|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 25, 2014 17:45:06 GMT -6
Parrying, Jousting, and Mounted Combat are all implicitly part of OD&D but--alas!--are often overlooked. The DD Ref Rules v3 (and the DD hardback) will now include all these--based directly on Chainmail's Man-to-Man rules. You can preview the draft rules for DD here. Comments are most welcome, of course! But time is getting short, so speak now or forever hold your peace
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Mar 25, 2014 20:47:49 GMT -6
Ok so that Jousting table, I'm trying to get it. If you hit, you throw 2d6 and the lower die roll is your damage and the higher is your "code"? so if you roll a 4 and a 2 you have broken a lance while a 3 and a 1 you have glanced a blow?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 25, 2014 21:36:48 GMT -6
Ok so that Jousting table, I'm trying to get it. If you hit, you throw 2d6 and the lower die roll is your damage and the higher is your "code"? so if you roll a 4 and a 2 you have broken a lance while a 3 and a 1 you have glanced a blow? Hey Idrahil, following the text: "On a hit throw two six-sided dice and consult the jousting table." So, if you threw a 4 and 2 (or a 2 and a 4, it doesn't matter which die is first or second) you'd consult the jousting table and see that a 4 and 2 results in "B"; a broken lance. Great! You score one point in the jousting match. And, as a side effect, you'd also cause the lesser of the two dice as damage to your opponent. In this case, he would sustain 2 hit points of damage in the impact. That assumes the joust was for sport. If it was actually a lance charge in deadly battle it would simply be two dice of damage, i.e., 4+2=6 six hit points of damage.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Mar 26, 2014 7:43:06 GMT -6
I'll admit I haven't read through the Reliquary alpha in detail, Simon, but is the whole things filled with Chainmail-isms like "normal-types" and "heroic-types"? I read much of the BHP version of DD some time ago and don't remember seeing that sort of thing. I followed the jousting table stuff well enough and one vs two dice, etc, but the Mounted Combat section after that reads like gibberish to me, with no CM experience and little OD&D. My exposure has been mostly through S&W.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2014 16:38:09 GMT -6
is the whole things filled with Chainmail-isms like "normal-types" and "heroic-types"? Not particularly more so than Original D&D. The difference is that DD explicitly defines "normal" and "heroic" in terms of numbers of HD--which the original does not. So all that has changed in the upcoming DD is that wherever the text used to say "fewer than 3 HD" it now says "normal" instead. The reason for this approach was two-fold: 1) Original D&D itself is full of references to normals, normal-types, super-normals, heroes and so on. Previous versions of DD had changed all these references to numbers of HD instead, but this really wasn't as true to OD&D as possible. 2) Using terms like "normal" and "heroic" throughout the text, and providing definitions for these in exactly one place allows individual referees to rule on the definition of "normal" with only one change--the rest of the rules will continue to work exactly as written. So if you want to rule that "normal" means "up to 1+1 HD" (for example) you only need to change that single definition of normal--rather than having to find and change fifty usages throughout the text. I followed the jousting table stuff well enough and one vs two dice, etc, but the Mounted Combat section after that reads like gibberish to me, with no CM experience and little OD&D. It's true that mounted combat isn't likely to come up in the dungeon game--and if your game is entirely dungeon based you won't ever need to consider it. But mounted combat can easily occur during wilderness and aerial exploration. OD&D specifies what proportion of a force of men will be mounted, and that wargs can be ridden by goblins, for example. There are also pegasi and rocs and magic carpets that can be ridden (among other things), so mounted encounters are entirely plausible. If/when mounted combat occurs, DD includes the guidelines suggested by OD&D. (translated from the original 2d6 format to DD's d20 format). If you do need them, the mounted combat guideslines are really quite straight forward: * If you're mounted, you get +2 to hit guys on foot. * If you're on foot, you get -2 to hit mounted guys. * If you're shooting at mounted mooks, you're assumed to target the rider (not the mount) and get -2 to hit. * If shooting at a hero riding a dragon, you have to dice to see whether you'll hit the hero or the dragon. (from the aerial combat shooting rules in U&WA). * If any rider is hit, you dice to see if he's unhorsed. If any flier is hit, you dice to see if it can no longer fly. (again from the aerial combat shooting rules in U&WA). There are a few other details, but that's basically it
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2014 18:57:01 GMT -6
I like the additions Ways and gave them a read through. I always try to read these things, to the best of my ability, as if it was the first time I picked up a rule set.
