeed make a Troll deadly if it gets 6 attacks a round and one at +3 instead of just one attack or claw, claw, bite like later variations.

Feedback?

Hi Yawningportal, and welcome

Yes indeed, you have it correct.

The one clarification is that multiple attacks apply versus normal men only. The meaning of "normal men" is effectively "creatures with 1 HD or fewer", so multiple attacks are applicable only versus opposition with 1 or fewer HD.

An explicit example of this rule in action is given in the FAQ article in The Strategic Review.

Note also that because a level 1 fighter has 1+1 HD, he;
a) is never subject to multiple attacks, and
b) attacks at +1 on the die versus 1 HD enemy.


Regarding the other editions, a slight variation of this rule was carried over into AD&D as multiple attacks for fighters only against 1 HD enemy.

[Mushgnome]

May 7, 2012 18:52:53 GMT -6 @yawningportal said:

I wonder if someone could clear something up for me. I have just started reading through the OD&D books and came across many things that Id like to get some clarification on.
On pg 5 of M&T it says under Attack/Defense" capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit dice, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 to the die roll."
Am I to infer from this rule, that a creature ( this includes men types) get to make as many attacks per round as their Hit Die, and one of those attacks (in the case of a 3+3 monster for example) would be at a modifier. This is a rule Ive never seen in any of the later editions I own and I find very curious. This would indeed make a Troll deadly if it gets 6 attacks a round and one at +3 instead of just one attack or claw, claw, bite like later variations.

Feedback?

It only makes sense in the context of Chainmail. The to-hit target number does not improve with level/hit dice in Chainmail, so 6 attacks at normal probability (Chainmail) is mathematically roughly equivalent to 3 attacks at double to-hit probability (D&D).

If you are using D&D combat ("alternate combat" using d20's) then you may safely ignore any and all references to Chainmail in D&D.

[Deleted]

Ahh that clears things up a bit. I know that fighters of higher level get multiple attacks against less than 1 HD creatures later variations like AD&D. I adopted that as well for my B/X rules- but I just gave all fighters "cleave" ability- being that they can get an extra attack upon an opponent within reach if they down an opponent- this means they can mow through goblins and the like at higher levels, but not as likely to be as effective against creatures of the same HD as the fighter.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I never played the 1st edition rules of D&D, but finally purchased a few of the books on E bay and thought Id read them through to see what they had to say.

I was surprised that they seem to give 100 exp per HD of creature ( counting a 6+1 creature as a 7 HD). Which is interesting that this was greatly reduced for B/X, AD+D but then in 3rd edition it was reintroduced ( and to some degree increased).

[Deleted]

Yea I havnt managed to get my hands on Chainmale yet ( I used to own all this stuff 30+ y rs ago, but got rid of it since we were playing AD&D at the time). I hope to get my hands on a copy some day so I can peruse the game mechanics.

[waysoftheearth]

Gentlefolk,

The FAQ includes an explicit example of how multiple attacks are applied in the context of the alternative combat system:

"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)".

Hence, we know that the multiple the attack rule is not "Chainmail only".

[talysman]

I believe the bonus (as described for the troll) only applies when using Chainmail, though. Although it would be interesting to apply it to the alternative combat system.

Since the d20 roll for a 1st level type to hit a target wearing chain is about equivalent to a 5+ on 1d6, I've considered using a pseudo-Chainmail system when dealing with combat against 1 HD or less creatures: Fighters roll their hit dice in d6s, +1 to roll if opponents are in light or no armor, -1 if in plate, every result of 5+ is a kill. That should make combat go faster. I probably wouldn't give that option to M-Us, because they can do the multi-dice thing when using ranged damage spells like Fireball.

[Mushgnome]

May 7, 2012 21:13:27 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Gentlefolk,

The FAQ includes an explicit example of how multiple attacks are applied in the context of the alternative combat system:

"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)".

Hence, we know that the multiple the attack rule is not "Chainmail only".

TBH I never liked or understood the "multiple attacks vs. 1hd or less" rule. It bothers me that there's a big jump with nothing in between from a Superhero attacking 8 men, 8 goblins (1-1hd) or 8 orcs (1hd), but only 1 hobgoblin (1+1hd) or 1 dragon (many hd).

Chainmail allows granularity; a Heavy Foot Superhero can attack vs. 8 normal men, or 4 armored footmen/light horsemen, 3 medium horse, 2 heavy horse, or 1 fantasy creature (Balrog, Dragon, Ent, and so forth).

