Strategery '75 (More Chainmail vs the ACS)

A copy of TSR's Strategic Review of Summer, 1975, was recently brought to my attention partly in conversation but also partly in response to my position on using Chainmail in OD&D. In this issue, a play example of OD&D using the ACS (which it specifies is the recommended approach) is provided. This example of play is printed as follows:

Strategic Review, Vol 1, Issue 2; p. 3

Constructive Criticism

The author of the actual piece being unknown to me (something I'm sure I could find out, but am not keen to spend energy on) and the editors, both, of the review having passed into eternal rest, the constructive nature of this criticism may be somewhat moot. So on a less constructive note, though the combat example is provided does elucidate the method of combat better than the original Men & Magic booklet, it introduces as many ambiguities as it edifies.

First, not touching the dexterity and initiative comment.
It is implied in - but not stated directly - Men & Magic that a Dexterity modifier applies to the initiative roll. This being an errata, this inclusion is fair and a clarification.

Second, what happened to the grapple?
The orcs have two successes when they attempt to subdue the hero; the example specifies then that the hero must roll back - struggling on a tie or throwing them aside if he succeeds. The orcs have two successes - and then the hero... strikes two of them with his weapon. Did he succeed in throwing them off off-screen? Must be - when determining the target of his attacks, eight of the ten orcs are said to be eligible to be hit. Presumably, as it mentions, two orcs are stunned: as it says they are stunned "for 7 turns [rounds, to use B/X terminology] between them" - but it doesn't specify where the 15 and where the 8 came from to determine that 7! Does the hero roll four dice, per his "attack ratio" and compare those successes to theirs? Does the hero roll four dice (and of what size? Six-sided, a la Chainmail; or 20-sided, a la the ACS?) and pool the result, comparing it to the damage roll the orcs then rolled (again off camera) for what would in later publications be called "subdual"? The example does not say!

Third, shields and attacking from behind?
At no point in the LBBs is it indicated that shields are not applicable if attacked from behind. Likewise, nowhere in the LBBs is it indicated that an attacker who is attacking from behind (future editions would inherit "flanking" from this precedent, presumably) grants a bonus. Chainmail does have rules for flanking actions, which affect how well Mass Combat units fare defensively - and in Man to Man, it references attacking from behind, which primarily affects initiative. This represents - in my opinion - the introduction of a new rule: not the explanation of an existing system.

That all said, I do believe this combat exposition is a net positive - I will hate on it no longer. If the rules or procedures that I reference do exist, or are clear, in the original texts, please correct me. But from my perspective - the perspective of a third party consumer, as would have been people coming into the game afresh in 1974 - the clarifications provided in this combat example are equally as exemplary of the necessity of a follow-up edition with wider page margins to accommodate the missing rules that were here "clarified."

How This is Interesting

At no point in the LBBs is the concept of "grappling" given rules. Truly, there is no reference to grappling in the original D&D game nor its supplements as it pertains to man-to-man wrestling: there are references for grappling ships together during nautical combat, or for special monsters who have a grapple attack - but the rules, themselves, for grappling are absent: delegating the process of the grapple to referee rulings. This is very exciting to me - as the combat example explicitly attacks grappling: illustrating a method wherein the author, refereeing a game, would use the ACS to resolve it - with "hits" providing a sort of "grapple points" intended to subdue the hero. This simple, elegant solution - which I may be biased about, knowing it's a system I've seen in newer games on actual plays and have complimented outside this article - reinforces the concept of streamlining play. Simplicity of mechanics, reduction of sequential rolls (that is, when dice are rolled, roll once or - where necessary - roll in parallel action rather than one after the other, results contingent on the string of results preceding), promotes a smooth experience and focus on the game rather than on the rules. This taps directly into the spirit of the OSR, the spirit of the early hobby, and into the underlying zeitgeist behind the emergent wash of "rules lite" systems.

Thus, this combat example provides a system - an errata - for an element that had been omitted: sticking to a simple, quick solution that can be applied to games using subsequent editions, clones, or competing products.