These are a few suggestions:
Initiative-
"....(in the first turn) or light weapons (in subsequent turns)"
Do these or will these inclusions have any references for those unfamiliar with where they come from and why they apply? If not, I would discard them.
"Magic spells can be cast with the initiative but are ruined if the caster is interrupted before completing his spell."
This sentence remains a little vague. Possibly it could be made clearer with reasons to how the caster might be interrupted.
Parrying-
"A player can forgo his attack and instead cause an opponent to suffer a -4 attack penalty."
Change attacker to opponent.
"Should the opponent miss regardless....."
Regardless of what? Of the -4 attack penalty?
Typo in second sentence- "counter-attacker" should be "counter-attack"
Mounted Combat-
"Charging lancers attack at +4 and cause 2-12 hit points damage (as per) the jousting table."
"as per" is not overly clear. It may mean "as indicated by, in conjunction with, as determined by, or when used with".
"Mounted war horses and giant wolves can also attack enemies on foot(.) (add period and discard "only") They receive (discard having) one attack roll...."
Hope this was the sort of input you were looking for.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2014 19:14:24 GMT -6
Thanks derv, that's a great help! Regards initiative in first/subsequent turns: You'll note that weapon weights in OD&D line up almost exactly with the weapon classes given in MtM. So using weapon weight, with ties split by an initiative die, seems (to me) to be an elegant way of combining the MtM initiative rule with the initiative rule described in the FAQ article. IMHO the initiative and parry rules (if used) make weapon selection somewhat more interesting too
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2014 19:23:28 GMT -6
yup, I like these sort of options.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2014 22:49:35 GMT -6
"Magic spells can be cast with the initiative but are ruined if the caster is interrupted before completing his spell." This sentence remains a little vague. Possibly it could be made clearer with reasons to how the caster might be interrupted. The OD&D rule (inherited from the Fantasy Supplement) is: "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person." So is an attempt to cast a spell interrupted merely by being attacked? Or must an attack actually score a hit? AD&D indicates the latter, but TFS appears to imply the former.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 27, 2014 15:15:50 GMT -6
So is an attempt to cast a spell interrupted merely by being attacked? Or must an attack actually score a hit? AD&D indicates the latter, but TFS appears to imply the former. I think you'll have to stick with the AD&D interpretation or else the Magic User will never get a spell off in a dungeon
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 27, 2014 16:30:19 GMT -6
A m-u/cleric would be able to cast spells in a dungeon, but would risk having them spoiled in melee combat. If they lost the initiative, their spell would be ruined. 50/50 odds. That would make getting a spell off first--before actual contact--or else protecting the magic-user from the enemy after contact absolutely crucial. My understanding is that how it's meant to be. On the otherhand, a spell like cause light wounds would have limited application outside of melee. Perhaps it is really only for kicking off the hostilities
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2014 18:34:19 GMT -6
FWIW, that's pretty much how Holmes interpreted it (and Gygax left unchanged in the published Basic rulebook): "If a magic-user is not involved in the melee he can get another spell off after one or more melee rounds. If he is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic but must draw his dagger and defend his skin!"
Holmes seems to have looked back to Chainmail to figure out D&D combat (hence his inclusion of the parry rules from Chainmail), so he may have drawn his statements from the sentence in Chainmail that you quoted above.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 27, 2014 20:02:40 GMT -6
Yes, I'm in agreement with the good Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 27, 2014 20:07:27 GMT -6
I think it makes sense for Chainmails Move/Counter move or Simultaneous move system, where missile fire is resolved prior to melee (as the fire ball and lightning bolt spells are characterized as missiles with a 24" range). Beyond that, spells take immediate effect unless using the optional Spell Complexity rules. Chainmail also assumes a large outdoor (wilderness) playing area. It seems severely handicapping as a rule in the underworld IMO.