I will say this about Chainmail: reading it has really brought those classic Monster Manual entries to life. It all makes sense to me now, for example when Gygax breaks down light foot/archer/mounted troop-type ratios in detail, or gives unit heirarchies like "for every 20 encountered there will be a lieutenant with 2hd, for every 50 there will be 1d6 ogres, if encountered in the lair there will 2-20 young (fight as goblins) and a shaman of level 4-8..."

[talysman]

May 7, 2012 22:35:19 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

TBH I never liked or understood the "multiple attacks vs. 1hd or less" rule. It bothers me that there's a big jump with nothing in between from a Superhero attacking 8 men, 8 goblins (1-1hd) or 8 orcs (1hd), but only 1 hobgoblin (1+1hd) or 1 dragon (many hd).

Easy to fix. I now have a house rule that the multiple attacks applies to opponent hit dice rather than opponents. This only applies to more or less mundane creatures, though; anything with magical or unnatural defenses or behaviors requires 1 on 1 combat.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree completely that the rules around multiple attacks present a great opportunity to house rule. I was merely pointing out what appears in the 3LBBs + FAQ

[Sean Michael Kelly]

When we play with the "normal" mass combat Chainmail rules. A "hit" on a hit-die = a "kill" on the opponent hit die. (i.e. no "hit point" granularity) So, under those rules, a 4-HD Fighter (aka Hero) can be "hit" 4 times. Each time he is hit, he loses a HD (and the corresponding attack) This is simply emulating the evolution of the Chainmail system to a 1:1 with "experience levels." A 4HD fights as 4 "fighting men" all killed on the roll of a 6, in many cases, on the HD.

It gets messy if you go back and forth with combat systems that way though.... Our last game used that system for the entire session. It was quick, fun and certainly "crunch-lite." It made some of the scenarios much more manageable (for example a part of 7 fourth-level PC's against 36 goblins.) Remember that MU's at 4th level only have 2 HD's plus 1 added to one of the two d6 rolls.

Apart from the lack of a "defense roll" it's a lot like playing "Heroscape" where you roll a few dice, count the "kills" and the next person goes.

[Deleted]

May 7, 2012 22:35:19 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

TBH I never liked or understood the "multiple attacks vs. 1hd or less" rule.

I always held the opinion it was an attempt to introduce the fantastic into Chainmail and D&D combat. This particular ruling always calls to mind the scene in LOTR when Boromir is found surrounded by the many orcs he has vanquished.

Remember, too, if a higher level or hit dice leader is present? Multiple attacks are disallowed. So a group of goblins led by an Evil High Priest will be a lot deadlier until the EHP is dealt with.

[aldarron]

May 7, 2012 21:13:27 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Gentlefolk,

The FAQ includes an explicit example of how multiple attacks are applied in the context of the alternative combat system:

"A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on)".

Hence, we know that the multiple the attack rule is not "Chainmail only".

I'm not so sure that's whats meant. Here is the whole quote

The regular CHAINMAIL system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc. It is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters.

When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).

Considerations such as weapon-type, damage by weapon-type, and damage by monster attack tables appear in the first booklet to be added to the D & D series --SUPPLEMENT I, GREYHAWK, which should be available about the time this publication is, or shortly thereafter.

I understood Fantastic Combat to be refering to the Fantasy Combat table in CHAINMAIL, and it looks to me like Gygax is still talking CM when he then refers to a super hero.

I think it's a great rule to use with the "alternate" system, but I'm not sure that's what Gygax meant.

[waysoftheearth]

Aldaron you haven't really posted "the whole quote". Had you, it would be quite plain that the article is all about explaining the alternative combat system.

For those who may not have a copy, the article begins with a paragraph of preamble that explains how space limitations meant the 3LBBS couldn't include everything they would have liked.

The article then begins properly in the next paragraph with:

Combat
CHAINMAIL is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The "Man-To-Man" and "Fantasy Supplement" sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size. The regular CHAINMAIL system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc. It is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters.

(emphasis added)

The distilled version of this is:
1. Chainmail is for BIG tabletop battles.
2. Chainmail's Man-to-Man and Fantasy-Supplements are for small tabletop battles.
3. The Alternative Combat System is for D&D combat involving PCs.


It then immediately (in the very next paragraph) goes on to say:

When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).

(emphasis added)

Are we to suppose now, that in his article on explaining D&D combat, that EGG advocates use of the alternative combat system for D&D in one breath, and then in the next breath explains how Chainmail works?

Are we now to believe that EGG recommends that "a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds" in Chainmail combat?


However unlikely I may believe either of those to be, it is all academic anyway because in the combat example that follows EGG illustrates that Orcs (1 HD) roll one 20-sided die each to attack a Hero, while the Hero (4 HD) rolls four 20-sided dice to attack the (1 HD) orcs four times. He rolls 19, 1, 16, 9 and two out of his four blows are struck.

