In Place of Chainmail?

[Green Knight]

By that argument, who needs preprinted rules? Just agree between the two of you how much damage an ogre club does, how much armor a dwarf champion has, how fast the unicorn cavalry can charge, etc.

*sigh* You're missing my point entirely. But hey, if you prefer to whack away at a straw man then feel free to whack away.

My point is this: Their is no way to accurately gauge the points value of a model. Just look at Games Workshop. They've been in the business for YEARS and they haven't come up with a way for people to make wholly new units from scratch. Such a system would be inherently unbalanced as some abilities are more powerful when used in conjunction with other abilities. That's why GW suggests that whenever creating a new unit, just work out the point value of the unit with your opponent, as the only way to determine a point value for a unit is through playtest. There is no system for determining such a thing that wouldn't end up unbalanced.

And in the context of a D&D game, you don't NEED to know how much a unit costs pointwise, as it's not point values by which you're determining what's in your force.

Perhaps a point system will have loop-holes, but having some guidelines makes more sense than having none, right? After all, until you've played the game a few times, you don't really know what makes for a fair battle. Hopefully the designers know more than you do.

They DO know more than me. THAT'S why I'm saying what I'm saying. They THEMSELVES have said that there's no system for determining point values other than play testing, for the same reasons that I listed, above.

If you need (or want) to know the CR of small encounters, I don't see why you wouldn't want to know the mega-CR of mega-encounters. It is a game after all, not a pure simulation

Didn't I address this point in a previous post? Well, let me repeat it.

Point values are not based on Challenge Rating. They're more specific than that. For instance, the Glaiver, Human Marine and the Swiftwing Disciple in Chainmail are all first level characters. Fighter, Rogue, and Monk respectively. In D&D, they're all Challenge Rating 1 creatures. Yet in Chainmail, the Glaiver is 8 points, the Marine is 5 points, while the Swiftwing Disciple is 7 points. As you can see, point values and CR are completely unrelated. So point values on units are completely useless when it comes to figuring out experience.

And CR is easy to figure out. Whether it's 5 on 5 or 5,000 on 5,000. There's nothing new that needs to be figured out, here. No need for "Mega-CR". Maybe some tables for simplifying the math, but nothing more than that.

 

[mmadsen]

Point values are not based on Challenge Rating.

But they serve the same purpose, more or less, right? In both small RPG combats and large wargame combats, we want to set appropriate challenges -- or we want to know just how skewed the odds are against the guys defending the Alamo.

They're more specific than that. For instance, the Glaiver, Human Marine and the Swiftwing Disciple in Chainmail are all first level characters. Fighter, Rogue, and Monk respectively. In D&D, they're all Challenge Rating 1 creatures. Yet in Chainmail, the Glaiver is 8 points, the Marine is 5 points, while the Swiftwing Disciple is 7 points. As you can see, point values and CR are completely unrelated.

I'm not sure how that demonstrates that they're completely unrelated. What if we renormalized all the Chainmail point values so that a Glaiver was CR 1.0, a Marine 0.625, and a Swiftwing Disciple 0.875?

I can certainly see why Chainmail would want a greater level of detail in point values, since first-level Fighters in full plate with halberds are much tougher than first-level Fighters in leather with shields and handaxes -- and those are the kind of differences you'll see between forces.

A more important issue would be measuring circumstance bonuses and penalties to CR, since archers defending a castle are far tougher than those same archers across an open field.

 

[Green Knight]

But they serve the same purpose, more or less, right? In both small RPG combats and large wargame combats, we want to set appropriate challenges -- or we want to know just how skewed the odds are against the guys defending the Alamo.

But who says the enemy army won't have a CR in a D&D game? I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that a point value, when using a mass combat miniature wargame within the context a D&D campaign, isn't necessary.

I'm not sure how that demonstrates that they're completely unrelated.

It demonstrates they're unrelated in that in D&D, all three would be worth EXACTLY the same amount of experience points, but in Chainmail, they're worth a different amount of points when you kill them.

What if we renormalized all the Chainmail point values so that a Glaiver was CR 1.0, a Marine 0.625, and a Swiftwing Disciple 0.875?

How about we don't? That's just making things needlessly complicated, not to mention rewriting the experience rules in the DMG. All level 1 creatures are CR 1 in D&D. Now you want to say that a level 1 Rogue is CR 0.625? That a 1st level Monk is CR 0.875? So how am I supposed to figure out the experience points for a CR 0.625 creature?

In D&D, it doesn't matter if that troll has a club or a chain shirt and a greatsword. It's still CR 5. Why make it any more complicated than that?

A more important issue would be measuring circumstance bonuses and penalties to CR, since archers defending a castle are far tougher than those same archers across an open field.

That's certainly something that someone would have to come up with. Also CR's for war machines, like cannons, for example.

 

[Jovah]

BattleStorm

Has anyone else tried BattleStorm?

It was produced by Ral Partha. It had pretty good rules for creating units: armor=x, special skills= y

We used it in one D&D campaign and it worked pretty well.
Battlestorm does not have a well-developed magic system- I believe that was coming when Ral Partha got sold. We did ok with our "balancing" of the few mages hat were in the battle.