Secondly, and truthfully the first element of this example that struck me: the referee running the example rolled multiple attacks for the hero - a number of attacks proportional to their Fighting Capability by level. Suddenly, the +1 and -1 make sense: as though they were designed for the ACS: where +1 or -1 on 1d20 has significantly different impact than it would on Chainmail's d6-based systems: dice pooled Mass Combat especially. More importantly, though, this - like the use of Chainmail's mass combat - massively increases the effectiveness of the Fighting Man in combat. Where at first level, the Fighting Man is rolling once to hit with a +1 bonus, by 10th level, the Fighting Man is rolling eight attacks per turn, all at +1 to hit. The Cleric is similarly active, essentially lagging merely a -1 behind: at first level, a Cleric rolls to hit with no bonus where at 10th level, the Cleric rolls to hit a similar eight attacks per turn at -1 penalty to hit. Magic Users get the short end of the stick - both fighting less effectively, RAW, and in rule clarity - they fight as an unmodified man, one d20 attack, at first level (as Cleric); then by 7th level they fight as Hero with modification, so four attacks; but then at level 10, they begin to fight as "Wizard," which in the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement fights as "Two Armored Men"... fewer attacks than they would have been entitled to at level 9 - but surely they make up for this with spells, themselves not actually being designed as a combat class.

In OD&D - if this example is to be believed - the intention of the Fighting Man was to maintain the incredible melee effectiveness of a Chainmail Hero or Superhero character: something that would not have been done away with until AD&D, where fighters were given a second attack only at higher levels.

So, it would seem everyone was playing D&D wrong - including me and everyone I'd seen in the present day playing the elder edition! This example brings into focus the motive for AD&D: that is, to bring the game together (or attempt to) in a cohesive manner - by promoting continuity of rules, cross-pollination of players to referees (and from home settings into competitive or public forums), and thus growth of the hobby as a whole, becomes operable.

Great times!

How Does This Clarification Affect Damage?

In OD&D, all attacks deal 1d6 damage. Variable weapon damage would be introduced a year later in the Greyhawk supplement. Knowing that, using the example provided in the review, a Fighting Man of a given level can expect to deal damage as follows under the ACS:

	vs. Armor Class
Ftr. Lvl.	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	0.875	1.05	1.225	1.4	1.575	1.75	1.925	2.1
2	1.75	2.1	2.45	2.8	3.15	3.5	3.85	4.2
3 (3 Men)	2.625	3.15	3.675	4.2	4.725	5.25	5.775	6.3
3 (Hero-1)	2.1	2.8	3.5	4.2	4.9	5.6	6.3	7
4	4.2	4.9	5.6	6.3	7	7.7	8.4	9.1
5 (Hero+1)	4.9	5.6	6.3	7	7.7	8.4	9.1	9.8
5 (5 Men)	5.25	6.125	7	7.875	8.75	9.625	10.5	11.375
6 (Hero+1)	4.9	5.6	6.3	7	7.7	8.4	9.1	9.8
6 (6 Men)	6.3	7.35	8.4	9.45	10.5	11.55	12.6	13.65
7	11.2	12.6	14	15.4	16.8	18.2	19.6	21
8	12.6	14	15.4	16.8	18.2	19.6	21	22.4
9	14	15.4	16.8	18.2	19.6	21	22.4	23.8
10	16.8	18.2	19.6	21	22.4	23.8	25.2	26.6

Again, the focus on Fighting Men not due to lack of love for Clerics or Magic Users, but for the sake of relative brevity; likewise, I exclude the percent chance to hit versus armor class because, having printed it in several other posts, I assume you, the reader, trust that I've done the To-Hit percentages.

The averages above reveal a couple interesting points:

It's better to fight as a group.
At three levels - 3, 5, and 6 - a fighting man has a choice to fight as a Hero with modifier or as a number of men. On all three occasions, the Fighting Man will do more damage per round, on average, if they choose to attack as the corresponding number of men - as the chance of hitting an adversary on 1d20 is modified so little by a +1 or -1 modifier compared to Chainmail's six-siders, having an additional die is much more likely to cause another hit to connect: thereby inflicting another 1-6 points of damage. On one occasion - level 6, you actually do less damage on average than you would do at the previous level.

What is the purpose, then, of the Hero option? 

