Get yer Fighting Man Back (from Chainmail)

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 1, 2013 9:10:46 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Perhaps, and this is me only speculating, Gary used the term "combat levels" to describe levels in Fighter or fighter subclasses. This would tie this FAQ in with how the rule eventually ended up in AD&D. This would mean that all classes get one attack her HD against 1 HD monsters while only high level fighters can get extra attacks against creatures with 2HD or more.

Another possibility might be that "combat levels" refers to the increments in "Fighting Capability" on the class level charts.

In this case, the Hero and Superhero examples in the FAQ (4 and 8 attacks, respectively) and also the Troll example in M&T still work out neatly, because -- according to CM -- Heroes and Superheroes have 4 and 8 attacks, and Trolls "have a melee capability of six Heavy Foot", and thus attack 6 times.

But meanwhile a cleric attains the Hero "fighting level" (i.e., 4 attacks per round) at 7th level, when he has 6 HD.

A magic-user attains Hero "fighting level" at 8th level, when he has 5 HD.


edit: fixed quote

[Stormcrow]

Mar 1, 2013 17:26:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Illuminating some of the obscure nuances of the "D&D, as written" is what these discussions are primarily about!

"As played" by the people who created it.

Whenever someone points out that you're not describing D&D as it actually appears in the books, you can dodge behind "I can make the system my own"; whenever someone points out that you're not describing the system as it was actually played by its inventors, you can dodge behind "we're just speculating on the meaning of the text." I see a lot of dodging going on.

It would be helpful if one explained how one is approaching a topic:

"I want to understand how the text was intended to be interpreted"

"I want to understand how the original players actually played"

"I want to improve my game by talking about useful ideas"

Pick one of these and stand by it. That way we can all understand your approach and answer appropriately. Looking through the responses to this topic so far, I honestly can't tell which of these is being deployed by whom.

[Vile Traveller]

Mar 2, 2013 19:57:55 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 1, 2013 17:26:55 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Illuminating some of the obscure nuances of the "D&D, as written" is what these discussions are primarily about!

"I want to understand how the text was intended to be interpreted"

This is what is of most interest to me personally, YMMV. I'd like to see how the rules are supposed to work, even if they don't. I'm less interested in how others, even the original players, actually applied them at the table, because it's the intent at the time of writing that piques my interest.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 2, 2013 19:57:55 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

It would be helpful if one explained how one is approaching a topic:

"I want to understand how the text was intended to be interpreted"

"I want to understand how the original players actually played"

"I want to improve my game by talking about useful ideas"

Looking through the responses to this topic so far, I honestly can't tell which of these is being deployed by whom.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me specifically, Stormcrow, or the readership in general. But for my part I'm primarily interested in: "What the rules actually state."

What is written may well vary from what was intended, or how it was originally played. However, what is written in print is there for all to see, while divining "what was intended", or "what was done" previous can be genuinely tricky -- especially for those of use who weren't there first hand.

[Deleted]

One could always talk to those who WERE there, and figure that "The way the writers of the rules, played the rules, is how the rules were intended to be played."


.....naaaaah!

[Deleted]

My apologies. I meant no offense to anyone and I certainly didn't intend to imply this was anything more than a fun "what if" discussion.

I'm [EOT].

[Stormcrow]

Mar 2, 2013 21:38:02 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 2, 2013 19:57:55 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

But for my part I'm primarily interested in: "What the rules actually state."

If you're going to distinguish between "what the rules actually state" and "what the writers intended the rules to mean," then all you can do for the former is quote text. But you're reading between the lines—in my opinion, far beyond what's actually there—then that's a question of interpreting the meaning of the text, not just the facts of the text, and that requires understanding what the writers had in mind.

For example, if the writer says "the fighter gets one attack per combat level," you now have to decide what exactly the writer means by "combat level." You can't distinguish what this actually means from what the writer intends it to mean, as the text never explicitly defines the term.

