Chainmail Combat for OD&D: The Wizard Question.

[xerxez]

I may have missed something but my question is since the level progression notes in M&M show that a 10th level Magic User fights as a Wizard in C.M., how should this be played on the Fantasy Combat Table?

Can a 10th level MU really have a better chance to melee with a Dragon than a 9th level fighting man (a Lord)?

Or wasn't the Fantasy Combat table for their fireball and lightening bolt attacks in C.M.?

And if using the Man to Man Table--what is a Wizard "equal to" in Men, for purposes of calculating numbers of attacks?

Thanks for any light.

[Mushgnome]

The wizard probably isn't meleeing with the dragon; he is blasting it with magic (and using magic to defend against its breath weapons and other attacks). Or using a shiny magic sword astride a charging legendary super-horse... or summoning foul demonic powers from the gates of hell... etc.

Fantasy Combat in my games is Cinematic Combat where two larger than life foes are using their best attacks and defenses. It all comes down to one roll, my 2d6 vs your 2d6, Gandalf vs. the Balrog etc. Do you remember the video game Archon? It is like chess; and the 2d6 roll answers the question, "does my chess piece remove your chess piece from the board?" You can narrate that however you wish.

Chainmail is explicit that in normal combat (ie vs non-fantastic foes) a Wizard attacks as 2 armored foot (or 2 medium horse if mounted). There is no indication anywhere that a Wizard would ever attack on Man to Man (since he is a Fantastical opponent, not a Man, and can use the Fantasy Combat Table). If you are concerned about how many shots you get to roll a 12 so your wizard's dagger can penetrate a 1st level fighting man's plate armor, then you are not really getting into the spirit of a Grand and Glorious Wizard, IMHO.

But if you want to say "how does this compare to D&D??" then yes, I would put my money on a 10th level magic user over a 9th level fighting man.

[Stormcrow]

Jul 29, 2013 18:30:31 GMT -6 xerxez said:

I may have missed something but my question is since the level progression notes in M&M show that a 10th level Magic User fights as a Wizard in C.M., how should this be played on the Fantasy Combat Table?

Can a 10th level MU really have a better chance to melee with a Dragon than a 9th level fighting man (a Lord)?

You mean, if your D&D characters happen to get caught up in a large-scale battle and you switch to Chainmail to resolve the battle, allowing your characters to participate? A Necromancer (fights as Chainmail Wizard) kills a Dragon (no differentiation for hit dice here) on 10+ on two dice and gets killed by a Dragon on 11+. A 9th level Lord (fights as Superhero +1 in Chainmail) kills a Dragon on 10+ and gets killed by a Dragon on 10+ (I am supposing that "Superhero +1" improves both attack and defense for the figure). So a Necromancer is marginally more effective against a Dragon than a 9th level Lord.

Or wasn't the Fantasy Combat table for their fireball and lightening bolt attacks in C.M.?

It's not. Fire Balls and Lightning Bolts are treated as catapults and cannons, respectively, against most men and creatures, but there is a list of exceptions on Chainmail, p. 31. Dragons are only driven back one move when they are hit by Fire Balls or Lightning Bolts.

The Fantasy Combat table assumes "the combatants fight however it is they fight." For a Wizard this can mean swords, magic missiles, whatever. It's all abstracted into a single throw of two dice.

And if using the Man to Man Table--what is a Wizard "equal to" in Men, for purposes of calculating numbers of attacks?

Not defined. Man-to-Man was not designed to be combined with the fantasy rules or D&D. In mass combat, a Wizard fights as two armored foot. When playing D&D you're expected to use the Alternative Combat System. If you want to use Chainmail anyway, you'll have to make up rules to make it work.

[Deleted]

In the Man to Man section of CHAINMAIL, wizards fight as two figures in plate armor, usually with sword.

I saw a batch of Swiss halberdiers chop a wizard to chutney. Good times!

[xerxez]

I appreciate all these answers, I will have to read them again when it's not 1 am and I have work the next day...

I suppose I wanted to use the M2M system across the board for all D&D melee for lower levels and use the fantasy combat table for the exotic monsters listed thereon. Namely because the fighter truly becomes a tank using that system!

It happens that magic users occasionally have to use a melee weapon in our games and I was simply curious as to how that works using M2M. Because I knew that the Fantasy Combat Table was for C.M. because in D&D if a magic user casts a spell the monster gets a savings throw--the mage doesn't have to roll anything to hit with the spell. I suppose you could make the F.C.T. number the monster's saving throw.

Ill have to think more on your replies, thank you gentlemen.

[xerxez]

I like the idea of mushgnome, making the actual mechanics more abstract. Have to muse on that.

