Rate of fire and one minute turn/round

[giantgenesis]

I planned to do my first real od&d game soon(!), and I have some interrogations about missile; I thought I could ask my question here. More precisely, I have a question about rate of fire in od&d.

Regardless of whether you accept that characters have 1 or 2 missile shots each round/turn (well, one minute), do you find it a little bit slow (especially for 1 missile shot)? I can understand that melee combat are abstract. Thus, 1 roll is not equal to 1 hit. However, with missile, it’s unlikely to be the case, since we count each missile.

So I was just wondering how you deal with that? DO you think it is unrealistic? If yes, do you try to fix it in some ways, or you just don’t care about it?

Thank you,

GG

[Red Baron]

I think the idea is that the bowman (or slinger or whatever) is waiting for a hole to open up in the melee where he has a good chance of actually hitting an enemy (Their back is turned, your henchmen aren't blocking your shot). An archer has to hold his shot a minute like a quarterback watching for a receiver to get open. Of course if you wanted to shoot off 90 arrows a minute like Lars Anderson, than you could, but you'd end up killing everything around, not just what you were trying to hit.

[oakesspalding]

As I understand it, the most accepted old-school approach (first stated in Holmes and then carried into 1e and then B/X) is that missile fire into melee either isn't allowed at all, or is allowed but the missile will simply hit a random participant. Thus, the the number of arrow shots that one gets in a round is based on the more "ideal" situation where one is NOT firing into a melee. So I think giantgenesis is right that it's a bit odd that one gets only 1 (or even 2) shots in a minute. The historical record is fairly clear I think that a competent bowman could get off one well-aimed shot every 5 or 10 seconds. So in a round lasting one minute that's 6-12 arrows.

Simply stating that combat is "abstract" does not solve this problem. It is aesthetically annoying to say that the 1 or 2 missile shots that one gets in a round are merely abstract representations of 6-12 actual missile shots. And as been pointed out on this board previously, this sort of solution totally breaks down if one considers thrown weapons. Obviously a thrown spear attack does not actually represent 6 spears.

This is why a 10 or 12 second combat round makes so much sense, in my view. One can continue to maintain that melee combat is abstract while merging that with the actual shooting of 1 or 2 arrows. (Of course the question of what it means when one of those arrows "hits" will continue to often be abstract.)

I've always thought it was odd that in many versions of the game arrows are twice as effective as melee weapons (because one gets two shots in a round). Why twice as effective, exactly? Why not six times as effective or only 1/2 as effective, or whatever? Note that simply saying that the round is long enough to get two shots off simply begs the question. After all, how long a round is is in a sense completely arbitrary. It strikes me that in the absence of a compelling argument for why this should be so, arrows should be put on a par with any other weapon--there should get 1 shot per round. But to do this and be consistent with realistic arrow firing speeds, we need a much shorter round.

Of course, we would then be free to modify this for special missile weapons--so, for example, we could say that a heavy crossbow has a better chance to hit, has more penetration power or does more damage than a standard bow but only fires once every 2 rounds.

[cooper]

Long story short. CHAINMAIL allowed archers to fire twice in a combat turn (1 minute) if they didn't move. Combat was fast and hectic and CHAINMAIL allowed for multiple rounds of melee within the 1 turn. The 1 arrow fired per turn was envisioned for large troop formations and was an abstraction of how many men they could kill on "their turn". CHAINMAIL and d&d were originally just games, like monopoly and the turn wasn't the characters "turn" as much as the players turn. And on his turn he got to try and kill one member of the opposing force.

Nothing was trying to be realistic, only simulationalist, i.e. "It's your turn bob, roll to see how many goblins you kill with your archer, you get to roll 2 dice to determine casualties". Only when gamers began playing in the theater of the mind and turning the game into a narrative instead of a simulative game that issues of realism became a concern.

One answer is to conform to CHAINMAIL and the original interpretation of d&d allow for shorter rounds (holmes and elderitch wizardry posit 10 seconds). What you are asking is an old question of how to play a game of dungeons and dragons with the baggage left over from CHAINMAIL's legacy rules (outdoor scale) and adapted to underground dungeons (man to man scale) as well as how to deal with the supplements to the original rules and then ad&d's cobbling together again of all those contradictory rules.

