Fortifying the Fighters

[captaincrumbcake]

From years of actual experience, and more than that reading of others' regarding the issue, I have been developing a simple mechanic that will allow small groups of characters to encounter larger groups of monsters as would (reasonably) be the situation; especially in regards to those found in published scenarios. The idea of having to water down an encounter to accommodate the party size has always been repugnant to me; life doesn't play softball, and in most cases, neither do (or should) games.

So what did I come up with?


Thinking back upon Chain Mail, I've assembled the following mechanic that will, I believe, address the matter.


Attacks Per Round

1. All Fighting Men, Dwarfs, Hobbits and Elves (when functioning as fighters), may attack 1 opponent per level attained; such attacks are/can be, divided up toward the number of targets available.

2. Combat with a single target/enemy (one-on-one) will receive a bonus to damage against said target in lieu of multiple attacks. (As follows)


FTR
LVL     Multiple     Damage vs.
         Attacks     1 Opponent
1           1                  -
2           2                 +1
3           3                 +1
4           4                 +2
5           5                 +2
6           6                 +3
7           7                 +3
8           8                 +4
9           9                 +4

3. Damage vs. 2 opponents will equal 1/2 of that given as against a single opponent(dropping fractions).

4. If a fighter has more attacks than potential targets, the character may perform a single--simple!--action in lieu of such attack/s. (i.e., gulp a potion, change weapons, move, read a scroll, bind/assist a wounded companion, etc.)

Obviously, this is not tested, and will require some tweaking.

[robkuntz]

Too complicated; too much record keeping; too much in-game tracking and assessment. Scaling works much better for me and is taken care of up front and is immediate. Mechanics do not solve everything, but they do often point the way to what can be done (and what should not be done) with them. Design is really about the most expeditious route to resolving a problem, and in this case the resolution creates more time expenditure (i.e., problems) for me, time better utilized elsewhere. YMMV on your car, but do keep your foot to the pedal...

[Admin Pete]

One thing I love about this place is that I love to see people just throw ideas out - whether they have been play tested or not. I also love the fact that we can agree or disagree without it being an insult.

There is a lot to be said for using these forums as a place to brainstorm. Over time (years) we throw out dozens, hundreds, thousands of ideas, we throw out comments and/or variations on those ideas and we mine the site for things that resonate with the way we do things in our own campaigns so we grab a little bit of this and a little bit of that, tweak it, twist it and and make it our own and use it to create something different.

I don't know about you, but I like to do things that are different, to give my players something that no one else could or would give them. Hopefully, sometimes to come up with something that they might remember 40 years from now and smile.

[captaincrumbcake]

Well, given that Fighting Men (in OD&D) don't have a lot to keep track of, anyway, the mechanic I whipped up certainly isn't complex; no more so than spells/turn undead

imo

[Admin Pete]

Apr 1, 2016 14:50:26 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Well, given that Fighting Men (in OD&D) don't have a lot to keep track of, anyway, the mechanic I whipped up certainly isn't complex; no more so than spells/turn undead

imo

Are you currently able to play test it? Also I have a question. You have a 4th level fighter versus 4 - 1 HD opponents, so he gets 4 total attacks/per melee round, now the same 4th level fighter versus 4 - 4 HD opponents - does he still get 4 total attacks/per melee round? Do his opponents the 4 - 4 HD monsters also each get 4 attacks or just the normal attacks?

[robkuntz]

Apr 1, 2016 14:50:26 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Well, given that Fighting Men (in OD&D) don't have a lot to keep track of, anyway, the mechanic I whipped up certainly isn't complex; no more so than spells/turn undead

imo

Well, that depends.  Complicated compared to what?  For you, perhaps not.  For someone who invests their time in what is considered more substantial areas, it's a hindrance and a needless complication that is otherwise resolved forthright by scaling.  It's not just about "fighting men don't have a lot to keep track of," i have a lot more to do besides fiddling with mechanics that, in the end, have very little impact on world creation and game immersion and the development of that through play.  It's a pragmatic stance for getting as much out of the way as possible to maximize play and world-building which is taking place in it.  The mechanics are indeed important to the game part, but to the world sense as leagued to it?  They are meant to support the first proposition, and if they cannot, then they are to get out of the way of it in all cases (for me).  As noted, YMMV.