[cooper]

Everyone here pretty much covers it. As to M2M, the magic sword and magic armor descriptions as well as the elf entry detail what should be done in fantastic man to man. the wizard would probably fight using what weapon he has and wearing what armor he is wearing.

A magic sword gives you an extra dice to throw so a wizard with a magic dagger vs. a fighter in plate armor would roll 3d6 (2d6 plus 1d6 for the weapon) and any roll of 11+ would be a hit. If the fighter is in magic plate then subtract -3 from the wizards attack roll.

Personally I also grant a +1 to hit on this chart per step in thac0, so a 4th level fighter with a magic sword rolls 3d6+1 to attack.

[Mushgnome]

Jul 30, 2013 0:09:09 GMT -6 xerxez said:

I like the idea of mushgnome, making the actual mechanics more abstract. Have to muse on that.

To clarify: my examples were for if you're playing Chainmail. I do not advocate using Chainmail tables for D&D combat.

[xerxez]

Then why did they mention it (the C.M. system) in the rule book and call the D20 tables a variant....confusing.

[cooper]

There is no difficulty nor reason not to use any combat system for D&D. Man to man works fine, mass combat 1:1 works fine, fantasy combat works fine, d20 works fine.

Certainly man to man is preferable than using d20 with grey hawk weapon vs. armor (aka ad&d) because of how clunky they are combined., I wouldn't ever use man to man vs. a dragon though as that's not what it's meant for. Nor would I use d20 with a fight against 40 goblins. The one d20 really replaces is the fantasy combat table to no ill effect.

Use man to man vs. men
Use mass combat when fighting lots of 1 HD foes
Use d20 vs. magica heroic creatures

[Stormcrow]

Aug 7, 2013 17:22:33 GMT -6 xerxez said:

Then why did they mention it (the C.M. system) in the rule book and call the D20 tables a variant....confusing.

Because D&D was written with the assumption that you were already running, or at least conversant with, a Chanimail campaign. The D&D rules aren't independent; they build off of Chainmail. "Here's how to expand your wargaming in a new direction," the rules say, "by giving your Heroes, Superheroes, and Wizards more depth and sending them on adventures into dungeons and wilderness." Chainmail tells us how well a Hero fights; how well does a Myrmidon fight? A Medium? These were put into Chainmail context (Fighting Capability column) for those times you fought Chainmail battles with those characters.

"But," says the rules, "when fighting in adventuring parties, rather than in big battles, here are some tables that deal well with the important factors of level and hit dice." One might consider the "alternative combat system"  to be the "Adventuring Combat Tables," the fourth system to complement the mass combat tables, the Man-to-Man tables, and the Fantasy Combat table. Each has its context: the mass combat tables are used in 20:1 battles with mundane figures; the Man-to-Man tables are used when running a 1:1 battle with mundanes; the Fantasy Combat table is used when running 20:1 battles with fantastic figures; and the "Adventuring combat tables" are used when running 1:1 battles with fantastic figures that are in dungeons or in the wilderness.

"Alternative Combat System" doesn't mean "an optional alternative to Chainmail"; it means, "tables better tuned to fantastic dungeon and wilderness combat, for when your campaign deals with these things."

So, a Necromancer (your 10th level magic-user) in a large-scale battle fights on the Fantasy Combat Table as a Wizard, and on the (Mass) Combat Tables as two Armored Foot or two Medium Horse. In small-scale, mundane battles he fights on the Man-to-Man tables as if wearing Plate Armor (as confirmed by Gronan), and when adventuring in dungeons or wilderness he fights on the Men Attacking table on the second column (fighter level 4–6) and is attacked on the No Armor or Shield line. If there's any question as to which is the appropriate system to use, the referee will decide.

If this leads to the Necromancer being more capable against a Dragon when in a large-scale battle than when in a dungeon, what of it? The circumstances are different: an outdoor battle among units running to and fro versus an underground, dimly lit, cramped battle strictly between the Dragon and the Necromancer and his comrades. When you get into a fight, you know which system will be used based on the circumstances, so you can correctly gauge your risk ahead of time.

[Deleted]

Bravo, Stormcrow. You've nailed it exactly. D&D was written with the assumption that people would be able to work out implications.

[thegreyelf]

And just to throw another wrench into the mix, there's no indication whatsoever that Gary and co. ever used Chainmail combat with D&D; the alternate combat system was always their preferred one.

