OD&D The one man army is awesome.

[Hriston]

Now you have me analysing in more depth thanks for that.

Basically in that means Chainmail Are you saying the hero is not 20 points but rather only 8 points if not mounted? See that doesnt work very nicely for me.

You arent 2.5 times as awesome by being mounted in any edition of D&D ever even the specialists in it like Cavaliers could not claim that.

Historically In real life few cultures had mounts who actually fought much themselves it was mostly about the mobility and many used mounts to get to the battle field and then just dismount. Basically assuming the hero would be mounted during the fight is attributing a huge amount of their power and effectiveness to a mount which seems counter to legendary heroes too. Where as for me add 3 pts worth works better. To me even if you are assuming the 20 is mounted a not mounted hero might be 17pts.

Further battlefield size affects the assumption of being mounted. I feel makes more sense in the big battle and less in the man to man. You need to reach more enemies when the ground space of the figures and the whole battlefield is greater and that is boost a mount really grants and maybe that is a multiplier but not in smaller battles like in man on man scenario.

I kind of think we should not assume the hero is mounted in man to man scenarios. Most of the enemies are close enough to be handleable and you do not need the mount then the value of the mount becomes the hero gains access to more enemies faster when the hero wants it and less when they don't and more enemies are available with a big war scenario.

It occurs to me only a small amount of unit/squadron can really attack one man in a minutes time anyway and vice versi

I think i just looked too close at the sim and it isnt designed for that.

Because the hero/superhero’s “class” on the combat tables (ranging from light foot to heavy horse) is dependent on the arms, armor, and “equipment” of the figure in question, they are given a point value consistent with the highest potential combat capability, i.e. heavy horse, because even though a hero may have formerly fought as four light foot, all that is required is to equip the hero with heavy armor and a horse and the figure fights as four heavy horse. The superhero’s point value is a little higher than a fighting ability of eight heavy horse would suggest probably because of its morale check inducing ability, which the hero doesn’t have.

 

[Garthanos]

The superhero’s point value is a little higher than a fighting ability of eight heavy horse would suggest probably because of its morale check inducing ability, which the hero doesn’t have.

That part makes sense

 

[Garthanos]

Because the hero/superhero’s “class” on the combat tables (ranging from light foot to heavy horse) is dependent on the arms, armor, and “equipment” of the figure in question, they are given a point value consistent with the highest potential combat capability, i.e. heavy horse, because even though a hero may have formerly fought as four light foot, all that is required is to equip the hero with heavy armor and a horse and the figure fights as four heavy horse.

Yeh and a Beowulf or Cuh Culainn or Lancelot who could defeat armored high caliber knights while bare naked and bare handed would say the equipment really shouldn't mean so much its not fantasy/legend/myth friendly its counter to the tropes

 

[Hriston]

Yeh and a Beowulf or Cuh Culainn or Lancelot who could defeat armored high caliber knights while bare naked and bare handed would say the equipment really shouldn't mean so much its not fantasy/legend/myth friendly its counter to the tropes

Well, it’s still essentially operating within a system for simulating medieval battles, where mounted knights in heavy armor were at the top of the food chain, so the tropes of fantasy, myth, and legend haven’t really become the priority.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, it’s still essentially operating within a system for simulating medieval battles, where mounted knights in heavy armor were at the top of the food chain, so the tropes of fantasy, myth, and legend haven’t really become the priority.

There was calling the superhero well a superhero and calling him out as a one man army that seems like its heading that direction though. I really like that one of the influences of these characters is buffing allied troops though a very Warlord flavor too.

 

[Garthanos]

That Warlord flavor was not entirely lost in AD&D (but was faded a lot ie they got followers if they built a castle no ally enhancement implied). And there was a minor attempt to keep the one man army in the picture too as was discussed earlier in thread though it kind of failed in practice. The abilities of that ally buffing implied started showing up again in late 3e in the Book of 9 Swords and manifest in 4e as the Warlord. The 5e Battlemaster is doing some too and with inspiring Leadership they kind of enable the rough equivalent for any PC which may not match up the Warlords specialists other buffs it is still pretty damn cool and rather true to form of the Hero and Superhero. 3e also might be the first edition where the one man army started feeling that way (if you optimised for it but I am less familiar with that version and do not know at what level). 4e got a lot closer in my opinion but you did have to be in the Post name level levels not 8 but rather 16 I think you are hitting it. 5e suffers poorly on pulling back from the one man army and leaves me feeling the hero's are back to being kind of small

 

[Hriston]

There was calling the superhero well a superhero and calling him out as a one man army that seems like its heading that direction though. I really like that one of the influences of these characters is buffing allied troops though a very Warlord flavor too.

There’s also the army commander figure in the mass combat section. Its unit-buffing capability is actually better, equivalent to the hero’s within 12” and granting a +1 to each die of the unit it’s with. The main benefit of the hero/superhero is that it’s harder to kill and never checks morale, both qualities suggestive of the nascent PC.

 

[Garthanos]

There’s also the army commander figure in the mass combat section. Its unit-buffing capability is actually better, equivalent to the hero’s within 12”

It keeps the commander distinctly separate from the action. (ie less heroic) the Warlords of subsequent D&D are definitely almost all except corner cases in the action with some even being blatant risk takers.

 

[Hriston]

It keeps the commander distinctly separate from the action. (ie less heroic) the Warlords of subsequent D&D are definitely almost all except corner cases in the action with some even being blatant risk takers.

Yes, I’d say the hero/superhero’s greater survivability contributes to more risky behavior, as does the fact that the army commander can become an Achilles’ heel morale-wise if the unit it’s with is destroyed.

 

[Hriston]

On the other hand, the army commander’s fluff text clearly indicates that its unit-buffing is due to its “moral support” and inspiring the troops to “fight harder when he was nearby”, whereas it’s unclear if that’s the case with the hero, or if the bonus isn’t just the result of the hero’s combat ability being subsumed into the unit’s dice.