What more do we need?

[Mushgnome]

I agree the quote from Gygax is a little confusing, but Greyhawk Supplement clarifies it nicely.

[aldarron]

May 9, 2012 3:25:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Aldaron you haven't really posted "the whole quote". Had you, it would be quite plain that the article is all about explaining the alternative combat system.

For those who may not have a copy, the article begins with a paragraph of preamble that explains how space limitations meant the 3LBBS couldn't include everything they would have liked.

The article then begins properly in the next paragraph with:

Combat
CHAINMAIL is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The "Man-To-Man" and "Fantasy Supplement" sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size. The regular CHAINMAIL system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc. It is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters.

(emphasis added)

The distilled version of this is:
1. Chainmail is for BIG tabletop battles.
2. Chainmail's Man-to-Man and Fantasy-Supplements are for small tabletop battles.
3. The Alternative Combat System is for D&D combat involving PCs.

I don't see how you read the introductory paragrph, as a lead in to being exclusively "all about explaining the alternative combat system." <shrug> but no argument regarding the distillation.

May 9, 2012 3:25:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

....
Are we to suppose now, that in his article on explaining D&D combat, that EGG advocates use of the alternative combat system for D&D in one breath, and then in the next breath explains how Chainmail works?

Why not? It's just an explanation.

May 9, 2012 3:25:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Are we now to believe that EGG recommends that "a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds" in Chainmail combat?

Yes, because that is exactly what you should do if you wanted to use the FCT for D&D.

May 9, 2012 3:25:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

However unlikely I may believe either of those to be, it is all academic anyway because in the combat example that follows EGG illustrates that Orcs (1 HD) roll one 20-sided die each to attack a Hero, while the Hero (4 HD) rolls four 20-sided dice to attack the (1 HD) orcs four times. He rolls 19, 1, 16, 9 and two out of his four blows are struck.

What more do we need?

I agree that's all the proof you need to demonstrate the use of the rule in d20 combat. So probably that is what he meant although it is weird that he referred to "fantastic combat" as if it is a synonym for anything greater than 1HD.

[Mushgnome]

Reading between the lines, it is fairly obvious to me that Gygax is saying: the Chainmail Fantasy Combat Table doesn't work for a 1:1 scale fantasy role-playing game like D&D, and the Alternate Combat System supersedes it.

The FCT is basically just a quick rock-paper-scissor mechanic to determine which "chess piece" should be removed from the table. It's not satisfying for a party of D&D PCs with various hit points, weapons, armor, potions, etc.

Does anyone remember the C64 game Archon?

[aldarron]

Okay that "fantastic combat" thing is still bugging me. In CHAINMAIL different rules apply when a fantastic creature fights another fantastic creature (they use the FCT). When fantastic and normal opponents mix it up, they use the usual combat tables.

Gygax is making the same kind of distinction in the quote above; that is "fantastic" opponents = 1 attack each but "normal" (man sized) opponents are open to multiple attacks from fantastic creatures.

Normal man sized creatures has always been explained just as ways said "

May 7, 2012 20:00:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

effectively "creatures with 1 HD or fewer", so multiple attacks are applicable only versus opposition with 1 or fewer HD.

and I've never thought twice about it before.

Does anybody know where that explanation originates?

I'm asking because the FAQ and 3lbb rule doesn't say anything about HD, and could be read to mean any "non-fantastic" creature of approximately man size, regardless of HD.

[Mushgnome]

May 9, 2012 20:01:25 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Okay that "fantastic combat" thing is still bugging me. In CHAINMAIL different rules apply when a fantastic creature fights another fantastic creature (they use the FCT). When fantastic and normal opponents mix it up, they use the usual combat tables.

Gygax is making the same kind of distinction in the quote above; that is "fantastic" opponents = 1 attack each but "normal" (man sized) opponents are open to multiple attacks from fantastic creatures.

Normal man sized creatures has always been explained just as ways said "

May 7, 2012 20:00:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

effectively "creatures with 1 HD or fewer", so multiple attacks are applicable only versus opposition with 1 or fewer HD.

and I've never thought twice about it before.

Does anybody know where that explanation originates?

I'm asking because the FAQ and 3lbb rule doesn't say anything about HD, and could be read to mean any "non-fantastic" creature of approximately man size, regardless of HD.

Interesting comments. A strong argument could be made that the cutoff should be somewhere around 3HD, since a 3rd level Fighting Man gains the fighting capability of "Hero-1" implying that is the level at which they become "fantastic."