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 27, 2014 20:21:47 GMT -6
This is what broke magic users in newer additions by giving them a concentration check allowing them to continue casting even when hit. This is what helped spell casters from being so dominate when combat rolls around. In my opinion when combat does occur the magic users should be hiding behind the hired help or relying on scrolls and magic items. Casting from memory should be more of a last resort for them.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 27, 2014 20:39:59 GMT -6
Chainmail also assumes a large outdoor (wilderness) playing area. 1:20 scale fighting assumes a wilderness setting, yes, but the same general rules apply at the 1:1 scale, and these can be used in sieges or street-to-street fighting, or in room-to-room fighting in the underworld, equally. It seems severely handicapping as a rule in the underworld IMO. Please explain derv, I'm not sure I understand exactly your concern.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 28, 2014 5:07:39 GMT -6
Please explain derv, I'm not sure I understand exactly your concern. The distinction is really whether a Magic-User can perform a spell once "contact" is made. That is how melee is established in CM and once in melee, a wizard (who isn't a slack in combat) could no longer perform any spells. The differences in how CM and D&D are played is why I would lean towards "a hit" being necessary to spoil a spell. It's not a deal breaker for me, tho, if you want to maintain the early interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 28, 2014 5:49:20 GMT -6
I think what we're all saying is that OD&D is "less favourable" to M-Us than is AD&D in this regard.
But I'm not sure it's quite as bad for the OD&D M-U as it might seem.
D&D combat (including CM MtM fighting) allows for a whole lot more tactical flexibility--at the PC level--than do the CM mass battle rules. This makes it possible for the players to form a fighting line that protects other PCs from contact. E.g., it's possible (common even) for the PCs to hold a doorway, or a passage, and have an un-engaged M-U, cleric, and reserve fighters behind the front line.
It only gets really bad if the PCs are surprised, outflanked, or overwhelmed by numbers. But in that case it has all gone south already; exploding a fireball in the middle of it isn't likely to help much.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 28, 2014 10:29:13 GMT -6
Derv, also consider there is no defined concept of "casting time" in OD&D, nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative, nor even one fixed method of determining initiative.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 28, 2014 17:40:50 GMT -6
nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative Declaring intent is mentioned explicitly in two places that I can recall... The MtM combat rules (which are the basis of OD&D combat) state: "Men may be unhorsed by footmen if they specifically state this is their intent before dice are rolled." (CM p26) The subdual combat rules add: "Any attack may be to subdue rather than to kill, but this intent must be announced before melee begins." (M&T p12) Additionally, the example of play (U&WA p13-14) has a player declaring actions, followed by the referee resolving them. Unfortunately it doesn't include combat, but it's reasonable to presume this style of play should continue regardless of whether a turn is a ten-minute exploration turn or a one-minute combat turn. To do otherwise requires the players to invent some alternative method.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 28, 2014 18:06:21 GMT -6
I was assuming declaring actions would occur before initiative. If not, that would change things. My other assumption was that you were also incorporating the "must be stationary" part of the OD&D (as garnered from CM) rule.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 28, 2014 18:59:37 GMT -6
DD includes declaration of intent, as per the above examples.
I don't think I will be using the phrase "must remain stationary" for spell casting, however. IMHO it's okay to presume minor movements such as turning to face a target, looking around a corner, or stepping through a door are allowed in conjunction with casting a spell. These things would be extremely common, and equivalent to the "abstract" degree of movement a fighter has while engaged in a melee.