The one problem we had was do you really want to have a character get killed in a big melee when the view is wide instead of pinpointed on the party.

We ruled that every fig that was "out" might be dead or just injured (some %)

 

[mmadsen]

I'm just saying that a point value, when using a mass combat miniature wargame within the context a D&D campaign, isn't necessary.

So what are you suggesting the DM uses for guidelines when putting together an enemy army that will challenge the PCs' army?

It demonstrates they're unrelated in that in D&D, all three would be worth EXACTLY the same amount of experience points, but in Chainmail, they're worth a different amount of points when you kill them.

Is an Ogre in Full Plate with a Masterwork Greatsword tougher than one with no armor and no weapons? Of course! Should the CR system reflect this? Maybe, maybe not. It might not be worth the extra complexity when the DM can just eyeball an appropriate EL and experience reward. If your game revolves around legions of low-level soldiers with vastly different equipment though, doesn't it make sense to take that into account?

That's just making things needlessly complicated, not to mention rewriting the experience rules in the DMG. All level 1 creatures are CR 1 in D&D. Now you want to say that a level 1 Rogue is CR 0.625? That a 1st level Monk is CR 0.875? So how am I supposed to figure out the experience points for a CR 0.625 creature?

It's hardly rewriting anything to add in fractional values between the whole CRs; it's just adding a level of detail where it might make sense.

In D&D, it doesn't matter if that troll has a club or a chain shirt and a greatsword. It's still CR 5. Why make it any more complicated than that?

Can the PCs' army of 1000 elves hold off the Dark Lord's army of 1000 trolls? Or should I, as DM, make it an army of 900 trolls? 500? 450? Whole-number CRs may not give the detail I need.

(As an aside, ELs aren't linear; maybe point values shouldn't simply sum up either.)

 

[Roland Delacroix]

I've seen several people comment on the supposed lack of PC minis. My question to you: did you even look at the line? When we were designing the minis, one of our goals was to have a lot of minis that could be used by roleplayers. Hell, three of the factions are humans, elves, and dwarves, PC races all. There were figs like the dwarf fighter, dwarf cleric, human paladin, human sorcerer, gray elf wizard, gray elf duelist (with a double sword no less; what other company made minis with such exotic weapons?), gray elf snakestrike duelist (with spiked chain), human sorcerer, half-orc fighter, halfling sneak, gnome infiltrator, gray elf warsinger (hello bard), wood elf scout, human death cleric, etc. etc. There was even an aasimar cleric and a tiefling fighter for who like planetouched characters.

So while you can say a lot of things about Chainmail, I don't think a lack of PC minis is a fair assessment of the line.

Having throroughly checked out the line I have to agree with the commentators, there is a lack of PC minis. The majority are monster types. The PCs Chainmail did have were of the more exotic type. As you mention, double sword wielders, tieflings, spiked chail users, the human sorcerer, he looks funky (but cool). So in a way Chainmail has a lack of human knights, oriental-style monks, and all the 'typical' types of PC's. Still, I think this is one of the few places the line went right. There are hordes of 'typical PC' minis among the ranks of Reaper and GW, but nary a double sword to be found. Chainmail probably made quite a few sales on this.

Unfortunatlly they lost many more sales because of high prices. Example, these last 2 months I have probably spent over $400 on minis in preparation for RttToEE, and I will be spending more later. I always looked at D&D and Chainmail minis first, but turned away because of the very high prices. Other companies got my cash instead.

I still don't understand why they tried to make a skirmish game. I run skirmishes every night we play D&D with no problems. Why would I bother to learn another system? Answer: If I wanted to run a compatible mass battle. Duh.

I still say thats a Backstreet Boy, not a paladin.

 

[mmadsen]

Example, these last 2 months I have probably spent over $400 on minis in preparation for RttToEE, and I will be spending more later.

Doesn't this, by the way, point to an easy way to sell boxed sets of miniatures? If you, as DM, could buy a set of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil figures, wouldn't that be tempting?

 

[rounser]

Such a system would be inherently unbalanced as some abilities are more powerful when used in conjunction with other abilities.

I wonder how hard it is to design a building system that accounts for such synergy? I suppose the sheer array of option combinations defeats such attempts.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Were the old Battlesystem rules any good? I just picked up the 2nd ed. Battlesystem and Battlesystem Skirmish rules at a garage sale over the weekend. From what I've seen in flipping through them, it looks to be fairly well integrated with 2nd ed. d&d rules.... so how difficult would it be to convert this to d20? Were there any significant shortcomings in that ruleset? I'm not an experienced wargamer so I don't know how to judge these sorts of things.

 

[hong]

The problem with chainmail is that there's no reason to use it. The critical consideration is the total amount of protection you can get, which is (AC bonus + max Dex bonus). Notice how for the majority of armours, this comes out at +7.

If you want to move fast, a chain shirt provides better total protection, and is light armour to boot. If you want as much defense as possible, full plate maxes out at +9, which is 2 better than chainmail. There is thus no reason to use chainmail (or half plate, or banded mail, or scale mail).

Chainmail got the shaft, mang.