The only question that really matters is, is it balanced? Right now, you get to fire 1 arrow for each swing of a sword. The actual length of the round doesn't matter, literally. You could rename the round 1 second and it would not change the balance of the game. The length of time doesn't actually matter. A round is just one round around the table and a turn is usually the length of an average battle. 1 sword swing or 1 arrow per round represents all the sword swings and all the arrows. What matters is that it takes an ogre 3 rounds to bash open a door and it doesn't matter if the round is 10 minutes or 10 seconds if the number of actions available to a player are constant (i.e. you get 3 actions before the ogre arrives).

If you adjust the game to allow more arrows while keeping the turns and rounds constant what you end up with is that nobody ever makes a charge attack because you will be a pincushion before you ever arrive at your target (i.e. if you can fire once per second, but character still takes 1 minute to charge 120'). Unintended consequences will abound if you begin fiddling with the rules. What's important is the gamist idea of how many "turns" do you get. The time is whatever you want it to be.

[Red Baron]

From a chainmail perspective, archers fire so slowly because a captain has to get a hundred men to turn their unit around slightly, all draw, and then fire together. Its not every man for himself in the unit, firing arrows as fast as they can. If the captain is to maintain order and keep his men from breaking ranks and fleeing or charging the enemy or just doing nothing at all, he has to make a frantic attempt to get his men to do what he wants and get his orders heard over the din of the battle.

Its the whole unit acting in unison to get off volleys of shots in an orderly fashion that carries over into d&d and translates to 1 or 2 shots per round for a single archer.

[cooper]

Its the whole unit acting in unison to get off volleys of shots in an orderly fashion that carries over into d&d and translates to 1 or 2 shots per round for a single archer.

It's actually worse than that. Archers in CHAINMAIL could only fire 1x or 2x per turn, but you could melee 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more times during the turn. Imagine attacking with your sword 1x per round (1 minute) and only shooting an arrow once per turn (10 minutes) and you will see how really was in CHAINMAIL.

Although the analogy doesn't quite matter, since no missile fire could take place in a melee in either case. The only real question is, is how many attacks can you make with the bow while your enemy charges you? Since the round is a round is a round, I think the RAW that you can fire 1 or 2 arrows against an enemy charge is realistic enough.

Now, if I were playing a CHAINMAIL game and one player wanted to fire into a melee, I would allow 1 attack each round (equal to the sword blows) and simply adopt the ad&d rule covering the random attacks of missile fire into melee. But however you slice it, the rules allow and most people agree that 1 arrow for 1 melee telling blow is reasonable--regardless of wether the round is 1 second or 1 minute, what's important is the ratio of missile attacks to melee attacks and distance moved.

[scottenkainen]

Or you keep the 1-2 chances of arrows hitting per round, but the archer wastes arrows on missed shots too.

[waysoftheearth]

I think the simplest solution is to rule that each missile attack represents a volley of, say, 3-8 missiles. This will mean the "serious" missile player has to manage his ammunition more carefully, and that arrows/bolts are not quite so inconsequentially cheap (because more will be expended).

If a player wants to fire exactly one shot (because it's a thrown spear, or the only silver arrow he possesses, for example) then the attack roll is at -4 to represent the relatively lesser threat of a single missile.

FWIW, I'd also allow chaotics to fire into melee cos they don't care who they hit.

[oakesspalding]

That's an intriguing potential solution, and there's nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the, so to speak, in-your-face abstractness of it.

But doesn't it lower the value of thrown weapons too much? (I like a mechanism that encourages the selective use of thrown missiles by both player characters and monsters. Among other things it introduces another interesting set of choices into combat.) And if you're keeping some sort of track of encumbrance (which I think you should) doesn't it force you to carry a whole unwieldy sack stuffed with 100+ arrows in order to make a bow worth carrying?

Are 3-8 unobstructed arrow shots really no better than one "free" melee attack?

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 25, 2013 4:03:55 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

But doesn't it lower the value of thrown weapons too much?

That's for the referee to decide, but bear in mind that missile fire is rather powerful in OD&D, already attacking at a distance, having +2 to hit at short range or +1 to hit at medium range, PLUS another +1 on top with 13 or more dexterity, PLUS another +3 on top if you use the Greyhawk halfling rule, and also the "plus" of magical bows and magical arrows stack (though magical bows are rare). No other to hit roll in OD&D is quite so advantaged.