[waysoftheearth]

May 9, 2012 7:39:30 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

I agree the quote from Gygax is a little confusing, but Greyhawk Supplement clarifies it nicely.

What do you mean here, Mushgnome? Can you share the quote from Greyhawk?

[Mushgnome]

May 9, 2012 20:44:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

May 9, 2012 7:39:30 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

I agree the quote from Gygax is a little confusing, but Greyhawk Supplement clarifies it nicely.

What do you mean here, Mushgnome? Can you share the quote from Greyhawk?

No specific quote; it's just obvious to me that the 3LBB's do not contain the complete "Gygaxian combat system" as laid out in 3LLB's + Greyhawk or AD&D. The only conclusion I can draw is that there was last-minute debate over what "the" D&D combat system was going to be, and that it was published half-baked and poorly edited, with the intention each of the authors would shortly release their own Supplement to clarify their vision.

The 3LLB's are conspicuous in their complete lack of rock-paper-scissors tactical decision-making, an omission which seems very un-Gygax to me compared with Chainmail, Greyhawk, and AD&D. There is a list of 2 dozen or so weapons, but absolutely no explanation of why I should choose one over another. Striking when compared to, for example, the polearm chapter of Unearthed Arcana.

[waysoftheearth]

May 9, 2012 20:01:25 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Normal man sized creatures has always been explained just as ways said "

May 7, 2012 20:00:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

effectively "creatures with 1 HD or fewer", so multiple attacks are applicable only versus opposition with 1 or fewer HD.

and I've never thought twice about it before.

...

I'm asking because the FAQ and 3lbb rule doesn't say anything about HD, and could be read to mean any "non-fantastic" creature of approximately man size, regardless of HD.

You're spot on, Aldaron. Possibly this is a case of "knowledge" from later editions that has secretly infiltrated OD&D!

I have just searched the 3LBBs through and through for references to "normal man", "man type" and "human type", and found no reference whatever to any 1 HD limit. Quite the reverse in fact...


References to MAN-TYPEs

FAQ:
where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc.

(elves and hobgoblins are mentioned explicitly even though these are 1+1 HD).


M&T p5
capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die

M&T p9:
(Ghouls) Any man-type killed by a Ghoul becomes one
(Wights) Men-types killed by Wights become Wights.
(Spectres) Men-types killed by Spectres become Spectres
(Vampires) They Charm men-types merely by looking into their eyes

M&T p10:
(Vampires) Men-types killed by Vampires become Vampires


U&WA p18:
lists various monsters under the heading Men including:
Berserkers 1+1 HD
Cavemen 2 HD
Dervishes 1+1 HD
Mermen 1+1 HD
Necromancer 7 HD
Wizard 8+1 HD
Lord 9+3 HD
Superhero 8+2 HD
Evil High Priest 7 HD
Patriarch 7 HD
Martians ? HD
Tharks ? HD


References to HUMAN TYPEs

M&T p10
(Medusae) A human-type monster with the lower body of a snake, a human torso and head, with tresses which are asps.

M&T p37
(helm of telepathy) If his Intelligence rating is greater than that of human or humanoid creatures within the range

M&T p38
(mirror of life trapping) A mirror of about the size of a buckler, which traps the life-force of any human (including Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes) who looks into it.

Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes are considered "human-enough".


References to NORMAL MEN

M&M p19
(Attack Matrix I) Normal men equal 1st level fighters.

M&M p26
(Protection from normal missiles) missiles projected by normal (not above normal) men and/or weapons.

(Polymorph others) a troll polymorphed into a snail would have innate resistance to being stepped on and crushed by a normal man.

M&T p5
(Attack/Defense) capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die

(Bandits) Although Bandits are normal men, they will have leaders who are supernormal fighters, magical types or clerical types.

M&T p6
(Berserkers) When fighting normal men they add +2 to their dice score when rolling due to their ferocity.

M&T p9
(Ghouls) Ghouls paralize any normal figure they touch, excluding Elves.

(implies that 1+1 HD elves are "normal figures", i.e., normal men).

M&T p19
(Elementals) No Elemental may be hit by normal men unless magically armed.

M&T p32
(potion of heroism) makes a normal man act like a hero in all respects


It seems apparent from the above that various 1+1 HD monsters including at least berserkers, dervishes, elves and hobgoblins are considered to be normal men. 1+1 mermen and 2 HD cavemen might also be considered to be normal men, if you consider their classification as Men on the random encounter tables to be significant.


Therefore, it seems reasonable that a fighter's multiple attacks are applicable against these too (almost exactly as Mushgnome argued above).


