Fighters: masters of combat

[Deleted]

Hi, I'm new.

So I'm thinking about how to hack OD&D and I want to give the fighting-man multiple damage dice based on their level, while also using the d20 combat system.

So I'm wondering if I should include the same for the other classes. On the pro side, it's symmetrical design and they do increase in combat ability in chain mail mechanics. On the other hand, it steals some of the fighters thunder. The fighter is the fighter and should be the best at combat.

If you were in my position, would you grant more then one damage die based on levels to non fighting-man classes, or would you keep them capped at one die?

[oakesspalding]

Why do Fighting-Men need this?

[Deleted]

It's not about need, it's hacking the game to be what I want it to be.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2013 18:29:15 GMT -6 @talath said:

So I'm wondering if I should include the same for the other classes.

I don't see why not. I do a similar thing but use the character's number of hit dice (I use the original method) to calculate their equivalent fighter level. So a 7th level magic users (with 4 hit dice) does extra damage like a 4th level fighter. This is similar to the OD&D Fighting Capability where each character fought as a number of men equal to their hit dice (more or less).

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2013 19:21:12 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Dec 20, 2013 18:29:15 GMT -6 @talath said:

So I'm wondering if I should include the same for the other classes.

I don't see why not. I do a similar thing but use the character's number of hit dice (I use the original method) to calculate their equivalent fighter level. So a 7th level magic users (with 4 hit dice) does extra damage like a 4th level fighter. This is similar to the OD&D Fighting Capability where each character fought as a number of men equal to their hit dice (more or less).

That is what I was basing the damage dice off of as well, the number of men that each class could fight as.

[Red Baron]

I like doing it by attacks instead of damage. It amounts to the same thing really, when fighting a single opponent but it makes integration with large wargame battles a lot easier. You can switch back and forth seamlessly. It makes combat a lot more fast paced and deadly. There was another thread on this where ways did some serious number crunching, but it all boils down to multiple hits= short combats damage spread out across round more making it tactical, multiple damage on hit = whoever gets lucky and gets in the first blow or two wins.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2013 20:58:01 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

I like doing it by attacks instead of damage. It amounts to the same thing really, when fighting a single opponent but it makes integration with large wargame battles a lot easier. You can switch back and forth seamlessly. It makes combat a lot more fast paced and deadly. There was another thread on this where ways did some serious number crunching, but it all boils down to multiple hits= short combats damage spread out across round more making it tactical, multiple damage on hit = whoever gets lucky and gets in the first blow or two wins.

Interesting. Does the rolling of multiple d20s impede the speed of combat?

[Red Baron]

bill the hero rolls 4 dice. 9,3,18,16. 18 and 16 will hit, so the dm rolls two dice of damage. Its simple.

I roll attacks on d6s not d20s making it even simpler than it is.

[oakesspalding]

Dec 20, 2013 18:58:18 GMT -6 @talath said:

It's not about need, it's hacking the game to be what I want it to be.

The point is not to question your right to "hack" the game or to stop you from making the game what "you want it to be". Rather, since you asked the question, the point is to determine what you are trying to do and why you are trying to do it. Otherwise, how can anyone give a meaningful answer to your question? Clearly you think the mechanic should be fixed (from your point of view and for your game). Fair enough. But if there are alternative "fixes", then the question implicitly hinges on what you are trying to accomplish and why you are looking to fix things in the first place. So, for example, if you think Fighting-Men are underpowered relative to other classes, then presumably you don't want to give other classes the same additional advantage. On the other hand, if you think that fighting per se (as opposed to, say, spell casting) is underpowered, or that characters are underpowered relative to monsters, or that making such a change would be more "realistic", then presumably you do. Or not. Or whatever. But if you simply have a whim to do X simply because you want to (and for no other reason), then why not simply go ahead and do X?

[saveforhalf]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the Chainmail mass combat and man-to-man systems, the skill of a combatant does not alter the required "to-hit" number (although the fantasy table does). Instead, the attacker gets multiple attacks.

One way to port this to OD&D is to always make every attack on the "Fighter 1-3" line of the alternative combat system "Men Attacking" table. Fighters would get one attack per three levels, rounded up (i.e. One attack from 1-3, two from 4-6, three from 7-9, etc.) Clerics would get one attack per four levels, rounded up. Magic-Users would get one attack per five levels, rounded up.

Monsters would get one attack per three hit dice, rounded up. Since their attack table is normally more favorable, you might want to give them a flat bonus, maybe +2, to each attack. You might even go as far as to give them one attack per two hit dice, rounded up, but with no bonus.

I did some analysis on a spreadsheet and I estimate that this system should dish out roughly about 1.5 times the damage as the alternative combat system.

[Red Baron]

Dec 30, 2013 1:14:04 GMT -6 saveforhalf said:

One way to port this to OD&D is to always make every attack on the "Fighter 1-3" line of the alternative combat system "Men Attacking" table. Fighters would get one attack per three levels, rounded up (i.e. One attack from 1-3, two from 4-6, three from 7-9, etc.) Clerics would get one attack per four levels, rounded up. Magic-Users would get one attack per five levels, rounded up.system.

Yes, this is the most elegant way to handle it. The AD&D combat tables advance hit progression at a rate of F:2/2 C: 2/3 T:2/4 MU:2/5. If you add attack dice at equal rates instead of inproving THACO at each progression, you have a valid and simple combat system.

For what you're proposing may I suggest that fighting men gain attacks when fighting fantastic opponents as such: 1 die at veteran, 2 at hero, 3 at superhero. OR 1,2,4 or 1,3,5 or whatever your progression rate is. It works better with the level titles even if it leads to a somehwat uneven progression.

The only thing I don't like about this system is that it leads to the fighting man having two different attack values to keep track of. It would seem more smooth to have him either get one attack per level vs all(both normal and fantastic), or one attack per three levels vs all(Normal and fantastic) or whatever. However if you limit the multiple dice in fantastic combat to a single opponent, and all attacks in normal combat need be against different opponents, than it makes more sense.

Conan, a superhero, attacks a cohort of evil men. He rolls 8 attacks, 4 hit. 4 men are hit.

Conan, a superhero, attacks a group of four cockatrices. He rolls 3 attacks, 2 hit. A single basilisk takes 2d6 damage.