That being said, if you visit my site at www.grey-elf.com/ and scroll down to the "Companion Booklets and Other D&D Resources" section, you'll see a PDF entitled "Forbidden Lore." This is my take on how in fact Chainmail combat works seamlessly with OD&D. I've since revised my method in game so that characters with multiple attacks (eg. "3 men") take those attacks one at a time, in sequence, rather than all at once. It works smoother and presents less of a "whoever wins initiative wins the fight" scenario.

Aldarron did an amazing expansion of my booklet some time ago, but I don't have the link to it handy, alas...

[Stormcrow]

Aug 8, 2013 11:20:47 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Bravo, Stormcrow.

Thank you! I'll be here all week. Try the veal!

thegreyelf said:

And just to throw another wrench into the mix, there's no indication whatsoever that Gary and co. ever used Chainmail combat with D&D; the alternate combat system was always their preferred one.

We have more than "no indication whatsoever"; we have the testimony of many of those players, who insist that Chainmail combat—that is, the mass combat, man-to-man, and fantasy combat tables—was never used for D&D. It was the d20 table since the first foot stepped into Greyhawk.

[Deleted]

Yo.

The first time I played Greyhawk Gary was already using the d20 chart. Same with Blackmoor, although that was a bit later. Still pre-publication, though.

[thegreyelf]

Aug 8, 2013 15:03:36 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

thegreyelf said:

And just to throw another wrench into the mix, there's no indication whatsoever that Gary and co. ever used Chainmail combat with D&D; the alternate combat system was always their preferred one.

We have more than "no indication whatsoever"; we have the testimony of many of those players, who insist that Chainmail combat—that is, the mass combat, man-to-man, and fantasy combat tables—was never used for D&D. It was the d20 table since the first foot stepped into Greyhawk.

We're saying the same thing from different angles. I think you just misread my post (I could've worded it better).

[Stormcrow]

Aug 12, 2013 12:14:02 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

We're saying the same thing from different angles. I think you just misread my post (I could've worded it better).

I was agreeing with you, and taking it one step further.

[xerxez]

I appreciate everyone's response. Stormcrow's answer put it in perspective. Thank you.

[kesher]

Aug 8, 2013 7:46:44 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 7, 2013 17:22:33 GMT -6 xerxez said:

Then why did they mention it (the C.M. system) in the rule book and call the D20 tables a variant....confusing.

Because D&D was written with the assumption that you were already running, or at least conversant with, a Chanimail campaign. The D&D rules aren't independent; they build off of Chainmail. "Here's how to expand your wargaming in a new direction," the rules say, "by giving your Heroes, Superheroes, and Wizards more depth and sending them on adventures into dungeons and wilderness." Chainmail tells us how well a Hero fights; how well does a Myrmidon fight? A Medium? These were put into Chainmail context (Fighting Capability column) for those times you fought Chainmail battles with those characters.

"But," says the rules, "when fighting in adventuring parties, rather than in big battles, here are some tables that deal well with the important factors of level and hit dice." One might consider the "alternative combat system"  to be the "Adventuring Combat Tables," the fourth system to complement the mass combat tables, the Man-to-Man tables, and the Fantasy Combat table. Each has its context: the mass combat tables are used in 20:1 battles with mundane figures; the Man-to-Man tables are used when running a 1:1 battle with mundanes; the Fantasy Combat table is used when running 20:1 battles with fantastic figures; and the "Adventuring combat tables" are used when running 1:1 battles with fantastic figures that are in dungeons or in the wilderness.

"Alternative Combat System" doesn't mean "an optional alternative to Chainmail"; it means, "tables better tuned to fantastic dungeon and wilderness combat, for when your campaign deals with these things."

So, a Necromancer (your 10th level magic-user) in a large-scale battle fights on the Fantasy Combat Table as a Wizard, and on the (Mass) Combat Tables as two Armored Foot or two Medium Horse. In small-scale, mundane battles he fights on the Man-to-Man tables as if wearing Plate Armor (as confirmed by Gronan), and when adventuring in dungeons or wilderness he fights on the Men Attacking table on the second column (fighter level 4–6) and is attacked on the No Armor or Shield line. If there's any question as to which is the appropriate system to use, the referee will decide.

If this leads to the Necromancer being more capable against a Dragon when in a large-scale battle than when in a dungeon, what of it? The circumstances are different: an outdoor battle among units running to and fro versus an underground, dimly lit, cramped battle strictly between the Dragon and the Necromancer and his comrades. When you get into a fight, you know which system will be used based on the circumstances, so you can correctly gauge your risk ahead of time.

This is simply the clearest exposition of this I've yet seen. Awe. Some.

Looking at it this way, it's pretty freaking simple to wargame ODD using Chainmail; really no conversion needed.

And if desired, the FCT is easily extractable for those type of battlefield encounters using lower/higher-level characters as well.