[tetramorph]

captaincrumbcake, I like where you are going with this. Here is how I do something similar. It is logical, gives players of FM a choice, and does not use up too much brain power.

First, attack rolls work like this:

HD + target AC > or = to 20

I then allow FM to split their HD.

So a hero could attack once w 4 HD, twice w 2, 4 times w 1 HD, etc.

Alternatively, FM could purchase greater damage.

So, a hero could attack once w 4 HD and roll 1d6 damage.

Or once w 1 HD and "purchase" 3 more damage dice if successful for a total of 4d6 damage.

In other words, the FM gets to decide if he would like to purchase more attacks or greater damage at the cost of less chance of hitting.

[tetramorph]

Oh, also, once heroic (for me, lvl 3+), I count all damage in terms of number of kills against "normals."

So, e.g., a 3+ lvl FM takes out d6 goblins per round of successful attack.

[captaincrumbcake]

Apr 1, 2016 14:57:21 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Apr 1, 2016 14:50:26 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Well, given that Fighting Men (in OD&D) don't have a lot to keep track of, anyway, the mechanic I whipped up certainly isn't complex; no more so than spells/turn undead

imo

Are you currently able to play test it? Also I have a question. You have a 4th level fighter versus 4 - 1 HD opponents, so he gets 4 total attacks/per melee round, now the same 4th level fighter versus 4 - 4 HD opponents - does he still get 4 total attacks/per melee round? Do his opponents the 4 - 4 HD monsters also each get 4 attacks or just the normal attacks?

Hmmmmm. Obviously, it appears I haven't either (a) been specific, or (b) thought this out to its extreme. Let's tackle them one at a time.

A. This would apply to combat vs 1HD or less beings/creatures/monsters. I think this is the basic CM combat action. (Anyone that is familiar with/or an expert, on CM--please verify this.)
B. Yes, and No. The HD of a monster/creature/being (as in an ogre, direwolf, or medusa) does not equate to fighting-ability of a Fighting Man. This mechanic is exclusive to player-character Fighting Men. Versus other Fighting Men of the same level, then I would say...why bother? 1 attack each would be the simplest form of resolution. Versus a higher level fighter, would the character's opponent actually have more attacks than the player? This may need addressing. 

[LouGoncey]

I use the Target 20 system (d20 +fighting capacity+target AC >=20) with Fighting Men getting +1 per hit die -- they also get to split their bonus any way they want.

Ex: a 3rd level Fighting Man can roll against one target with a +3 or two targets one with a +2 and the other with a +1, or 3 targets at +1 each.

They cannot split their attack bonus to attack the same target, and they can only target missile targets when they are not within melee range.

Only fighters gain this bonus -- not non-human creatures. (But there are no nonhuman PCs in my current campaign...)

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 1, 2016 12:41:11 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Thinking back upon Chain Mail, I've assembled the following mechanic that will, I believe, address the matter.

"Chainmail".

The fantasy supplement therein addresses the matter, I think, rather neatly.

CM includes normal combat (versus normal types) in which a figure's fighting capability is measured in terms of "Men". E.g., a man fights as one Man while a Hero fights as four Men, implying these throw one die and four dice in normal combat, respectively. Fighting capability stats appear for player-types in Dalluhn (1973), in M&M (1974), and in GH (1975).

CM also includes fantastic combat (versus heroic/fantastic types) in which a figure's fighting capability is determined by its type. I.e., Dragons, Trolls, Giants, Heroes, etc. each have their own unique combat stats on the Fantasy Combat Table. A single throw (of 2d6) in fantastic combat can result in whatever damage is necessary to slay an opponent, be it a Wight, a Lycanthrope, a Dragon, or whatever. The implication is that CM's fantastic combat is more abstract than is normal combat; a single throw represents enough combat action to potentially slay a fantastic opponent.

