chainmail's weapon statistics for od&d's alternate combat system

-

by the end of this, i promise you'll have something useful! first, here is a cleaned up version of the one-on-one combat matrix for chainmail from my upcoming remake of the original 1974 dungeon game, fantastic medieval campaigns!

just wanted to show how that page is going to look. here's what i actually made today, the same data in an excel spreadsheet because i wanted to derive the AC values from od&d's "alternate" combat system by close-reading the one-on-one matrix from chainmail. i'm ignoring the values to hit cavalry because i'm not really worried about those tbh.

according to dmdavid's blog post on the origin of the od&d combat system (link), gygax made the following changes from arneson's original system derived from gygax's own chainmail (the only difference between arneson's system and chainmail was there being hit points):

  1. "hit points became less realistic and more fun" (dmdavid's wording)
  2. to-hit rolls switched from 2d6 to d20 (to sell more dice?)
  3. AC values were flipped from ascending to descending

this post looks at points 2 and 3 from a mathematical perspective. first, we can simply flip the AC values given from chainmail by subtracting each given score from 14 such that 12 becomes 2 and 5 becomes 9. this preserves the likelihood of meeting each score, except that instead of rolling high you roll low.

oh, isn't that interesting? it looks pretty similar to the armor class values from od&d's "alternate" system! the most useful application of this is that you can use these scores from 9 to 2 instead of AC when rolling to-hit in od&d. for example, instead of using the AC descriptions on the table below, cross those out and refer instead to a table like the one above.

thus when a level 5 fighter attempts to hit someone with plate armor while wielding a flail, they refer to a to-hit score of 8. by treating this score of 8 as an AC value using the od&d table, we see that the fighter must roll 9+ on a d20 to successfully land a hit.

this would probably go well with the target 20 rule (link) by delta's d&d hotspot! but really i think the easier solution would just be to use the original 2d6 scores so you're not consulting more than one table. nevertheless, either solution is more interesting to me than the simple alternative system od&d offers (and which has since become 'the' d&d resolution system for combat) because it actually does take into account the types of weapons and armor used.

that being said, if you wanted a simplified version of the chainmail table, i've written about that a couple of weeks ago (link)! nothing wrong with a table, though; it might even be preferable to keeping track of all those weapon-specific attributes. that's why having a referee is nice, they can read the table for you!

now let me similarly convert the fantastic unit chart from the fantasy supplement of chainmail:

since these descending scores range from 12 to 2 (just as the ascending ones ranged from 2 to 12), it seems that this table probably was not the basis of od&d combat in any capacity the way that the regular one-on-one table was.

anyway, here's a table that combines the above chainmail data with the d20 mechanism from od&d, including bonuses for fighters! keep in mind that clerics improve every 4 levels, and magic users every 5 levels, whereas fighters improve every 3 levels:

Comments

  1. CanyonOctober 9, 2022 at 1:45 PM

    Really excellent work. By the way, the link after "i've written about that a couple of weeks ago (" is to your old url.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

D&D Fifth Edition: Death & Rebirth

-
Image
Hashtag OSRisOverParty, Hashtag RIPBozo, etc etc. The initial… “edition” of Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition tried to present itself as a reactionary return to some ideal past paradigm of D&D —be it Third Edition to win back territory lost prior to Paizo’s Pathfinder , or an even older Gygaxian edition to get in the pants of the sort-of nascent OSR. Practically, this resulted in a final product that was like a simple Third Edition with dogwhistle-like nods to OSR conventions (since the play-style’s influence in the end was tenuous at best and mostly abandoned after the public test phase). It’s maybe more succinctly described as a people-pleasing game, with the caveat that people-pleasers don’t please anyone. So, how did it become popular? And how does the new 2024 not-edition reflect major differences between then and now, in terms of how D&D is perceived and played? This is my ramble. Sent from iPhone. Fifth Edition: Born in 2014 Of course, nobody plays D&D as ...
Read more

OSR Rules Families

-
Image
So, here’s the thing: originally I wrote this like a fucking research article with a hypothesis, a methodology, and all that stuff. I’m not even a scientific research person. That’s my partner’s job. Not mine. So, instead of walking you through every single step I took, I’m going to take the journalistic approach and start with the big picture before I zoom into it and tell you about the little details. I read, reviewed, and statistically organized 38 different rulebooks considered to be OSR or OSR-adjacent. These include four rulebooks from TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons , as well as ten rulebooks from the 2000s and 2010s. The remaining 24 rulebooks postdate the closure of G+ in early 2019. Please refer to the bibliography at the bottom of this post for more information. After having collected and organized a dataset with ~90 variables, I found the statistical similarity between each pair of rulebooks based on that data. Finally, I ran an algorithm to determine clusters of these bo...
Read more

Bite-Sized Dungeons

-
Image
Workbook Now Available On Itch! Bite-Sized Dungeons by Traverse Fantasy Edit: This whole time, I said that a first level dungeon hoard had 100 times d6 gold pieces when it actually has just 10 times d6. This means the average hoard has an XP value of 70 without gems, or ~110 with gems. By extension, the eighteen-room dungeon only has 350 XP without gems, or ~550 XP with gems. That is downright dismal and I don’t think works out with modern play sessions and party counts, so let’s pretend it said 100 times d6 anyway. I just read an article by Yora of Spriggan’s Den about extrapolating a scheme for an eighteen-room dungeon from the procedural generation rules in B/X (1981) [1]. As Yora points out, eighteen rooms is a great size for a mid-to-large dungeon or for a floor of a multi-level dungeon, and the checklist of rooms makes it easy to make sure that the final product has a variety of interesting play interactions. But, being as large as it is, it can still be a tall order on the ...
Read more