• In Chainmail, it had implications on the Fantasy table - but using the ACS, said table wouldn't come into play.
• When fighting a higher AC adversary, it could be argued that the bonus to hit could make a difference. However, +1 makes such a small difference on the range of 1 to 20, the absolute highest required roll on Men Attacking table needed to hit being 17, the chance to roll twice always makes for better odds than rolling once at a target number one point more favorable.
  

As such, I can think of no reason to be a Hero With Modifier.

The required roll to hit, by level, matters.
At level 10, the Fighting Capability of the Fighting Man does not change - but the average damage per round does. Why is that? Because level 10 is a tier point: at level 10, the required To Hit rolls for the Fighting Man go down. Additionally, the progression of average damage is nominally smooth, with the exception of a noticeable jump in damage at level 7. Arguably, fighting against mid-range AC, there is likewise a jump at level 4. Is this intentional? Is this thematic? Potentially - potentially not: but it is a peculiarity of the system, one that results from those required roll To Hit tiers: which appear at exactly the point where damage output increases. Level 7, in particular, sees a 3-point jump - compared to level 4, which - unlike level 4 and level 10: which only see improvements of 2 points on the chart.

Do I see an automatic hit at higher levels?
Although not reflected in the table above - as I stop at level 10 - but there are entries for level 16 and above on the Men Attacking table. At level 13 - one tier up from the 10th level where I stop, the required roll to hit AC 9, No Armor or Shield, is 1; at level 16, this increases - a level 16 or better Fighting Man hits AC 6, Leather & Shield, on a 1 or better. Is it possible to roll less than a 1? Yes - for example, using a cursed weapon - but interestingly, at no point in the Men & Magic book does it say rolling a natural 1 on your d20 attack roll automatically fails. Does this imply otherwise?

How does this compare to damage dealt in, say, B/X?
As established in the previous post, damage dealt in B/X is a bit more nuanced - as though variable damage is an optional rule, in modern vintage, someone running without the optional damage rule is an aberration - however, for comparison, provided is the damage a B/X Fighter can expect to output per turn using a 1d8 weapon:

	vs. Armor Class
Ftr. Lvl.	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1-3	0.9	1.125	1.35	1.575	1.8	2.025	2.25	2.475
4-6	1.35	1.575	1.8	2.025	2.25	2.475	2.7	2.925
7-9	2.025	2.25	2.475	2.7	2.925	3.15	3.375	3.6
10	2.475	2.7	2.925	3.15	3.375	3.6	3.825	4.05

Preference for 1d8, partially, to represent a sword - the most common eventual weapon of Fighting Men in B/X - but partially also to give a slight edge over 1d6 in terms of average damage. Even with that edge - the difference in damage output is interesting: at first level, the B/X Fighter has a slight edge against the OD&D Fighting Man - but then from level 2 onward, rolling only one attack per turn, the B/X Fighter immediately begins to lag behind. At level 4, the OD&D fighter does quadruple the average damage; by level 10, the difference is in the vicinity of seven times the damage output. While arguably damage output is not the only measure of a character - it can be fun to do other things, like grappling, disarming, or otherwise disabling or interfering with an enemy - the sheer size of the difference in average damage per round can't be ignored.

While we're on the subject of doing other things - grappling, disarming, interfering... - the round is assumed, per the game's authors, not to represent a single blow by blow, but instead a flurry of activity: feints, parries, thrusts, and maneuvering - but elaborates little on how to accomplish these things: until this combat example, that is. Want to disarm? To subdue? Why not roll and compare values - if you have more hits than they do, or if your d6s are greater than theirs, succeed? Simple and elegant - the epitome of an on-the-spot ruling.