The translation of CM's "must remain stationary" into D&D is IMHO more a case of: the player can choose to run away OR to cast a spell in his turn, but not both. The ref might allow him to cast a spell while walking slowly backward, but this wouldn't be a "full move". It might be up to a 3" move, or similar. That would be left to the referee's discretion.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 29, 2014 6:36:53 GMT -6
I looked over the changes you made to the text and feel they are an improvement. There is just two things I'll bring up that may or may not need clarification.
1. Initiative ( I alluded to this before, but may not have been clear )
"...(in the firsr turn)"
This mentions weapon length being a determiner of initiative. Does DD contain this info? If so, I would include a footnote or something as to where it is found (such as, "weapon weight and length is referenced in the weapons list on page x"). Or is this a case where it is left to the DM's judgement to determine weapon length? I realize most could do so.
2. "Otherwise the caster is interrupted and his spell is ruined beore completion."
This sentence suggests that declaring spells before initiative is required. If that is not your intent, then this sentence is unnecessary. Otherwise, it should stay.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 29, 2014 8:38:47 GMT -6
nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative Declaring intent is mentioned explicitly in two places that I can recall... The MtM combat rules (which are the basis of OD&D combat) state: "Men may be unhorsed by footmen if they specifically state this is their intent before dice are rolled." (CM p26) The subdual combat rules add: "Any attack may be to subdue rather than to kill, but this intent must be announced before melee begins." (M&T p12) I believe the first example is just talking about the attack roll, rather than an initiative roll. It's like saying in OD&D: I attack his head since he's not wearing a helmet. The second example seems like a special rule for a particular situation rather than a general rule. Also, if applied generally then all intentions in melee would require a declaration before melee starts. nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative Additionally, the example of play (U&WA p13-14) has a player declaring actions, followed by the referee resolving them. Unfortunately it doesn't include combat, but it's reasonable to presume this style of play should continue regardless of whether a turn is a ten-minute exploration turn or a one-minute combat turn. To do otherwise requires the players to invent some alternative method. I looked at that again, but I don't think it gives us much on 'declarations' before or after initiative in combat. A group could just as easily interpret the OD&D rules/examples to declare and resolve combat actions immediately rather than having separate 'declaration' and 'resolution' phases in combat. In the LBBs there's no mention of 'casting time' so there's no reason a spell could not go off immediately. Example: At the beginning of the round, the players win initiative (rolling on a d6). DM: Ok, you guys go first, let's go around the table. What are you doing? Player A: I attack. DM: Roll d20. You hit and kill 1 orc. Player B: I cast 'Charm Person'. DM: (The DM determines the MU is at the back of the party and can cast). The orc fails its save. Player C: I run away. etc. Declarations before initiative are a fine interpretation, but not required by the OD&D rules (which don't even mention initiative other than using dexterity) or the OD&D FAQ. Wargamers may have taken it for granted, but it's not written down.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 29, 2014 14:54:58 GMT -6
I think I might have to agree with Zenopus. I scoured through the rules and the FAQ but could not find any support for declarations before intitiative, even though this is how I've always played. Chainmail's Turn Sequence doesn't even really support the idea.