Here are all of the 1 or fewer HD monsters given in M&T (Halflings are not listed).

Kobolds 1/2 HD
Goblins 1-1 HD
Dwarves 1 HD
Men 1 HD
Orcs 1 HD
Skeletons 1/2 HD
Zombies 1 HD
Nixies 1 HD
Pixies 1 HD
Gnomes 1 HD

Of these, only Skeletons, Zombies, Pixies and Nixies are not mentioned explicitly (personally, I think it reasonably to include Halfings with Men).


So what to do about Skeletons, Zombies, Nixies, Pixies..?

[aldarron]

That's really great work, once again Simon!

I think mushgnome's suggestion of 3rd level fighters achieving "fantastic" status makes a certain amount of sense, although this quote

May 10, 2012 3:00:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

(Bandits) Although Bandits are normal men, they will have leaders who are supernormal fighters, magical types or clerical types.

Would seem to indicate that all "leveled" characters are fantastic.
(which BTW is the way it's handled in CoZ currently)

May 10, 2012 3:00:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So what to do about Skeletons, Zombies, Nixies, Pixies..?

Being magical or enchanted creatures, they qualify as fantastic and not subject to the rule, I suppose. Personally though I don't think I would exempt skeletons and zombies.

I have to say that I always thought the 1HD or less rule to be an interesting difference between Gygax, Arneson and Barker. Barker of course in EPT has the multiple dice table based on level, and Arneson's version of "cleave" seemed to apply to any "lesser foes". However looking at it more closely as you have done, suggests that Arneson and Gygax were using exactly the same rule and it was Barker who framed it differently.

[waysoftheearth]

May 10, 2012 5:37:46 GMT -6 aldarron said:

May 10, 2012 3:00:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

(Bandits) Although Bandits are normal men, they will have leaders who are supernormal fighters, magical types or clerical types.

Would seem to indicate that all "leveled" characters are fantastic.

All bandit leaders are minimum 4th level, of course, so Mushgnome's 3 HD limit still looks "plausible".

[cooper]

Therefore, it seems reasonable that a fighter's multiple attacks are applicable against these too (almost exactly as Mushgnome argued above).

it's not just fighters, every class can have multiple attacks using CM.

[aldarron]

May 9, 2012 21:07:51 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

....; it's just obvious to me that the 3LBB's do not contain the complete "Gygaxian combat system" as laid out in 3LLB's + Greyhawk or AD&D. The only conclusion I can draw is that there was last-minute debate over what "the" D&D combat system was going to be, and that it was published half-baked and poorly edited, with the intention each of the authors would shortly release their own Supplement to clarify their vision.

....

Well, Gygax published the system he was using during playtesting. Arneson wasn't involved in final publication. Basically it appears that Arneson created a fairly straightforward percentile based level vs. AC table and brought it with him to Lake Geneva when he ran Gary, Rob and company through their first dungeon adventure. In any case, Gary used the level ve AC method "from the start" but converted to d20 and changed things in who-knows-what ways and and continued to add ideas and methods to the basic system all the way through Unearthed Arcana. The CHAINMAIL references were added in for backwards compatibility for those familiar with it, and perhaps to increase sales.

[Finarvyn]

And again we see the frustration of OD&D and CHAINMAIL and how the two never quite meet in the middle. The best solution is that each person will have to decide which rules best fit together as they interpret the rulebooks and go with that. I suppose that every post should start with "the way I read it..." or "in my campaign..." since there isn't really a single interpretation.

Sadly, we'll never agree 100% on any of this, which is why we're still discussing it 35 years later.

[Mushgnome]

I'm going to have to deal with this soon, because some of the PC's in my Chainmail campaign are about to reach 3rd level, therefore gaining the ability to attack on the Fantasy table as Hero-1.

My original inclination was not to use FCT at all, because I think it's silly. For example an Armored Warrior fighting an Ogre (defends as Heavy Foot) on mass combat rolls 1d6 and needs 5+ to "kill" (hit for 1d6 damage in D&D), a 33% probability. (If you allow him to attack as 3 Men then the odds of at least one hit are higher, and up to 3d6 damage is possible.) Then our hero achieves the rank of Swordsman and gains the "benefit" of using the Fantasy Combat Table. Now he rolls 2d6 and needs 10+ to "kill" (1d6 damage), dropping his odds to 17%!

But last night this occurred to me, a way to adapt an existing game mechanic...

What if... A successful hit on the FCT allows you to roll your hit dice in damage, and the target gets to save for half? Kind of like a breath weapon... Our hero has reduced "to hit" but it is a trade-off for inflicting up to 3d6 damage. Makes it an interesting tactical decision...