Anyway, I'm sorry to derail the topic. I just come across this issue often on this forum, and wanted to express my opinion on how communication can be improved.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 2, 2013 22:30:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

One could always talk to those who WERE there, and figure that "The way the writers of the rules, played the rules, is how the rules were intended to be played."

I've asked Tim Kask exactly how those funky initiative rules in Eldritch Wizardry are supposed to work, and got a dodge. I don't think he remembers.

[Deleted]

Mar 3, 2013 12:43:59 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 2, 2013 22:30:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

One could always talk to those who WERE there, and figure that "The way the writers of the rules, played the rules, is how the rules were intended to be played."

I've asked Tim Kask exactly how those funky initiative rules in Eldritch Wizardry are supposed to work, and got a dodge. I don't think he remembers.

Horse manure. He said he'd have to look them up. Believe it or not, how some rules written almost FORTY YEARS AGO are supposed to work, is NOT necessarily the first thing on our minds.

I read that exchange on FB. You are GROSSLY and unfairly mischaracterizing Tim's response.

[Vile Traveller]

Mar 3, 2013 12:43:59 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

I don't think he remembers.

Mar 3, 2013 15:41:32 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

He said he'd have to look them up.

I dunno, in my reading both of those are pretty much the same thing, aren't they? I certainly have no exact memory of anything I wrote 40 years ago and I have a pretty good long-term memory.

Anyway, I think the original premise of this thread is still fun, so I hope it keeps going.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 3, 2013 15:41:32 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I read that exchange on FB. You are GROSSLY and unfairly mischaracterizing Tim's response.

It was on Dragonsfoot; here's a link to the post. He didn't really answer any of my questions.

Hard to remember after many decades? Sure, I believe it. But that's kind of the point: we can ask those of you who were there, but you may not remember, or you may misremember.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 23, 2013 8:49:01 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Morale checks and magical fear are entirely different things. No PC in any version of D&D has been required to take ordinary morale checks.

That's one perfectly reasonable interpretation Hedgehobbit.

It's worthwhile noting, however, that the 3LBBs say:

Drums of Panic: The beating of these kettle drums will cause men and fantastic creatures who fail to make their morale throw to flee in rout (for morale throw use saving throw vs. magic).

(M&T p37)

Thus, a magic item which causes magical panic causes men and monsters to make a morale throw.

So we have it first hand that morale checks and magical panic, at least, are not entirely unrelated

edit:

And additionally, the 3LBBs also say:

Heroism: A dual action potion which makes a normal man act like a hero in all respects, including morale and combat.

(M&T p32)

Informing us that an OD&D Hero (a 4th level OD&D fighting-man) certainly does have the benefit of superior morale. We can assume, I believe, that the morale benefits referred to here are those described in Chainmail.

[Deleted]

Sorry for the necro threading, but here's a pertinent anecdote I think...
I only once got to play in one of Gary's games, a too-large game at GenCon 7 or 8 (Horticultural Hall and the American Legion in Lake Geneva, the one where Judge's Guild first showed the City State map and took subscriptions).

We had a gaggle of about 15 newly rolled PCs at a long table in the Legion Hall, and just before playing Greg Swenson from Gary's local group turned up and his fighter, The Great Svenny, something like level 12-15, "escorted" us on a Greyhawk run. We were in an interminable spiral staircase and eventually beset by a large horde of orcs. I forget the exact sequencing, but in each round the fighters among us each attacked once conventionally and Svenny rolled 2D6 for how many orcs he killed. No attack roll, kept it simple, but because of the extreme level difference, the rest of us were pretty much pointless to be there other than as Greyhawk tourists. So it was a mechanically simplified example of the Superhero kills lots of mooks each combat round version.

[Stormcrow]

Makes sense. Level 13–15 Lords need a 4 (85%) to hit Orcs' armor class of 6. If we ignore the effects of any magic weapons he may have had, he's got a 50% chance to kill the average Orc with a single blow. Let's say he's level 14: 85% of 14 is about 12 Orcs; 50% of those are 6 Orcs. That's close to the average roll on 2d6. Sounds reasonable.