I believe Dave Arneson included something similar in his early game in that Hit Dice were the number of dice you rolled for damage when you scored a hit. I.e, flunkies would deal 1 damage die on a hit, men-at-arms would deal 2 damage dice on a hit, heroes would deal 4 dice damage on a hit, etc. (or something close to this). It got turned around in D&D, so that hit dice became the number of dice you rolled to determine what damage could be sustained, rather than what damage could be caused.


All that being whatever it is, one might experimentally suppose that that:

Normal combat = 1 attack per HD, each hit deals one die damage.
Fantastic combat = 1 attack, a hit deals one damage die per HD.

In this case, we may not need the attack matrices at all; we could get away with only the first row for all attacks. Even so, one-on-one fantastic combat could be rather deadly this way--possibly why HD were turned around in D&D.

Fun stuff to try out, for sure

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, I think this is the clearest analysis I have read so far.

It is this particular conversion of HD b/w representing damage receivable and damage deliverable that I tried to morph into the system I use, described above.

[bestialwarlust]

For my od&d games I use the clone Delving Deeper. I use fighters as is and find that the CM adaptions used there make the fighter good. So the way it works there is any non heroic creature (i.e) less than 3 HD the fighter gets one attack roll per the fighters HD. Now I use the one minute abstract combat round + d6 damage. For example let's take a fighter in one of my sessions he was 5th level with 5 HD they fought a group of 5 goblins all fall under the fighters multiple attack rolls. Out of 5 rolls he has 4 successful hits I then have the player roll 4d6 and give me the total damage with a total roll of 20 points of damage.

As combat and movement are abstracted I treat it as a fireball applying the damage to each goblin starting with the lowest HP first. Say the goblins have 2,2,3,4,5 HP that's less then a total of 20 HP so the fighter kills them all. I just narrate as follows "You move into the a wall of blades and death at the end no goblins are left standing" Quick, simple and darn impressive, who needs a fireball when you have a lawnmower.

Being able to do that as well as better HP and armor seemed to keep the fighter happy. Now in 3e you'd have to have a cleave feat, improved cleave, etc.. to do that. Against "heroic" monsters (4HD+) this doesn't apply, but the fighter is a combat machine so I just let the player try anything and adjudicate from there. "It's a giant I want to rush at it dive between it's legs to get behind it and slash at it's hamstrings and try to knock it down." All that can be done just tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what you need to roll. No feats needed abstract combat makes it work much easier.

[captaincrumbcake]

I believe Dave Arneson included something similar in his early game in that Hit Dice were the number of dice you rolled for damage when you scored a hit. I.e, flunkies would deal 1 damage die on a hit, men-at-arms would deal 2 damage dice on a hit, heroes would deal 4 dice damage on a hit, etc. (or something close to this). It got turned around in D&D, so that hit dice became the number of dice you rolled to determine what damage could be sustained, rather than what damage could be caused.





All that being whatever it is, one might experimentally suppose that that:



Normal combat = 1 attack per HD, each hit deals one die damage.

Fantastic combat = 1 attack, a hit deals one damage die per HD.



In this case, we may not need the attack matrices at all; we could get away with only the first row for all attacks. Even so, one-on-one fantastic combat could be rather deadly this way--possibly why HD were turned around in D&D.

This is interesting.

I'd like to add to my original thoughts that, the mechanic proposed is not recommended if one is using the GH supplement. It, alone, grants bonuses and additional precepts that already fortify the fighting man. 

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 2, 2016 13:14:16 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

if one is using the GH supplement. It, alone, grants bonuses and additional precepts that already fortify the fighting man.

Dunno. For me, the jury is still out on that one.

I agree that GH tips the odds for a fighter with 17+ strength; for the other 98% of fair characters it's not so clear cut.

[robkuntz]

Tsk, Tsk. 41 years later and a "jury"is still out? Jury of the (or "a") mind bent on perfection of an abstraction? That's a good one, WOE! You provided me with a good laugh today!

