|
|
Post by derv on Oct 13, 2013 16:40:51 GMT -6
I know this is stirring the pot some, but I've been delving into Chainmail and it's relation to OD&D. In my search for other input, I came upon an old post on DHBoggs blog, Hidden in Shadows, that was discussing Armor Class Numbers. He suggests that the first use of AAC was in original Blackmoor by Arneson, but I find it to already be present in Chainmail under the "Individual Fires With Missiles" table that directly correlates to the "Man-to-Man" table on the same page. It clearly presents unarmored as AC1 to plate and shield as AC8. So, how did we arrive at descending AC in OD&D? Anyway, just a nugget that I found interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 13, 2013 21:06:12 GMT -6
I think you're misreading that table, because if unarmored is AC 1 and plate is AC 8, then according to that table, unarmored targets are harder to hit with arrows. The table shows a 6 or better needed to hit AC 1, a 2 or better to hit AC 8, in the first row.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 14, 2013 5:35:33 GMT -6
You have to read the footnote below the table. "2" on the table is equal to "12". Also, just for clarity,this is a 2d6 table. On AC8, it is impossible to hit at medium and max range (that's what the "/" means on the table)
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 14, 2013 9:30:20 GMT -6
This has often been observed in discussions about why armour class descends and what Arnseon exactly did, and basically we just do not know. It is worth noting that the scale is 2-9 in OD&D and 1-8 in CM, so it is often suggested that this reflects a 2d6 "roll equal or under" mechanism and that is why the classes were flipped and shifted by 1, but is all speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 14, 2013 14:30:43 GMT -6
Matthew, it is curious that they shifted the scale in the ACS. I'm not sure I understand how it reflects a roll equal or under mechanism though. Could you elaborate on this? If I understand what you're saying, if this was the case, they should have shifted the scale by 2 then. I'd also be interested in reading some of these discussions if you have any links.
edit- sorry Matthew, I must have been suffering from a brain fart as result of trying to reconcile all the various combat tables in Chainmail with the ACS of OD&D. After thinking about it, I see what you're saying with the 2d6 roll equal or under mechanics and the flipping of the AC ratings now. It seems plausible, since "2" is the lowest possible roll on 2d6. How this would/could have been applied would be interesting. Would a character get to add their level (or level-1 or +1 every three levels) when attacking? -comparing it to the ACS
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 18, 2013 7:17:32 GMT -6
Well, in Arneson's original game there were only "flunkys", "heroes" and "superheroes", but more than likely it followed the model of CM, so level indicated number of attacks rather than modification of the attack dice, that is if this theory reflected what he was actually doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 18, 2013 14:54:26 GMT -6
Well, in Arneson's original game there were only "flunkys", "heroes" and "superheroes", but more than likely it followed the model of CM, so level indicated number of attacks rather than modification of the attack dice, that is if this theory reflected what he was actually doing. Matthew, I believe you have helped me put the pieces together, at least in a way that is logical in my own mind. Indulge me if this does not fit with what others believe. I realize it's speculation. If what you suggest is true, it would mesh well with what others are discussing on the M&T boards about multple attacks against 1< HD monsters in OD&D. But, if this was the original approach, they must have still been using CM's Fantasy Combat Table (or a modified form of it) for more powerful encounters with Anti-Heros, Balrogs, Dragons, etc. Or it might be possible that they instead were simply applying ratios to number of attacks (1:1, 4:1, 8:1) based on Fighting Capability. If you take this idea and add in my suggestion above, you might end up with a Combat Table that does away with multiple reference tables or the necessity to do calculations and it would start to look similiar to the ACS of OD&D. AC------------------------------------Levels---------------------------------------------------- ........................1-3............................4-7................................8-10.......................... ........................flunky.......................hero..............................super.........................2 (plate)..........2................................3....................................4.............................. 3.....................3................................4.....................................5............................... 4.....................4................................5....................................6................................ 5.....................5................................6.....................................7............................... 6......................6................................7....................................8............................... 7......................7................................8...................................9.................................. 8......................8................................9...................................10.............................. 9 (none)...........9................................10..................................11............................. *roll equal or under on 2d6 As levels and HD became more important, the spread on the table above might have been changed to levels 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12 instead. This would actually match the ACS. It is not much of a stretch to understand the desire to get rid of the bell curve found in rolling 2d6 and flatten the probabilities by replacing it with a 1d12 or 1d20. The d20 opens up the range. Anyway, it might not have happened that way, but it makes sense to me and helps me see a clearer connection between Chainmail and OD&D. Thanks for your input. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Oct 19, 2013 10:04:02 GMT -6
Nice! Were you to use this as its own system, you could use the same range division for monsters based on HD, and say Heroes get two attacks on Flunkies and Superheroes get two attacks on the previous two. Nice and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 19, 2013 11:01:07 GMT -6
You've got it Kesher!
Comparatively, what's unusual with the ACS found in M&M is that the monsters are actually given an edge on Attack Matrix II: Monsters Attacking, in contrast to Attack Matrix I: Men Attacking. Another area that has me asking, why did they do that?
*edit: on the hypothetical table above, heros would actually get 4 attacks on flunkies, superheros would get 8 attacks on flunkies and 2 attacks on heros. Or number of attacks could simply be decided by HD.
|
|