[cooper]

A good thread. Re: number of rounds. There's no need to arbitrarily limit it to 3 per turn if you:

1) adhere to CHAINMAIL movement rates which reset every turn (not round). But this required miniatures to gauge when figures are out of melee range (and thus necessitates a new turn).

2) just give heroes as many attacks as they have per HD, but this causes a bloodbath and difficulty in fleeing combat.

This requirement of miniatures and the bloodbath of CM combat are the two explicite reasons why Gary abandoned both of these rules. This is the exact point he made in dragon magazine when he explained that rounds would become 1 minute long and abstractly represent feints and parries and grant only 1 telling blow. He wanted characters to be able to withdraw from battle with an ogre (let's say) and not be subject to 4 attacks and a limited movement range.

Gary abandoned simulation for swashbuckling cinamatic. Granted that Od&d doesn't really give the wizard combat spells usable outside of mass combat this is balanced.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 17, 2013 12:07:45 GMT -6 cooper said:

This requirement of miniatures and the bloodbath of CM combat are the two explicite reasons why Gary abandoned both of these rules. This is the exact point he made in dragon magazine when he explained that rounds would become 1 minute long and abstractly represent feints and parries and grant only 1 telling blow. He wanted characters to be able to withdraw from battle with an ogre (let's say) and not be subject to 4 attacks and a limited movement range.

You're clearly misreading or misremembering Gary's excellent article in The Dragon #15: "D&D Ground and Spell Area Scale," where he says,

As D&D grew from CHAINMAIL, it too used the same scale assumptions as its basis. Changes had to be made, however, in order to meet the 1:1 figure ratio and the underground setting. Movement was adjusted to a period ten times longer than a CHAINMAIL turn of 1 minute, as exploring and mapping in an underground dungeon is slow work. Combat, however, stayed at the CHAINMAIL norm and was renamed a melee round or simply round. As the object of the game was to provide a continuing campaign where players created and developed game personae, the chance for death (of either character or monster) was reduced from that in CHAINMAIL, so that players could withdraw their characters from unfavorable combat situations. Missile ranges were reduced by one-third (from scale yards to scale feet because of the confined area of play and the conditions prevailing, viz. low ceilings, darkness, narrow passages, etc. The range and area of effect of each magic spell was adjusted accordingly, for the 1:1 ratio had to be considered, as did the conditions of the area of activity and the ranges of normal missile weapons. (Remember that D&D was developed as a game, and allowances for balance between character roles and character versus monster confrontations were made.)

Chainmail combat scale did not change when becoming D&D; exploration movement increased. You're somewhat correct about your "bloodbath" point, but what was done was to give characters hit points, rather than continuing to let hits equal kills. Fantastic creatures retained their Chainmail advantage in D&D, where they get one attack per hit die against normals.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 17, 2013 10:53:44 GMT -6 @edallen said:

the fighters among us each attacked once conventionally and Svenny rolled 2D6 for how many orcs he killed. No attack roll, kept it simple, but because of the extreme level difference, the rest of us were pretty much pointless to be there other than as Greyhawk tourists. So it was a mechanically simplified example of the Superhero kills lots of mooks each combat round version.

Thanks for sharing @edallen, that's a neat thing to know about.

I did some figuring and the 2d6 kills per turn is pretty much spot on if we assume the FAQ version of OD&D multiple attacks rules. But how does that compare to the other combat systems..?



Man-to-Man

On the MTM tables the mean score required on 2d6 for a successful kill versus leather&shield (AC6) across all weapons types (except for pole-arms, halbards, pikes, and lances) is 8. There is a 41.67% chance of rolling an 8+ on 2d6.

However U&WA advises (p25) that, should the MTM combat system be used, a kill is considered a hit only. This introduces a 0.5833 probability that a 1 HD creature will be killed by a normal hit.