How does the ACS, with this development, fair against Chainmail?
Again, in the spirit of relative brevity and giving the edge to the competition over the ACS, a Fighting Man can - assuming they are armed and armored "as Armored" - expect to damage to first level foes, based on their infantry categorization, as follows:

	OD&D and Chainmail: As Armored
Ftr. Lvl.	Armored	Heavy	Light
1	1.17	2.33	3.50
2	1.75	3.50	5.25
3	1.75	3.50	5.25
4	2.33	4.67	7.00
5	2.92	5.83	8.75
6	3.50	7.00	10.50
7	4.08	8.17	12.25
8	4.67	9.33	14.00
9	5.25	10.50	15.75
10	5.25	10.50	15.75

While Chainmail seems to similarly allow a Fighting Man to deal a large amount of damage compared to B/X, compared to the ACS as clarified by the example from The Strategic Review, Chainmail seems curve-bound. Looking at the damage output to lightly armored opponents, Chainmail starts out dealing more damage than the ACS, but increases more slowly - such that the two meet around level 3 or 4 and the ACS deals more damage going forward: significantly more at much higher levels. The trend is the same for heavily armored opponents - Chainmail starts out more lethal, but the ACS overtakes it by level 3 or 4 and then proceeds to outpace it ever onwards. 

Curiously, the difference in damage dealt at a given level is flat rather than proportional: that is, for example, at 10th level, the difference between average Chainmail damage and average ACS damage is about 10 points - regardless of armor level. In B/X, the difference increases more exponentially rather than geometrically, as observed with Chainmail. Makes sense - however: as, using the clarifications provided, both Chainmail and the ACS use dice pools (or, at least, multiple attacks) - compared to B/X, where the Fighter is limited to a single attack per turn: and no matter how accurate that attack is, there is only so much damage a single d8 hit can do.

Verdict

I'm going to run the game the way it best works at my table. If the verbal irony had not translated in text, despite this being an official publication by TSR, I don't believe this is how the game was played, nor really how it was intended to be played: if indeed an intention was there at the time OD&D hit the shelves. For me - however - as this article still is a eureka moment, as was reviewing Chainmail: and that moment is proof positive that the purpose of AD&D is to run tournaments; the purpose of OD&D is to run games. 

Chainmail addressed several of the elements of D&D that I don't really jive with. I don't get "hit points" - how you're 100% effective until you die - even abstracted as "luck" and "fatigue" mixed with meat, it doesn't make sense why they take so long to come back, apart from stretching campaigns out to prevent the case of the 20th Level 20-Something. I don't get how a level 1 fighter and a level 10 fighter wearing the same armor are equally likely to take a hit in a fight - it doesn't make sense, from the perspective of learning the skill of swordsmanship, that you'd never improve your ability to parry, but become an absolute expert at finding knicks and holes in the sturdiest metal armors. Likewise, it discourages Sword and Sandals play - or Conan-In-A-Loincloth games - which make up a great deal of the Appendix N material and thus deserve to be represented. Chainmail does that for me - and sure, I'm likely to houserule it - but who doesn't? That's the point of keeping the rulebook booklet sized. The motive of the article might have been to clarify, but the motive of the authors is clear: they cared more at the time that you, as a gamer, played a game that worked for your table and that made a memory worth making. Regarding the example provided and the numerical analysis, I don't think they went into it as deeply as I might have here when they originally playtested and published: I think they threw stuff against the wall, watched what stuck, and then packaged it together as a box set - knowing all the while that what stuck to one wall wouldn't stick to others, but at the same time seeing the value in having a common ground - a central rule and lingua franca - to use in congregation.

The final question in my brain, why did the TSR team later settle on not throwing around handfuls of d20s? To be truthful, in part, it would not surprise me to hear that - all non six-sided dice sold actually being educational tools for the illustration of Regular Polygons - they simply didn't have that many of them. 

And who wants to slow down play by rolling the same one over and over? If someone else knows the actual answer - again - please post it: I'd be eager to learn!

Delve on, readers!

Citations and Fair Use Disclaimer

Quotations and rules from the following copyrighted works are included herein for illustrative and educational purposes and remain the intellectual property of the copyright holder - as of October 2020, Wizards of the Coast LLC. Neither the author nor Clerics Wear Ringmail lay claim to the verbiage nor mechanics quoted but instead encourage the reader to engage with and enjoy the product referenced for their intended purpose.

Gygax, E. Gary, & Blume, Brian (Eds.). (1975). Questions Most Frequently Asked About Dungeons & Dragons Rules. The Strategic Review, 1(2), 3–4.

Public domain artwork retrieved from OldBookIllustrations.com or the National Gallery of Art and adapted for thematic use. Attributions in alt text.