Observations about Chainmail/OD&D. . .

[Philotomy Jurament]

Another thing I've never done (but always kind of wanted to) was to revert to the Chainmail system fot combat involving mooks -- so if you've got a Hero and 12 men-at-arms vs 20 goblins, the men-at-arms count as heavy foot, the goblins as light foot, and the Hero as 4 armored foot (meaning when attacking the goblins he rolls 4D6 and any roll of 4+ kills a goblin).

I think the AD&D rule that allows Fighters to have a number of attacks equal to their level against "mooks" (i.e. opponents with less than 1HD) is a nod towards that rule. You could make it closer by ruling a hit as an auto-kill against such enemies.

 

[jdrakeh]

There's a thread at the OD&D discussion boards that talks about Chainmail as proto-D&D. I think Crimhthan_the_Great mentions that he sometimes still runs OD&D with Chainmail rules.

Cool! Thanks for the link

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

[Edit: Since it has been mentioned, in true grognard fashion, I'm using the designator "OD&D" to refer to Original D&D which was only ever published as three little digest-sized booklets offered in woodgrain, brown or white boxes. So, I am not referring to the later Basic, B/X, or BECM editions of D&D when I say "OD&D".]

Thanks for explaining that. I now know what BECM stands for. Basic, Expert, Companion, Master... Thus, the version of DnD that I was originally introduced to plus the I for the Immortals baxed set (Wrath of the Immortals) that I got much later.

Thank you.

 

[jdrakeh]

Thanks for explaining that. I now know what BECM stands for. Basic, Expert, Companion, Master... Thus, the version of DnD that I was originally introduced to plus the I for the Immortals baxed set (Wrath of the Immortals) that I got much later.

Thank you.

No problem. There's a lot of confusion surrounding the shorthand, as many people use "OD&D" to erroneously refer to all versions of D&D prior to AD&D or to refer to the three different versions of Basic D&D (Holmes Basic, Basic/Expert, and the later BECM line) without knowing that the 1974 of D&D even existed (or how drastically it differed from subsequent versions of the game).

 

[WSmith]

I think the AD&D rule that allows Fighters to have a number of attacks equal to their level against "mooks" (i.e. opponents with less than 1HD) is a nod towards that rule. You could make it closer by ruling a hit as an auto-kill against such enemies.

This is something I really like in theory. I am sure we can hammer it out at the OD&D board. Perhaps a fighting sweep of some kind. I am all for stocking up a temple with a ton of goblins ripe for slaughter.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I always found this interesting:

. "of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die"

so the troll would get to roll six to hit rolls one of them at+3.

 

[WSmith]

I always found this interesting:

. "of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die"

so the troll would get to roll six to hit rolls one of them at+3.

That is correct. That is not the whole story though. The chart must be referenced to see just what die roll constitutes a hit on the target.

 

[RFisher]

weapon-choice became too important

Of course, this is the whole reason that the man-to-man chart interests me. It allows weapon/armor choices to be more interesting.

With the standard weapon-based damage, a few weapons (most hits/gp) & armors (lowest AC/gp) tend to be nigh the only things used. There are various ways to counteract this, but none that I find very satisfying.

With the older fixed damage or the newer class-based damage, weapons become little more than window dressing. Which I tend to prefer, but not necessarily all the time.

The Chainmail man-to-man chart, however, needs tweaking. It may work fine if you're using the whole Chainmail man-to-man system (taking into account weapon classes, for instance), but for the way I'd like to use it (as a replacement for "to hit" rolls with all modifiers shifted to the damage roll), I think it needs some changes.

But my group hasn't shown enough interest in playing that way to bother working on it. Yet.