I think I may have to return to my original opinion that a spell must be interrupted by "a hit" to be ruined, too. I say this when considering the "Protection from Evil" spell. This is a 1st level spell that lasts 6 turns. It effectively works like magic armor by reducing an attackers hit dice. In this case, I think it would require a successful hit to spoil the spell.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 29, 2014 21:30:55 GMT -6
I don't think it gives us much on 'declarations' before or after initiative in combat. At the time of the 3LBBs there was no "initiative roll", only the "order of striking" from the MtM rules (for men attacking) which is deterministic. The 3LBBs don't state explicitly when monsters should attack, or when spells should be resolved. This "gap" was apparently resolved when the FAQ article gave us the "general purpose" initiative roll which could then be applied to all these cases. I agree that it's not made explicit whether intent should be declared before or after initiative is rolled. If anything, the FAQ example implies that the Orcs win the initiative and then decide what to do with it--but it's an incidental case. Going back to the beginning, Chainmail describes two movement systems. There's the MOVE/COUNTER MOVE system where each player has "a turn", and when it's "his turn" he then decides what to do. Translated to D&D this might look like: When a player "has the initiative" it's "his turn" and he then decides what to do. When his actions have been resolved "the initiative" passes on to his opponent. His opponent then "has the initiative", and can then decide what to do. But Chainmail also has a SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT system in which: "Both sides write orders for each of their units" and then movement, missiles, and melees are resolved according to those orders. Translated to D&D this might look like: Both "sides" (players and monsters) state their intent. Movement, missiles, and melees are then resolved by the referee. I've always presumed D&D uses a SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT system, but I can see that this isn't made explicit anywhere in the 3LBBs. Holmes doesn't appear to address this issue, although he does say: "A player may elect to have a character parry an attacker's blow. He must announce he is doing so before the opponent strikes." (p21). Initiative is deterministic in Holmes--except when dexterity scores are within ±2 of one another (when dice are used) and when dexterity of the enemy is unknown (when it is rolled "on the spot")--so initiative would usually be known prior to statement of intent, at least once the dexterity of each enemy had been determined. Exactly when the ref dice for the opponent's dexterity or for close-call initiative isn't stated [sidetrack]FWIW--The Holmes parry value of -2 (on 1d20) is about half as effective as the MtM parry value of -2 (on 2d6).[/sidetrack]Even AD&D seems to indicate, for combat, that actions are decided after initiative is determined. However, for spell casting AD&D says: "Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative." (DMG p65). Also worth nothing that AD&D says: "Spells cannot be cast while violently moving--such as running, dodging a blow, or even walking normally" (DMG p65) which is inline with both CM and Holmes, so it's probable that's the case for OD&D too. The question for me is how to wrap it all up "neatly" for DD I say this when considering the "Protection from Evil" spell. This is a 1st level spell that lasts 6 turns. It effectively works like magic armor by reducing an attackers hit dice. In this case, I think it would require a successful hit to spoil the spell. I don't think protection from evil can be interrupted during it's duration, except by a dispel magic. IMHO it's only the spells that require ongoing concentration which could be interrupted after they have been cast but before they expire, but the same argument can be applied to all these. Interruption during concentration is a grey area in OD&D--it isn't detailed explicitly that I can see--so it's left to the referee's discretion. Most refs would probably back port their knowledge of later editions to fill this gap; and in this regard AD&D certainly says being grappled or hit will break this concentration (e.g., PHB p79).
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2014 5:12:37 GMT -6
I don't think protection from evil can be interrupted during it's duration, except by a dispel magic. IMHO it's only the spells that require ongoing concentration which could be interrupted after they have been cast but before they expire, but the same argument can be applied to all these. Interruption during concentration is a grey area in OD&D--it isn't detailed explicitly that I can see--so it's left to the referee's discretion. Most refs would probably back port their knowledge of later editions to fill this gap; and in this regard AD&D certainly says being grappled or hit will break this concentration (e.g., PHB p79). I see your point. But this spell would also seem to suggest employing it when already in melee.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2014 5:55:33 GMT -6
I think protection from evil is best invoked prior to any exposure to danger, if at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 31, 2014 1:13:37 GMT -6
I asked around a bit and the rules buffs have pointed out the following:
(DMG p71) This looks a lot like Chainmail's simultaneous movement system--complete with writing orders down.
(B/X B24 and also X24)
FWIW, EPT states (as do the D&D editions) that initiative should be rolled and then actions taken. But to be precise this is only with reference to order of attack. Declarations might be presumed to have been made--or not.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 31, 2014 7:11:02 GMT -6
I asked around a bit and the rules buffs have pointed out the following: (DMG p71) This looks a lot like Chainmail's simultaneous movement system--complete with writing orders down. That's a good quote to know about. There's so much info in the DMG - some of it seemingly conflicting - it's hard to keep track of it all. In the DF thread I posted an example from a few pages later where a magic-user declares an action (grab spider and hurl it to floor) after winning initiative. This type of post-initiative action is more like my hypothetical example I wrote out above.
|
|