tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post1297137898773935522..comments2024-03-26T15:35:56.004-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Basic D&D: Chainmail ConversionsDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-45820961892573088332015-07-28T01:18:01.154-04:002015-07-28T01:18:01.154-04:00Right, the -2 when it originally appeared in Chain...Right, the -2 when it originally appeared in Chainmail was about a 40% adjustment in the chance to hit, a pretty major effect! So arguably it should be -4 in the D&D system on the d20. There's a lot of legacy stuff like that that looks unusable at first because it just wasn't converted correctly.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-56994691743126983202015-07-26T19:13:14.626-04:002015-07-26T19:13:14.626-04:00So "parry" from Holmes could be read as ...So "parry" from Holmes could be read as -4 modifier to hit. I could sure see that coming into play when facing a wight! Of course -4 is about the same as "5th Edition's" disadvantage (roll 2D20, use the lowest), making it even faster at the table.Jarrett Perduehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781934913113611353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-5839738110472468552011-01-20T15:29:26.204-05:002011-01-20T15:29:26.204-05:00UWS Guy, I don't mean to be a jerk, as often y...UWS Guy, I don't mean to be a jerk, as often you have the kernel of a good point, but -- your posts tend to be really long and kind of garbled and I think they derail the flow of conversation. I feel like I need to ask that your future comments be more concise and to the point. Regards, DC.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-89050692868604096492011-01-20T15:26:51.386-05:002011-01-20T15:26:51.386-05:00Hey sepulchre, yeah, I think we're on the same...Hey sepulchre, yeah, I think we're on the same wavelength with all your latter comments. I think all the "other stuff" from my original post counts as being overlooked for this kind of fix. Namely -- goblins in light; weapon-vs-armor; mounted combat; and parrying. All that stuff was just directly copied forward (where it appeared) without any modification.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-40780888591842846462011-01-19T12:27:02.361-05:002011-01-19T12:27:02.361-05:00Ok this is the 2nd time this has happened.
Delta...Ok this is the 2nd time this has happened. <br /><br />Delta why are you deleting my posts? I certainly did not.UWS guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01277557128674527225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-24464510685143582362011-01-19T11:41:07.245-05:002011-01-19T11:41:07.245-05:00Delta wrote:
'just talking here about modifier...Delta wrote:<br />'just talking here about modifiers that first appear in Chainmail'.<br /><br />Got it. Yeah I didn't mean to sound cheeky about the assassin, and I see your point the modifier to attacks from the rear becomes +2in AD&D. I just found so much of the seeming disconnect between the two systems really frustrating when trying to distill what the game (something based in Chainmail with the some of the example of granularity as it appeared in OD&D derivatives and even AD&D) might really have been at one time, or just ideally. <br /><br /> "Examples: (1) Rear attack +1 [CM p. 25] becomes rear attack +2 [AD&D DMG p. 70]. (2) Missile ranges 0/-1/-2 [CM p. 41,OD&D Vol-1 p. 20] becomes 0/-2/-5 [AD&D PHB p. 38]. (3) Magic sword bonuses +1 to +3 [CM p. 38, OD&D Vol-2 p. 23] becomes +1 to +5 [AD&D DMG p. 124]".<br /><br />Hey, thanks for the examples and source texts too. Indeed, those changes seem to follow and imply some edition-cohesion in design. <br /><br />"In fact, this overall philosophy matches those modifiers that were freshly introduced at the time of AD&D. Cover modifiers are given in increments of at least +2 (cover AC +2/4/7/10; DMG p. 64). The bonus for charging is set at +2 (DMG p. 66). Special to-hit bonuses are in increments of +2 (opponent off-balance +2; opponent stunned or slowed +4; DMG p. 67)."<br /><br />Okay, I see, so it is your assertion that by the publication of AD&D there is pretty much an even translation of the Chainmail modifiers. Did you find any situational modifiers in AD&D that were overlooked? I am thinking of your example of the goblins in sunlight. In Chainmail that modifier is a total of -2 (-1/die) and in OD&D and AD&D it is -1. There are other modifiers in AD&D that appear this way but do not bear a direct relationship to Chainmail, i.e. fanaticism (see dervish). Should the goblin, or even the dervish [who has +1 to hit against normal men (1st-3rd lvl.in OD&D, expanded or overlooked in AD&D to include all)], then be translated as -2 in daylight?