If we presume that Svenny would have one attack per HD then, as a 14th level fighter with 12+1 HD, he would have 12 attacks, and would kill an average of 3 orcs per turn:

12 x 0.4167 x 0.5833 = 2.917 (~3 orcs)

If we presume instead that Svenny would have one attack per level then he would have 14 attacks, and would still kill an average of 3 orcs per turn:

14 x 0.4167 x 0.5833 = 3.403 (~3 orcs)

If we instead use his fighting capability (a 14th level fighter has FC of superhero+2) then he has 8 attacks but requires a roll of 6 on 2d6 rather than 8. There is a 72.22% chance of rolling a 6+ on 2d6, so Svenny would still kill an average of 3 orcs per turn:

8 x 0.7222 x 0.5833 = 3.370 (~3 orcs)


What about the Alternative Combat System?

The multiple attacks mechanic is described firstly in M&T (albeit extremely briefly), and then again in the FAQ article. The FAQ altered what appeared in M&T substantially, so I'll treat each version separately here:


Alternative Combat System (as per M&T)

Our 14th level fighter has 12+1 HD.
According to M&T (p5) he would therefore have 12 attacks as a normal man. He would hit AC6 with a roll of 13+ on a d20 (40% likely), and kill an orc on 58.33% of hits. By this method Svenny would also kill an average of 3 orcs per turn:

12 x 0.4 x 0.5833 = 2.800 (~3 orcs)


Alternative Combat System (as per FAQ)

According to the FAQ a fighter has one attack per "combat level" and attacks at his actual experience level. Presuming a "combat level" is a "fighter level" then our 14th level fighting-man would have 14 attacks as a 14th level fighter. He would hit AC6 with a roll of 4+ on a d20 (85% likely) and kill an orc on 58.33% of hits. By this method our fighter is now more than twice as deadly as he was by all the previous methods, killing an average of 7 orcs per turn:

14 x 0.85 x 0.5833 = 6.941 (~7 orcs)


7 orcs per turn is also the average number of kills Svenny would have achieved with the "2d6 kills" method, which is kind of neat. But clearly it would only work this "perfectly" at particular experience levels and ACs.

On the other hand, it's clear that the ACS+FAQ method of resolving multiple attacks is twice as deadly as the previous methods because it combines increasing number of attack rolls with increasing probability of hitting. Essentially, it's double dipping.

While this at first seems great for the 14th level fighter we need to consider that it "cuts both ways"; low level PCs are the ones being subjected to multiple attacks in the early game!

But it's all good fun to think about


edit:

Also derv reminded me just now that there are limits to how many man-types can engage/be engaged per turn. M&T (p13) tells us explicitly that up to 8 man-types can engage a large monster (such as a dragon) each turn. The FAQ implies, and the DMG confirms (p69), that up to 6 man-types can engage a single man each turn. So, whether or not a 14th level fighter could slay 7+ orcs per turn also depends on whether the referee is willing to "waive" these space constraints.

[Stormcrow]

Dec 5, 2013 20:48:20 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

The multiple attacks mechanic is described firstly in M&T (albeit extremely briefly), and then again in the FAQ article. The FAQ altered what appeared in M&T substantially,

It didn't alter it substantially; it expanded the explanation. Characters get <character level> number of attacks against normals; monsters get <hit dice> number of attacks against normals. The first part is the expansion, and is perfectly in keeping with Chainmail. The only effect hit dice have for characters is to determine their hit points; they don't determine attack strength or number of attacks.

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 5, 2013 21:02:11 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

It didn't alter it substantially; it expanded the explanation.

"Substantially" was merely an adjective I chose to describe a two-fold difference in effect.

Dec 5, 2013 21:02:11 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Characters get <character level> number of attacks against normals; monsters get <hit dice> number of attacks against normals. The first part is the expansion, and is perfectly in keeping with Chainmail.

"Characters get <character level> number of attacks" is one interpretation of the FAQ, yes, which is why I included it in my calculations, above. It's not the only interpretation, and it isn't as perfectly in keeping with Chainmail as is the Fighting Capability statistic. Especially not if we consider magic-users and clerics too.

Dec 5, 2013 21:02:11 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

The only effect hit dice have for characters is to determine their hit points; they don't determine attack strength or number of attacks.