Aug 25, 2013 4:03:55 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

doesn't it force you to carry a whole unwieldy sack stuffed with 100+ arrows in order to make a bow worth carrying?

A proper archer would do well to carry two or even three quivers missiles, yes... but that's not excessive for a professional archer. At 3-8 missiles per one minute turn, that would be enough arrows for eight to twelve *minutes* of firing! If he still needs more, perhaps the noble shooter will have to bring a page to carry additional arrows? Much as the regular fighter might bring a shield bearer to haul replacement shields?

Aug 25, 2013 4:03:55 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Are 3-8 unobstructed arrow shots really no better than one "free" melee attack?

"One" melee attack roll general represents many individual attacks, not just one, does it not?

In any case, 3-8 was just an arbitrary number range I picked. The referee might decide 3-6, or whatever other range, is preferable. The important thing IMHO is to allow the abstract nature of melee combat to carry over into missile fire too.

[oakesspalding]

Those answers are the most reasonable and compelling I've heard for squaring missile fire with a 1-minute round.

So, let me ask you this: in your opinion, are there compelling reasons for having a 1-minute, as opposed to, say, 10-second round in the first place (in addition to the IMHO very compelling reason that the original rules are based on the 1-minute round)?

It strikes me that shortening the round elegantly solves all sorts of "problems", from the missile issue to movement speeds. Now, I think you make a good case (better than Gygax did!) that the 1-minute round can be salvaged in a way that makes sense. You are very in favor of emphasizing the abstractness of combat, as am I. So is that consideration an argument FOR the 1-minute round, or does it merely help to make it more palatable? Or to put it another way, can we have a shorter round AND abstract combat, or do you think that shortening the round de-emphasizes the abstract nature of combat such that a shorter round is a net negative to an elegant and satisfying set of combat rules?

[Stormcrow]

A better solution: tell your players, "In this universe you get one shot per round, so stop whining about it."

[Finarvyn]

My basic solution has always been to "abstract" time as well. I don't try to ask "what can you accomplish in six seconds" (or whatever time) because I'd rather focus on action than details. I'm also vague about distances as well. You can moved a certain number of squares (or hexes, or inches) in a turn. The amount of time of a turn can stay vague.

When you pin down time, you encounter a similar problem for spell casting as you do for missiles. In my mind, casting a fireball doesn't really need a 60-second prep time. It's more of a flash-bang point-and-shoot effect and I don't want my wizards shooting all of their spells in a single minute, either, so I stick to the vague "turn" thing.

Basically, I try not to worry about the details.

[aldarron]

As discussed, reverting to CHAINMAIL time (one minute turn) solves all problems - as far as verisimilitude goes, but the referee should really be concerned about is what kind of game combat they want to emphasize. As it stands, a one shot per minute rule bears no resemblance to reality - grass grows faster - but it does bear some resemblance to some fantasy literature, where projectile weapons are scarce, ineffective, or altogether absent.

So the question for the referee is what kind of combat do they want the game to be about. If they are looking for a more realistic game, then archers should get multiple rounds per minute (possibly scaled by level) with each hit potentially being deadly to 1 HD creatures. If they want game combat to feel more like a Conan novel, then restricting projectiles to 1 per turn will do that for you.

[talysman]

This topic came up before, and my decision was to roll for how many arrows were used when the combat is over: 1d6 per volley. That not only reflects multiple shots fired per round without increasing the number of attack rolls, but it also combines all the bookkeeping into one lump action. This doesn't apply to melee, which is still one or two shots per round, for reasons Red Baron mentioned.

Want to fire arrows as rapidly as possible? OK, pick a direction to aim and deduct 20 arrows per attack. Treat it like a lightning bolt that doesn't rebound. Everything in that direction, friend or foe, takes damage equal to 1d6+target's AC. If they make a save, they take half damage.

[bestialwarlust]

Aug 25, 2013 0:58:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I think the simplest solution is to rule that each missile attack represents a volley of, say, 3-8 missiles. This will mean the "serious" missile player has to manage his ammunition more carefully, and that arrows/bolts are not quite so inconsequentially cheap (because more will be expended).