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 3, 2016 6:51:21 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Tsk, Tsk. 41 years later and a "jury"is still out? Jury of the (or "a") mind bent on perfection of an abstraction? That's a good one, WOE! You provided me with a good laugh today!

Yep. That's why I wrote "For me, the jury is still out".

I've owned a copy of GH for maybe five or six years, and don't use it regularly.

What, for you, makes the average GH-fighter better off compared to the average 3LBB-fighter?

[Deleted]

A Hit Dice increase and generally increased variable weapon damage for all weapons; I'd say that's a leg up from LBB.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 3, 2016 7:08:55 GMT -5 JMiskimen said:

Aside from a Hit Dice increase and generally increased variable weapon damage for all weapons; I'd say that's a leg up from LBB.

Sure JMiskimen , that's the first impression we get, but I don't think it's really that simple.

The GH-FM gets a few more hp than the 3LBB-FM, for sure, but that isn't a meaningful comparison: the two would rarely play together at the same time.  What matters more, IMHO, is how many hp the GH-FM has relative to other things in GH. In particular, how many hp he has relative to GH-monsters hp, and to GH-monster damage.

GH-monsters also get 8-sided HD, so there's no major change in balance between GH-monster hp and GH-fighter hp (the GH-FM actually looses a few adds which the 3LBB-FM had over the monsters).

Many of the GH-monsters also get a boost to the damage they can do. I haven't studied it, but it would be interesting to see how the ratio of monster-damage to fighter-hp changed with GH. In the 3LBBs a lot of monsters do 1-6 hp. In GH a lot of monsters can do quite a bit more damge.

Then there's the damage fighters can do compared to monster hp. To stay "even" with GH-monster hp growth, the GH-fighter has to do base 1-8 damage.

It seems, at a quick look, that most of the mainstay weapons (sword, axe, flail, spear) do 1-8 hp damage vs mediums, so they are inline with the GH "normal" HD and "normal" hit. There are a few weapons that get "downgraded" to 1-6 or less (including missile weapons--which will hurt the shooty fighters). On the other hand, a few weapons (halberd, and 2h-sword) get an upgrade to 1-10 damage, but all of these weapons are space restricted (except spears set vs charge, but these are downgraded from 2-12 damage in the 3LBBs anyway).

The extra damage vs. large opponents initially looks advantageous, but of the weapons that deal greater than 1-8 hp, only swords are not space restricted. Fortunately, these do 1-12 damage which is an advantage; it's effectively one-and-a-half "normal" hits.

So... how does all that stack up for the average fighting-man?  I don't know; which is why I said FOR ME the jury is still out on that one.

[robkuntz]

Apr 3, 2016 7:05:19 GMT -5 waysoftheearth said:

Apr 3, 2016 6:51:21 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Tsk, Tsk. 41 years later and a "jury"is still out? Jury of the (or "a") mind bent on perfection of an abstraction? That's a good one, WOE! You provided me with a good laugh today!

Yep. That's why I wrote "For me, the jury is still out".

I've owned a copy of GH for maybe five or six years, and don't use it regularly.

What, for you, makes the average GH-fighter better off compared to the average 3LBB-fighter?

Yes.  True.  But still, 41 years is a lot of contemplation given to an abstract by anyone along that time stream, all of which is covered mostly through various immediate alternatives if it was ever an issue, which its use, to date, proves otherwise.

Yes, the increase in other ways as we have all noted comprise to increase the fighter's ability and staying power, in the abstract, as best as was determined at the time, juries nothwithstanding.  Those who did not like it didn't use it; those that did like it, did; and those that saw ventures within it saw them pretty immediately, as we did, and made the changes then.  Rules committees were not prevalent at the time; today they are pretty much in vogue. The internet was not apparent then, so we had to make immediate decisions for play and pretty much subjected our design minds in force over a very concentrated time span and in various manners within that with forthright results; and so I assure you that I was not writing Arneson in the Twin Cities, nor was Dave querying me, about such matters which are now seemingly of exceeding import to others in the present.  We wanted to play, not talk about how to play; the rules were there.  They work. They are a fantastic abstraction of another abstraction in operation, and they can indeed be changed, amended, tweaked, discussed at length on into the future.  I wish you continued luck with that, of course; in between I'll be playing out my world and not my minute concerns, which were dealt with either 41 years ago or sometime immediately thereafter.