<br /><br />Great post BTW, thanks!sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952293440890212935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-79933805715251155272011-01-19T11:39:42.890-05:002011-01-19T11:39:42.890-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952293440890212935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-74470248262842316052011-01-19T11:39:10.571-05:002011-01-19T11:39:10.571-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952293440890212935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-14046740946850353442011-01-19T11:38:29.912-05:002011-01-19T11:38:29.912-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952293440890212935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-45857661833751311802011-01-18T15:07:32.713-05:002011-01-18T15:07:32.713-05:00Hey sepulchre -- Of course, I'm just talking h...Hey sepulchre -- Of course, I'm just talking here about modifiers that first appear in <i>Chainmail</i>. The +4 assassin rear attack in the AD&D PHB seems fine to me.<br /><br />You might also note that a very few things did get design attention such that they did evolve between Chainmail & AD&D. Examples: (1) Rear attack +1 [CM p. 25] becomes rear attack +2 [AD&D DMG p. 70]. (2) Missile ranges 0/-1/-2 [CM p. 41,OD&D Vol-1 p. 20] becomes 0/-2/-5 [AD&D PHB p. 38]. (3) Magic sword bonuses +1 to +3 [CM p. 38, OD&D Vol-2 p. 23] becomes +1 to +5 [AD&D DMG p. 124].<br /><br />So I think that to whatever extent the designers overcame their "laziness" (to use 1d30's phrase), they did go in a direction of doubling modifiers from Chainmail, which I think is correct.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-49611460408680487902011-01-17T16:11:00.033-05:002011-01-17T16:11:00.033-05:00Odrook said:
'What I'd really like to do s...Odrook said:<br />'What I'd really like to do sometime is us the Man-to-Man combat charts with a d12 for D&D'.<br />The problem with this approach is that so much of the static numbers that represent the power of units in Chainmail are in that mid range, i.e. a knights morale and his chance to remain. If the probability were not bell-shaped the system as presented would not really work; a d12, unfortunately makes the result too random. <br /><br />Delta wrote:<br />"It's situational +1 modifiers that I'd like to clear out". <br />Should the assassin receive +8 when attacking at the rear?<br /><br />"(a) greatly minimize the originally-designed probability effects, or (b) convert the modifiers (2-for-1), and thus violate the by-the-book rules in OD&D, AD&D, et. al., on each of these issues (and more generally, the overall precedent for such translations)".<br />I tried this and got into a lengthy discussion about it in the OD&D forum at K&K. I discovered that one could alter the modifiers as you suggest. However, the really dilema came with the curviture and distribution of probablitity that to my mind, just make Chainmail and all of its D&D derivatives to be just entirely different games. You may be right in your summing this up as 'laziness', but I also think to expand the granularity of the game the curviture had to be altered and that included blunting the effect of the modifiers, rightly or wrongly.sepulchrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952293440890212935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-70479632388772754662011-01-11T12:50:42.886-05:002011-01-11T12:50:42.886-05:00Hey 1d30 -- I do think that +1 modifiers are fine ...Hey 1d30 -- I do think that +1 modifiers are fine and useful granularity if they're fixed on the sheet (Level, AC, Strength bonus, etc.). It's situational +1 modifiers that I'd like to clear out.<br /><br />At this point my top historical hypothesis is what you call the "lazy" one; same for issues of man-to-man scale, etc. Gygax & others of the original D&D crew were (and are) quite public about how unconcerned they were with such trivia (to them).Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-82723603333175683262011-01-11T12:43:18.204-05:002011-01-11T12:43:18.204-05:00If we don't track 1-point modifiers, I'm n...If we don't track 1-point modifiers, I'm not sure there's a good reason to use a d20 at all. Using a d10 or the lovely little d12 might be a better choice, halving all AD&D modifiers (and ignoring the difference in a d12 just because it's a cool die). <br /><br />In the system I use, with a d20 for success checks, inconsequential modifiers (the sun was in my eyes!) are ignored. Important modifiers give a +/- 1 or 2 (mounted, attacked from behind, Orcish sunlight sensitivity, blindness, parrying). This way there's a large swath of probability but modifiers don't affect it to the point that it becomes a certainty. <br /><br />This is a problem in games like AD&D where the maximum Armor Class is only 20 pips away from the lowest Armor Class. A high level Fighter with weapon specialization, a good magic weapon, high Strength, and other magic items may reach a point where he misses any target only on an unmodified 1. This seems funky when you consider his chance to fail is the same whether he tries to pierce a dragon's scales or smack any part of a barn. <br /><br />D&D 3E sort of fixed this with unlimited target numbers (both at the low end and the high end) but combined that with inflated number values on all sides so everything was more difficult to track at the table. <br /><br />---<br /><br />How possible do you think it is that the game designers just decided to reduce the effect of modifiers by keeping them small while increasing the die roll's probability space? Looking at it like you did it does seem unlikely. A simpler answer is just that the writers were a little lazy and didn't bother to check the probabilities. But didn't Gygax have a significant hand in the 1E AD&D DMG? Wouldn't he have taken that into account?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-24010124338823787572011-01-11T00:33:47.234-05:002011-01-11T00:33:47.234-05:00What I'd really like to do sometime is us the ...What I'd really like to do sometime is us the Man-to-Man combat charts with a d12 for D&D. It would flatten the curve a bit compared to Chainmail proper, and makes any bonus somewhat more profound than in D&D proper, but the idea appeals to me. I think I'd like to rate weapons by their attack rank rather than by damage dealt. <br /><br />And anybody who has a whole mess of d12s would be able to quickly roll for several henchmen or several monsters at once, more easily than rolling a bunch of d20s, IMO.Odrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16693018140658090516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-18056281456533941732011-01-10T20:42:41.364-05:002011-01-10T20:42:41.364-05:00Great post. You're overlooking/conflating one ...Great post. You're overlooking/conflating one aspect--which is what gygax and co. did as well. That is between normal combat and fantasy. <br /><br />Taking magic swords and armor; in normal man-to-man combat a sword really adds +3 (+1d6 actually) to the 2d6 attack roll, but only +1 pip on the FCT. <br /><br />The magic armor grant -3 to the 2d6 attack roll in normal MtM but only -1 on the fantasy MtM (aka FCT). <br /><br />This is easily chalked up to the fact that the FCT 2d6 attack represented 1 hit = 1 kill (or more accurately a single roll that determined an entire battle) so any small bonus was important, but a hero could withststand up to 4 simultaneous hits in normal man-to-man combat before being brought low, so the modifiers could be larger. <br /><br />This is evidenced in the magic arrow rules as well. In normal MtM a 'magic missile' automatically struck it's target, but in fantasy MtM/FCT the magic arrow only provided a +1 to the 2d6 roll.<br /><br />I lean toward the larger numbers, but at 1st level characters are still in that 1 hit 1 kill boat.UWS guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01277557128674527225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-27562943445209221172011-01-10T19:10:58.763-05:002011-01-10T19:10:58.763-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.UWS guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01277557128674527225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-44071604682059539942011-01-10T10:57:22.279-05:002011-01-10T10:57:22.279-05:00This is a very insightful post. Thanks for making ...This is a very insightful post. Thanks for making (and, no, I'm not sure what my stance is on it -- I need to think some more).James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.com