1. "Attack strength" is still (albeit indirectly) proportional to number of HD on attack matrix I.
2. Attaining a specific number of HD will make a character above-"normal", meaning he is no longer subject to multiple attacks from monsters; a critical milestone in PC survivorship,
3. Attaining a specific number of HD will make a character "heroic", meaning his attacks (even with mundane weapons) are no longer "normal". He can hit a dragon with normal weapons, he defeats the protection from normal missile spell with normal weapons, and so on. Heroic-types are also no longer subject to morale effects caused by various monsters.
4. Having a greater number of HD will also preclude a character from an increasing number of spells, magic item effects, and monster special abilities.


edit:

The above points were all advantages of fighting-men in the 3LBBs, because they achieved a higher number of HD sooner than did the other classes. When Greyhawk changed HD progression to (effectively) 1 HD per level for all classes this advantage of fighting-men disappeared.

[aldarron]

Nov 17, 2013 10:53:44 GMT -6 @edallen said:

Sorry for the necro threading, but here's a pertinent anecdote I think...
I only once got to play in one of Gary's games, a too-large game at GenCon 7 or 8 (Horticultural Hall and the American Legion in Lake Geneva, the one where Judge's Guild first showed the City State map and took subscriptions).

We had a gaggle of about 15 newly rolled PCs at a long table in the Legion Hall, and just before playing Greg Swenson from Gary's local group turned up and his fighter, The Great Svenny, something like level 12-15, "escorted" us on a Greyhawk run. We were in an interminable spiral staircase and eventually beset by a large horde of orcs. I forget the exact sequencing, but in each round the fighters among us each attacked once conventionally and Svenny rolled 2D6 for how many orcs he killed. No attack roll, kept it simple, but because of the extreme level difference, the rest of us were pretty much pointless to be there other than as Greyhawk tourists. So it was a mechanically simplified example of the Superhero kills lots of mooks each combat round version.

Holy Crow! Okay, so once upon a few years ago I had time to read almost all the posts, but the past couple years have been much more time restricted and so I missed this post until now. Funnily enough a few posts back in the thread folks were talking about faulty memories....

Ed, Bless him, mis-remembered who ran the game he was in. It had to have been this one Blackmoor 1976

That was Arneson DMing, and that staircase was the Orcian way in Blackmoor dungeon. Greg has talked about that game a few times here too. Fascinating.

[aldarron]

Nov 17, 2013 10:53:44 GMT -6 @edallen said:

....
I forget the exact sequencing, but in each round the fighters among us each attacked once conventionally and Svenny rolled 2D6 for how many orcs he killed. No attack roll, kept it simple,....

This deserves some further exploration, I think.

Paley reports that at the time(1976), the great Svenny was a 14th level paladin. This squares fairly well with the FFC which reports Svenny as being a 15th level paladin in 1977 and Greg mentioned that he had very few gaming opportunities in Blackmoor after 1974.

Okay, so a 14th level paladin would have 12+1 HD.

Fighting Capability is trickier, but I think it is Superhero +3 (FCT) or 6 men (normal).

In any case, Paley reports Svenny killing 17 orcs in one round. Clearly 2d6 won't get you 17, but 3d6 could.

17 seems to have been the highest score, and not representative of the average, but if it is an average score using d6, you would need 5 dice (5 x 3.5 = 17.5).

Svenny wielded the magic sword "Maroon" which in Arneson's pre D&D system had a "+6 Combat Increase" and double values agains balrogs, trolls, goblins, anti-heroes, ghosts, dragons and giants (unclear how all that worked) but in the mid 1980's DA series was listed merely as a +2 longsword, +3 vs undead and dragons. There is no published description of Maroon between these two dates.


So how many dice was Arneson rolling and why?

P.S. just to complicate matters, elsewhere on this forum Greg reported:
"For what it's worth, I remember Svenny killing over 200 orcs in one battle and 112 orcs in another."
I suppose these are battle totals and not simply one turn of mayhem.

[aldarron]

Mar 3, 2015 14:08:31 GMT -6 aldarron said:

So how many dice was Arneson rolling and why?

