Combat Sequence

[Philotomy Jurament]

I've recently been trying out a modified version of the Swords & Spells combat sequence (adjusted for man-to-man combat) in my OD&D/Holmes game. I thought some of you might be interested.

The combat sequence can be found here.

A few things I like about the sequence:

• it's good for miniatures, using facing and fairly precise positioning.
• it splits movement into phases, so it minimizes the "one side crosses all the space on their turn" effect
• it provides simple rules for variable spell-casting times (by spell level/type)
• it allows for multiple missiles (i.e. traditional D&D rates-of-fire)
• it's compatible with traditional elements like weapon reach (and space required)
• there's a simplified version if you don't use minis or prefer a lighter approach
• as a development of Chainmail, it springs from the roots of the game (which is probably why it seems to fit so well with various traditional elements)

IMO, this sequence would work well as an alternate approach for OAD&D, too. (I may try it in my C&C game, as well.)

 

[Delta]

PJ, I like a lot of your commentaries... I'm a classicist myself. Unfortunately, I'll have to take a counterpoint here, because Swords & Spells is one of my least favorite game supplements, perhaps of all time. I really struggled with trying to make it work as a teenager, and in hindsight wish that I'd had almost any other mass-combat ruleset to use instead. I know you'll concede something about the actual combat resolution. (To me, S&S is almost like a church I had to break away from and has colored the way I look at gaming ever since).

Personally, I found the turn sequence hard to use in practice. Dividing all the movement by 2 every turn is a hassle (why not just list movement in half-turn increments, esp., moves like 3" or 9")? Remembering what archers shot when in each of the 3 phases is tricky for me, and also what spells are in progress across multiple phases. Finally, S&S actually has up to 3 rounds of melee per turn if a melee is ongoing from one turn to the next (top of p. 17), which I found takes an inordinate amount of time to adjudicate.

So in retrospect, with all the move/missiles/melee chopped into 2 or 3 slices each, I wonder, why not just call a turn 1/3 of that process, and have a single move-missile-melee per turn? That is one thing that I'm perfectly happy to have. I'm even okay to have the first-mover cross most of the distance at once, because then there's a built-in reward for aggression, and keeps the two sides from staring at each other in defensive positions. And the final thing is I like not having pre-declarations of actions that have to be recalled later (effectively true for spells in S&S, and EGG has argued for them inconsistently in D&D).

Phew. Sorry if that's coming off like a wet blanket, but when someone brings up Swords & Spells it's eternally a raw nerve for me. Anyway, if anyone else finds this useful I'd encourage them to play with it and try it out!

 

[TerraDave]

It has an old time wargame feel. And I did something similar for a mass-battle system I homebrewed long ago.

Also, I remember doing the thing where some one with multiple attacks would attack, everybody else acts, then the first guy attacks again, then it is a new round..

I really apreciate the way 3rd ed does it after all that. And actually like the move in the opposite direction (in some cases!) where in more war-gamey things, each (kind of) unit does its full action before moving to the next unit.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Even if you're not going to use the "slight modifications" PJ has, that is probably the best, tightest description of SWORDS & SPELLS combat rounds you're ever going to see. Bravo, Philotomy!

Hey, would you drop me an email at thedungeondelver@hotmail.com ? I'd appreciate it.

Tx!

 

[T. Foster]

FWIW, I use the simplified/non-minis-based version of this sequence that PJ alludes to, which comes down to, essentially, this:

1. Both sides roll initiative on 1d6
2. Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3. Losing side fires missiles, start spells (and finishes spells of levels 1-2)
4. Both sides move
5. Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect, archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire again
6. Melee

Exceptions to the above sequence are adjudicated by the referee on a case by case basis

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

PJ, I like a lot of your commentaries...

Thanks!

Unfortunately, I'll have to take a counterpoint here, because Swords & Spells is one of my least favorite game supplements, perhaps of all time.

No problem. I knew up-front that this one wouldn't be for everyone. In my musing on initiative and combat, I mention that this sequence is much heavier than my usual approach (which is *very* fast-and-loose). However, lately I've been wanting to try a more "wargamey" approach to combat, and this sequence hit the notes I was looking for.

I've run two OD&D sessions with these rules, so it's a new thing for me, too (although I've also run about a dozen "playtest combats"). So far, it's been well-received by my players. We'll see how things progress. As I mentioned, one of the things I like about this sequence is that there's the "lite" version, as well (i.e. the approach T. Foster posts about in this thread); I may need to add that to my combat sequence page. I could see using both versions in the same game, depending on the situation.

Dividing all the movement by 2 every turn is a hassle (why not just list movement in half-turn increments, esp., moves like 3" or 9")?

I'm not sure that I'm following you; can you give me an example?

Remembering what archers shot when in each of the 3 phases is tricky for me, and also what spells are in progress across multiple phases.

I could see that being an issue in a mass combat (i.e. what the Swords & Spells rules were written to cover), but I haven't found it to be a problem with man-to-man melees (not so far, anyway). Of course, my PCs aren't high enough level to be casting spells that take a long time, yet. Also, the spell casting times are slightly simplified in my version (e.g. instead of trying to track a 1/2 round with this system, I compromise by using +1 spell phase, instead).

Finally, S&S actually has up to 3 rounds of melee per turn if a melee is ongoing from one turn to the next (top of p. 17), which I found takes an inordinate amount of time to adjudicate.

I'm not using that. Nor the S&S-specific rules for first strike. There are a couple other minor differences, as well (e.g. the rules for disengage/retreat, and the distance you're allowed to "sidestep" to intercept an enemy that's trying to flank).

Phew. Sorry if that's coming off like a wet blanket, but when someone brings up Swords & Spells it's eternally a raw nerve for me. Anyway, if anyone else finds this useful I'd encourage them to play with it and try it out!

Nah, you're not being a wet blanket. I expected some "that's too complicated" comments. I've been having a great time with OD&D, and experimenting with "open areas" in the rules is part of the fun, for me. I've been pleased with how this one is going, but it's still new to my game; repeated play may find me drifting more towards the simplified approach T. Foster outlined, and only bringing out the "full version" for special combats that merit the detail. We'll see.

 

[Delta]

Yeah, who knows, maybe it works better at man-to-man scale than the S&S mass scale.

I'm not sure that I'm following you; can you give me an example?

Well, like here's me looking at my S&S Movement table -- under "unorganized", I've got elves & men with 15" move, lizard men with 9", medium cavalry at 21". Of course, no one will ever actually move those distances at once -- when a movement phase comes up I've got to mentally halve those and in practice move them 7-1/2", 4-1/2", and 10-1/2" apiece at a time. If I'm using monsters from D&D, like an ogre with 9" move, same thing -- I really have to find 4-1/2" on my ruler each phase. And I've got to mentally re-compute that from the table each and every move phase. Urk! I teach college math, and even for me I get sick of that halving operation for every unit every phase, and moving all my men & elves 7-1/2" at a time seems very awkward.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Oh, I see. You're right that a table listing the full move and the half-move might be convenient.

(Incidentally, for man-to-man figures I'd recommend using a ground-scale of either 5' per inch or 3.33' per inch, depending on taste.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I've made a PDF version of the combat sequence available.

I also added a (somewhat related) new musing on movement in combat.

 

[Delta]

12 second rounds? Heretic! The one true round length is 10 seconds:
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/03/realistic-time-in-d_17.html