[captaincrumbcake]

Two things I'd like to add to this discussion about the Greyhawk and the Fighting Man.

1. One can add--or not--anything from the supplement into one's own campaign/game. Allowing only the ability bonus/penalty tables and not the variable weapon damage is totally okay. While it, still, only benefits the upper strata of FM, there are also two side-benefits that one can include:

2. The chance to be a paladin, and the dexterity bonus given only to fighters, with scores of 15-18; the latter, decreasing an enemy's chances to hit the FM by 5 to 15%--that's a -1 to -3 penalty to each monster's attack roll on a d20, and is a wonderful benefit for front line characters.

One is not compelled to include Greyhawk in its entirety into one's game. Being selective might, in some instances, actually be the better approach.

[robkuntz]

Which of course fits with Gary's quotes, again, about there are no Laws, etc. It's pick and choose how it fits in each prescriptive sense; and the vast majority play as is, I suppose, whereas the minority fiddle with it forever, or, reach some immediate conclusion and are done with it.

Greyhawk is but an extended example of Arneson's DIY philosophy, anyway. It was meant to inform for the most part, not replace; Gary unfortunately went the replacement route through AD&D where Greyhawk style parts then became the norm, but I rather hope that people even rose above that as another extended example only rather than as Law. People do tend towards expediency for many reasons; and my own are not for lack of substitutes. I just do not believe that in a game of infinite possibilities/game situations that rules perfection is possible, thus the idea of fiddling everything into a specific is, for me, as it was for Gary and Dave, a fool's quest.

[captaincrumbcake]

I just do not believe that in a game of infinite possibilities/game situations that rules perfection is possible, thus the idea of fiddling everything into a specific is, for me, as it was for Gary and Dave, a fool's quest.

I suppose if one is fiddling with stuff with that intent (to achieve rules perfection, entirely), then I think we are in agreement.

But fiddling with this or that, from a desire to customize one's own paradigm/approach to the game, isn't necessarily the same thing. And in fact, I'd offer, is actually very, Arnesonian.

In the end, for each of us, it is how far one fiddles and the results thereof, that not only determine the individual differences between D&D group-play, and how much we look at one another's results and agree or disagree they are/were successful or not.

[robkuntz]

@ccc: I am near finishing a summary chapter for my book, this about Arneson's design and design theory leaps. I have isolated 24 prime leaps he made, and the only leap he did with mechanics was to make them subservient to the conceptual play sphere (a reversal from pre-Arnesonian design tenants linked to game theory, wherein mechanics were adhered to in play as strict forms). As noted by one of his interview quotes, "Rules Lawyers are the Enemy," you can gather for yourself how much he strictly adhered to the rules within an ever changing form of infinite conceptual world possibilities, or how much Gary or myself did, as well. Do you believe that Gary and I maintained strict house rules? For certain steadfast things, yes, but much of what we did was by-the-moment and rarely, if ever, repeated itself except as a base example if another rising circumstance had similar parameters that we could then use the previous systemization as a base to move from. The why of this is as I've stated, that in a play world of infinite possibilities one can take a subset and modify it based upon newly introduced information. This was one of Arneson's leaps, which I refer to "Ongoing Systemization," and which is why Arneson abhorred rules strictness.

As for finding the way within the game through sub-systems and categorizing RPG play by these, seemingly, through combat only as the game, this is decidedly anti-Arneson, as he was definitely on the side of "role" rather than "roll," as noted, again, in his many interview quotes.

You will have to forgive me for my overt criticisms in this regard, for I am but a humble servant of the holistic game and see each feature as co-equal, but this is hardly what I have noted expressed for years on forums, many of which, in my estimation, have become more mechanics factories rather than embracing the many other opportunities and forms readily apparent to the game through even a cursory examination of same.