If a player wants to fire exactly one shot (because it's a thrown spear, or the only silver arrow he possesses, for example) then the attack roll is at -4 to represent the relatively lesser threat of a single missile.

FWIW, I'd also allow chaotics to fire into melee cos they don't care who they hit.

This is similar to what I do. Each attack represents multiple volleys of arrows. At the end of combat I have the player roll a 1d6 for arrow recovery. As long as a 1 isn't rolled all the arrows are recovered undamaged. If a 1 is rolled I have the player roll a d6 for each round of combat they fired arrows this is the total number of arrows spent and non recoverable. This way they don't have to sit there and count arrows during combat so we can keep the game moving.

[Stormcrow]

Aug 25, 2013 0:58:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

FWIW, I'd also allow chaotics to fire into melee cos they don't care who they hit.

WHAT? Surely, they want to hit the enemy and not their friends? Chaotic doesn't mean demented.

[Red Baron]

Aug 25, 2013 11:56:45 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 25, 2013 0:58:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

FWIW, I'd also allow chaotics to fire into melee cos they don't care who they hit.

WHAT? Surely, they want to hit the enemy and not their friends? Chaotic doesn't mean demented.

Ted the goblin's on scouting duty today. He is assigned to Big Frank's gang and they are going through the woods looking for food and victims when they meet the party of heroes. Ted tosses in his javelin because he cares more about killing the heros than he does about harming his fellow goblins. Perhaps he'll even cripple Big Frank with one, because that guy has always been a complete dick to Ted his entire life. No matter who Ted kills be it hero or goblin, he'll be able to take some coins, or a dagger, or a trinket off of the body after the fighting stops.

[giantgenesis]

Thank you all for your answers.

I think that, for the moment, I will use 10-12 second rounds. For somebody like me who's born with D&D 3, I think It'll be easier. Maybe later I'll be more willing to try an even more abstract game, with one minute round ...

GG

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 25, 2013 5:53:05 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

are there compelling reasons for having a 1-minute, as opposed to, say, 10-second round in the first place (in addition to the IMHO very compelling reason that the original rules are based on the 1-minute round)?

The rules say combat is conducted in periods of one minute duration; that's enough for me.

But since you ask...

IMHO one minute combat turns encourage a "fit for purpose" level of abstraction, and in so doing discourage decent into more granular combat modelling that ultimately serves to bog the game down, and make it more about the Modifiers & Machinations of a combat system than about dungeon exploration.

The other side of it is that a more "non-combat" action can be achieved in the space of a one minute combat turn, which can encourage those not engaged directly in the fighting to try other distractions/actions with some hope of completing them before the combat is all over.

Just my two pieces of tin.

[Stormcrow]

Aug 25, 2013 13:03:11 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Aug 25, 2013 11:56:45 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

WHAT? Surely, they want to hit the enemy and not their friends? Chaotic doesn't mean demented.

Ted the goblin's on scouting duty today. He is assigned to Big Frank's gang and they are going through the woods looking for food and victims when they meet the party of heroes. Ted tosses in his javelin because he cares more about killing the heros than he does about harming his fellow goblins. Perhaps he'll even cripple Big Frank with one, because that guy has always been a complete dick to Ted his entire life. No matter who Ted kills be it hero or goblin, he'll be able to take some coins, or a dagger, or a trinket off of the body after the fighting stops.

Ted the goblin shoots and hits Big Frank during the fight, but Big Frank has lots of hit points and he isn't killed. The goblins eventually drive the adventurers off or kill them. Then Big Frank turns to Ted red-faced with rage and grabs the little squeaker by the throat. "You moron!" screams Big Frank, who actually uses nastier words than that, and who then tosses Ted off a cliff.

Chaotic also doesn't mean stupid or treacherous.

[Red Baron]

Aug 26, 2013 7:35:27 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Aug 25, 2013 13:03:11 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Ted the goblin's on scouting duty today. He is assigned to Big Frank's gang and they are going through the woods looking for food and victims when they meet the party of heroes. Ted tosses in his javelin because he cares more about killing the heros than he does about harming his fellow goblins. Perhaps he'll even cripple Big Frank with one, because that guy has always been a complete dick to Ted his entire life. No matter who Ted kills be it hero or goblin, he'll be able to take some coins, or a dagger, or a trinket off of the body after the fighting stops.