No guesses?

Alright, here's a theory:

In early Blackmoor, players rolled multiple dice for damage ("hit dice"), seemingly based as one die per level (see "Blackmoor;s more infamous characters in the FFC). Greg remembers it being a little simpler as just 4 HD for Heroes and 8 HD for Superheroes. Damage is apparently shared across enemies. Let's run with this simpler version for the moment.

Basically, then a hero rolling four damage dice would, on average kill 4 enemies of 1 HD and a superhero would kill 8 enemies of 1 HD. I don't know how many dice a Lord would roll but the next logical number in this progression would be 12.

Instead of rolling all those damage dice and sharing out the damage, you can get "close enough" results by simply rolling for the number killed as Ed Allen mentioned:

1d6 Hero tier = 3.5 killed on average
2d6 Superhero tier = 7 killed on average
3d6 Lord tier = 10.5 killed on average

[Scott Anderson]

This is the kind of advance that would keep fighting men in line power wise with magic users, given the several reasonable restrictions we have discussed on the latter. Good stuff.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 5, 2015 9:24:43 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Alright, here's a theory:

In early Blackmoor, players rolled multiple dice for damage ("hit dice"), seemingly based as one die per level (see "Blackmoor;s more infamous characters in the FFC). Greg remembers it being a little simpler as just 4 HD for Heroes and 8 HD for Superheroes. Damage is apparently shared across enemies. Let's run with this simpler version for the moment.

Basically, then a hero rolling four damage dice would, on average kill 4 enemies of 1 HD and a superhero would kill 8 enemies of 1 HD. I don't know how many dice a Lord would roll but the next logical number in this progression would be 12.

Instead of rolling all those damage dice and sharing out the damage, you can get "close enough" results by simply rolling for the number killed as Ed Allen mentioned:

1d6 Hero tier = 3.5 killed on average
2d6 Superhero tier = 7 killed on average
3d6 Lord tier = 10.5 killed on average

I think this depends somewhat on "the rules".

If, for example, one HD equals 1-6 hp, and 1 attack equals 1-6 damage, and 0 hp is dead, then there is a 58.333% chance that any one damage roll is equal to or greater than any one hp roll. A lot then depends on how damage is allocated. E.g.,

Should each hit target the next nearest figure (if using miniatures), or the next "strongest", or "weakest", or a randomly selected figure?

Then should excess damage (beyond what's necessary to kill a figure) be ignored, or should it be applied to the next figure?


One method is to assume each hit is against a fresh, random target, and there is no damage overflow. In this case:

A 4 HD figure would, on average, kill 4 * 0.58333 = 2.333 enemy each turn.
An 8 HD figure would, on average, kill 8 * 0.58333 = 4.667 enemy each turn.
A 12 HD figure would, on average, kill 12 * 0.58333 = 7 enemy each turn.



Another method is to assume each hit is against a random target carrying whatever accumulative hits it may have previously suffered, and that damage is allowed to overflow from one target to the next. In that case, I suspect the number of kills would be closer to:

A 4 HD figure would approach an average of 4 kills each turn.
An 8 HD figure would approach an average of 8 kills each turn.
A 12 HD figure would approach an average of 12 kills each turn.

I say "approach" because any method that includes random target selection will be influenced by the number of possible targets. If there are a thousand orcs to hew through, then it's improbable that a hero's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dice will hit a previously wounded figure in the first turn.

If there are only ten orcs to hew through, then it's rather more probable that a hero's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dice will hit a previously wounded figure within the first turn.

Regardless of how many targets there are, we know the hero's first attack will always be against a fresh target.



So what I suspect all this means is that as the number of "fresh" targets becomes significantly larger than the number of attack dice, we should expect number of kills to approach 2.333 kills per 4 dice. Meanwhile, as the number of "fresh" targets becomes fewer than the number of attack dice, we should expect the number of kills to approach 4 kills per 4 dice.

Or something like that.

(I'm sure krusader74 could, if so inclined, calculate precisely the relationship between number of targets and expected kills per turn with the Palamedes tool )