I now bow out of this thread. Please proceed as if I had never intruded.

[captaincrumbcake]

awww, you don't gotta leave. (lol)
But, in that light, perhaps the topic is beyond MCP. I posted a thought, and some of us have bandied it about.
Perhaps we should let the members just read what we've said, and do their own thing/thinking.

[Deleted]

First, NEVER "water down" the encounter depending on party size. The six trolls on the first level are six trolls, period. If three first level characters encounter them, it will be a slaughter. If three tenth-level characters encounter them, it will be a cakewalk.

THIS IS NOT A BUG. THIS IS A FEATURE.

Second, the LEAST importan, LEAST interesting thing about any character, including the Fighter, is what dice they throw. Teach your players TACTICS. Tactics are not "mash whichever button finishes cooldown."

This darn hobby needs referees who know tactics and enforce the results of poor tactics. The utter failure of most players as tacticians is best shown in a discussion elsewhere where somebody said "So the light armored guy moves faster, so he gets to the heavy armored enemy first and gets slaughtered."

To which I replied "If you're stupid enough to throw light troops into the teeth of heavy, you deserve to get handed your ass in a bucket."

[tetramorph]

You know, another way FM come pre-fortified in the LLBs is that they are the only ones who can wield magic swords and magic swords is one of the two most likely magic items. They are, apparently, fairly ubiquitous! If you get a good intelligence roll, you've got a pretty powerful FM!

[Admin Pete]

Apr 4, 2016 16:13:56 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

You know, another way FM come pre-fortified in the LLBs is that they are the only ones who can wield magic swords and magic swords is one of the two most likely magic items. They are, apparently, fairly ubiquitous! If you get a good intelligence roll, you've got a pretty powerful FM!

Yeah, that is true a Fighting Man with a good STR and INT does have a leg up if they have a high INT and High EGO sword. Of course it is really good when the FM and the Sword turn out to be on the same page.

[tetramorph]

Apr 4, 2016 18:54:04 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Apr 4, 2016 16:13:56 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

You know, another way FM come pre-fortified in the LLBs is that they are the only ones who can wield magic swords and magic swords is one of the two most likely magic items. They are, apparently, fairly ubiquitous! If you get a good intelligence roll, you've got a pretty powerful FM!

Yeah, that is true a Fighting Man with a good STR and INT does have a leg up if they have a high INT and High EGO sword. Of course it is really good when the FM and the Sword turn out to be on the same page.

Yes, and it is REALLY fun when they don't!

[captaincrumbcake]

Apr 4, 2016 16:07:21 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

First, NEVER "water down" the encounter depending on party size. The six trolls on the first level are six trolls, period. If three first level characters encounter them, it will be a slaughter. If three tenth-level characters encounter them, it will be a cakewalk.

THIS IS NOT A BUG. THIS IS A FEATURE.

Second, the LEAST importan, LEAST interesting thing about any character, including the Fighter, is what dice they throw. Teach your players TACTICS. Tactics are not "mash whichever button finishes cooldown."

This darn hobby needs referees who know tactics and enforce the results of poor tactics. The utter failure of most players as tacticians is best shown in a discussion elsewhere where somebody said "So the light armored guy moves faster, so he gets to the heavy armored enemy first and gets slaughtered."

To which I replied "If you're stupid enough to throw light troops into the teeth of heavy, you deserve to get handed your ass in a bucket."

I agree with you Mike, in principle. If, and its a big IF, the game we each play (D&D) was nothing more, nor less, than all the other throwaway games that are faddish, we rush to own, and play until we are bored then cast them aside looking for the new it.

But from my observations, D&D is definitely not that kind of game. Just playing it is an investment of many things other than, simply, time, and opportunity to hang around with some pals and see who ends up owning Boardwalk or Park Place.

I assume that some find--and treat--it as just another game. But I would argue that, were that so (and a belief held by the vast majority), I doubt we'd have forums where we all sit around dickering on about it decades after the fact.