Ted the goblin shoots and hits Big Frank during the fight, but Big Frank has lots of hit points and he isn't killed. The goblins eventually drive the adventurers off or kill them. Then Big Frank turns to Ted red-faced with rage and grabs the little squeaker by the throat. "You moron!" screams Big Frank, who actually uses nastier words than that, and who then tosses Ted off a cliff.

Chaotic also doesn't mean stupid or treacherous.

Being self interested often involves tact and treachery. Not to derail this thread, and perhaps we should start another about the meaning of chaotic, but every goblin ted gets out of his way is another he doesn't have to compete with for treasure and mates. Not to say that this kind of backstabbing isn't equally common in a lawful community, because its a more interesting game when it is, but it should be more pronounced at least, if not more prevalent, in a chaotic society.

Let me stress though that, as I've said before, I like intelligent evil because its a lot more scary.

[busman]

It's funny, when I was D&D ignorant, it was a lot easier. It was your turn, you took a turn, just like in Monopoly, or Chutes & Ladders, or later Tobruk or Panzer Blitz. What a turn was, was very clear. It allowed for you to take an action in combat: attack, move, defend, cast a spell, etc. We never got caught up in the seconds or minutes, or whatever. Each player took a turn, each monster took a turn.

It was only as my understanding of the rules grew, and the nuances took form in my mind that things got more complicated, AD&D didn't help.

This is one of the reasons I've enjoyed going back to OD&D, regardless of what the rules say or intend, I've gone back in my thinking as well. I'm concentrating more on the flow and fun, and less on the specifics of the rules or elapsed time.

[oakesspalding]

Aug 25, 2013 23:58:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

IMHO one minute combat turns encourage a "fit for purpose" level of abstraction, and in so doing discourage decent into more granular combat modelling that ultimately serves to bog the game down, and make it more about the Modifiers & Machinations of a combat system than about dungeon exploration.

Thank you, waysoftheearth. I'm not sure I'm totally convinced yet. But you have made me think about the issue in a new and hopefully ultimately fruitful way.

[giantgenesis]

One answer is to conform to CHAINMAIL and the original interpretation of d&d allow for shorter rounds (holmes and elderitch wizardry posit 10 seconds)

Just curious, but where is it written that elderitch wizardry assumes shorter rounds?

[cooper]

Aug 27, 2013 19:11:08 GMT -6 giantgenesis said:

One answer is to conform to CHAINMAIL and the original interpretation of d&d allow for shorter rounds (holmes and elderitch wizardry posit 10 seconds)

Just curious, but where is it written that elderitch wizardry assumes shorter rounds?

A move of 12" = 24 feet per round.

[talysman]

Aug 27, 2013 23:20:32 GMT -6 cooper said:

Aug 27, 2013 19:11:08 GMT -6 giantgenesis said:

Just curious, but where is it written that elderitch wizardry assumes shorter rounds?

A move of 12" = 24 feet per round.

Well, in Underworld & Treasure, a move of 12" = 240 feet per ten-minute turn, so that means a rate of 24 feet per one-minute round. So Eldritch Wizardry doesn't sound like it's using shorter rounds, to me.

[Stormcrow]

Aug 27, 2013 23:20:32 GMT -6 cooper said:

Aug 27, 2013 19:11:08 GMT -6 giantgenesis said:

Just curious, but where is it written that elderitch wizardry assumes shorter rounds?

A move of 12" = 24 feet per round.

What has that got to do with shorter rounds? What it actually says, on page 7, is "Suggested Scale: 1":2'." Nothing about how long a round is.

[cooper]

Fair enough. I saw 24' and assumed that it worked for a much shorter round--it does of course, but taken the exploration movement rate turn, it's clear it is 1/10th of that specifically.

[18 Spears]

Aug 29, 2013 9:21:08 GMT -6 cooper said:

Fair enough. I saw 24' and assumed that it worked for a much shorter round--it does of course, but taken the exploration movement rate turn, it's clear (to me so I will project on to everyone else)it is 1/10th of that specifically.

fixed