adjusted attack matrix

[Necropraxis]

In my current game, I decided to adjust some of the numbers in the "men attacking" matrix and tweak slightly how the classes interact with it. Basically, I have 7 columns (which I call attack ranks), from 0 to 6. Untrained combattants Normal people (zero level characters) use column zero. Magic-users and thieves also start out in column zero, clerics start out in column one, and fighters start out in column two. Magic-users never improve, thieves and clerics improve in tiers of four levels, and fighters improve in tiers of three levels. I like this much better than all classes starting on equal footing regarding attack skill, especially since clerics, magic-users, and thieves get so many other useful talents. I also cap max attack rank by class (magic-users at 0, thieves at 2, clerics at 4, and fighters at 6).

I'm sure the influence of the original "alternative combat system" can still be seen (the matrix itself, along with the tiers of advance). I'm curious what people here think of the modifications, however. I hope it will help keep the power curve flatter, and also emphasize the role of the fighter as the primary combattant class.

You can see full details about this here, along with the custom attack matrix:

untimately.blogspot.com/2012/11/adjusted-attack-ranks.html

Also, you might wonder about why I am messing with the matrix rather than just using bonuses and penalties (like perhaps giving fighters an extra innate +2 to attack or something). The reason is that I use pretty much no bonuses at all in my current game, not even with magic weapons (which have interesting properties rather than +1 or whatever).

[inkmeister]

I like it. I've always felt that fighters don' excel enough in combat relative to the other classes. Often, fighters will be just about as good at combat as the other classes, while the other classes can cast spells or turn undead and so on. Fighters have to rely on magical swords, rather than inherent abilities. I'm cool with the rules as written, but I can see the goodness in your approach. Only thing: it looks like you do give the fighter quite a bump at the beginning +2 or so. Not sure I'd go that far.

[cooper]

Nice. I don't like 0 being called "untrained" because 0 technically is a trained fyrd/militia/soldier. 1st level fighting-men are veterans. 1st level Mu don't fight as well as housewives and invalides, they fight as a "normal man" trained in combat. They are a normal man who has learned a spell. Literally.

For your fighting-man, CHAINMAIL says the "leader" or veteran gets a +1 to all die rolls, instead of +2 to hit, give them +1 to hit and +1 damage--this ensures backwards compatability and gives a nice spread of +1 hit, 1+1 HD, and +1 dmg.

[Necropraxis]

Thanks for the feedback.

inkmeister

Yeah, starting at attack rank 2 is a bit much, but I wanted a clear hierarchy of starting combat skill, and I'm not sure how to do that otherwise. Magic-users and thieves start at the same point, but thieves advance while magic-users don't. Clerics and thieves advance at the same speed, but clerics begin slightly more skilled than thieves and can advance further. Fighters start one step past clerics and can advance the furthest. Basically, I would like the fighter to be the most competent at combat right from the start, especially since low levels are probably the most common experience.

cooper

Good point about the use of the word untrained. I agree, and will change it to normal person or something. I'm not sure +1 to attack is enough to distinguish the fighter though, especially if d6 weapon damage is active. A 1+1 HD fighter with +1 to attack with a sword (d6) just doesn't seem that interesting compared to a 1 HD cleric with a mace (d6), a quicker XP progression, and the promise of a spell soon. I suppose the fighter can make use of missile weapons also, if conforming to common interpretations of weapon restrictions.

[inkmeister]

Hey Untimately - I definitely see your logic. I'd gladly play in your game with those rules as written. If it were me tweaking things, however, I'd probably let the Fighting man start out one point better than everyone else, and let clerics, thieves, and magic users all start the same. Clerics and thieves can advance, magic users don't advance, and fighters always advance ahead of everyone else.

[cooper]

1) look at the cleric list of spells he gets at 2nd level. All the spells are really out of combat abilities, detecting magic, healing a wound, purify food and water...And for the ability to make food and water he cannot use a bow (range combat is undervalued and under appreciated).

2) Fighting men have a 24% of finding a usable magic item when treasure is found (20% magic swords and 4% Misc. Weapons), clerics on the other hand have a .008% of finding a usable magic item (4% of misc. magic item and only 20% of those items are maces or hammers). This is a big, big deal.

Of course, clerics can find and use things like staves, wands, scrolls, and such that fighting men cannot, but when it comes to combat, the first 5-10 or 50 magic weapons found in any random campaign will be for fighters and thieves. Which will give them spellcasting abilities (via their magic sword) that rivals that of magic users and clerics of similar levels.

[Alex]

cooper, 2 corrections are in order.
1. The cleric odds of finding a usable magic weapon are 0.8% (0.008 of 1). You mixed your decimals and percentages.
2. Clerics can find, but not use, wands. M&T makes notes that all wands are usable only by magic-users.